Expert: Peter Messaline - 2/23/2011

Question
Hi Peter

Just want to double check a few things:

1. Is acting about the thoughts of the character? Please explain further, a little confused with this because I thought it was about emotions also.

2. So an acting teacher just said to me (and it makes sense) that "the words don't matter, that is the writers job. Your job as an actor is to show the thoughts, emotions and behaviour."

Is this true? Could you please explain further.

She gave us the example of doing a cold read. The line: "I am glad to meet with you today." She said it in the emotion of happiness, but then said what happens if the director says that you are running away from something and you said that line, do it! She was trying to prove that the actor needs to be able to take directions (so emotionally, by behaviour and thoughts), etc.

3. Seeing that this teacher was saying that what happens about the methods like Stella Adler, Lee Strasberg, and Sanford Meisner, do they believe in the thoughts instead of listening, etc. I am very confused about this.

Just for your information, I would talk to this teacher about it but the thing is I only saw her once as a guest.

Thank you very much!

Answer
I shall try to give you the answer you want, rather than dealing with your questions bit by bit.
If I'm off, do follow up - with little questions I can look at in detail.

Acting is the subject of the opinions of most actors, many teachers and some people qualified to speak. I'm just Joe Schmoe actor, but you can add my opinions to the mix when you are assembling your own personal view. Beware that your opinions will change as you change.

Of course the words matter. That's all you've got as an actor, unless you are improvising. The character says something, you understand it in the reality of the scene, and your performance helps the audience to understand it fully.

Your job as an actor, I believe, is to know and believe in the world of your character. Normally, doing that is somewhat under the control of the director and his or her approach to the production you are involved in. Ideally, you, the director, the other actors, and the playwright produce a combined effort everyone can live with. If you are playing a large part, you get more influence -- if you are Third Servant, you'll live in the world others have created.

The various Method-family schools (which I call the inside-out actors), take a scene's situation and internalise it, so that, they believe, as an actor they can react truly to the situation. Stanislavsky started this as a reaction to the artificial style of 19th century Russian theatre, and it was developed in the 'lean close and mumble' school of early Brando films. The weakness is that the play and the audience become less important to the actor than the inner life of the character. This is unfortunate when the audience has paid money to see and hear the outer life.

Apart from some extremists, most actors will agree that their approach to any part is a mixture of methods. Even the complete 'outside-in' actor, who consciously constructs what his character should do and what will work on the audience, will base his construct on a feeling of what is right. Even he will be surprised by something the character does in rehearsal, reacting directly in the world of the scene. Most Method-and-Miesner actors will add their technical skills to their artistic truth to provide a performance that stays steady night after night, can be heard in the back of the theatre, and fits with the looniest director's ideas.

No-one said it was straightforward. That's what keeps it interesting, play after play after film after commercial after radio ad after ...