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: Is it all just an ILLUSION?
Thu, 29 May 2003, 08:12 amWalter Plinge
Hmm...
I think somewhere we have been getting our wires crossed and we are misinterpreting what each other has been saying.
I think you think that I am saying that 'faking it' is better than 'living it'.
I think you, however, are definitely saying that 'living it' is better than 'faking it'.
Not so...
I'm saying that you need a good balance of both to do it properly.
It sounds like you are starting to adopt a way too dogmatic approach to acting (Stella Adler is the messiah!).
The point I am trying to make is that a good actor should be able to embrace ALL styles of acting, filter them in his own brain, and then choose the style (or mix of styles) most suitable for that particular show.
Let me try and give a few examples.
1. Tennessee Williams (esp Streetcar) - Adler is PERFECT for this one, and in fact it should not even be attempted without a grasp of her techiques, or someone similar.
2. Stoppard (esp Travesties) - Someone who only knows how to be 'real' would have a lot of difficulty coming to terms with the unreality of the script, whereas a 'faker' can breeze through this one and add life to the essentially artificial characters.
3. Shakespeare - requires a mix of the two. There are few things worse than watching Shakespeare being performed with the New York Mumble style of Shakespearean Acting. The only thing worse is the high-blown trad style. You NEED a mix of the two for this, to get across the emotion while also conveying the complex layers of meaning in the text
To give an analogy of what I'm trying to say: Ballet may be a better form of dance than Bootscooting, but neither of them are going to do you any good if you're auditioning for Tap Dogs!
I think somewhere we have been getting our wires crossed and we are misinterpreting what each other has been saying.
I think you think that I am saying that 'faking it' is better than 'living it'.
I think you, however, are definitely saying that 'living it' is better than 'faking it'.
Not so...
I'm saying that you need a good balance of both to do it properly.
It sounds like you are starting to adopt a way too dogmatic approach to acting (Stella Adler is the messiah!).
The point I am trying to make is that a good actor should be able to embrace ALL styles of acting, filter them in his own brain, and then choose the style (or mix of styles) most suitable for that particular show.
Let me try and give a few examples.
1. Tennessee Williams (esp Streetcar) - Adler is PERFECT for this one, and in fact it should not even be attempted without a grasp of her techiques, or someone similar.
2. Stoppard (esp Travesties) - Someone who only knows how to be 'real' would have a lot of difficulty coming to terms with the unreality of the script, whereas a 'faker' can breeze through this one and add life to the essentially artificial characters.
3. Shakespeare - requires a mix of the two. There are few things worse than watching Shakespeare being performed with the New York Mumble style of Shakespearean Acting. The only thing worse is the high-blown trad style. You NEED a mix of the two for this, to get across the emotion while also conveying the complex layers of meaning in the text
To give an analogy of what I'm trying to say: Ballet may be a better form of dance than Bootscooting, but neither of them are going to do you any good if you're auditioning for Tap Dogs!
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···