SPECIFICITY IN ACTING: PROS AND CONS
There is a technique in acting called ACTIONING, it is the process of marking each line in your script with a transitive verb, some kind of action that can be done to someone else. COAX, PUSH, REPEL, PUNCH, ENCOURAGE etc. The aim is to land that verb on the other person to change their behaviour.
The language of action is often very vague and the technique of ACTIONING helps to make it very specific. It gives the actor something tangible to do on every line and is a fantastic way to stop actors attempting to ‘emote’ at each other, and it makes their acting more specific and less self conscious.
When someone plays an ACTION (at our studio, we refer to these as TACTICS), they are psychophysically involved in making a change to the other person, and this is important. Each line begins to have immense specificity. But the technique of acting can also prevent play. An insecure director can use these tactics to map out the actor’s performance for them long without the chance for the actors to explore the scene together. The actors really need to have a powerful WHY established before they work out the HOW. Actioning can artificially pro-long the table work period of rehearsal while we search for the right verb to go with that line. But tactics/actions/verbs – need to serve the character’s desire. They cannot just reinforce the meaning of the line. And changing the tactic/verb beneath a line will entirely change the meaning of that line.
Often teachers and directors will insist that the actors memorise these tactics, so that they can play the lines specifically from moment to moment. This is well-intentioned, but inevitably damaging. Fixing the How takes away the actor’s ability to play from moment to moment. If a powerful WHY is established, actors may not need to fix the HOW. Fixing the HOW is part of a way of directing that doesn’t allow the actor to play in the moment. It doesn’t trust them. But if trained correctly, and given the opportunity, actors can play spontaneously and specifically.
Actioning teaches specificity, which improves acting very specifically. The results are real, tangible, and undeniable. But actioning fixes things in stone, which kills spontaneity. The third way is to avoid fixing the tactics to the line, but to analyse the scene in a way that delivers tactics that are suitable for the scene, without every prescribing when they are used. Awareness of the dramatic arc of the scene, the other actor’s behaviour and the increasing need to fulfil their desire can all lead the actor to what VERB they need to use next. That’s how things are in life. And it’s possible to bring this to acting.
When actions are learned, they add to the actor’s sense that the scene has a right or wrong. If ANDREW was PROVOKING on this line today, and he doesn’t tomorrow, your response to him will fall flat. You cannot respond to what didn’t happen. If CECILE forgets what her tactic is today, she won’t deliver the line in the same way and that will throw the other actors completely, all of whom have ACTIONS prescribed to respond to CECILE’s choice of verb. If CECILE is focusing on what tactic/verb to do to ANDREW next, she isn’t really paying attention to him, which takes her out of the moment.
We can use verbs to enjoy specific improvement in acting, but we do not need to fix them to the lines in order to benefit. We do need to develop ways of rehearsing that encourage REAL moment to moment play, not simulated moment to moment play as actioning tends to do. Thankfully, at ACS, we have found ways that encourage this and our students benefit from the specificity and the real moment to moment interaction. The most thrilling acting I have ever seen occurs like this, and while acting that doesn’t use this approach can still be amazing, the difference is like the difference between a scalpel and a butter knife.