Is it all just an ILLUSION?
Tue, 27 May 2003, 03:30 pmWalter Plinge16 posts in thread
Is it all just an ILLUSION?
Tue, 27 May 2003, 03:30 pmI have been studying acting on and off for about 3 years and have come across a number of interpretations of teachers and actors about the whole process. It is all just an illusion, if it looks real its good enough ..... after all its a "craft".
While other actors and teachers believed that it is an art and it is possible to live the part and become the character. The actor is the creator under the guidence of the director.
Are we all just a bunch of crafty illusionists or are we cabable of creating and living the part?
To me Art has more meaning than craft, and I have seen the attitudes in fellow actors, directors and teachers the difference of those who "fake" it convincingly and those who mean it with all their heart.
It has to have meaning otherwise whats the point of doing it? After all the purpose of the actor ultimately is to move the audience?
We can't do that by faking it?
If we do who does that make us, to cheat the audience like that.
While other actors and teachers believed that it is an art and it is possible to live the part and become the character. The actor is the creator under the guidence of the director.
Are we all just a bunch of crafty illusionists or are we cabable of creating and living the part?
To me Art has more meaning than craft, and I have seen the attitudes in fellow actors, directors and teachers the difference of those who "fake" it convincingly and those who mean it with all their heart.
It has to have meaning otherwise whats the point of doing it? After all the purpose of the actor ultimately is to move the audience?
We can't do that by faking it?
If we do who does that make us, to cheat the audience like that.
Re: use your illusion no.2
Wed, 28 May 2003, 04:59 pmI don't disagree with you Daz, but I find it curious that when actors talk about acting techniques they always only talk about the stage scenario.
Now I flat-out prefer stage to film, primarily because there is far more artistic power to the actor in a theatre production than in a film - but nonetheless, given that film/TV is sadly the dominant medium of our time I'm curious as to how those who rely upon creativity can relate their acting experience to the film scenario - ie when the exact shots and story-boards are already drawn up long before you come on set, when the character you would be reacting to isn't actually on set because they aren't in that shot, when you routinely have to fit the director's plans to the extent of: 'ok look up, then look across again, then look right and turn and say etcetc'. Unfortunately camera-crews don't tend to like it when you engage in your own creative blocking - for one thing half of it will end up out of shot or out of focus if you don't do precisely what they are expecting. And given that most of the emotional content gets added by the director (sound, camera angles) anyway, just how creative can a film actor be?
On the other hand, I would say that film acting requires enormous technical competency and skill - there are far more details to remember and balance, and you have to blend the needs of your character with the precise movements/actions that will allow the camera crew to capture the things they need on film and in focus and in the right lighting etc. Take Edward Norton in Fight Club - not a lot of actor-created emotive content, but insanely skilled movement and timing to allow the director to create an engaging character from the raw material that the actor provided.
Now I certainly don't believe that to have an overdominant emphasis on craft is the best way (from an actor's viewpoint) of performing - as I said, the reason why I prefer stage is because there IS room for artistry and creativity on behalf the actor. But given that most professional work is in film/TV I am genuinely interested on hearing perspectives on how other people find their traditional acting techniques when they are applied to the immensely technically challenging, but rather artistically constrained (from the actor's perspective that is - the director of course has far greater artistic power in film than stage), world of film/TV?
Cheers,
Craig
Now I flat-out prefer stage to film, primarily because there is far more artistic power to the actor in a theatre production than in a film - but nonetheless, given that film/TV is sadly the dominant medium of our time I'm curious as to how those who rely upon creativity can relate their acting experience to the film scenario - ie when the exact shots and story-boards are already drawn up long before you come on set, when the character you would be reacting to isn't actually on set because they aren't in that shot, when you routinely have to fit the director's plans to the extent of: 'ok look up, then look across again, then look right and turn and say etcetc'. Unfortunately camera-crews don't tend to like it when you engage in your own creative blocking - for one thing half of it will end up out of shot or out of focus if you don't do precisely what they are expecting. And given that most of the emotional content gets added by the director (sound, camera angles) anyway, just how creative can a film actor be?
On the other hand, I would say that film acting requires enormous technical competency and skill - there are far more details to remember and balance, and you have to blend the needs of your character with the precise movements/actions that will allow the camera crew to capture the things they need on film and in focus and in the right lighting etc. Take Edward Norton in Fight Club - not a lot of actor-created emotive content, but insanely skilled movement and timing to allow the director to create an engaging character from the raw material that the actor provided.
Now I certainly don't believe that to have an overdominant emphasis on craft is the best way (from an actor's viewpoint) of performing - as I said, the reason why I prefer stage is because there IS room for artistry and creativity on behalf the actor. But given that most professional work is in film/TV I am genuinely interested on hearing perspectives on how other people find their traditional acting techniques when they are applied to the immensely technically challenging, but rather artistically constrained (from the actor's perspective that is - the director of course has far greater artistic power in film than stage), world of film/TV?
Cheers,
Craig
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···