Is it all just an ILLUSION?

I 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.

Does this mean actors are craftists rather than artists?
I think the meaning of art is anything that envokes emotion.
Isnt that what actors do?
Does this mean the amount of "work" an actor puts into a roll, determines whether or not it is an art or a craft?
Illusionists are there to decieve.
Do actors decieve? - yes
BUt it is a different level of deception.
The audiences PAY to be entertained and at a sub conscious level be decieved.

This is one step away from being a government official or politician.
People pay them to be decieved.

Jones.

Phew! I'm gonna go out on a limb on this one, and I am already donning my asbestos jacket...

Daz wrote:
> 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.

First of all, what is the difference between art and craft?
Art is something that is created, that fires emotions, that expresses
Craft is something that is made with skill

Are the two mutually exclusive?
DEFINITELY NOT!
In fact, in theatre I would say that they are co-dependent

I will admit that a great artist on stage is better than a great craftsman, but an acceptable craftsman is much better than an acceptable artist.

The art part of acting is something that only comes from within, it is something I feel you need to be born with, sometimes it can lie dormant for years before someone releashes their inner artist.

The craft part of acting is something that can only be taught. The skills, the techniques, the history, these are all craft.

I think, Daz, you'll find that pretty much all great artists (with the exception of the occasional freak of nature) were also great craftsmen.
And I think you'll find all those artists that you admired on stage also had a very good understanding of the craft.

Besides... I'd like to see you tackle comedy with all art and no craft.
You would fall flat on your face in the first five minutes!
And, remember, comedy is just as, if not more valid, and more able to engage the emotions than drama is.

Embrace both sides of the actor, or you will remain incomplete.

Learn to walk before you run...

Skills aren't necessarily craft, they are technique and technique is what must be learnt and mastered for the "Art" to come out.

"The play is not in the words, it's in you."- Stella Adler

Daz wrote:
>
> Skills aren't necessarily craft, they are technique and
> technique is what must be learnt and mastered for the "Art"
> to come out.

Yes, that is what I would call the 'craft' of acting. The skills ARE the craft, its how you use the skills that is the art.

But if you have no understanding of the craft you will never be a great artist.

Besides, there are always days when the 'art' lets you down, when you just don't get it right, and if you don't have the 'craft' to back you up, you're stuffed!

If you can manage to live in a vacuum where you have no outside life, no outside influences, no break-ups, no deaths, no illnesses, no friends... Then by all means do what you can.
But for the rest of us mere mortals who have lives, we need the 'craft' to support the 'art'.

Dude Technique is why we go to acting schools and classes because we can't rely on inspiration or intuition all the time, theses are the "skills" we learn. It seems to me you and I believe that technique and craft are the same.

But it depends on what style of Acting you have committed to learning. I personally go for the truth and am not into decieving my audience, you go for craft which is a bunch of illusions and tricks. Like I said I have learn't stagecraft and know how it works and was turned off by what it really is.

Now I am learning a form of method acting (Adler and Chekov) and it isn't what most people think it is, emphasis is placed on truth not illusion and not to decieve the audience. You create logical specific personal actions that lead onto the next, so there is never dead air or waiting to speak. You are encouraged to think for yourself and to self direct.
It emphasizes strongly on creativity in all aspects of the play, the conflict, the external circumstances, the internal circumstances, the drive, the behaviourof the character, the subtext, the obsatcles, etc..
You are creating all of these so you have that unbroken flow. Once you have created this you no longer have to fake it and you begin to live your part. it takes alot of effort and creative expiramentation but when you get there it's worth it.

Oh yeah and you can play drama or comedy. If you wan't to be versatile play anything you can. Dig deep and you'll find that you can play anything, but you gotta put the effort into it.

A wise man once said it takes effort the first 1000 times then it starts to become effortless.

Just reading through this interesting dicsussion (there's been a few lately). Paul, I get what you're saying (I think).

Everything in life has two 'sides' (at least) and the irony is that without both sides, there is no whole.

Does an actor deceive? Well, technically he does. An actor is presupposed to be creating a character that is not necessarily the actor. However, the way in which they do this can vary. Some may move closer to "Art" while others hover around "Craft" to use the terms you guys have been tossing. However, I do not believe that one can be completely "Art" or "Craft". There must be aspects of both.

Daz, do you feel that in learning you form of method acting that you are developing Skills or Technique in creating an internal Truth? While your goal is the Art of the thing, it sounds to me like you're using a Craft to assist.

Certainly some actors rely heavily on tricks and pre-programmed type moves and inflections in order to create their performance, but doesn't there have to be some level of internal truth in order to pull it off successfully? And equally the same for the depth of passion without technique.

I believe that I have seen actting performed at both extremes (and have even done so myself) and I am certain that those performances that are done at either extreme are extremely transparent and unbelievable.

An actor deceives his audience by definition. However, actors can deceive themselves at times. A good actor is able to walk the fine line between the two to achieve a convincing performance.

Maybe that's what it comes down to. Acting is the harmonious balance between deceiving your audience, and deceiving yourself.

Jeff "In denile" Watkins

I 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

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!

Found myself a bit confused by these interpretations of the words "art" and "craft", so resorted to Webster's dictionary...some interesting definitions...largely interchangeable, but generally 'craft' gets the bad rap...


CRAFT
- cunning, art, or skill, as applied to a bad purpose; artifice; guile; skill or dexterity employed in deceiving. To play tricks.
- Some special art or skill, dexterity in a particular manual occupation.
CRAFTSMAN
- An artist: sometimes said of one skilled in the mechanics of his art, but lacking higher excellence.
CRAFTY
- versed in deceit; skillful at fraud; artful; sly; cunning; fraudulent


ART
- creative work generally, or its principles; the making or doing of things that have form and beauty
- products of creative work
- skill, dexterity, or the power of performing certain actions, acquired by experience, study, or observation
ARTIST
- skilled in or works in any of the fine, especially graphic, arts.
- A person who does anything very well, with a feeling for form, effect, etc.
- An artiste.
ARTISTE
- a skilled professional entertainer
- a person very skilled in some trade or occupation; often humorous or facetious
ARTY
- pretending to be artistic; ostentatiously artistic

[%sig%]

...But sorting out the nuances of the words "art" and "craft" still hasn't quite reconciled me to the arguments above...in fact, I don't think the terminology used has been all that helpful.

Daz says it's possible to "Live the part", and "become the character"....do you really mean that? So you think it's really possible, even for just a two hour duration, to walk around on a stage believing you're Julius Caesar, for example, and not just an actor doing a good job of faking it?

Besides the faculty that allows you to remain on a pre-determined script, in a historical context, and to realise that you're not actually dead as you're lying in a pool of tomato sauce in the middle of Act III...a good performer would be constantly monitoring his audience, the other characters, where the lighting is, the acoustics of the space, etc etc...all to do with technique (a much better word) and not with "becoming" the character.


Forget the word 'craft' for a moment... even the best Art with a capital A can move us and represent all that's clever and beautiful and poignant about the human condition...but we still KNOW it's not real...we never expected it to be when we bought our ticket, and we won't think so even as we're applauding a wonderfully truthful performance.
It can perhaps come close to reminding me of reality, but in all truth if I HONESTLY thought the performers were REALLY becoming their characters, I'd be a bit disturbed, and would definitely think that THEY were.


Daz also wrote about "the difference of those who 'fake' it convincingly and those who mean it with all their heart."

What's wrong with faking it convincingly? Surely the operative word here is "convincingly"?


Sounds to me like you're fully immersing yourself in a Method technique, and please don't get the impression I am taking issue with that...in fact, I am currently taking a course based on Method myself, and finding it extremely helpful. It's valuable and vital training.
But there are viable alternatives, and degrees of concentration. Also, there are plenty of performers who may not ever undergo any formal training but can intuitively grasp the concepts of performance to deliver a thoroughly convincing one, without necessarily having a defined 'craft' or technique.


Interesting to hear Craig K's concern about translating this technique into the artificial world of acting for camera...in actual fact, the Method school of clearly defined motivation, character objectives, and truth, is arguably the best way of coping with a medium where the actor is not in control; where scenes are shot out of sequence and an enormous amount is conveyed by the mere flicker of thought behind the eyes. It would almost be impossible to find a truthful character without at least an intuitive grasp of technique that much of Method acting is based upon. (But again, the performer is always aware of the camera, the marks on the floor, and whose line comes next...the technique is to do with appearing to block it out, and portraying the character as if it were real.)

In fact, that's the best phrase to sum up what the actor does, and how the audience judges them..."AS IF". A performance only has to appear "as if" it were real, given the assumed circumstances, to be deemed a 'truthful' performance.


Lastly, there are styles of performance that are extremely entertaining (another key word that's been a bit overlooked) and have nothing at all to do with "becoming" the character. One example is Glynn Nicholas's style of performance in shows like 'Kissing Frogs'...he continually breaks out of character, creates characters with only a modicum of belief, and creates a physical environment that largely exists to demonstrate how funny he is; yet I can come away having been utterly transported into the 'reality' of his world, and reflected on many great poignant moments that had a strong basis in real-life relationships.
A lot of 'physical theatre' performances will incorporate moves that don't stem from any character motivation or objective...they come from a more wholistic, aesthetic agenda. And yet you can still appreciate a good, 'believable' performance and distinguish it from a bad.

Unfortunately, all this talk about whether or not a performer is "in character" or has a good grasp of technique doesn't necessarily correlate to whether or not I'll find them entertaining...and whatever technique you use, that's the only reason I'm a bum on a seat in the first place.


Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

Dude you are aware that the circumstances are not real and you don't really die or kill someone etc..., but you do begin to think and do things as the character would, you use your intuition, imagination and creative choices based on your accurate peparation. You become immersed in the world and must achieve your objective, however you are in control the whole time without faking it.

You lose yourself.

The character isn't aware of the audience, they are private moments........... in public, you just heighten the performance so it can be noticed without embelishing it.

The goal in acting is to learn not to act and just do, talent is in your choices.

In life circumstances create who we are as a person.

Our job as an actor is to be immersed in the imaginary circumstances and recreate ourselves in the form of the character, whilst still being ourselves.

Daz wrote:
>
> Dude you are aware that the circumstances are not real and
> you don't really die or kill someone etc..., but you do begin
> to think and do things as the character would, you use your
> intuition, imagination and creative choices based on your
> accurate peparation. You become immersed in the world and
> must achieve your objective, however you are in control the
> whole time without faking it.

Some may say that this is a point for concern. Well, of course an actor gets lost in the world of the play. If that is what you mean by "not faking" it then yeah. Sure. Most people don't see it that way to my knowledge.

Most would see (and feel free to correct me guys ;-) ) "faking it" is the prime goal of the actor. To many prime examples of people who become so completely immersed in the world they create that they become it and believe it most often lead to a shrink's couch. There are many stories of "profession" actors (Hollywood for example) seeking professional help to help break the false reality of their careers.

This is the fine line we walk.

> You lose yourself.
>
> The character isn't aware of the audience, they are private
> moments........... in public, you just heighten the
> performance so it can be noticed without embelishing it.

Sorry, I see condradiction here. If the actor is not aware of the audience then in effect they exclude them from the performance by definition. They will not be able to heighten the perormance because that would then be un-natural and faking it, wouldn't it?

> 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.

> Our job as an actor is to be immersed in the imaginary
> circumstances and recreate ourselves in the form of the
> character, whilst still being ourselves.

To me this means to pretend. To act.

Maybe fake is too harsh a word here. An actor can genuinely create feelings and emotions. Certainly they do not fake tears, fake anger and so forth. Fake by definition means - A person who makes deceitful pretenses. Fake is to deceive and I do not think an actor sets out to deceive his audience. His goal is to entertain. As has been pointed out, the audience are aware that the events on stage are not "real" literally but give themselves over to the fantasy. Therefore there is no deception being played here. Therefor, it is not fake. Illusion is also a mode of deception so therefor, it is not an illusion either.

Actors are pretenders. They make believe so to speak. So to does the audience. They suspend their reality and accept the performance. To Act means - to Play a role, or pretend to have certain qualities or state of mind.

To fake is to deceive. To perform is to entertain. I guess the question becomes, do we deceive our audience or not? I don't belive so.

Jeff "Pretensive" Watkins

> > 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%]

> You lose yourself.
>
> The character isn't aware of the audience, they are private
> moments........... in public, you just heighten the
> performance so it can be noticed without embelishing it.

Jeff wrote

Sorry, I see condradiction here. If the actor is not aware of the audience then in effect they exclude them from the performance by definition. They will not be able to heighten the perormance because that would then be un-natural and faking it, wouldn't it?

I mean you heighten the tension, that is what you are feeding from and you respond naturally to it so it can't be fake or unatural. If your internal drive is bigger than your external actions it isn't FAKE.

Isn't Theatre THE art of illusion?? We use sets to give the audience the illusion of being there, we use lighting to give the illusion of night or day, so what is wrong with the actor giving the illusion of being someone he/she is not?

Stuart