What Function Does Emotion Have in an Actor's Performance - Essay Example

Running Head: In Diderot’s Paradox of Acting Student’s Name: Instructor: Course Code and Name: Institution: Date Submitted: In Diderot’s Paradox of acting, he argued that the actor needed to be emotionally uninvolved with the performance in order to evoke an emotional response in the audience. What function does emotion have in an actor’s performance? Introduction This essay tries to establish the place of emotions in acting by reviewing available theories in regards to using or depicting emotions on stage. Acting and the expression of emotions go hand in hand and the question is how the actor stands in between these two. First, the essay reviews Denis Diderot assertions, contextualize this in view of later theorists (such as Stanislavski) stretching across realism, formalism, inspiration, imitation, interiority to externality. This enables the essay to draw an argumentative conclusion on the place and role of emotions in acting. Denis Diderot, born in October, 1713 was one of the greatest French philosophers of the 18th century. By the time of his death in July 31, 1784, he had established ranging thoughts on art and written a great deal on many variant areas of knowledge. For this reason, he was a very prominent figure among the ‘enlighten’ scholars. Today, he is most remembered for his role as chief editor and regular contributor to the Encyclopedie. Considered as a French dramatists and philosopher, Denis Diderot major contribution to dram was his conception of acting without submerging to the emotions of the part. He came up with the acting paradox theory, which purports that the actor has to wrestle between his or her emotions while on stage and only depict those emotions of the act without any subjectivity (Meyer-Dinkgräfe, 2001). Diderot argued that the best way to invoke an emotional response from the audience is for the actor to be emotionally uninvolving with act, to remain neutral and in control of the performance such that, he or she can use other strategies to invoke the desired emotions rather than feeling the emotions personally. The Actor’s Paradox The place and role of an actor’s emotions during the act has been a very controversial subject. There is a distinction two schools of thought, the experiencing and representing views. One school supports the idea that actors should experience the emotions of the role he or she is acting so as to express the necessary emotions better (Meyer-Dinkgräfe, 2001). The other school of thought supports the view that the actor should only represent the part/role of the character without having to feel or experience the emotions himself or herself. These two sides to the argument help illustrate the paradox in which an actor finds himself or herself in the moment he or she is on stage. The actor must establish a relationship with the character and the paradox is in whether simply to represent that character or to experience the emotions of the character and depict them personally. During a performance, the actor may experience or fail to experience a distinction between his or her emotions with those of the character (Diderot, 1773-78). Diderot expressed a conviction that during a performance, the actors must retain his or her distinct self independent of the role. According to Diderot, being able to refrain being subject of a role’s emotions helped an actor to act those emotions (represent) to the audience in the particular way he or she determines most effective. Experiencing a distinction between the self and the role as far as emotions are concerned whilst on-stage is what Diderot described as the psychological duality of the actor's 'paradox' (Diderot, 1773-78). Contradicting Theories Constantin Sergeyevich Stanislavsky was born in Moscow in 1863. His contributions to the process of acting are perhaps the single greatest contribution anyone made in the 20th Century. As a renown actor and director, Stanislavsky always emphasised that the theatre only acquired meaning if it moved beyond a mere external representation acting had always been (Tait, 2002). In his time in theatre, Stanislavsky created a dynamic approach to the emotional and psychological aspects of theatrical acting. The system later to be known as the Stanislavsky method/system placed the expression of a role’s emotions as the actor’s main responsibility. An actor has to be believed and felt rather than understood or recognized. Standing in opposition to Diderot’s assertion that acting was an art of representation where the actor had to simulate rather than experience the emotions of a role, Stanislavsky postulated a method acting in which acting became the art of experiencing/presentation the role realistically (Counsell, 1996). The representation role as postulated by Diderot is thus in complete contrast with the experience role as postulated by Stanislavsky. Diderot asserts that an actor does not live a role rather he or she plays it. As such, the actor must remain cold towards the emotions depicted by the role. What the actor has to do is to act out the emotions with perfection such that the audience sees him or her experiencing while all the actors is doing is representing passively (Bruder, 1986). Therefore, instead of experience the content of his or her act, the actor just accurately represents the content with an artistic finish. According to Stanislavski however, during the performance, an actor must necessarily live the role every minute when he or she is playing it and every other time after that. Acting thus becomes a series of living and reliving a role with each act recreating the experience anew, living the emotions afresh and reincarnating the emotions always during the moments on stage. Stanislavsky’s approach has a high degree of improvisation in which actors retain the ability to perform the emotions they are experiencing alike to the character of their role (Tait, 2002). Interiority versus Externality The Diderot school of thought where the actor must remain cold towards the emotions depicted by the role is in support of the concept of externality. Emotions are not felt but represented. What the actor produces on stage is in total contrast of whether he or she feels, it is just an exterior depiction of emotions as required by the role (Carnicke, 1998). Externality theorists and actors have always stressed on the separation of the self and the character as the only way an actor can expertly depict precise emotions whilst on stage. On the other hand, Stanislavsky’s school of thought urging that the actor must necessarily experience/present the role lies in the interiority realms. In this school of thought the emotions an actor depicts on stage are better expressed if they come from within, as ‘experiences’ or ‘presentation’ rather than ‘acts’. Subscribers to this theory usually advice actors to submerge themselves to the characters, to feel what the character feels, to see things from the character’s point of view, to live the life of the character and show what the character shows. The border between the self and the character is merged into the third being that audience sees on stage, a being of emotions Stanislavsky called aristol-rol (Carnicke, 2000). Inspiration versus Imitation These two schools of thought, representation and presentation/experiencing, can also be contextualized as many theorists have done in the concepts of inspiration and imitation. Representation theorists purport that acting must strictly be an imitation of character where the role’s emotions are simply imitated on stage without the actor having to feel the same emotions. Diderot proposed that when an actor steps on stage, his responsibility is to imitate his or her character the best way he or she can, an art that differentiates between a good and a bad actor (Hirsch, 2002). Representation is an imitation of a role where the displayed emotions are acted and not felt since the actor remains independent of the role. On the contrary, theorists like Stanislavsky argue that acting is best when the emotions depicted on stage are consequent to inspiration. The actor experiences the emotions personally and from the character’s perspective is inspired to display the same emotions. That is why the actor needs to orient himself or herself with the character until the role inspires him or her to depict the relevant emotions during the performance (Hodge, 2002). Realism versus Formalism Diderot and his school of thought prescribes to the classical formalism approach to acting, where the actor only displays his act formally and out of conventional skills and strategies at eth disposal of actors. In formalism, acting becomes a formal procedure where the self is kept at bay in the performance of a role (Zarrilli, 1995). Stanislavsky school of thought prescribes to the realism school of thought where the product of an actor’s performance is a realistic representation of the role. To this school of thought, an actor best expresses what is realistically felt, what is identified with and what the self has accustomed to, or rather adapted to prior to the performance (Zarrilli, 1995). In this regard, Stanislavsky conceives acting as a reality presentation where what the actor shows on stage is a presentation of a reality he or she is living through. The Role of Emotion in Acting and Conclusion Samuel Goldwyn once stated clearly that the single most important element in acting is and has always been honesty. But he says, honesty to be an actor shouldn’t be learnt but the actor must learn how to fake it. This a typical view expressed by Diderot company of classical formalism theorists. They advocate for a complete divorce of emotions in performance where the actor takes up the emotions projected by a role only when on stage as part of the performance and because he feels the same emotions. Over the years, some of the greatest dramatists and actors in history have proved that the ability to depict emotions is the single most important thing in acting. Without emotions, an actor cannot act. Emotions and the expression of emotions is the foundation of superb acting. In most cases, genuinely felt emotions are easier to decode, to express and more sincere that those that are imitated. The audience can read sadness, madness, love, happiness, jealousy, anger, surprise, joy etc when it is presented / experienced by the actor more than when the actor simply acts the emotions passively. What comes from within, what is intrinsic, is always more convincing than what is simply imitated on stage (Hodge, 2002). In this regard therefore, method acting as proposed by Stanislavsky is much more realistic and effective in acting than what Diderot proposed. The method involves techniques with which actors create in themselves such emotions and thoughts as their characters so as to develop realistic lifelike performances. Lee Strasberg also advocated for this approach where actors perform drawing from the emotions they have intrinsically conceived as part of the role. In this approach usually involves actors immersing themselves completely into the context of their characters such that some continue portraying the same emotions offstage for the entire duration of a production. This is the approach that energized the American theatre in the 20th century better that the classical approach had done. Acting cannot solely be perfected with learning a set of acting external talents (representing/imitation). The place of emotions for actors remains intrinsic. When internalized, emotions help trigger sensory, psychological and emotional empathy for the character (Zarrilli, 1995). Numerous theorists took over from Stanislavski and taught and or practiced the experience approach to acting. Method acting practitioners have also had a high degree of success. The most successful of these and perhaps the greatest actors of all time include Michael Chekhov (nephew to legendary dramatist Anton Chekhov), Vantankov (a protégé and student of Stanislavski), Uta Hagen (author of acting staple Respect for Acting) and Lee Strasberg. The approach has been adopted at The Actor's Studio, Group Theater and other major acting schools of the world. Remarkably, these schools teaching the expression of emotions from the self have produced the greatest actors ever in the 20th Century. References Bruder, Melissa et al. (1986) A Practical handbook for the actor. New York: Vintage Books. Carnicke, S.M. (1998) Stanislavsky in focus. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. Carnicke, S.M. “Stanislavsky’s System: Pathways for the Actor” in Twentieth century actor training (2000). In Hodge A., (Ed.). London; New York: Routledge. Counsell, C., (1996). Signs of performance: An introduction to twentieth-century theatre. New York; London: Routledge. Diderot, D. (1773-78). “Paradox on Acting” in Crocker, Lester G. (ed.) (1966) Diderot’s Selected Writings trans. Derek Coltman. New York; London: The MacMillan Company. Hirsch, F. (2002). A method to their madness: The history of the actors’studio. New York, N.Y.; Cambridge, Mass.: Da Capo Press. Hodge, A. (Ed) (2002) Actor training in the 20th Century. London: Routledge. Meyer-Dinkgräfe, D. (2001). Approaches to acting: Past and present. London; New York: Continuum. Tait, Peta. (2002). Performing Emotions: Gender, Bodies, Spaces, in Chekhov's Drama and Stanislavski's Theatre. Aldershot and Burlington VT: Ashgate. Zarrilli, Phillip B. (Ed.). (1995). Acting (Re)Considered: Theories and Practices. London and New York: Routledge. Read More

Diderot expressed a conviction that during a performance, the actors must retain his or her distinct self independent of the role. According to Diderot, being able to refrain being subject of a role’s emotions helped an actor to act those emotions (represent) to the audience in the particular way he or she determines most effective. Experiencing a distinction between the self and the role as far as emotions are concerned whilst on-stage is what Diderot described as the psychological duality of the actor's 'paradox' (Diderot, 1773-78).

Contradicting Theories Constantin Sergeyevich Stanislavsky was born in Moscow in 1863. His contributions to the process of acting are perhaps the single greatest contribution anyone made in the 20th Century. As a renown actor and director, Stanislavsky always emphasised that the theatre only acquired meaning if it moved beyond a mere external representation acting had always been (Tait, 2002). In his time in theatre, Stanislavsky created a dynamic approach to the emotional and psychological aspects of theatrical acting.

The system later to be known as the Stanislavsky method/system placed the expression of a role’s emotions as the actor’s main responsibility. An actor has to be believed and felt rather than understood or recognized. Standing in opposition to Diderot’s assertion that acting was an art of representation where the actor had to simulate rather than experience the emotions of a role, Stanislavsky postulated a method acting in which acting became the art of experiencing/presentation the role realistically (Counsell, 1996).

The representation role as postulated by Diderot is thus in complete contrast with the experience role as postulated by Stanislavsky. Diderot asserts that an actor does not live a role rather he or she plays it. As such, the actor must remain cold towards the emotions depicted by the role. What the actor has to do is to act out the emotions with perfection such that the audience sees him or her experiencing while all the actors is doing is representing passively (Bruder, 1986). Therefore, instead of experience the content of his or her act, the actor just accurately represents the content with an artistic finish.

According to Stanislavski however, during the performance, an actor must necessarily live the role every minute when he or she is playing it and every other time after that. Acting thus becomes a series of living and reliving a role with each act recreating the experience anew, living the emotions afresh and reincarnating the emotions always during the moments on stage. Stanislavsky’s approach has a high degree of improvisation in which actors retain the ability to perform the emotions they are experiencing alike to the character of their role (Tait, 2002).

Interiority versus Externality The Diderot school of thought where the actor must remain cold towards the emotions depicted by the role is in support of the concept of externality. Emotions are not felt but represented. What the actor produces on stage is in total contrast of whether he or she feels, it is just an exterior depiction of emotions as required by the role (Carnicke, 1998). Externality theorists and actors have always stressed on the separation of the self and the character as the only way an actor can expertly depict precise emotions whilst on stage.

On the other hand, Stanislavsky’s school of thought urging that the actor must necessarily experience/present the role lies in the interiority realms. In this school of thought the emotions an actor depicts on stage are better expressed if they come from within, as ‘experiences’ or ‘presentation’ rather than ‘acts’. Subscribers to this theory usually advice actors to submerge themselves to the characters, to feel what the character feels, to see things from the character’s point of view, to live the life of the character and show what the character shows.

The border between the self and the character is merged into the third being that audience sees on stage, a being of emotions Stanislavsky called aristol-rol (Carnicke, 2000).

Read More