Sunday, May 13, 2007

Show, don't be

there are two kinds of actors: introvert and extrovert. The introvert plays on the back foot, assumes character and attempts to 'be real'; the extrovert plays on the front foot, demonstrates and presents a character. As a generalisation, the extrovert actor flourishes at The Globe, the introvert does not. 'Show, don't be' is the rule.

- Howard Brenton writing about the Globe theatre in the Guardian, 12th May 2007

This comment interested me greatly, and I think it's because it reminds me of the School's founder. I remember he said that Christ on the cross was "putting on a show". However repugnant such a view may be to orthodox Christianity, it says a lot about the style and verve with which McLaren went about things. Surprising then that so many of his acolytes lack any sense of theatre. They are people playing on the back foot, 'attempting to be real', with the justification that "simply being" is where it's at, looking nervously down their pale noses at those who appear different.

(I recently spoke to two senior and very bright people in the School who had each decided to stop giving public talks because of the flak they got from fellow group members.)

What these people forget, of course, is that if there was an exam for "being" we would all get 100%. "Being" is not an aspiration, but a reality. Philosophically we can accept that life is a play, but how many of us know how to enjoy it?

How many of us can show that it is a play?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have it on fairly good authority that the comment originally came from Stanislawski. He said, so I understand, that there was a difference between actually BEING the character or the emotion, and merely demonstrating it.

It struck me when I heard this that I had learned during my time in the School to be an expert at demonstrating. The tutor seems to want stillness - I can demonstrate that. Reliability - I can demonstrate that. Devotion - yes, I can demonstrate that too. Whatever might be the latest thing one was supposed to 'manifest'. But really BE those things? Ah, now that's a different matter.

So I took precisely the opposite message from this from the one Kevin seems to have got.

Not sure what this shows...

Anonymous said...

Katherine,

If Stanislavski said that, then he meant the opposite by it than Howard Brenton. And I was not quoting Stanislavski, was I?

Think about it again, though. "Being" still, devoted, reliable ... they're all qualities, not essence. So "being" still is in the end just a play, or demonstration. If one takes it seriously, then perhaps one falls into a deeper darkness than does the person who pretends to the character of stillness, believing they're agitated? At least they know they're wrong.

I do know what you mean about pretentious spirituality, of course, but that's not what I'm getting at.

Anonymous said...

Someone has contacted me privately saying that this post gives the impression that I'm defensive or feeling threatened about this issue.

I'd just like to say that this is very far from the case!

I enjoyed the article and it reminded me of watching Shakespeare at the Globe, and how much anarchic fun it is. And I thought that perhaps we could do with some of that spirit, and be less po-faced.

Anonymous said...

Andrew Marr, the political journalist, said in one of his books (a short chapter about How to Write a Column)that the essence of good journalism was 'show, don't tell'.

This struck a great thwack of a chord with me, and since then I've found myself observing this in various walks of life. It - the distinction between the two - colours all our speech and necessarily much of our thought.

What this means is that all manner of 'telling', explaining, demonstrating, suggesting, discoursing, writing and the rest falls short of engaging the listener or reader because the active principle has failed to make the necessary leap of imagination towards 'showing'.

In essence, the actor is more concerned about him or herself (and his/hers local perception and agenda) than in meeting the need of the listener or reader. The insight that would help unlock perception has been blocked off.

The result is regurgitated stuff which, however good and worthy, is dull.

It's all the difference between an essay on what I did in the holidays and a dive into 'holiday' which opens a window for the reader.

The material may be exactly the same but the result completely different.