There is Action and then there is ACTION

I want to talk now about ACTION.  What is action to you?  Is it your physical movements on stage--your blocking or staging?  Is action external or internal?  Can you be active sitting still?

To me "action" is at the core of what we do as actors.  It is everything that the actor does to fulfill their character's purpose within the story.  It's the driving internal force that keeps our characters moving forward to their goal.  We cannot ACT without action.

Stanislavsky opens his chapter on Action with an exercise.  Tortsov asks the actors to stand on the stage.  They were given no direction and left to their own invention.  As a result, and as you can imagine--perhaps even experienced if you have participated in something similar, the students were all over come with the "need" to perform.  Or they all acted out of self consciousness.  The students, as we all do for the first time, felt insecure and created and performed distractions instead of actions.  I remember the very first time that I experience a similar exercise.  I was asked to stand alone on the stage--which felt huge by the way--and all I could think about were every set of eyes watching me and waiting for me to do something.  I'm sure I made a joke or even "acted" out some silly gestures, but the only memories I have are of the sensation of fear.  THEN I was asked to count the seats in the auditorium.  This exercise is so basic and yet it has such a profound lesson.  By counting the seats I was given a task that had purpose.  The exercise continued and I was informed that I only had sixty seconds to finish counting AND if I guessed the correct number of seats then I would receive a prize.  I didn't by the way, but that additional task created STAKES--something I'll talk about later--and taught me that having something to accomplish gives my actions purpose and makes my "performance" active.  Watching and uncomfortable actor squirm may be amusing--even entertaining, but watching an actor who has purpose is engaging and far more interesting.  Therefore, one of the key fundamentals every actor should remember is that everything they do on stage or in front of a camera MUST have purpose and MUST be active.

In an An Actor Prepares, Stanislavsky has Tortsov demonstrate action by sitting in a chair on stage.  When a student challenges this as not active he replies with this:

"The external immobility of a person sitting on the stage does not imply passiveness.  You may sit without a motion and at the same time be in full action.  Nor is that all.  Frequently physical immobility is the direct result of inner intensity, and it is these inner activities that are far more important artistically.  The essence of art is not in it's external forms but in its spiritual content...On the stage it is necessary to act, either outwardly or inwardly."

 This "inner intensity" or "spiritual content" brings me to another way to look at action.  When I was in Drama school, Earle Gister taught us his version of Action.  To him, and soon to me, Action is the inner energy that actors send and receive.  This Action is described with the phrase: "How do I want to make my scene partner feel?"  At first this was a very foreign idea to me.  It didn't make sense.  How does this have anything to do with everything I've always been told about acting?  But then I started to see it in real life.  While driving I might see someone cut off another driver and the one who was cut off shouts and screams obscenities in return.  The one screaming isn't just angry about being cut off; he also wants the one who cut him off to FEEL like an idiot.  The one who cut him off may realize what he did and be ashamed, but with his pleading gestures from his car he wants the other driver to accept his apology and FEEL sympathetic.  Or when you see a young couple walking hand in hand with that smitten look all over their face and each lover is glowing.  That "glowing" is each one making the other to FEEL loved so they will continue to reap the benefits of that love.  Or maybe you've seen a parent disciplining their child because they were playing too rough with the other children.  The parent's behavior is stern but their Action is intended to make the child to FEEL ashamed.  The key to this idea of Action--and what MAKES it active--is that this inner intensity is driving us toward our wants and needs.  When acting we use this kind of Action to fulfill our character's objectives or tasks.  Asking "how do I want to make you feel?" drives the character's internal purpose and is active outwardly to our scene partners and audience.  It gives your acting that "spiritual content" that is so engaging.  It also gives you focus away from and off of yourself--which is truly one of the key philosophies of EVERY training system or method.

Try to look for this in your everyday life.  Notice it in your own behavior--especially when you are aware that you are going after something you want.  Are your actions intended to make the recipient FEEL a certain way in an effort to get you what you want?

If you are working on a monologue then try choosing an Action to play on the image of your scene partner.  Then try inserting the phrase "I want you to feel ______" after every sentence.  For example in Chekhov's The Seagull, Konstantin is speaking with his uncle Sorin about his mother Arkadina.  For this exercise I have chosen the Action to play on Sorin "I want you to feel sympathetic." 

Konstantin:  I love my mother, I love her very much; but her life is futile, she smokes and drinks and spends all her time fretting over that writer she lives with. (I want you to feel sympathetic) Her name is never out of the papers--and I'm fed up with it.(I want you to feel sympathetic) Sometimes I feel, you know, just an ordinary selfish impulse, and sometimes I'm sorry my mother is a famous actress and think if she were an ordinary woman, I could be happier. (I want you to feel sympathetic) Uncle, could anything be more hopeless and stupid than my situation? (I want you to feel sympathetic) I'll be round at her place sometimes in a room jam full of celebrities, actors and writers, and I'll be the only one of the lot of them who's a nobody and the only reason they put up with me is that I'm her son. (I want you to feel sympathetic) Who am I? (I want you to feel sympathetic) What am I? (I want you to feel sympathetic) I left university in my final year, due to causes for which, as they say, the editor accepts no responsibility; I have no qualifications, no money, not one kopeck and according to my passport, I'm a petit-bourgeois from Kiev. (I want you to feel sympathetic) Well my father was a petit-bourgeois from Kiev, although he was also a well known actor. (I want you to feel sympathetic) And when those actors and writers in her drawing room would turn their kind attention to me, it always seemed to me from their expressions that they were just gauging my insignificance.

I chose sympathetic for this example but Actions are discovered out of your characters objectives and tasks which you discover during rehearsal.  Action can seem complicated and clumsy at first and I hesitated to bring it up in my early posts.  However, I believe that Action is an essential building block and a crucial element to my aesthetics of acting.  It is something that takes time to develop but will become easier to fulfill with practice.  Eventually, it will become second nature and you will no longer even need to THINK about what Actions to send.  This is why I introduce it from the start.  It will continue to intertwine with my investigation of the acting process--mostly because I have found that it always leads to truth.  It is always connected to your tasks and is the engine behind fulfilling your objectives--which we will talk about in the future.

One of the things that always excited me about Earle was when he witnessed Action being sent.  He would perk up and always say, "Did you see that?  Like a laser!"  And he was right.  Action lights up acting with purpose.

Aesthetics

What is "fine" acting?  

Well like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.  As much as I would all like to say with conviction that there is a definitive line between good and bad it just isn't so.  We all have an opinion of what we think is good and it all comes down to aesthetics.  Time to run to Webster again...

"Aesthetics: a particular theory or conception of beauty or art : a particular taste for or approach to what is pleasing to the senses and especially sight."

Due to the work of Stanislavsky and then The Group Theatre/The Actor's Studio here in America, the most popular aesthetic is some form of psychological realism or naturalism.  Audiences have come to expect their actors to appear as real as they are.  I mean look at our culture's obsession with "reality" television!  We want to see truthful emotion and true relationships.  It has to "feel" real!   And as actors we aspire to "be" real.  As a result, a number of "methods" or "systems" have developed over the last hundred years to produce believable performances.  Some of them focus so much on reality that actors are convinced they cannot truly BE the character until they have EXPERIENCED everything the character has experienced.  I do not subscribe to this idea.  First and foremost acting isn't real.  Let me say this again.  ACTING IS NOT REALITY.  For an actor everything that takes place on stage or in front of the camera is fictional.  More importantly--characters aren't real people.  They are a semblance of human beings.  They are not complex.  Characters exist in a story to serve a purpose within that story.  They are functional.  Even if they are based on real life or historical persons they are still just characters in a story.  They are something that we create--NOT something that we live.  Through our creation the audience has an experience.  We do not act the experience.  We act the action.  Then what becomes most important is that whenever we act our actions are TRUTHFUL. 

Therefore my aesthetics are those of Transformational Acting.  

I was very inspired by Declan Donnellan's book The Actor and the Target but in it he disputes transformational acting as flat out impossible.  He states, and rightly so, that there is no way for an actor to physically transform into another being.  It is true.  We do not live in an age where we can step into a shiny metal pod with flashing lights--flip a switch and BAM!  After a little molecular reconstruction we step out as Macbeth.  What we can do is take all of our experience, imagination, intelligence, creativity, and focus and then mold them--like clay--into something new.  We transform ourselves, as raw material, into our own unique interpretation of a character never seen before.  

We transform INTO the character or the "Who am I"--NOT the other way around.  

You know I recently overheard a summer blockbuster actor (who's co-stars are giant robots) say in an interview that the director was constantly encouraging the actors to ad lib and improvise which created an exciting organic experience.  Well what this actually says to me is one of two things.  One, it's possible that the dialogue was poorly written and the director clearly had no respect for the material and in the end it was irrelevant or two, the actors were incapable of delivering the written lines truthfully because they were unable to transform their own personalities to the wants and needs of the character.  Either way the result is "personality acting."  Where the actor conforms each role to their own character traits.  You always see the same tricks.  But when you transform to the character you set aside your habits and choices for the discovery of those in service to the character.  Despite the consistencies that exist within you as an actor--a new character is created out of your individuality.  In my opinion, transformation is a successful aesthetic for every style and genre of acting.  As long as TRUTHFUL transformation and TRUTHFUL action is committed to, then the audience will TRULY have an experience.  

That is what I consider "fine" acting.  When truth happens.        

An Actor's First Choice

Why do you want to be an actor?

I can't tell you how many times I've been asked this question.  First it started with my family, then of course in Acting 101 at college, and then Acting 102, followed by a number of strangers between then and now.  I can tell you that sometimes I knew the answer and then at other times I wasn't so sure anymore.

Maybe you've been asked this question a thousand times yourself.  In fact, you may even be rolling your eyes that I'm even bringing it up.  Obviously you KNOW in your heart why you chose to be an actor and you are tired of defending it.  Or maybe this is the first time you've thought about this question and you're searching your soul for how to answer this question.  Will your answer be honest?

Right off, if you want to be an actor because you just want to be famous then I applaud your honesty.  I have no judgment of you.  If we are all honest with ourselves then we would be able to admit that we have all longed for that at some point or another.  And why not?  With fame you are working all the time, with fame comes a more "stable" source of income and lifestyle, with fame you have a larger audience base to communicate with, and well...you're famous.  I think we all fantasies a little about our talents taking us to career heights.  AND this does happen for a few.  For a small percentage of us, fortune has smiled and granted fame and steady work.  And I am very thankful to hear in interviews more and more celebrity actors graciously admitting their fortune--to do the job they are lucky to do day in and day out.  But the thing with fame, like success in many professions, there are an endless number of variables that get you there and some of them may not be to your tastes.  I am not just talking about the proverbial casting couch but the artistic and personal values that make you who you are.  Obviously, hard work and your talent is how you want to arrive but what if that isn't enough and your desire for fame is so strong that you start to find yourself asking, "will fame be worth doing this?"  Instead of "Why do I want to be an actor?"  Or even better "Why do I want to communicate with my audience?" 

From a more noble perspective...OK I lied, I guess I am a touch judgmental...for most of us the young romantic will rush in to answer the question.  "I'm an artists and I want to be an actor to change the world, damn it!!"  I personally support and encourage this answer but I believe it needs substance to live.  Faith in this charge is crucial because it will take years to evolve and solidify your artistic purpose.  And once again I believe Stanislavsky makes a compelling argument...

"Now remember firmly what I am going to tell you: the theatre, on account of it's publicity and spectacular side, attracts many people who merely want to capitalize their beauty or make careers.  They take advantage of the ignorance of the public, it's perverted taste, favoritism, intrigues, false success, and many other means which have no relation to creative art.  These exploiters are the deadliest enemies of art.  We have to use the sternest measures with them, and if they cannot be reformed they must be removed from the boards.  Therefore, you must make up your mind once and for all, did you come here to serve art, and to make sacrifices for its sake, or to exploit your own personal ends?" -Konstantin Stanislavsky, An Actor Prepares

When you read this today it is remarkable how little has changed.  I love how he calls for actors to take a higher road--to be in service of an art form that has a responsibility to its society.  And throughout his writings he does not dispute the importance of an actor's career but rather direct focus on the actor's purpose for who he/she is.

In my second post I touched on this topic when I was detailing my definition of an actor but I don't think it can be asked OR answered enough.  In fact, I think you WILL and SHOULD continue to answer this question for the rest of your career.  With time the question might sound different like, "why am I still doing this?"  Or maybe "is this worth all the sacrifices?"  Or even, "is it time for me to do something else?"  Obviously only you can answer these questions.  I also would wager that if you're honest--I mean REALLY honest with yourself--that your answer will appear change from time to time. Which is why I truly believe that however you answer the question of "why you act" that answer will become your artistic touchstone.

"What do you MEAN my answer will appear to change?  Not me.  I KNOW why I act and nothing will ever change that!"  I hope so.  I truly do.  But in the pursue of your career it will take on many shapes.  There are times when it will be exactly as you have envisioned it.  You will be working with talented and creative professionals.  You will  be excelling in your own practice and networking successfully within the industry.  Other times, you may find yourself working less and your career stalled to the point it no longer looks even close to how you had envisioned.  You may feel that you have stopped making important networking connections and feel without direction.  With either scenario you will most certainly be tempted by desires or just plain personal needs that will put your confident answer in question.  Sometimes you may realize that you are no longer pursuing acting for the same reasons that inspired you in the first place.  Returning to your answer--asking yourself once more, "Why do I want to be an actor?" and answering it anew will always re-inspire your purpose.  Even if you have never wavered, questioned, or been tempted by cheaper pursuits just asking the question and declaring your answer can only strengthen your faith in your artistry.

I don't want to bring the room down and I certainly do not wish to dwell the past but in a few weeks it will be the ten year anniversary of September 11th.  At the time of the attacks on the Trade Towers, Pentagon, and United Flight 93 I was in New York and in full on career mode.  For all of us that day was a life changing event.  I was one of the fortunate ones.  I didn't lose any loved ones, unlike so many others that day.  And what I lost can't EVEN compare...but we all lost something.  For me it was justifying being an artist...to be an ACTOR seemed so embarrassing now.  All I could think of was how can I continue to pursue a career that is so vain when people are flying planes into buildings?  It seems silly to say it out loud but the terrorists killed my first love that day.  But after time and and rediscovery I found myself asking that tired old question again, why do I want to be an actor?  And this time the answer meant more that it had ever before.  Now my idea of artistic success was changing...or maybe just reverting.  I returned to my touchstone to remind myself why and how important an actor's responsibility is as an artist.  I returned to my touchstone to restore my faith in artistry.

On my desk at work I have two quotes taped to my computer screen:

"Without art, the crudeness of reality would make the world unbearable." -George Bernard Shaw

"Life beats down and crushes the soul and art reminds you that you have one." - Stella Adler

I truly believe that being an artist HAS to take on a higher purpose in order to give you the strength to BE an artist.  Whether that is to educate or change the way your audience thinks or just to make them laugh for two hours as they escape the worries of their lives what we do means something and changes the world just a little bit because we are here.

This past Spring I had the opportunity to hear Declan Donnellan speak at the Brooklyn Academy of Music.  Mr. Donnellan is the artistic director of Cheek By Jowl and the author of The Actor and the Target.  When he was asked by a patron on how to advise a young family member whether to go into theatre or not he joked firstly that they should do ANYTHING but go into the theatre.  Then finally, after he appeared to reflect almost tenderly on his own experience, he said, "Theatre is for people who can't do anything else."  Perhaps you are not as romantic or idealistic as I am and maybe this speaks more to your perspective.  Even if it is because you can "do nothing else" at least that's faith in something.  A great acting teacher once told me if you don't have faith then you better get some.  In something.

For the record, I'm not unrealistic about the pursuit of an artistic career.  With age and experience comes wisdom and sometimes cynicism.  But I am reminded of the Stanislavsky quote from Stanislavsky Directs where he uses the phrase "youthfulness in your acting."  I think his word choice (or the translation) is perfect.  Youthfulness!  To me this is all about purity of art and purpose.  It is how we felt when we first took to acting.  It is how excited we were to be on stage with a company of talented people all working together to tell a story.  It is the newness of youth, not the naivete, that inspires us to keep going.  It is the essence of how the 100th performance can feel and look like the first.  So you see WHY you want to act is your artistic lifeline and if you have faith in your answer then you can always return to your true purpose.

Rediscovering Stanislavsky.

No matter what school of thought you are partial to, it is impossible to ignore the massive impact that Konstantin Stanislavsky (1863-1938) has had on actor training.  After all he IS the father of modern acting.  Odds are that if you have studied acting anywhere then you have studied Stanislavsky.  His commitment and passion for deconstructing and developing the actors process was a life's work that changed the direction of acting and is still the predominate style today. 

Sidebar: Due to the fact that many older publications/translations spell Stanislavsky with a "y" and it is more familiar I have chosen to spell it that way within this blog.  However, it is also spelled Stanislavski, as you will see in modern publications and Internet searches...and occasionally I may even slip up from time to time here as well. 

I'm do not wish to focus on his biography at this time but rather his teachings, theories, and relevance for actors today.  If you are new to acting then I strongly encourage that you go and Google him stat!  Knowing when he lived and worked is incredibly helpful to understanding how he developed his "system." 

You know, it's amazing to me that his system has endured all these years.  Clearly during his time, there were other actors and theatres around the world breaking with tradition and searching for more realistic and truthful performances.  So what set him apart?  Why has he been so influential?  Was he the first actor to publish a detailed study of the acting process?  More importantly if I am to truly understand my own acting heritage then how much of his system do I use and does it actually work?  When returning to the source Stanislavsky is the best place to start.  He was the turning point from a more presentational performance to a more truthful and natural one.

First and foremost what I discovered that impressed me most was how he viewed being an artist in the theatre.  When you read his writings and the writings of others about him he truly saw the actor's way of life as a calling.  It was a noble pursuit that carried with it a great responsibility.  People don't talk like this anymore.  Sure you get a smattering of romanticized language sandwiched between bitterness and careerism--which is sadly a by-product of the current acting career model.  And it is probably unrealistic to imagine his rhetoric sharing common ground in this day and age, right?  Then again, he was at the peak of his career when his country on the brink of and during a revolution so perhaps his almost prophetic quality WOULD find an audience in a new generation of actors. 

Next, I believe another key element worth investigating which contributed to the longevity of his influence was his belief in a universal way of working.  His technique addressed many issues that were (and still are) common amongst actors everywhere.  He focused on developing a system of acting that would over come those issues and produce the desired aesthetics of acting--what he considered to be fine acting. He created a structured "How to" for actors that began to put creative power in their hands.  His system would help actors "create" roles instead of the old model of copying someone else's performance.  Not to mention he presented a technique that "demystified" an actor's greatest challenge - emotion!   However, while his system is without a doubt ground breaking, over time we've learned  that his work, as is EVERY actor's work, is subjective to his own experiences, challenges, and artistic preferences.  For example, he struggled with stage fright and vocal difficulties in his early career and therefore dedicated major components of his system to addressing and overcoming these issues.  While it is true that many actors suffer from the same challenges not ALL actors do and so there are aspects of his system that are NOT universal truths to acting.  In Rose Whyman's book The Stanislavsky System of Acting, Legacy and Influence in Modern Performance she outlines, in painstaking detail, the number of scientific, social, and political influences that contributed to how and why Stanislavsky developed the system as he did.  And in her closing remarks she makes a very important call to action to look at Stanislavsky "afresh."  I think as American actors we have simply been taught that he was the deliverer of "great" acting and here is what you should do...end of story.  However, what impressed me most about Ms. Whyman's book is how she brings Stanislavsky down off the pedestal and presents him as an actor in search of answers.  This is something that I can relate to.  This is something we ALL are.  This was inspiring to me and pushed me to reflect on his teachings in a new way.  He was an incredibly self observant artist but he was limited by his understanding of the science of his day and his belief HIS aesthetics of acting were the superior ones.  And perhaps they were and still are!  But despite his limitations his observations of human behavior in himself and his students is what gave us a universal foundation to build modern naturalistic acting upon.  Above all else, he proved that successful acting could be developed and created through a process that would deliver consistent results.  And as a result of those who agreed or disagreed gave birth to actor training as we know it.



Up next:  An Actor's first choice.     

Returning to the Source.

I think for most of us acting is just something that we DO.  No matter how much training, who we studied with, where we went to school, what technique we prescribe to, whether "inside out" or "outside in" most of us have a process that we can do but don't really know how to talk about.  And after all, if its OUR process and it works then what's the point of talking about it?

Well that's all fine and good until we run into an artistic block.  When our process breaks down and we find ourselves feeling vulnerable and without direction.  This is a horrible and frightening place to be for an Actor.  What then?  It's like getting lost and you have no map to find your way.  From my experience, both personally and from observing my colleagues, this is the point where Actors begin to be "difficult."  We become less generous with our fellow Actors because we are so focused on our insecurities and the blockage.  We may even start to doubt direction and even question ALL the work we have put in so much time to create.

But I believe this is INEVITABLE for every Actor.  There is no way around it.  At some point in your career you will come up against a role that seems to elude you.  A character that confuses you.  It might be just one tiny moment or scene or emotional component of your character but it's going to happen.  That's OK!  We are not machines that coldly go through the motions of creating a "living" role on stage or screen.  And thank the heavens!  We bring with us a human element and an endless number of wonderful and complicated variables and possibilities for the equation.  Not to mention that the Actor's ego and confidence can be fragile from time to time or we may even become over sensitive to elements of external influences.  It's frustrating and scary when it happens but like the great Epictetus saying "it's not what happens to you, but how you react that matters."  These are the moments where your training and skill will determine how you react.  These are the moments that will truly define you as an artist.  These are the moments when you grow.

As I began to teach workshops and coach actors I was forced to reflect more closely on my own process.  I have always been a keen investigator of the text but coaching Actors goes far beyond helping them to dig through a script for characterization and direction.  I've always relied heavily on the process that I had developed from the training that I received in Drama School but I still wanted to understand more.  I wanted to be able to offer more.  I wanted to gain a broader knowledge of HOW acting has evolved to where we are and what we might have missed.  How I can continue to build upon the traditions of the past and contribute to the training of more fulfilled actors for the future?

So I hit the books!

Over the last few years I have been reading and rereading all of Stanislavsky's collected works.  Then I read and reread every acting book on my shelves from Meisner to Hagen to Boleslavsky to Donnellen.  I've searched for clues for the art's evolution by studying Michael Chekhov and Vsevolod Meyerhold.  My goal is to get to the core of what Actor Training is all about and all it CAN be.  My hope is by looking into the past of the masters and comparing it to my own experiences and artistic awareness I will be able to discover a new way of working.  If our instincts are built on and informed by the commitment and faith we have in our training then it is imperative that we are articulate about the details our artistic process entails.  I know that many of our Nation's University training programs and Acting Studios are committed to offering each student a unique process but I wonder how many young talents are walking into the profession with a clear understanding of what their unique process is really.  I HOPE they are!  I know that I didn't when I left my undergraduate institution.  I knew that I had studied the "fundamentals" of acting and learned about Stanislavsky's five questions - Who, Where, When, What, & How.  I knew a little about Period and Styles and I had acted in more than a dozen shows but I still relied mostly on my instincts.  Even when I left graduate school I still had some questions!  I knew again that I had taken more classes, this time in voice and speech and done hours of scene study.  I had performed Shakespeare and Brecht and Chekhov and certainly knew my way around breaking down the text.  But I still hadn't discovered how to get the Actor/Artist (Self) and the Actor/Character (Self on stage) to play nice together.  Or that the two even existed!

Maybe I'm a late bloomer, maybe this is all just subjective, maybe it was assumed that I knew more than I actually did, maybe it was implied that I would put it all together later in my career but I believe that a clearer more transparent (since this word is in vogue now) Actor process should be brought to the foreground.  Clearly it is somewhere because we have many great examples of talented actors.  Or is it?  The only way we ever evaluate acting is in the performance.  If the performance was a success then the actor must be doing everything correctly...correct?

When Actors have a strong grasp on their process then no matter the vocabulary or terminology used in production they are able to translate this into fulfilling creation.  They are also confident and capable to make endless adjustments!  No matter what comes their way there will always be a way out.  From my experience, training consisting of a toolbox (the actor) and the tools (specialized skills) to be pulled out and used accordingly is in service of the director.  Do not get me wrong, I am not talking about Actor anarchy.  I do not believe that Actors should be difficult or contrary to the director's vision and certainly NOT contrary to the purpose of the story!  BUT!  I do believe that Actors with strong technique bring with them choices that make them more valuable creative contributors.  They are no longer pawns or the "talent."  They are not insulted or shaken by criticism or vague direction.  They are able to bring with them a force of imagination and creativity that is always at their fingertips.  Is it too dogmatic to think creative power is an actor's right and responsibility?  Is it wrong to believe that an actor could have a universal process that will work from Shakespeare to Wellman and Shepard to Ibsen?  A technique that can be used in naturalistic drama and empathetic theatre, and turn around and be just as successful in visual/symbolic theatre that is intended to be emotionally reactive?  Is this even possible?

I think it is and I think that it starts with developing a strong process that can address these needs.  This is what I hope to explore and discuss in future posts.  Do you remember what it is like to pick up your script the week of tech or even in the final dress performances and see words the playwright has given you that you had somehow paraphrased or even worse left out?  Do you remember how there is new life breathed into your work from this discovery?  New inspirations and sometimes a new direction?  That is what returning to the source has been and continues to be for me.  I hope it will be for you as well.

What is an Actor?

If we are going to investigate the Art of the Actor then it makes sense to first define the Actor.  This should be a universal answer but I find that sometimes that's not the case.  Well maybe we can all agree as to WHAT the Actor is but differ on WHY the Actor is.  I'm interested in the purpose that defines an Actor.  So...

What is an Actor?

Let's start by being obvious and cliche and go straight to Webster's for their take.  Here it is:

1. :one that acts: DOER
2. : one who represents a character in a dramatic production
3. : a theatrical performer
4. :one who behaves as if acting a part

SIDEBAR - I love to go to the dictionary because I'm always surprised by something.  I think, "I KNOW what XYZ means!"  But then I learn that what I REALLY know is what XYZ means to me.  Hence the dictionary!  It never hurts to return to the "source" and discover something new.  Something I missed.  Something that sheds new light and sometimes to discover, as in this situation, that my personal definition is far more complex and maybe I could do some streamlining.  Therefore, I'll more than likely do this often.  So count yourself warned.

So we're back to the definitions!  They all speak to the perceived actions that define an Actor.  A doer.  A performer.  Someone who represents.  Someone who behaves.  However, in my opinion, "represent" and "behave" are problem words for an actor.  BUT, other than that I can't disagree with them.  They are spot on.  An Actor does DO all of these things.  And if that is enough for you then I wish you all the best of luck and thanks for stopping by.

If not then...What is an Actor?

I will say this; these definitions do inspire images of a person of action and Actors MUST BE active!  So that brings me back to my friend Webster for another definition..ACTING which is "the art or practice of representing a character on a stage or before cameras."  Now we're getting somewhere!

The ART!  Here is where the road will sometimes diverge.  Many cynics and realists will argue that the Actor/Artist is too romantic a notion to adhere to in this day and age and that the Actor is just a professional entertainer who works in show business.  The same cynics would argue that the idea of being an artist clutters the Actor's ability to be a working professional.  This could be true but it's certainly no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  I plan to spend more time with this topic at a later date when I start to address the Actor's dualisms.

So for now we are back to the Actor/Artist.  And because I love it so, let's go to the dictionary...

ARTIST - a: one who professes and practices an imaginative art. b: a person skilled in one of the fine arts. c: a skilled performer.

Now to me, THIS speaks more to being an Actor that "one who acts."

SIDEBAR - I have always been fascinated with identity.  Its part of what draws me to acting.  Who we are.  Where we come from.  What defines us.  I find it fascinating that we have such difficulties being true to our own self, or maybe just being consistently true to ourselves.  I find it fascinating how many identities we try on before finally accepting who we are.  I find it fascinating that our identities are constantly evolving but always staying the same.  I'm talking about when we are reinventing and soul searching for our true self or new self but along the way discover those parts of us that never seem to change.  They are the ideals that "who we are" is built on.  I call them constants.  Most of these constants are shaped for us either by those who raised us or by our emotional responses to our experiences over time.  This is why constants are so personal.  Constants drive our passion.  Constants break our heart when they are shattered.  Sometimes we're ashamed of them and sometimes we are proud of them.  But they are there to give purpose to our actions.  And I'm fascinated with the purpose of things.

So if we mash-up the Actor/Artist from Webster we might come up with "a skilled doer who professes the imaginative art of representing a character in a dramatic production on stage or before a camera."  I like this but it's still missing something.

Purpose!

Now here again is where folks can come to words.  I myself have gone nine rounds with my great friend and artistic partner on the purpose of art and the Actor/Artist.  He, and he's not alone, would argue that art has no purpose or agenda than to communicate an experience that the audience will interpret for themselves.  He also believes that no one should set out to create with the goal to change someone and that change is only a byproduct of communication.  This is only the tip of the iceberg of an elaborate debate for me.  I believe that art should be used to instigate change.  I will present my point regarding this in a separate post but for now feel it's important to mention it here because it plays a large role in my definition for the Actor.

I, like my great friend, believe that art and the Actor's purpose IS to communicate.  However, I believe it is for the purpose to inspire change.  The Actor/Artist is an integral part in a creative collaboration.  The Actor/Artist "brings into creation" a character to service the story and the Writer and Director's vision.  There is a nobility to the Actor's purpose and in my mind it's that nobility that emboldens one to step into a role.

"The first essential to retain a youthful performance is to keep the idea of the play alive.  That is why the dramatist wrote it and that is why you decide to produce it.  One should not be on the stage, one should not put on a play for the sake of acting or producing only.  Yes, you must be excited about your profession.  You must love it devotedly and passionately, but not for itself, not for its laurels, not for the pleasure and delight it brings you as an artist.  You must love your chosen profession because it gives you the opportunity to communicate ideas that are important and necessary to your audience.  Because it gives you the opportunity, through the ideas that you dramatize on stage and through your characterizations, to educate your audience and make them better, finer, wiser, and more useful members of society...You must keep the idea alive and be inspired by it at each performance.  This is the only way to retain youthfulness in performance and your youthfulness as actors.  The true recreations of the play's idea--I emphasize the word true--demands from the artist wide and varied knowledge, constant self-discipline, the subordination of his personal tastes and habits to the demands of the idea, and sometimes even definite sacrifices." -Konstantin Stanislavsky, Stanislavsky Directs

I read this about a year ago and it inspired and solidified how I view the Actor.  Pursuing an artistic career is difficult enough these days and impossible without a driving belief at the core of your artistic identity.  In our modern age of American idolism and reality television the Actor is taking a back seat to the Entertainer.  I believe that, while the Actor can be an Entertainer, I do not think the Entertainer can be an Actor.  At least I have seen no evidence of it in our current situation.  The shortcut to fame has created a number of "actors" who "behave as if acting a part" but are really just playing dress up.  I believe it is time Actors are reminded of who they should be and what their noble purpose is--to humbly be in service of the story--to communicate--and to inspire change.

This is who an Actor is to me.