3 ms·
I think you may have narrowed your definition of "acting" to only that taught at western acting schools, the type geared for the western stage. Acting is far br
by sandworm101 2y ago
I think you may have narrowed your definition of "acting" to only that taught at western acting schools, the type geared for the western stage. Acting is far broader. Take an army drill instructor getting apparently angry at a new cadet. They are not actually angry, not at any level. They are skilled at projecting false anger without actually ever being angry internally. They look psychopathic because they can turn this on and off instantly, but they aren't crazy because they aren't actually turning any emotion on and off, only the fake external image of emotion. That is still acting. What maters is the external message, not how you get there.
- echelon 2y agoThe article is discussing acting in the context of the dramatic arts, and in particular, the difficulty of remembering lines. Feigned emotions do not work on stage or on screen. You can't fake being emotionally honest while performing. This requires rigorous training to get right. If you try to manufacture emotion, you'll spend part of your thought process moderating your performance. Trying to sound "right", trying to hit some emotional target, focusing on your delivery, focusing on your marks and your lines. You're in your head too much and you come across as a caricature. I guarantee you have seen this before, and it's really bad. Acting isn't performing. Acting is being yourself and being in tune with everything around you. When you're finally liberated from playing some role, the magic happens naturally.
- interludead 2y agoActing is deeply being someone else while being yourself