Thursday

CRAFT NOTES by ED HOOKS

Definition of Acting
Sanford Meisner, in his book "Meisner on Acting", defines acting as "behaving believably in pretend circumstances." That's pretty good, but I would go further. A better definition would be: "Acting is behaving believably in pretend circumstances -- for a theatrical purpose." (Brechtian theater excepted.)
Modern acting training is focusing too much, in my opinion, on emotional truth and honesty in the moment, and not nearly enough on the audience/actor relationship. We must not forget that, before movies and television, there was stage. And before stage, there was ancient Greece and the worship of Dionysus. When Thespis stepped out from that chorus, actors and audience were eyeball-to-eyeball, and everybody knew what they were doing in the amphitheater.
As we approach the turn of the century, the audience is disappearing behind television and computer screens and into darkened movie houses. Many new actors today have never even seen a play, let alone acted in one. For them, acting equates to behaving believably in front of a camera. Well, yes, but for what purpose? Where's the audience? What's the point? Is acting all about "me, me, me" and how I look in front of the camera? Or is it about "you, you, you" and what the audience perceives?
I vote for a combo-pack. Acting is about US, the human family, the things we have in common. Acting is an interpretative art, like music and sculpture, and actors are artists who speak of how we can live successfully in this world. As we edge toward the year 2000, actors should look back 2,000 years. Examine our beginnings. We are in the grand tradition of shamans, healers, spiritual leaders.