"Lloyd W. Hanson" wrote:
> The only route for an actor is to learn his/her craft, devote his
> best intent to the execution of that craft and let come what comes.
> When I see a performance that does not move me I try to decide what
> in it was lacking. But I also try to never decide if the actor was
> committed or if he had any skill. That is the actor's business.
> Mine, as audience, is to analyze what moved me or what didn't. That,
> then, becomes a comment on me, not on the actor. And I think that is
> one of most important qualities of theatre.
I think Lloyd has articulated (mostly) what I've been thinking reading this
thread.
However, I can't fault anyone for attempting to articulate the factors as
"committment" vs
"skill" or "technique". We humans like to think we can come up with a reason
for any
phenomenon. "Commitment vs skill" is only one attempt to explain how one
performer can
get in front of an audience, read (or sing) the phone book and the audience
swoons. Yet
another, with an equally attractive voice/person, can perfectly make every
gesture,
achieve every technical item anybody can teach, and the audience (not just me)
yawns and
looks at their collective watches.
For example, in the movies, there are a some actors who many find always
compelling to
watch, even when they're in bad movies, and can make a bad movie watchable. (My
three
candidates for this category at the moment are Kevin Spacey, Russell Crowe, and
Marilyn
Monroe.) And other actors who are incredibly good looking, personable (and
successful),
but who only seem to succeed when the role/movie is just so (no examples cited
for obvious
reasons!). We might say one is a "better actor" than the other - but I don't
think anyone
can say exactly why that is.
I think "commitment" is as good a word as any (and better than the too-vague
"charisma", I
think) to characterize that particular quality in a performer. I'll continue to
use the
"skill-only" concept to describe the phenomenom of the perfect performance that
leaves me
as an audience member cold. That concept has nothing to do what the performer
actually
experiences inside - because, as Lloyd so ably articulated, only the performers
know what
goes on inside their heads and it's often not the same as what the audience
member
experiences. And many performers can't explain themselves what's happening;
they "just do
it" (using all the skill and technique they've acquired, along with the essence
of their
being).
Peggy
--
Margaret Harrison, Alexandria, Virginia, USA
"Music for a While Shall All Your Cares Beguile"
mailto:peggyh@i...
|
|  |
