Where We Got Acting Wrong

I’m afraid we’ve got acting wrong.

Who? Well, all of us, everyone in Western acting. Yes – everyone. Everyone.

I know, I know, how dare I?, who do I think I am? Blah de blah de blah…

But listen closely. It’s taken me a long time to work out what’s going wrong. I’ve tried to write about it many times, but it’s become very clear to me.

Due to the history of acting, we have changed the style of our acting many times. But when theatre turned to Naturalism and Film and Television demanded screen acting remain naturalistic, then an artificial distinction between stage and screen was created. Stage acting was considered theatrical and screen acting was considered natural. So theatre actors kept on theatricalising Naturalism (blame Stanislavski’s theatrical truth if you like) and screen actors became more natural and believable.

Theatrical acting means that the actor’s responsibility is to convey the character’s thoughts and feelings across the footlights and out into the dark auditorium. And that’s what people still learn in their acting classes.

But it isn’t true. The actor’s responsibility is not to convey something, it is to behave as you would in life. People do things to people, they don’t convey it theatrically to a group of observers. So if you want to act naturally, you must do real things to real people and stop theatricalising the exchange.

Theatrical acting makes the audience aware of the performance. Many actors enjoy that idea, that the audience come to somehow revel in the actor’s performance. Many directors sadly believe that this is what an audience wants too. Critics may believe it too. But they are mistaken. The most wonderful nights I have spent sitting in darkened rooms enjoying theatre or cinema is when I do not sense the performance, when I just believe that what I am watching is real.

But it takes a huge amount of trust in yourself. And most actor’s insecurities prefer to perform out of a habit of safety.  And most actors dare not question the tradition of theatricalism and when it is questioned, they become defensive, even hostile – I’ve experienced it often.

If you want to be a good actor, if you want to be phenomenal, I don’t care what technique you use, but you must drop your belief in theatrical acting. It doesn’t mean mumbling like Brando, it doesn’t mean deadpan or unemotional performance, it doesn’t even mean being small. It means being real.

Doing real things to real people, based on the stakes, urgency and psychological action of the character, and what the other actor is doing in front of you. But it just isn’t taught in acting schools.

Forego theatrical acting, even if you’ve done it your whole career, and people will believe your performance more, cast you more, laud you more.

But what if you need to act style? Well, then adjust your technique to that style, but theatrical is not the goal of the dominant genre of theatre, and performance is not the goal, it is the result.

But it takes a massive change for theatre actors to give up their beloved theatricality and  audiences and critics will still applaud and laud highly theatrical and entirely unbelievable performances. Why? It’s simple. They don’t know any better. And it’s going to be a hell of job to convince them to admit it, give it up and instead turn to truthful, natural acting. But that’s my mission, my life’s work. And the tide is turning, one actor at a time.

In my book Truth in Action, I’ve set out an approach to achieve this natural approach to acting, a simple and direct technique that’s simple to learn but takes a lifetime to master.  Maybe you’d like to read it and see if it works for you, I’ve been surprised by the overwhelmingly positive response to it.