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: Don't dream it, be-he it....
Tue, 3 June 2003, 08:11 pm> > The goal in acting is to learn not to act and just do, talent
> > is in your choices.
>
> Agree entirely. You can tell those who "act" and who "do".
> Although I see this as a separate issue from Fake and Real.
If we're talking about "to act" and "to do" being things you do onstage or on camera, then I reckon they're pretty well the same.
If we weren't talking about acting, then I would see "to act" as meaning 'to do something AS IF it were real' and "to do" as meaning "no, mum, I'm actually DOING this"...ie real things happening in the real world.
There will always be a distinction. Acting is not 'real' no matter how convenient it is to describe good acting as such.
That's why it's more accurate to say, rather than we "believe", that we "suspend disbelief"....we know it's a game, but we're willing to participate, on both sides of the footlights, in order to enjoy a performance experience.
And for the sake of this discussion, I'm always defining acting as "acting well". So then it doesn't matter what you call it...to ACT a laugh well, or to FAKE a laugh well, or to PRETEND a laugh well...is really just to DO a laugh. To act=to do.
But a laugh onstage is still NOT a REAL laugh. The performer has heard the gag thousands of times, the motivation for spontaneous laughter is probably not there, and you can't just make your character forget he's heard the punchline so you can be 'in the moment'....so this is where the actor depends on TECHNIQUE.
The Method technique is a good one (it wouldn't require you to be 'in the moment' so much as it would get you to tap into an image or a memory that would help you really laugh); but there are also good mimics out there who can "do laughter"; or some people learn to recreate the physical aspects of a laugh without needing to do it mentally. It doesn't matter what they do to act the laughter, so long as it appears AS IF it were real.
If it doesn't appear real, then we're simply talking about unconvincing acting....and all those words like 'faking', 'deceiving', 'acting-as-opposed-to-being', 'pretending' etc all mean the same thing. Its just semantics and what we're really looking for is "quality".
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
> > is in your choices.
>
> Agree entirely. You can tell those who "act" and who "do".
> Although I see this as a separate issue from Fake and Real.
If we're talking about "to act" and "to do" being things you do onstage or on camera, then I reckon they're pretty well the same.
If we weren't talking about acting, then I would see "to act" as meaning 'to do something AS IF it were real' and "to do" as meaning "no, mum, I'm actually DOING this"...ie real things happening in the real world.
There will always be a distinction. Acting is not 'real' no matter how convenient it is to describe good acting as such.
That's why it's more accurate to say, rather than we "believe", that we "suspend disbelief"....we know it's a game, but we're willing to participate, on both sides of the footlights, in order to enjoy a performance experience.
And for the sake of this discussion, I'm always defining acting as "acting well". So then it doesn't matter what you call it...to ACT a laugh well, or to FAKE a laugh well, or to PRETEND a laugh well...is really just to DO a laugh. To act=to do.
But a laugh onstage is still NOT a REAL laugh. The performer has heard the gag thousands of times, the motivation for spontaneous laughter is probably not there, and you can't just make your character forget he's heard the punchline so you can be 'in the moment'....so this is where the actor depends on TECHNIQUE.
The Method technique is a good one (it wouldn't require you to be 'in the moment' so much as it would get you to tap into an image or a memory that would help you really laugh); but there are also good mimics out there who can "do laughter"; or some people learn to recreate the physical aspects of a laugh without needing to do it mentally. It doesn't matter what they do to act the laughter, so long as it appears AS IF it were real.
If it doesn't appear real, then we're simply talking about unconvincing acting....and all those words like 'faking', 'deceiving', 'acting-as-opposed-to-being', 'pretending' etc all mean the same thing. Its just semantics and what we're really looking for is "quality".
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···