Reflections on Acting Technique
Today’s blog is a reflection on Practical Aesthetics and other techniques by assistant acting coach Tom Moriarty…
I think about our technique all the time, and I wonder about how it compares to others and how I ultimately believe it to be the future of acting as a whole. There are countless variations on the many acting techniques to be found if one looks hard enough, however, I will concentrate on the ones that stand out to me and brought this blog to life.
“Practical Aesthetics (PA) is a theory of art or beauty that is capable of being put to use”: This phrase lends itself to one believing that PA is rooted in something not quite tangible but for those of us who practice it, we know that it could not be further from the truth. Living truthfully and authentically in the moment, the PA practitioner resides in the world of doing, always doing something to someone. I see this as the major difference between other techniques and PA.
When the world thinks of acting, they think of the method actor, naming an actor off the top of your head, there is a high possibility that said actor has trained in Method. I find it ironic that Lee Strasberg (the creator of the Method) believed that good acting lay in the moment to moment transaction onstage between two actors, when his technique forces the actor to be introverted, to place the emphasis on one’s self, rather than the other in the scene. The actor is trained to draw upon their own emotions and memories and use their effects in a scene. While this seems logical and effective, emotions are not trustworthy and they cannot be manipulated at will. PA uses a much more logical and reliable aspect, comparable behaviour. Do what you would do in a similar situation but work off the other.
Stella Adler turned away from Strasberg’s focus on emotion truth after she visited Stanislavsky in Paris, upon which he impressed on her that he had abandoned emotional memory as the predominant actors tool.
She focussed more on the imagination and discovering one’s true self as an actor. This was achieved through a constant evolving and understanding of the art and culture. Again, Adler believed moment to moment acting was the key; however she advocated exercises which to me seem indulgent. One that stands out is where the actor loses themselves in a flower, a regular flower. They study it in minute detail and then relay in their own words, what the flower means to them. I cannot imagine the point of that for an actor.
PA however cuts through all the unnecessary aspect of what one expects in acting. It is simple, find what the character wants from the other character in the scene, parallel that to something you want from the other actor in the moment and just go for it.
Across the spectrum of acting technique available for one to study, it is inspiring that each one seems to advocate moment to moment authenticity as the way to fruitful acting. It is frustrating however that no technique bar PA seems truly able to achieve it. Acting is not mystical, it is not magical: it is two people wanting something off each other. It is the fog that surrounds achieving this that causes the problem. Getting lost in the flowery language and practises of other techniques is the death of true potential. This is where Practical Aesthetics reigns supreme and it why I believe it to be the way forward. Analyse the scene, practice the behaviour required, and then work off the other.
It truly is that simple.
Tom Moriarty
Assistant Acting Coach – Acting Coach Scotland