If not "pretend," what is acting? I have always used two definitions:
o Shakespeare: "The purpose of playing is…to hold a mirror up to nature.
o Sanford Meisner: "Acting is behaving truthfully under imaginary circumstances."
So much of acting in film and television is actors playing themselves or a version of themselves. The problem with this approach is that it doesn't work when actual character creation is required, like an historical figure. Perhaps that is why so often actors playing real-life people win academy awards. We recognize that playing a real character takes a skill set beyond, learning lines and not bumping into the furniture.
The curse of "Method" acting is that it doesn't work beyond psychological realism, brilliant as a performance may be. It doesn't work for Shakespeare or period pieces; it doesn't work for comedy or musicals; it doesn't work for superheroes, animated characters, nor Klingons. I differentiate "Method" as espoused by Lee Strasberg from Stanislavski's system which focuses on Given Circumstances/the Magic If; and Tasks and Action. What most people don't realize is that Stanislavski applied his system to opera, one of the most artificial of art forms.
For Stanislavski, the Magic If asks the actor to identify what actions or choices the character would take within the given circumstance (both internal and external) of the world of the play. The problem with too many contemporary American actors is that they don't buy into the world of the play or film. The come across as tourists in, not inhabitants of the world. Stanslavski says "if acts as a lever to lift us out of the world of actuality into the realm of imagination." (An Actor Prepares, p. 43) If allows us to pretend.
Action -movement toward the completion of a task- gives the actors performance meaning, but Stanislavski says, "Don't act 'in general,' for the sake of action; always act with purpose." (ibid, p. 37) Action, can be broken down into four parts:
· Objectives: What does the character want to do? Notice the emphasis on action; it is more than "Lord won't buy me Mercedes Benz."
· Obstacles: What is in the way? Be it physical, emotional, psychological; friends, neighbors, family; …self.
· Tactics: How are they going to get around the obstacles?
· Stakes: What are they willing to risk?
We don't have to kill someone to play a murderer, but we can imagine. According to the story, Dustin Hoffman didn't shower, sleep or change clothes for four days, to get into character for Marathon Man. When co-star Sir. Laurence Olivier heard about it, he said "My dear boy, why don't you try acting?" Hoffman would later claim that his haggard appearance was due to excessive partying following a "painful" divorce. Remember, acting is not a therapy session, it's characters in a play. It's pretend.
Picasso purportedly said, "Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up." John Lennon echoed that sentiment, "…every child is an artist until he's told he's not an artist." Pretend is associated with child play. We call it playing, but somewhere along the way we lose the ability to pretend, because it is childish, unsophisticated, not grown up. When it comes to theatre, let's embrace the imagination and pretend.
------------------------------
James Van Leishout
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-13-2025 13:46
From: George Ledo
Subject: For you acting teachers: is acting "pretending?"
There's a conversation on another chat room about acting, and the gist of it is that acting is pretending, i.e., that actors pretend to be their characters. I have a strong opinion about this, but I wanted to see what those of you who teach acting think: do actors pretend to be their characters, or is there something else involved?
The term "pretend" has a very specific definition, so I don't think it's a matter of interpreting it. So, what do you think?
------------------------------
George F. Ledo
Set designer
www.setdesignandtech.wordpress.com
www.georgefledo.net
------------------------------