-
What Actors Do
- University of Michigan Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
11 What Actors Do “Acting is the process whereby people imaginatively become somebody else.” This seems like a plausible characterization of acting. Regrettably, it is unsatisfactory. To begin with, it misses the embodied nature of imaginative transformation in acting— which differentiates acting from activities such as daydreaming, writing up a literary character, or whimsical role- playing. Secondly, such a definition runs together delusion and acting. As an oft- cited example shows, even at their utmost commitment to the role, actors preserve awareness of their actual surroundings and context: A famous tragic actor, Aesopus, was playing the scene of Orestes’ madness . He had his sword in his hand. At that moment a slave in the theatre’s employ crossed the stage and unfortunately stood in his way. Aesopus did not hesitate for a moment to kill him. Here was a man apparently so steeped in his role that he felt it to the point of madness. But why did he never kill one of the other actors playing with him? Because a slave’s life meant nothing , whereas he was obliged to respect the life of a citizen. His rage was not then quite so true since it allowed reason to choose. But as a clever actor, he took the opportunity chance offered him.1 The actor’s control over his imaginative transformation is the point highlighted by this anecdote: attacking a slave rather than a member of the audience gives the lie to the actor’s “rage.” Behind the sound and fury, there peeks a respect for social norms, a shrewd awareness of what will be tolerated, and what would not. Such (rather extreme) legal and moral checks on the actor’s imaginative transformation bring out a range of milder manifestations of the actor’s control: one’s awareness of lighting, or of avoiding “back- staging” a partner, are routine indications of such aesthetically- oriented self- monitoring. Far more subtle variations of self- control are brought out by the following glimpse into acting’s experience: 12 acts That went well, that was good. Now, bring it up a bit. Now bring it down. No, that’s boring. Now, do this. It will look good if you went like that. Now stay like that. Now turn like that.” All actors have that. I think. Because that’s how you act— somebody inside is directing you.2 The self- directing Michael Gambon describes involves the operations of a creative and highly selective consciousness. Choices are organized as part of an aesthetic offering. The term aesthetic refers to attempted effects that result from particular prized powers or merits (capabilities, sensitivities, choices, insights) of the actor as creator. Some of these powers are rather basic, discernible by anyone in the audience (such as the actor’s capacity to “move the audience,” to elicit tears or laughter). More evasive merits would be accessible only to knowledgeable spectators (for instance, the actor’s original characterization of a well- known dramatic character, or his manifestation of a mood through an unobvious feature, or the performance’s moderation in a manner that respects the emotional range required by the part). Some highly subtle creative merits are likely to be noted only by fellow professionals (achieving depth of characterization rather than courting a more immediate effect, serving the play rather than the part, discovering rather than indicating, employing a versatile vocal range, giving focus, comic timing and the like). An “aesthetic offering” refers, then, to establishing multiple relationships between desired responses (such as provoking the audience’s laughter ) and an achievement by the actress relating to her powers as creator (such as the exact timing of her fall). Superficial audiences would not consciously respond to such relationships, but merely undergo the established effects that these bring about. They would simply laugh. Their failure to note the art responsible for their laughter does not undermine the status of the act as an offering: for an actor to “be guided” by aesthetic control, means to constantly aim to establish such relationships on multiple levels, even if they are not acknowledged. A gratifying audience is, accordingly, not merely entertained by staged effects; it is aware of at least some connections between what it is moved by, and how such effects depend on particular constituents of the creative act. This understanding of aesthetic control suggests the following definition of acting: Acting is an aesthetically- controlled embodied imaginative transformation.3 [3.83.81.42] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 17:47 GMT) What Actors...