The Acting Blog

Is Acting Thinking, Feeling, Believing, or Doing?

Is acting thinking? Is it feeling? Is it believing or is it doing? I suppose it could be all of these things, although each acting style or method seems to place a unique perspective on their emphasis and importance.

To my own mind acting cannot be any of these things in isolation. However how much of these things do we actually actively have any control over?

We cannot bend our real feelings and emotions to our will. Our thoughts occur as a bio-physiological response to things that happen to us. Belief has boundaries, we cannot choose what we believe, we can attempt to suspend our disbelief but whenever we try to force our belief, it responds like a petulant teenager.

That leaves Doing. I don’t say behaviour because I think that’s too complex, I actually prefer Action. When acting is about action, when we focus on the undeniably interlinked psychophysical action, then no belief is required. Thoughts and feelings follow on from committed action.

But what does this actually mean?

Replace focus on person to person doing, emotion is a red herring. Thoughts are suspect, they lead away from action. No believing in the imaginary.

Action is physical, mental, emotional, imaginative and spiritual – if you get out of your own way, stop trying so hard and let it.

A character is a sum of their characteristics, what they do is who they are. As you perform the characters actions, your thought and feelings stand in for those of the character.

Many will disagree, but my position as an acting coach is to offer my students acting training and solutions that are within their control and power.
————————————————–
Lastly, on a completely different note. the sublime Cecile Monteyne has a small speaking role in the latest Final Destination movie, it’s probably the best acting in the entire movie, go Cecile.

Tags: What is Acting?

Acting is the Art of Translation from Page to Stage

I had originally sat down to write tomorrow’s blog, when I was struck by remembering a conversation I’d had with my friend, I wanted to explore the ideas and I wish to share with you the thoughts that I had upon being reminded of our discussion.

I was recently chatting with Philip about theatre translation, translating plays from one language to another and the problems encountered by the playwright/translator in this process. It occurred to me that the acting process is an act of translation, from the writer’s cerebral, verbal and literary process to the physical artifact of the script, then translated once again from the physical literary form to the plastic, physical actions of the actor. If the actor is unlucky, a third party – called the director – will augment/confuse the act of translation by grafting an additional cerebral layer into the process. This process takes ideas from the living writer and transfers them to the cold, dead page to be subsequently transformed (at another time and in another place) into being by the psychophysical actions of the actor.

The actor’s job then, is to seek through the script to find clues to the original life that the writer gave the piece, and to translate them in things that can be done by a person. The actor, acts upon clues from the script, turning ideas into behaviour, words into doing. At no stage is the actor required to augment the translation with their own creative opinion, only in the choice of how they bring the text to life, only through the choice of their actions and physical tactics can the actor realise this process.

The trouble is that the intermediary called the director, a necessary evil in the theatre, and I should know, because I am one, is not NECESSARY for the act of transformation, but is required to serve as the ‘creative editor’ for the process, perhaps selecting and framing the translation as it occurs throughout the rehearsal process. The director is a go-between serving both the actor and the writer, and if they are auteur-type, adding their own interpretation into the mix.

The art of the actor is the translation from page to stage, how the actor does it, that’s the trick, that’s the magic, that’s where we all disagree. Those that teach acting claim (often not directly, I’ll admit, but through their actions) that they can instruct the actor in how best to make the translation, the transformation.

To You, The Best!

Mark Westbrook is a Professional Acting Coach and runs Acting Coach Scotland, a private acting studio offering acting classes in Glasgow, masterclasses, workshops and audition coaching for actors at all levels. His acting studio is based in Glasgow, Scotland, although he teaches all across the United Kingdom. All Blog Posts © Mark Westbrook 2009

Tweet me

Tags: acting is translating, from page to stage, from the page to the stage, is the director necessary?, What is Acting?