Dualism and the Actor Part 1

dualism : the state of being dual or consisting of two parts; division into two.

 It's possible that discussing dualism and acting could be a controversial subject.  We all want to simplify acting.  It has even been difficult for me to wrap my brain around the concept at times because my own study of the actor's experience seems to conflict with the idea of two identities existing within one individual.  But the more I thought about it--the more it made sense.  And perhaps "identity" has too much baggage attached to it--or is a confusing way to define the dualism of the actor.  I've also read it as two "perspectives" or two "consciousnesses."  Stanislavsky even explored this idea with the introduction of the conscious and subconsciousness of the actor.  Whatever you want to call it, I believe without a doubt our technique requires a divided focus to fulfill the artistry asked of us.

Before I ever started my "journey" back to the source I was fascinated with the idea of the actor as ART and ARTIST.  We are both creator and creation.  We are the medium for our own invention.  Which is actually a very unique position for an artist.  With the exception of performances captured on film, there is no tangible product produced that will carry on after an actor's death.  The actor's creation exists from performance to performance and lives on in the memory of the audience who was there to benefit from the experience.  And as such, our art is new with each character that we bring to life out of the depths of our imagination and our own physical and emotional pallet. 

So why even discuss this concept of dualism?  If we are in search of truth and our characters are born out of our own physical and emotional life then what's the point?  We become our characters--we are one.  Well I believe it all comes back to technique.  Mastering your technique gives you a greater sense of creative control across a broad range of genres, styles, and trends in acting.  If we desire truth in our acting we cannot sacrifice the main purpose of our performance--to communicate with the audience--for the sake of that truth, correct?  Not to mention again that what takes place in our acting ISN'T "true" but a semblance of truth.  Therefore our creation must always be within our control.  But doesn't "control" stifle inspiration?  Well returning to the source took me further back than expected and I found this gem:

"You may have your sublime moments, but they must come when the man of genius is hovering between nature and his sketch of it, and keeping a watchful eye on both." -Diderot, The Paradox of Acting

I just love the image of the actor "hovering between nature and his sketch of it."  As actors, I believe we become frustrated with the technical demands that performance asks of us.  We see them as a distraction from experiencing truthfully within our characters--but it is unavoidable.  With a strong technique AND an understanding of the concept of dualism an actor can have a solid creative structure and mastery of his/her art.

From the very beginning of my experiences as an actor I was taught to accept the image of the actor's physical self to that of a precious instrument.  We are encouraged to continually train our voices, our breath, and our movement--and rightly so!  Without these we have NOTHING to create WITH.  And right there the actor's focus starts to separate.  This is where you start to develop the identity of your "Actor/Self."


For a time I thought of the actor with three identities:

1) THE ARTIST   2) THE TOOLS   3) THE CREATION

But since the tools make up so much of whom the artist IS, it made less sense to separate the two.  In addition to the physical tools (breath, voice, speech, movement, and stage craft) your "Actor/Self" is made up of your internal tools such as imagination, senses, observations, and understanding of emotions and relationships.  The development of the "Actor/Self" is the foundation and technician behind the artistic creator.  Every artist, whether a painter, poet, musician, or dancer must learn the technical skills to execute their artistry.  The difference is for say that of a painter, who learns all the techniques for drawing, how to mix paint, and which brush strokes to chose for their creation--is that their painting will stand alone.  Since the actor is always part of his/her creation they must be able to distinguish themselves FROM their creation.  The "Actor/Self" does just that. 


SIDEBAR: I should mention at this time, in addition to being an actor, my other passion is visual arts.  I grew up drawing and sketching everything.  I moved onto oil paints and I've tried my hand at sculpting and ceramics.  For a time I even made my living as a scenic artist in Chicago.  One might also be able to make an argument that my love for painting portraits has a connection with my love for acting, but we can save that for the couch on another day.  As a painter, your tools are very important to your creation.  To name a few, the type of brushes, knives, or paint you prefer has a major influence on the execution of your art.  Your favorite brush creates your favorite stroke and so on.  These tools are the implements for your vision--and like all creation, that vision starts within.  But for a painter your tools are not part of yourself.  While you always care for and improve your collection--at the end of the day it's still just a paint kit.


When I started to really wrestle with dualism it stirred up memories from my career and training.  I recalled growing up hearing stories, or maybe just urban legends, about great actors who were so focused within their role that they blacked out on stage.  They didn't faint or become physically debilitated but rather had laps of consciousness and couldn't remember what happened to them while on stage.  They were lost in the character.  I would read articles about actors talking of BECOMING the character to the point they LIVED the role for the length of the project--never breaking.  Often I found myself in discussions--and even arguments--about what was considered schizophrenic behavior or dedicated character research.  I mean, I had NEVER blacked out in performance before--did that mean I wasn't dedicated enough?  Had I not successfully become the character?  As a matter of fact, from all my experience, I could never remember a time when I was ABLE TO forget who I was and what I was doing--so did that mean I wasn't focused enough?  Or worse, my acting was bad!?

SIDEBAR: I wonder, in training actors, have we focused our energy and vocabulary on phrases like "living the role" and "being the character" to the point we are blurring the lines of reality?  Don't get me wrong, I am a true advocate--as I've mentioned before--in the transformation of the actor into the character.  When rehearsing a role, I believe it's important for the actor to refer to him/herself as the character using the first person.  But how often are young actors reminded of where they end and the character begins?  And the time when the training is solid--are actors just being too lazy and moving away from their technique in favor of "inspiration?


I wanted answers to my questions and all my reading and research showed me this was not a new dilemma.  And, honestly it was only after returning to Stanislavsky's writings that I actually LEARNED about the concepts of the "Actor/Self" and the "Actor/Self on Stage" (also referred to as the Actor/Creator and the Actor/Character).  Now I had MORE questions!  Why hadn't I studied this?  I reflected on my own experience and I began to wonder if these concepts  have been left out of actor training in America all together.  Or if they haven't been completely brushed under the carpet then are they even being talked about or addressed indirectly?  Do we think so little of actor's intelligence that this is too complex a concept?  Will it only confuse them?  Is it even necessary?  Has actor training pared itself down to a minimalist approach where the actor is only concerned with their ability to react truthfully as "themselves" onstage?  Is that good enough?  Honestly, I really don't have an answer but I believe that our modern, or rather American, aesthetics have focused development more predominantly on the Actor/Self--which has atrophied the actor's abilities to become a more dynamic performer.  If you take for example Meisner--which has become the cornerstone for many actor training programs--his repetition exercises are great for developing the Actor/Self's sense of attention and honesty--reacting truthfully.  They are perfect examples for "living in the moment" but too often, I believe in production, this philosophy creates roadblocks.  Without a doubt actors are living truthfully within imaginary circumstances but are they so busy trying to fulfill a truthful moment for their Actor/Self that they are neglecting the needs and responsibilities of their Actor/Character?  Or more importantly, are actors having a difficult time translating their naturalistic technique to facilitate truthful performances in more stylized forms?

In the Reader's Digest version, when you look at Stanislavsky's take on the subject, his ideal situation is a fusion of the Actor/Self and Actor/Character.  He uses the phrase "I am" to define the state where the actor is completely submerged within the imaginary life and circumstances of the character.  It's a place where inspiration and the subconscious take over.  Once in this state the actor's greatest obstacle is a disruption of the "oneness" with the character.  This disruption is called "dislocation."  The obvious reasons for this are when the actor is distracted by their own personal thoughts associated with their OFF stage life.  And fusion cannot take place if the actor is conscious that he/she is performing.  So if you just skim the surface of Stanislavsky's system then it sounds like he advocates a loss of the Actor/Self to the Actor/Character through the use of emotional memory to evoke true experiencing.  Clearly not an advocate of dualism.  This is where the Actor's Studio, The Method, and most of the American tradition came off the rails.  BUT, what I've found interesting is that Stanislavsky considers the actor's ability to build multiple layers of attention (i.e. technique, lines, cues, blocking, etc.) to be part of the I am experience and not considered dislocation.  So how can an actor be thinking about their cues, staging, etc.--be "living" out the life of the character with constant emotional experiencing and NOT be conscious that they are performing?  I don't think that is possible.  This leads me to believe that an actor's technical perspective has to be considered separate and functional at the same time with the active imaginative life of the character.  In essence, the two exist side by side. 

Meyerhold actually devised a formula for the very subject: 

N = A1 + A2

N = the actor; A1 = the artistic creator and visualize-er; A2 = the one who executes the creation or the instrument of creation. Ironically enough, I find this formula more accurate for describing our modern American training-- and too often the actor is in service of the actor (N) with no unique creation for the character.  As I am a very visual person, I can appreciate the formula but to me this is reducing the actor to a functional participant or element of the director's creation.  Not the actor's creation. 

In Declan Donnellan's book The Actor and the Target he has a great way of addressing this:

"Irina needs to play as if from the inside of Juliet looking out.  Irina does not want to play Juliet as if from the outside looking in.  In a way, working out 'what Juliet wants' is the job for someone who knows Juliet or is writing about her.  But this is not how Juliet experiences things.  From inside Juliet, the world looks very different.  And Irina is playing as if through Juliet's eyes.  Irina is an artist.  Irina is not delivering a lecture on Juliet.  Irina needs to experience what Juliet experiences.  Irina needs to see what Juliet sees in the moment--and not with the benefit of hindsight."

The actress Irina is an artist looking at the world through the eyes of her character.  She still has all the faculties of the artist but is "creating" within the perspective of her creation.

And one more example from Henry Irving's preface to The Paradox of Acting:

"But it is quite possible to feel all the excitement of the situation and yet be perfectly self-possessed.  This is the art which the actor who loses his head has not mastered.  It is necessary to his art that the mind should have, as it were, a double consciousness, in which all the emotions proper to the occasion may have full sway, while the actor is all the time on the alert for every detail of his method."

We cannot sacrifice the actor's technique to an unreliable sense of experiencing.  After wrestling with these thoughts for years I've come to the conclusion that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a sane actor to ever forget they are an actor playing a role.  Furthermore, I think it is ESSENTIAL for an actor to NEVER to forget they are an actor playing a role.  I am in no way condoning a lack of focus or commitment to your craft, but I believe that the requirements acting demands for multiple layers of attention and multi-tasking makes it impossible to suggest full submersion into a role or a task.  In more theatrical performances actors are asked to carry out less psychologically driven actions.  I believe that dualism for the actor gives them the edge to fulfill those tasks in a dynamic and truthful fashion. 

When I was in graduate school I experienced something amazing and downright puzzling.  It has only happened in performance twice in my career to date.  The first time was while in class performing Hamlet in the "get thee to a nunnery" scene and the second time was playing Gus in a production of The Dumb Waiter. The only way that I can explain the experience is that as a character my actions and emotional life were completely intertwined with my scene partners and the fulfillment of the given circumstances but at the same time the actor in me felt the grasp my actions and the play had on the audience.  I was aware of myself in performance.  I was aware of and in communication with the audience.  I was aware of my fellow actors and scene partner.  I could feel the actor in them.  I was also aware of my character and their action, tasks and objectives.  I was aware of the character's awareness of the other characters within their world.  And this was all taking place within an emotionally and truthful existence.

I know it can be argued that this is just my capacity and ability for multiple layers of attention but I believe what was happening was a seamless collaboration of my Actor/Self and my Actor/Character.  The two creative consciousnesses working hand in hand to produce a truthful experience.  A living art.