Where do actors get their ideas from?

To my mind, there are many types of actors, but I want to introduce the idea that there are TWO types of actors: the creator and the creative interpreter. Neither is better, both can professionally and successfully do their job, but how they go about it is completely different. These are MY understandings of the difference between these two different types of actors. It’s likely that others will disagree and that within both categories, there are splinters and cross-overs or hybrids.

The creator is an inventor: they are on the same level as the choreographer or the composer. This type of actor originates work that may be based on the script, but also based on influences that come from outside of the script. They consciously create or invent as part of their art. This type of actor primarily considers themselves as a creative equal in the process of making theatre or film. They use improvisation, they use character diaries or histories, they research their role historically, they use many sources to help them ‘build a character’. It seems to be that this actor looks primarily to creative acting as their main job and that creating a character is the main task.

I would consider this type of acting as that demonstrated by those from the Strasberg, Adler, Stanislavski and Michael Chekhov schools.

The creative interpreter: does not create, they interpret the work of others, and in doing so they are creative in their own right. They are the dancer or the musician. What they do IS creative, but it takes its emphasis from their skill at achieving artistic results based on someone else’s creation. The writer’s work is the central source of ideas for this type of actor. They place the script and telling the story of the play above all else. This type of actor considers works primarily from the moment, the script and the other actor. This actor does not invent moments, they let moments happen to them. This actor does not aim to be creative, they do not feel that this is the job of the actor. Their job is to tell the story of the play, just like the dancer’s is to dance the dance, or musicians is to play the music. This type of actor does not build a character, they play a role. I found a definition of role as ‘the characteristics of your behaviour’.This actor does not create these characteristics, they allow their own characteristics and behaviour to ‘stand in’ for the character and let the illusion of character do the rest.

I would consider this type of acting as that demonstrated by those actors that use Practical Aesthetics.

Neither school is right, neither is best, it’s all about what suits you. If you can effectively mix and match, do so. You do not need to slavishly follow any technique, style or method, you need to find what works effectively and CONSISTENTLY for you. You need tools with which to approach the role and they must work all the time.