|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Articles
|
||
|
Articles |
I've Got a Theory About That...Dateline: 25th July, 2004I hate theories! Perhaps that's a bit sweeping, but I really do hate theories about acting. It all started, of course, with Stanislavsky, but it was The Method (should that be all in caps?) that really lauched theory mania on the theatre world, and we've not wanted for more and newer theories about acting ever since. Recently I have read numerous books in which the authors (rarely actors, for some reason) expound on the right method of acting: how an actor should prepare for the part, what approaches (s)he should take, what acting actually is. This invariably leads on to how an actor should be trained. The trouble is, so many of them are mutually exclusive, which would seem to suggest that if an actor subscribes to theory A (s)he is a real actor, but if (s)he subscribes to theory B (or C, or D, and so ad infinitum), then clearly (s)he isn't an actor at all (or possibly is just a bad actor) (or not) (or something). I know this is a family site, but I am sure you will forgive me if I say that this is a load of bollocks. We are all probably aware of the (probably apocryphal) story about a conversation between Olivier and Hoffman during the making of the film Marathon Man. Hoffman was supposed to apepar in one scene absolutely exhausted, so he prepared for the scene by running until he was actually exhausted. Olivier made some comment about this and Hoffman asked how else he could do the scene convincingly, to which Oliver replied, "Try acting, dear boy." As I say, it's probably apocryphal but it makes a good point. An actor is a pretender, pretending to be a particular person in a particular situation or succession of situations, and his/her job is to make the pretence more or less real (acording to the style of the play and the performance), whilst still allowing the audience to see and hear with absolute clarity. In other words, (s)he doesn't need theories: (s)he needs skills. Voice, movement, dance, singing, stage fights, all of these are skills the actor needs. The ability to interpret text and bring that interpretation to life is another such, but you get that by doing, not by theorising. It was a bad day for theatre in the UK when it became next to impossible to get grants for drama school (things are better - a bit! - now) for then many schools decided to offer degree courses, for which grants were available, and these courses have to be accredited by a university and universities are academic institutions. Nothing wrong with that, you may think, but the academic approach to drama is very different to the practical approach needed by actors. I have been working recently with a young actor who has an hoours degree in drama but she has only the most rudimentary training in stagecraft. She is now having to learn what her contemporaries at drama school did as a matter of course. And the reason why she is in that situation is that she (and her parents) could not afford for her to go to drama school. She - and theatre - has been short-changed by the system, the same system which now elevates theory into something of greater importance than it actually is. OK, rant over. Articles Indices:
|
|
|
|