Acting
Copyright © 2000 Robert C. Huber
"Acting isn't about trying to show emotion. Acting is about filling up to a point where you can't hold it back, and then holding back."
Martin Landau, actor
When we think about the dramatic arts, most likely it is acting that first comes to mind, not directing, production design, nor entertainment contract law. Acting is the part you see, or at least the part you are most aware that you are seeing. Actors as people are the medium of theatre and the voice of the playwright. We shall now turn our attention to an examination of the actor, the second of the three prime elements of the dramatic arts.
The Paradoxes of Acting
In the dramatic arts a story is told by means of impersonation: one person, the actor, assumes the identity (personality, behavior, actions, and speech) of another person. Under ordinary circumstances impersonation might be part of a criminal deception such as fraud, but when done for an artistic purpose and for the enjoyment of others, it is socially sanctioned. This is but one of a number of paradoxes, which when recognized, can help us to gain a better understanding of acting.
Another paradox is that acting seems so easy in many ways, yet if this were truly so why aren't we all stars? In fact, it is easy in a way. For instance, we have all heard tales of people who are "discovered," fall into film roles by chance, and begin acting in a major motion picture immediately. This can and does happen, often enough to make those of us in the theatre training business squirm a bit. However, it never happens in instrumental music. No one picks up a violin for the first time and plays it well enough to be hired by a philharmonic orchestra! What's the difference? What makes music so hard and acting so apparently easy? The answer is in the nature of the two arts. The medium of acting is life: walking, talking, feeling, reacting--skills that we all possess as a part of being human--we already know how to do them. The medium of violin is the sound made by the vibration of bow on string, a manipulation that is not a skill that we learn as a part of our normal development. The truth is that it's relatively easy to fake it as an actor, but impossible to fake it as a serious instrumentalist. There are simply too many specific technical skills required by music, but enough basic life skills in rudimentary acting to enable some people to get by some of the time.
Another "cheat" that non-actors use to become actors has to do with personal magnetism. Actors know how to make people pay attention to them. Sometimes this has more to do with physical attractiveness or celebrity than with skill, but it is an important factor nonetheless. People who are already in the public eye such as models, athletes, and politicians have physical, political, or financial powers that make people want to see them. These attributes alone can be enough to get them cast in a film. In addition these people have learned to present themselves with confidence and poise before the public. This is another quality that allows them to approximate acting. There are many examples of cross-over, models who have become actors (Cameron Diaz, Claudia Schiffer, Fabio), actors who have become politicians (Ronald Reagan, Clint Eastwood, George Murphy, Shirley Temple, Jim Bunning), athletes who have become actors (Wes Parker, Shaquile O'Neill, David Drier, Mark Harmon, Fred Drier), and sports figures who have become politicians (Byron "Whizzer" White, Bill Bradley, Jack Kemp, Jesse "The Body" Ventura). Complicating the issue is that in some cases, these people did study acting before becoming whatever else made them famous.
Finally there are stand-up comics who have become a gold mine for the producers of situation comedies. They already play a "character" on stage which is simply placed into a situation that accomodates it. Most popular comic actors today started out as stand-up comics: Tim Allen, Drew Carey, Eddie Murphy--the list goes on and on. In truth many such comics are really actors to begin with and their acts are really little plays, so in a sense they are really just moving from being a solo performer on stage to being a member of an ensemble on TV or film.
Enough people move into acting from these other fields that the public begins to think that acting is just something you do when you get bored with your real job, a kind of recreational activity. Getting into acting in these ways does happen, but staying there is another matter. Making a lifelong career as an actor is much harder than getting on camera a few times. It requires a complex mix of training, personality, skills, and luck. It's a tough field and some really dedicated actors have had short careers. Those who back into the art will eventually drop out, or have to take the time and effort to develop the specific skills necessary to endure.
A third paradox of acting is that the actor is expected to be both the artist and the art at the same time. In other words, the actor must be distanced from what he is doing in order to control it (something like a puppeteer operating a marionette), but at the same time must be fully involved in the action of the story.
Celebrity
The phenomenon of fame in the twentieth century has made celebrityhood virtually a job category of its own. There are people known as "personalities" who appear as guests on talk and game shows. (I'm still not sure what someone like Sandra Bernhard, who got noticed by being Madonna's friend, actually does for a living.) Actors as well as other entertainers easily hold their own against politicians, athletes, and other personalities for attention in the media. The public seems to have an insatiable curiosity about them, especially for their private lives as evidenced by the large reader and viewership of tabloid journalism. Newspapers such as the Enquirer and Star, and television programs such as Access Hollywood and Entertainment Tonight fall all over each other trying to uncover the most sordid and salacious details in order to satisfy this curiosity. Because of this kind of attention we tend to see all actors as extremes. They are either gorgeous, witty, poised, powerful and rich on the one hand, or troubled, substance-abusing, wife-beating, misbehaving brats on the other. Their status as celebrities accords them the kind of awe and deference by the public that in former centuries was the exclusive experience of royalty. Who among us wouldn't trade places with one of them? Unfortunately, the vast celebrity industry tends to distort our perception of the truth of actors and acting. The fact is that the vast majority of actors do not share in this celebrity experience. We shall try to dispel some of these misperceptions by examining the true life of actors in the next chapter.
Factors for Success
Skills
These are also called the craft of acting, or technique. The work of acting can be divided into two realms, the physical or external realm, and the psychological or internal realm. Historically it has been the externals--body and voice--that were emphasized. Actors from Shakespeare's time through the nineteenth century were expected to have the vocal strength, flexibility and persuasiveness of such public speakers as lawyers and preachers. In addition it was assumed that an actor could sing, and even if not well could "sell" a song through acting ability alone. Actors' bodies needed to be supple, expressive, and even athletic. It was assumed that they could dance, duel with swords, and even employ such circus skills as juggling and clowning. The internal aspects of acting were not formally taught, as such, because what we now call psychology had not coalesced into a science. The motivations and drives which animate human behavior were thought of as part of man's spiritual nature. Actors were expected to summon forth emotions, what were called humours, instinctively.
It should also be noted that actors since the 1500s were literate. Most could read and write at a time when this was not the norm. The best actors were familiar with literature and had well developed powers of critical analysis. Actors learned their trade by the time-honored apprenticeship method. Becoming an actor was not unlike running away to join the circus. A young person would be taken on by an acting company and would be apprenticed to one of the established actors. He would function as an actor's personal servant, be assigned menial tasks for the company, and if he showed promise would be allowed to play small roles in plays. Over time if he demonstrated sufficient aptitude and skill, the young actor would learn the roles played by his master in order to take them over upon the master's retirement. Typically, girls and women entered the profession through marriage or birth. Those of you who have seen the film Shakespeare In Love will know that women were not even allowed on the English stage until 1660! But even when they were it was not considered appropriate for adult single women to perform on the stage in their own right, but only as wards of their fathers or husbands. Those single women who did perform adopted the title "Mrs.", even though unmarried, in order to avoid social ostracism.
The realm of external skills has not changed that much today. Actors must still be able to use their bodies and voices (which some call their instrument) effectively. While not every actor must be able to sing and dance, many do. This is because they know that the more skills an actor has, the more opportunities are available for work. What has changed is the internal realm. Today, actors have access to the science of modern psychology which helps them to create the internal life of the characters they play. Actors can acquire these skills on their own through self-study and on-the-job training. But most actors today attend colleges and universities where they undertake a formal study of dramatic art leading to a degree. The good news is that anyone can acquire and improve upon acting skills; that good training can help overcome having less talent.
Talent
As noted earlier, people with acting talent are those who are born with the ability to easily do many things that actors need to do. Acting talent is not a singular thing, but rather is composed of several facets. One of the most important facets of talent is personality. People who might make good actors have the following personality traits:
On the other hand there are always exceptions. There are some successful actors who appear to be introverts and who shun attention. But once in front of the camera or on stage they manifest all the traits of a good actor. This points up an important difference between art and science: the laws and rules of science are immutable, but those of the arts are filled with exceptions and interpretations. Acting talent also shows up in the physical realm in such forms as a good natural singing voice; poise, grace, and balance in movement; and a gift for dance. The bad news is that talent cannot be acquired since it is by definition something you are born with. The good news is that undeveloped talent will not a career make, and that acting skills and the other factors for success can compensate for a lack of it. Jeff Greenberg, casting director for Frasier, says "actors have to have more than talent; they have to have a talent for survival," which leads us to our next factor for success: persistence.
Persistence
The acting business is a perpetual buyers market. There is a seemingly endless supply of hopeful candidates pouring into Hollywood and Broadway with dreams of stardom. Many of them have all the beauty, skill, and talent anyone could ask for, but there are always far fewer jobs than applicants. An actor gets work by auditioning, and the usual outcome of an audition is rejection. After several months or years of this, many would-be actors become discouraged and find another way to make a living. Part of an audition involves an acting test called a tryout or reading. What an actor presents at a tryout is part self and part character. It is only natural that when actors are rejected, their egos take a bruising. The actress feels that it is she who is being rejected as much as her work. Unless an actor has a very thick skin such constant blows to the ego can take their toll. Fortunately there are ways to deal with this such as self-help support groups, psychotherapy, and having a rich life outside of career. Actors who succeed have the determination to keep coming back, time after time, despite rejection. They reframe each audition, whether successful or not, as a learning experience. They use what they've learned and the people they've met as a resource to strengthen their future efforts.
Charisma/Presence
Most successful actors have a certain quality that might be labeled charisma or presence. What I mean by this is that they possess a quality that makes people take notice of them. When they walk into a room everyone's attention shifts to them. People are curious about them and want to get to know them. When they speak, people want to listen. This quality does not necessarily come from any overt life-of-the-party behavior, but more often comes from within--a quiet self-assurance or an air of mystery which fascinates those around them. It is certainly associated with personality, is partly innate, and probably cannot be faked. It is often associated with physical attractiveness, but not always. Those who possess it in abundance have a much better chance of achieving stardom than those who don't. The good news is that you don't have to be a star to be a happy and successful actor.
Luck
With so few opportunities and so much competition it seems inevitable that fortune, chance, or luck would be a factor in success. And it is. I personally have known some fine actors who, in my estimation, had much more talent and ability than many whose work I see on the screen every day. After graduation, they went to Hollywood only to beat their heads against doors for years with only minimal results. A small part here, a commercial there, but no big break. Sometimes just being at the right place at the right time is the difference. Sometimes it's who you know.
But in any case there is some good news here, too. I believe that in a very real sense that you do make your own luck. Those actors who work the hardest to get work, are the ones who work the most. By going out there every day, making calls, networking, and schmoozing, you can go a long way toward making your own breaks. If you are in a lot of places a lot of the time you stand a better chance of being in the right place at the right time.
One of the best pieces of advice I ever heard was to live as though you are a successful actor. To the extent that you can afford it subscribe to the same trade papers, join the same organizations, go to the same events, and eat at the same restaurants as successful actors. Live as close to the action, wear the best clothes, and drive the best car that you can. This will serve you much better than sitting home alone in your ratty apartment waiting for your agent to call. And if ultimately an acting career doesn't work out, you will at least have had a lot more fun. Many who take alternate temporary jobs in the industry end up staying with them by choice.
Experience
Experience is relevant to acting in two important ways. First, as with any other profession the more you practice the better you become at it. Even with that acting is such an enigmatic process that one can never achieve final mastery even by constant study and practice. Second, since acting is about life, the more you live the greater the amount of material you have to draw upon. As with great musicians and painters, maturity seems to improve the depth and richness of an actor's output. Nearly anyone can get a job as an actor, but only with hard work and life experience can you build a career in the profession.
Beauty and the Breast
Before leaving the topic of factors for success we must also consider one final matter: physical beauty. Another of the common misconceptions abetted by the celebrity industry is that all actors are beautiful or handsome, or that anyone who is beautiful or handsome can be an actor. While it is true that most stars are physically attractive, some are not. Hollywood is filled with young hopefuls with perfect hair, perfect teeth, and gorgeous bodies who are not working--at least not as actors. Actresses often resort to nose jobs and breast implants in an effort to improve their chances. There is a well-known song about this in the musical A Chorus Line called "Dance 10, Looks 3" in which a young dancer tells how cosmetic surgery helped make the difference between being ignored and getting cast. Although physical beauty alone may sometimes get you in the door, it alone is not sufficient to support a career in acting. It can even be a detriment. Some skilled actresses who are very beautiful have complained about not being taken seriously because of it--the "bimbo" effect. Actress Jennifer Grey had a nose job to correct what she perceived to be a flaw in her looks. Since she was already well-known by her original face she found that she had trouble getting work after surgery. The irony is that when she finally did (in the TV comedy It's Like, You Know), they cast her as herself with the running gag that nobody recognizes her! The best course of action is to make the most of who you are. For every part that calls for someone of extraordinary beauty, there are ten that require someone with more ordinary looks. There are even many fine actors who make a living by not being attractive in a conventional way: think of Cameron Manheim, Linda Hunt, Kathy Bates, Lily Taylor, Christopher Walken, Danny DeVito, or Steve Buschemi--they work all the time.
The Name Game
An adjunct to this business of changing what appears to be unattractive physical features is the ancient custom of exchanging one's birth name for a stage one. In the past, this was not a frivolous matter. Since the fall of Rome and until fairly recently actors had been the victim of varying degrees of social prejudice. This stems from two factors. First, the theatre in the latter days of Rome had become quite pornographic and the rising Christian church condemned it. Second, by the Middle Ages actors were reduced to wandering troupes living a gypsy-like existence. Travelers and strangers of any kind were looked upon with deep suspicion during this period. The simple folk of medieval Europe were attracted to the actors' entertainments as a welcome break from the drudgery of their lives, but wouldn't want their daughters to marry one. Indeed, more than one chicken or daughter may have disappeared when the actors left town.
Even by the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries members of the acting profession were kept at arms length socially by people of "good breeding." Consequently, it was common practice for any member of the middle class or aristocracy who made their living in the theatre to change their names to avoid embarrassing their families. Even the great Molière was a nom de plume. Today, actors still change their names, even after one of their "race" has become President. But their purpose is to pick a name that sounds better or is more memorable, not to spare their family's feelings.
The Elements of Acting
Acting may be broken down into the following areas of activity:
Character
We have learned that actors impersonate others, but it would be more correct to say that they impersonate characters, which are imaginary persons. Because characters are imaginary and do not exist in the real world, the actor must create them based on information found in the script. Building a character is the primary job of an actor. To do this the actor needs information. Information about the character can be derived not only from the lines he and others say, but from the implications of the story itself. Although the playwright may have envisioned a very specific person as he wrote a character's lines, the actor as interpreter has some considerable leeway in bringing the character to life. An important justification for this is that the actor may not look very much like the character that the playwright imagined. In the days of the ancient Greeks when masks were worn this was not a problem, but in today's dramatic arts where realism is supreme it is. It is important to note that even when the role is based on a real human being, such as in a biographical film like Malcolm X, the actor must confront physical differences between himself and the real person he is playing. Also, there is much invention in such stories since no one really knows what famous people said and did outside of their public lives.
We have said that acting has both physical as well as psychological aspects. This becomes very clear when we look at the creation of characters. An actor may begin by focusing on the details of physical appearance, including such factors as height, weight, health, race, and even sex. Although much of this can be achieved through costume and make up, many actors prefer to approach this more directly. Robert DeNiro gained a great deal of weight in order to portray boxer Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull, and Demi Moore built up her muscles for G.I. Jane. This aspect of character development might next extend to the posture, unique walk, and other gestures and movements that are specific to the character. Other actors prefer to begin with the psychological development of a character. This is based on a thorough analysis of the script, focusing on the position and function of the character in the story as a whole, as well as the dynamics of his relationship to other key characters. The actor must determine what his character is thinking and feeling at each moment in the script.
Up until this point the creation of character has been described largely as an intellectual exercise. It's one thing to know what your character is feeling, and another thing entirely to feel it. Clearly, the display of emotion is what most laymen think acting is all about. Young actors especially favor doing scenes in classes which allow them to shout, cry, and go into hysterics because they believe that it will show that they can really act. This begs the question: is it necessary for actors to personally feel the emotions they are depicting, or can they just pretend to be feeling them? A debate about this question in some ways circumscribes the entire history of acting.
Brief Digression: A Short History of Acting
Throughout most of the history of the theatre, acting has been approached as an art. What I mean by this is that it was not the goal of actors to create a photocopy of life, but an idealization of it. It was understood that acting used life as a medium, then proceeded to mold and shape it with artistic purpose. Stage characters were portrayed with a good deal of exaggeration and style. If an actor from the 1700s were to play his character on the street, no one would mistake it for a real person. This external approach to acting culminated in the writings of François Delsarte (1811-1871) who formulated a combination of postures and gestures to indicate each emotion. This is not to say that these actors felt nothing, since psychology teaches us that there is a synergistic link between mind and body--that the mere imitation of emotion creates some of the inner feelings of it. Yet, in those days most of the actor's energy and attention were devoted to creating the outward appearance of a person involved in emotional situations.
Near the end of the 1800s there was a great shift in the entire aesthetic of dramatic art. Realism became the goal of acting and the exaggeration and stylistic embellishments of the past were swept away. Central to this change was Constantine Stanislavsky (1863-1938), a Russian actor, director, and producer who created a system which taught actors to shed old acting habits that were rooted in the past, and to create characters based on the emerging science of human psychology. The "Stanislavsky System" eventually became known as method acting, or simply "the method," when it was introduced to the United States in the 1930s. This brought to the art of acting for the first time a comprehensive, systematic, and sequential method by which acting could be formally taught. This, in turn, paved the way for the dramatic arts to be included in the curriculum of colleges and universities where it holds equal status with the other arts today. From the 1940s through the 1960s the "method" was unchallenged as the basis for all actor training.
As discussed in the Introduction, the arts along with the rest of our culture underwent an upheaval in the late 1960s. It was asserted that method acting had gone too far. Some felt that acting had become so internalized and personal that actors were neglecting the audience. Experiments with mime, circus techniques, and improvisation were indicative of a "new theatricalism" which demanded a revival of classic physical and vocal techniques. Today, most actor training has diversified to include not only the internal emphasis of the method, but also externals of traditional movement and voice training.
Character, continued
As to the question, "does the actor feel the emotion being portrayed?", the answer is a qualified "yes." The actor does feel the emotion to some degree, but never to the extent that one would if the situation being portrayed were real. Failure to control emotion could be dangerous in the case of a fight scene. There is the situation of an actor playing Othello who became so consumed by jealousy that he actually strangled to death the actress playing Desdemona. It is vital that the actor maintain control of his performance at all times. Yet, when the actor feels the emotion it gives the portrayal much greater depth and genuineness. This is another of the paradoxes of acting. The actor must inhabit the character to the point of thinking his thoughts and feeling his feelings, but must simultaneously function as a puppeteer who manipulates every aspect of the performance. This delicate balance must be maintained, and can only be fully understood by those who have experienced it by acting in performance.
Telling the Story
The most obvious way that actors tell the story is by saying the lines. It is very common for people to congratulate actors after a play by marveling at how they were able to memorize "all those lines." To those not in the business this seems like what the work of acting must be all about. In fact, learning lines is only "donkey-work" that must be gotten out of the way before the real creative work of acting can begin. For some actors (called quick studies) the task of memorization is fairly painless, but for most actors it is boring and time consuming. Certainly repetition is the basic method, but there are some techniques that can help. Some record the responses of the other actor on cassette tapes, leaving space for their own lines. In this way they can even rehearse while driving. Others try to associate their lines with particular actions they are performing or thoughts their character is thinking.
The other aspect of telling the story is doing the actions that the character performs. Such movements as entering and exiting the scene, moving from one part of the set to another, or rising and sitting are called blocking. Other more personal movements, often done only with the hands and arms, such as smoking, reading a magazine, combing hair, and eating are called business. These movements can come from three sources: the script, the director, and the actor's own creative imagination. Emotion is communicated both by how the words are said and by the physical actions that accompany them.
TechniqueActors must also know specific skills and techniques that allow them to function most effectively in performance. There are hundreds of them which together are called the actor's craft. In a general sense, technique includes everything that can be taught about acting. It begins with such basics as getting warmed-up before performance, always carrying a handkerchief, and pre-checking the position and functioning of all personal props. In performance it includes being in place for your entrance, staying open to the audience on stage, and hitting your marks in television and film. However, most of what is called technique encompasses the methods used to create believable action. Actors are trained to analyse each moment in the script, and to break down their character's actions into beats. A beat is a unit of action comprised of a discrete intention or objective: what the character wants and is trying to get. They are also taught to identify an obstacle to this objective, and to play out strategies to overcome it. Other techniques include learning to relax, listen, and summon up emotion. These steps are the real work of acting.
Focus and Concentration
One of the most difficult tasks for actors is to not allow distractions to pull their attention away from their performance. These distractions might include the audience, mistakes by fellow actors, technical difficulties, and extraneous thoughts about problems in their personal lives. Exercises in developing the ability to focus and concentrate are very much a part of Method Acting. One way to focus is to listen to your scene partner. Danny Glover has said that "Listening is the key [to acting]...listening and relaxing, because if you're not relaxed you can't listen."
Teamwork
Acting is like a team sport in that each member of the group has specific duties that must be accomplished if success is to be achieved. Just as in sport, if one player puts his own interests before the team he may bring glory to himself but contribute to failure of the group. This aspect of performance is usually called ensemble. It is somewhat like a non-competitive game of volleyball in which the goal is to keep the ball in the air as long as possible. Both sides of the net must cooperate to keep the story moving and the interest of the audience engaged. Ensemble acting also implies the absence of stars in the cast. In classic ensemble acting, the group performs several plays, and in each one the cast rotates (again like volleyball) so that the leads in one play are cast in minor roles in another.
The element of teamwork infers an even more important aspect: relationship. Actors spend much of their preparation and rehearsal time working on their character's relationships with other characters in the story. Just as theatre itself is a collaborative art form, actors must collaborate with other characters to create relationships. If the nature of the relationships between characters are made clear and seem genuine, the audience will be able to accept nearly any dramatic situation, no matter how extreme, as plausible.
Reading Assignment
You should be reading Chapter 6 in your textbook to get more information about the role of the audience and its imagination. Before reading the chapter go to the online quiz at:
I suggest you print out the quiz and mark the answers on the hard copy as you read the chapter. When you are ready to submit your answers, go back online, fill in the "Name" box with your last name, comma, first name--like this: Smith, Jamie. Then fill in the "Email" box with the address you want your your score sent to. Put your 7-digit Cerritos College Student ID number in the third box. Then click the buttons for your answers. Make sure you have filled in your complete email address, not mine. Click on the Submit button at the bottom of the quiz. You will immediately see a confirmation that your quiz has been sent. Right after the due date I will forward your score and a copy of your corrected quiz to you.
Lecture Exercise
There are six factors that effect chances for success of a person hoping for a career as an actor. Three of these factors can be controlled more easily than the others. Which ones are they, and how can one exercise control over them?
Note that when submitting the answer start the subject line with:
TH101DE -- YourFirst&LastName -- L-8
Next lecture: Actors