on acting, a theoretical discussion

[rivendellrose]

Something I've been thinking a lot about lately, brought to the fore by a bunch of YouTube clips that maymargaret and I watched last night: What distinguishes a great actor from a good one?

What I mean is that I can look at a spectrum of actors who are, say, of similar age, who maybe even tend to get similar sorts of parts in productions of similar calibre, but there's just something... undefinable and distinct about the ones that I would call really great actors - the kinds of actors who leave me sitting back and wondering not "why did I ever stop doing that?" but more like... like brain-dead silence of fascination followed by, if I think about it, a frantic effort to figure out what exactly it is that they're doing that makes it so completely special. Am I crazy on this one, folks? Is this just a case of overthinkery, or is there something really different?

Maybe it's just because I never got to higher-level theory classes in acting, but I feel like, aside from gut reaction, I'm better equipped to analyze the quality of a piece of artwork than I am a theatrical performance, and that just annoys me. I can watch what the actor is doing, note the choices they're making and the ways they choose to use their body, face, voice... but I feel like there's something else that I'm just not catching, lately. Any theories?

Comments

[hoperomantic.livejournal.com]

See, sometimes I wish I could just not analyze stuff myself sooo... Almost all of my education went into learning how to analyze. I know you can't really tell sometimes *sigh* but it's true.

Anyhoo... I think that there are a multitude of reasons why an actor can be considered great. For example, a lot depends on the time period. The actors of Sarah Bernhardt's age for instance that may have been considered great, might not be thought of as such now, simply for the acting styles employed then. Genres also play a big role, since obviously some actors might be great at action/adventure, but really not do so well with dramatic roles. That's not counting the audience member's preferences, differences in schools of acting, differences across cultures... etc...

I don't know... is that kind of what you were talking about? *grin*

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

Oh, do I ever know that feeling. Can't read a book without analzying the writing, can't watch a movie without analyzing the acting, the writing, and the anthropological content... It's a funny way to through life, but I enjoy it.

You make a good point about time period. I secretly hated being made to watch Laurence Olivier as Hamlet. It felt so wrong to hate his performance, but I really, really did. XD And of course when you get genre and culture involved, things get even more complicated.

I was thinking more of the distinctions between actors within the same genre and time, but both subjects are just as interesting!

[arcane.livejournal.com]

As a professional actor still working at my potential I thought I would chime in on this one.

As I see it, the great actors are the ones who live in their character and their world. They don't show us their technique. There are multiple layers to them. You can see what's going on behind their eyes. One acting coach I know put it: "You don't know what they're going to do next, even when you know what they're going to do next." I study who I believe to be some of our greatest actors--Al Pacino, Robert Deniro, Patrick Stewart, Johnny Depp, Sam Waterston, Phillip Seymore Hoffman, Forest Whitaker--and they all seem to embody this.

It goes beyond line delivery or body mechanics or "emotion". It's a total understanding of the play the character and the world the character lives in. There are choices they're making that you can't even see.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

I thought you might have an interest in this one. ;)

The part I think I'm losing here is that I know from the inside what it's like to follow that form (I was trained to act that way, with a few classroom exceptions - someday we should discuss Mamet and his 'interesting' theories about acting... but that's a rant for another day), so I always assume that's what underlies an actor's work. In that sense, I suppose the great ones are the ones who take that method to the extreme, who really have the knack for becoming the character and living in their mind. I forget sometimes that there are actors who don't.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's more, though. I believe there is an intellect to it. That choices are deliberately being made based on the text and the actor's understanding of the character. It goes beyond just identifying with the character.

I'm studying with a guy right now who studied and then later taught along side Stella Adler, arguably the greatest American acting coach (who studied with Stanislavsky in his later years who, of course, is the creator of Western acting theory as we know it today). The man I'm studying with is trying to instill the idea that there is more technique than what we've been taught. That what separates the good actors from the great actor's is the ability to deconstruct the text to find the strongest possible choices--this is the stuff we can't see. While good actors are making good choices, the great actors are finding gold in the text and applying that to their understanding of their characters to make brilliant choices. Which can be so subtle. Anthony Hopkins says he reads the script 50 times before starting rehearsal.

What's interesting is that Stanislavsky in the last years of his life abandoned his earlier teachings of sense memory and emotional memory and focused almost entirely on choosing strong, appropriate and varying actions to play. It no longer became about "becoming the character" in an abstract sort of way, and became text focused with a complete understanding of the character.

Too many actors rely on emotional earnesty when they should be focusing on playing their action. As Stanislavsky said after he abandoned his earlier method, "Emotions are like birds on your arm. Sometimes they will land there, but when you look at them they will fly away."

I've heard of Mamet's acting book but I've b een told to stay away from it. I dearly love Mamet as a playwright (I believe he and Harold Pinter are the two greatest living playwrights right now), but he hasn't given his life to the pursuit of acting and acting theory.

I can go on forever here. This is the kind of conversation I will (and have) geek out on for an entire night and into the morning. Especially if wine is involved!

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

I second the statement of whoever told you that you shouldn't read Mamet's acting book. His plays are lovely, but his theories on acting, as far as I'm concerned, only work for his writing... and even then I'm convinced that if taken seriously, they'd give a lackluster performance. Anyway.

Ah, I have to stop thinking about this, or I'm going to seriously start missing all of this. My favorite part of acting was always the prep work, going through the script and finding all the little character hints, figuring out what to make of a person in the text. I do it in reverse, now, as a writer, and it's just not nearly as much fun sometimes. ;)