Monday, December 12, 2005

Why Actors Shouldn't Read Books on Acting

As an acting coach and director I encounter two things all too frequently. Actors visibly pausing to think before each line they deliver is the number one offender. The second is questions of which books to read on acting.
None! Acting is not an academic subject. Nor is it a wholly intellectual pursuit. What's more, there is no comprehensive book or method of teaching the craft of acting. Actor-Students in search of developing their technique approach a text with the goal of being a better actor. What's wrong with that? A lot, frankly. Wanting to be better creates a lot of tension in the actor. A lot of reliance on the brain. And since most actor-students are not yet versed in doing two thngs at once, all that thinking cuts them off at the neck. Instead of an actor or a player before us, we have a thinker.
Another problem with it is, it's lazy. But maestro they're showing inciative! Bollocks. They're looking for a way to evade the work at hand, for the easy way out. Yes, they need to read. Good actors are good readers, certainly. I'd venture to say that great actors are great readers. Do you know how many actors I've taught that could name, let alone have read, Shakespeare's five tragedies? Want to read a good book on acting? Try King Lear. Want to be a better actor, read the play out of which I just assigned you a scene. Harold Clurman claimed to read a text he was to direct five times before he gave it any conscious thought. I often discover that students read the text of the scene and merely skim the rest of the play or screenplay.
Tune in next time for The Limits of Uta.
Ah, it feels so good to be up on the old soapbox.

A River Dertch,
SIgnore Direttore

No comments: