Act Acting » Acting School » actors and acting

actors and acting

Question:

here i am at 4.30 am gmt sitting at my console trying to get my mind around=  the idea of what it is we do as actors. i have been following a number of = comments posted during the last few days, to both sites and from what i can=  see some of you are serious about the profession and there are a number of=  postings which have nothing at all to do with either acting or theatre. no= w, maybe it is just the time of the day or the mood i’m in but i would like=  to make some obversations. over the centuries actors have always been trea= ted differently, as if we had some extra knowledge known only to us. shakes= peare had it down to a fine art and has not been bettered when he talks abo= ut this ‘art’; there is no need for me to quote the passage from hamlet act=  3: scene 2. hamlet’s advice to the players still holds true, and will alwa= ys hold true simply because it is true. it’s ‘no frills’ advice and ‘no fri= lls’ acting. we cannot ‘be’ anything other than what we are, but we can pre= tend to be someone else for the brief time we inhabit the character on stag= e. cinema does not have the same spontaneity as theatre. in cinema you can = keep doing it until you get it ‘right’ and if the editor and/or the directo= r still does not like it, then you are likely to end up on the cutting room=  floor. in the theatre you are there from start to finish and the character=  is built afresh each night. each night’s performance is not the last but t= he first time the audience will see the character that you have laboured to=  create in the play, and in using the word ‘play’ implied is the word ‘toge= ther’. actors and audience both make a journey, but it is not always the sa= me journey and like all journeys some will enjoy it and some will not. cine= ma , i fear is the cult of the personality, where theatrical talant is not = necessarilly an asset. cinema is the art of ‘doing it now’ and getting it r= ight first time or as quickly as possible before the light goes. you might = have six actors in a scene and a tired and patient crew of four hundred wai= ting for them to get it right. now, please do not misunderstand me, i am no= t denigrating cinema, i am simply saying that there is a difference between=  the two art forms which has to be recognised and appreciated individually.=  i believe also that there is no such thing as a bad actor, actors are indi= viduals and like all individuals we have our good and bad points. we may no= t like a particular actor’s style, we may not agree with an actors interpre= tation of a part and we are entitled to disagree if we so wish, but the act= or is entitled to fail to live up to our espectations, mind you, he may not=  work too often if he makes a habit of it. we all recognise talent when we = see itand if a person has talent it can be trained, but, if he does not hav= e talent, then a thousand years of training will not put it there. frank coughlan

Response:

my apologies for the longest telegram in history. i attached it as a file and well… you can see the results. for those of you who might have read it here is what it said. here i am at 4.30 am gmt sittint at my console trying to get my mind around what it is we do as actors. i have been following a number of comments posted during the last few days, to both sites and from what i can see some of you are serious about the profession and there are a number of postings which have nothing at all to do with either acting or theatre. now, maybe it is just the time of day or the mood i’m in but i would like to make some observations. over the centuries actors have always been treated differently, as if we had some extra knowledge known only to us. shakespeare had it down to a fine art and has not been bettered when he talks about this ‘art’; there is no need for me to quote the passage from hamlet act 3. scene 2. hamlet’s advice to the players still holds true, and will always hold true, simply because it it is true. it’s ‘no frills’ advice and ‘no frills’ acting. we cannot ‘be’ anything other than what we are, but we can pretend to be someone else for the brief time we inhabit the character on stage. cinema does not have the same spontaneity as theatre. in cinema you can keep doing it until you get it ‘right’ and if the editor and/or the director still does not like it then you can end up on the cutting room floor. in the theatre you are there from start to finish and the character is built afresh each night. each night’s performance is not the last, but, the first time that the audience will see the character you have laboured to create in the play, and in using the word ‘play’ implied is the word ‘together’. actors and audience both make a journey, but it is not always the same journey, and like all journeys, some will enjoy it and some will not. cinema, i fear is the cult of the personality, where theatricaltalant is not necessarilly an asset. cinema is the art of ‘doing it now’ and getting it right as quickly as possible before the light gors. you might have six actors in a scene, and a tired and patient crew waiting for them to get it right. now please do not misunderstand me, i am not denigrating cinema, i am simply saying that there is a difference between the two art forms which has to appreciated individually. i believe also, that there is no such thing as a ‘bad’ actor. actors are individuals and like all individuals we have our good and bad points. we may not like a particular actor’s style, we may not agree with his interpretation of a part, and we are entitled to disagree if we so wish, but the actor is entitled to fail to live up to our expectations, mind you he may not work too often if he makes a habit of it. we all recognise talant when we see it, and if a person has talant, it can be trained, but, if he does not not have talant then a thousand years of training will not put it there. frank coughlan

Response:

my apologies for the longest telegram in history….

OK – Frank, Jeremy, Jay and a few of the others who are taking part in this protracted discussion – a small request: Could you *please* consider hitting "return" once in a while? I don’t do spelling flames, and I don’t do grammar flames – for that matter, I don’t do flames at all. But long posts can be extremely difficult to read when they’re composed as a single paragraph. When you’re trying so passionately to communicate your thoughts and opinions, it doesn’t hurt to make things a little bit easier on those who are trying to read what you have to say. Pat Kight

Response:

Pat, I’m sorry, I thought the auto wrap would put that return in there. I will be very careful in the future to hi return at the end of every sentence. And I’m glad you don’t do spelling flames. Jeremy  http://www.Jeremy-Whelan-Acting.com     Home page of New School Acting       The beauty of creativity as a weapon is that those who oppose it, those who wish to control it, don’t have the imagination to see it coming until it slaps them in the head.                                                             JW                                                                                                        

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply