Hi, this is Judith. I just read all the comments so far and I really appreciate the seriousness with which the commenters are taking the subject of acting - because to me, the subject of acting is humanity itself. I think of acting as a laboratory of life, a way to understand the behavior of humans. I am constantly still exploring, still learning. Best wishes to all.
I loved that part where she said that acting is being more truthful than you get to be in real life. I remember in drama class and even open mic nights, there is a freedom I felt/feel when I went and go on stage. The material might be fiction or might be a little based on fact, but regardless, as long as I'm feeling connected to the words, I can make those words feel real for the audience.
I'm not an actor, per se but I think acting is probably the purest art form. In most other art forms, the medium creates a kind of barrier between the artist and the audience. With acting on the other hand, the artist IS the art. Their medium is their own body, mind and soul. You're not looking at a painting and guessing what the artist is trying to communicate; you're seeing it directly.
@Daniel Williams You have it backwards and inside out, friend You mention mediums and mediums, both of which the artist uses, but if you think a painter isn't the paint and that an actor IS their material, you have a long way to go. Allow me to suggest Art as Experience by John Dewey.
@@johnstrawb3521 Thanks for the suggestion! I actually am a painter myself and I love creating and acting through my characters. I didn't mean to imply that other art forms are less legitimate, I'm saying that the barrier between actors and their audience is less apparent. If you still don't agree, name five living actors and then name five living painters. I think the lack of a barrier between artist and audience in acting is why we like actors so much and we don't really idolize painters or musicians the same way (except singers which is kind of like acting because, again, you're using your own body as the medium.)
@@danielwilliams7161 @Film_Courage as a person who has actually acted on stage, both community theatre, College Theatre, Independant films and has tutored, audited other classes, and mentored other actors who are paid, despite the lack of accreddited teaching credentials. You are wrong and so is the person being interviewed so if you truly wish to understand acting, you will respectfully read what I have to say. The lady interviewed even states the actor pretends being in love with another person, while being with someone else. The Greek word for actor is Hypocrite. When the character is lying, the actor must act out that lie be it verbal or actual movement depending on the choice (collaborated or dictated) of the Director, known as blocking. The fact that i even have to point that out should give you an idea what acting is about. Acting is about Human Behaviors both well and ill, emotional responses and addressing thoughts of hypothetical situations. Of the PERFORMING ARTS, it is one of the most difficult as it incorporates human society both local and foreign including using fictional (not true) cultures including extraterrestrial as apart of Hypotheticals. Writing is the purest form of the arts as even bad writing is reflective of the level of skill any person has. Writing both awful and well calculated, demonstrates the level to which a person can communicate their thoughts within agreed upon symbols that express ideas (known as words and calligraphy) of either formal training, skill developed through observation and/or personal style.
@@tristannguyen8205 Thanks for sharing your insights! I've read that "honesty" is an important part of acting. In other words, the actor must believe that what he/she says and does is true in order for it to be convincing. Does that ring true to you, or would you argue that that's still basically just lying?
@@danielwilliams7161 like teaching children Subtraction as a means to understand addition of a negative integer, tapping into a person's honesty (more accurately Honest emotion) is a means to manipulate the audience into believing the character regardless if the character is being honest OR skill in lying (especially with sarcasm and its usage from tame to exaggerated for comedic effect and/or drama). Think of it this way: Performers such as Magicians (or as Penn and Teller prefer, Stage Illusionists) use props, acting (Penn and Teller define Acting as Honest Lying: a conceptually agreed upon unwritten contract between performer and audience regardless of location consisting of formal or informal; inpromptu or selected in advanced; for the sake of entertainment. Walking into the area of performance, especially formally disclosed location with Advertisements and Advertisers, the audience knows for a fact that the performance is not truly happening but a convincing usage of communication to tell a story, BUT there is an informal form of acting done for comedic effect in seeing an honest reaction from an unknowing party, and it is the responsibility of someone either attached to the performers or at least one of the performers to relieve the unknowing party that it was to the truth, be it cameras and saying stating what truly occured.
Shoutouts to this amazing and talented interviewer. The way she conducts her interviews, shows not only her deep understanding of the arts and crafts of picture/film/storymaking, but also of human nature. She allways has a way of getting her guests to share their most valuable lessons and experiences🌷
Acting is easy. Once you have done the work of discovering the truth in the scene and understand your character's motivations, it's almost trivial. That work is extremely difficult and that is what actors mean when they talk about the "craft." It's also part of the reason people who are not actors misunderstand what acting is. That's why it can appear as lying, since you're acting as if you are feeling those emotions when, clearly you're not. Except for the fact that if you're really acting, you *are* feeling those emotions. Once you've put in that work, those emotions are there for you to call up when needed in that scene. I can think back to some scenes that deal with serious loss that I had performed years ago and they are still painful to this day. Acting is not easy.
you could have just said that acting requires you to bring your own emotional lens to the words of a script. and that the hard part is just trying to be as authentic and responsive to the moment and your scene partners. i think acting is really hard in a professional capacity. scenes are not done in order. directors or scene partners may not approve of your interpretation or help give you direction. it may be hard to get the scene done in a certain amount of takes before the director has to move on. george lucas said "why cant you do it, its right there on the page." clint eastwood would move on after one take and when asked about additional takes, he replied to the actor "do you want to waste everyones time?" stanley kubrick emotionally tortured shelley duvall to get the result he wanted, and the actress was recorded on video saying "we both wanted the same thing, he didnt have to do it that way." so... acting requires not only you to be able to be in touch with your emotions regarding a particular scene, and command yourself to respond to it honestly... but you have to take directions from your scene partners and directors. acting isnt a solo show.
yup. acting , is the search for emotional truth. that gwat I was taught. and that s why good acting is hard, because many are lying.. it's not about u but the character. that's why comedy is hard.. playing it for laughs vs characters reacting truthfully in thise situations.
@Evan Hodge i replied to another comment that its bringing your emotional lens to the words on the script. an actor and director may not interpret the words like the script writer envisioned, but i dont think most actors would be able to be interested enough to find their inspiration to act without a compelling script in the first place. so i would argue that the written word actually does help shape their acting. but i can see why anyone could say that the script is not the important part of what they consider acting.
Applies only to writers. Actors are liars. They lie to themselves, that they're someone else. They lie to themselves and other people about what they're thinking and feeling, in a given moment, based on what a script tells them to think and feel. While writers can write their truths, what they're thinking and feeling, if actors are to portray those truths on-screen, they must lie. If an actor is offended by this truth, then it's because they subscribe to the common idea that lies are bad. It's more about intention. If an actor lies to bring the truths on the page to life on-screen, then it's not really bad. Those lies don't really hurt anyone. It's only entertainment.
@@G360LIVE Writers lie too. It's fun to pretend. You can't say fiction is true. So it's a lie. If your a fiction writer your lying for someones entertainment. It's not a hurtful thing. It's just entertainment.
@Film Courage 0:01 - Judith is already wrong, in her first sentence. Most people WANT to show their feelings far more than they do---it's only that they understand the enormous cost of doing so with destructive feelings at the wrong time with the wrong person. // Her next idea is wonderful, though, albeit wildly incomplete: 0:38 - "...but really, acting is being more truthful than you get to be in real life." It is, and it very much isn't. While acting you're creating a bridge b/t your own experience and that of the writer filtered through a very disciplined art form very much removed from feeling---rather, the part in a film is very much removed from authentic feeling and greatly informed by the medium of film with its own highly distinct imperatives often having nothing to do with feeling, but rather with the _representation_ of feeling.
i can understand the points you make and i think that they are valid. but i think she is just saying it in a way that is very easy to get. its a very easy way to emotionally connect to the concept. "we all would like to be ourselves, but we act because we are afraid to; so acting is a place where you are free to find ways to express yourself without suffering the normal social consequences"... and her examples are presented in a story that builds upon that concept. lets say you say what you said, word for word, which is accurate, to a class of students. how many people are actually going to GET that? if they dont have some kind of previous knowledge or experience that helps them ground that information? now, if you had to choose which way to say something, which would you choose? your method that may possibly lose a good chunk of your class from the start, or this ladys way where a class can follow along, little by little, until their acting muscles lets them stand on the level of your understanding? and... i think you are deeply missing out on the value of her points. you also seem to assert that creating a film has nothing to do with emotions and only the technique which produces a product. are you trying to say that an actor, a director, a camera person, does not make decisions from feeling a certain way, and trying to find a technique that can help them express that feeling? film itself is a platform where feelings are manifested through technical execution. and acting is a platform that calls a professional to command their own emotions on an authentic level... which they hope that the director and audience will like. you could also take what you are asserting about writing: that you dont need feelings at all to write something, and all you need to do is execute and deliver something that is a representation of feeling. and i think any writer and actor will tell you that you CAN do that... but that literally takes all the fun out of it. speaking of fun. children could also play without feelings, but what would be the point then? am i sufficiently addressing what you are saying? do you feel like defending any of your claim?
I... am not an actor, I dab in writing. And when writing, the MOST CRUCIAL THING is to let go of yourself, your own thoughts, feelings, ideas, your mememememememeIIIIIII and let THE CHARACTER be a fully separate PERSON within the material. Only then does it truly work. Only when everything I am is completely and totally disconnected from this here character, do THEY spring into life. I'd expect an actor has to do the same. Otherwise, at worst, they'll be either specialzed or typecast. The difference for example like Ben Mendelsohn, who is majestic as this particular type of a villain. Vs Gary Oldman who can do anything and you might not even recognize it was him until the end credits reveal it. Maybe I am entirely wrong, but it seems to me that the idea of the actor expresisng themselves through the character harms the character.
It's an astonishing blind spot we have - acting is at the core of what attracts people to movies and TV in the first place, and there's so much discussion and debate among those involved - and yet every time I see actors interviewed or discussed it's like those covering it have absolutely no idea about any of it - it's refreshing to at least see a practitioner given the chance to respond (her books on the subject are excellent) Regarding Brando's point - I think he was mainly reacting to his own success - look at what happened on that Dick Cavett interview - his whole condition for being there was that they include those activists - he's talking about how upside down our society is - our media ignores those struggling w real issues of life and death, and instead spends its time asking celebrities like him frivolous questions about their personal lives - and considering his early and enormous success, it seems like he's attributing the whole premise of his stardom to this upside down value system - I think he didn't see his success as based on anything real - and he extended this to the idea of acting in general, and the role it plays in our tabloid culture - - there's a kind of jaded, mercilessly self-deprecating way he talks about everything - basically saying his own craft is based on how we're all hypocrites, and he illustrates this very well, not excluding himself - and remember he was also a genius at acting, so even though he also worked hard at it, and had excellent teachers and training, it had always come easily to him, so that may have added to his disbelief at the basis of his own success, especially when talking to the general public, on a show like this - James Lipton had long wanted Brando on his Actors Studio show, and I think Brando would have discussed acting very differently in an environment like that, addressing young acting students directly about it - he even developed his own training course for actors later on, which he then withdrew Weston's point about the role of acting also points in general to a kind of prevalent social repression - and to the role of art in general here (it's a debate that dates back to Plato) - it would be interesting to compare some different cultures in terms of this repression
@@judithweston Thanks for your response - I notice your video here was posted within a day or so of Elia Kazan's birthday, and he's the one who knew just what to do w Brando - it feels like they launched one another - I don't know why the debates around Stanislavski are so insulated from public awareness - IMO they're an important part of our cultural philosophy - whether we realize this or not - I wonder if Brando's moral disillusionment w Kazan impacted his disillusionment w acting - Stanislavski associated acting w this idea of Truth - and Brando speaks of it in relation to lying and manipulation - Brando would likely say the most successful liars are the ones who can also deceive themselves I agree that real art is about revealing, not concealing - my sense is that Brando's own aesthetic ethos was about getting people in the audience to look at themselves, especially in moral terms - it seemed to inform his choices in selecting projects and interpreting characters I notice Stanislavski practitioners often deride the expert "pretending" associated w traditions of the British stage and Classical Hollywood, etc - but, given Brando's later moral misgivings around the idea of lying and hypocrisy - - I'm wondering if he might have ultimately preferred to have trained in a tradition more at home and up front w the idea of artifice - maybe Brecht, like his one-time teacher Piscator? I'd have been curious to hear Brando's response to Brecht's critique of Realism Would a Brechtian Brando have been our loss or our gain? Because re Brando and Stanislavski - each was certainly God's gift to the other Fascinating topic IMO - I don't know if such exchanges interest you, or where the best place for them would be - I noticed you have Q & A on your own site, but wasn't sure whether to post there - anyway, thanks so much for your lovely commentaries here
Acting is lying so well that you can even fool yourself for a short time, and actually, the danger of acting is when you start becoming unaware that you're fooling yourself.
I believe acting is communicating emotions that resonate with the audience. to touch on what Weston said. there are a lot of emotions that people in everyday life hold back bc it might not be socially appropriate or might not be received well. but the actor/actress expresses some of that and so the audience can feel some release of a feeling that they have felt. or maybe the audience did not exactly feel what the actor is expressing in their own life but they can still somehow relate to on an emotional level.
I hate when people ask me if I'm fine because sometimes I'm not but I'm not gonna burden them with why because they weren't *really* interested if I'm fine or not, they ask it out of politeness alone.
idk if you know this. but not pinning your comments causes your comments to get buried in the comments section. maybe it isnt such a big issue for you because there arent that many comments, but it might be more convenient for your audience, and easier for them to engage with you, if you pinned your comments.
Good actors are truthful to the audience - which makes them believable - but the characters they play may be motivated to not be truthful with other characters.
This definition of acting may be true for certain parts on certain movies, but it's not applicable across the board. When you look at those awful Disney movies, for example, those people aren't going anywhere deep within themselves to portray something important. They're cashing checks pretending to be superheroes. Modern studios like Disney and Warner Bros. have helped to destroy any art that may have been inherent in acting. And maybe there wasn't much to begin with. This lady sounds awful pretentious to begin with. A person who's good at what they do doesn't need to tell you how good they are.
"This lady sounds awful pretentious to begin with." You're not wrong, she does sound pretentious. I don't think Ms Weston is pretentious. The nature of the interview has her talking about aspects of her profession that are difficult for people to understand without context. Perhaps she is just providing that context.
i think you are projecting your frustration at her. i think she says it concisely and without fluff. this is actually a high quality explanation. its fine to think that she is pretentious. but it really just shows how you dont want to agree with her when she is actually telling you something important in an easy to understand way, without the usual shroud of self importance that people have.
and yes. i see your point. your cynicism towards acting that seems to be low quality in popular media. here is an example: twilight is widely regarded to be poor writing in terms of prose and construction, but it is extremely popular. but twilight does not mean that writing does not have a level of craft that can go beyond what it has demonstrated. and, not necessarily to antagonize, but you are probably just projecting your own negative feelings at her. if you study acting for a few years, you can come back to this interview and realize what good advice/ perspective it is. you can practice acting for decades and talk to hundreds of people and you will probably never get an explanation this clean and simple.
Of course actors are lying. It's not a hurtful thing. You're not actually the person your playing. If the story is not real. It's just a big lie. For entertainment. It's fun to pretend. Quit trying to justify lying. There is nothing harmful about pretending.
“Jean Shelton.. used to say ‘people think that acting is lying. But really acting is being more truthful than you get to be in real life.’ And that was always the joy of it for me.. I always felt my characters were saying and doing things that I didn’t dare to do, that they were a deeper part of me. That’s what I love about acting. That it’s more truthful than real life. It’s not lying at all.” Absolutely how I feel about the joy and privilege of acting, also. Such a transformative experience when one gets to experience this or when this occurs in real time whilst performing. This paired with seeking work that helps or does good in the world, helps further people’s understanding of the world, earth or humanity in some way, that’s the end goal for me (one day!). 🤍 Thank you for this video.
Hi, this is Judith. I just read all the comments so far and I really appreciate the seriousness with which the commenters are taking the subject of acting - because to me, the subject of acting is humanity itself. I think of acting as a laboratory of life, a way to understand the behavior of humans. I am constantly still exploring, still learning. Best wishes to all.
Your book has helped me as a play and film director immensely. I have my copy full of dog-ears and post-its at the ready at all times. Thank you!
Thanks
“Acting is living truthfully under imaginary circumstances” Golden. 👍🔥
Sanford Meisner.
I loved that part where she said that acting is being more truthful than you get to be in real life. I remember in drama class and even open mic nights, there is a freedom I felt/feel when I went and go on stage. The material might be fiction or might be a little based on fact, but regardless, as long as I'm feeling connected to the words, I can make those words feel real for the audience.
“I love acting. It is so much more real than life.”
― Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
I'm not an actor, per se but I think acting is probably the purest art form. In most other art forms, the medium creates a kind of barrier between the artist and the audience. With acting on the other hand, the artist IS the art. Their medium is their own body, mind and soul. You're not looking at a painting and guessing what the artist is trying to communicate; you're seeing it directly.
@Daniel Williams You have it backwards and inside out, friend You mention mediums and mediums, both of which the artist uses, but if you think a painter isn't the paint and that an actor IS their material, you have a long way to go. Allow me to suggest Art as Experience by John Dewey.
@@johnstrawb3521
Thanks for the suggestion! I actually am a painter myself and I love creating and acting through my characters. I didn't mean to imply that other art forms are less legitimate, I'm saying that the barrier between actors and their audience is less apparent. If you still don't agree, name five living actors and then name five living painters.
I think the lack of a barrier between artist and audience in acting is why we like actors so much and we don't really idolize painters or musicians the same way (except singers which is kind of like acting because, again, you're using your own body as the medium.)
@@danielwilliams7161 @Film_Courage as a person who has actually acted on stage, both community theatre, College Theatre, Independant films and has tutored, audited other classes, and mentored other actors who are paid, despite the lack of accreddited teaching credentials. You are wrong and so is the person being interviewed so if you truly wish to understand acting, you will respectfully read what I have to say.
The lady interviewed even states the actor pretends being in love with another person, while being with someone else. The Greek word for actor is Hypocrite. When the character is lying, the actor must act out that lie be it verbal or actual movement depending on the choice (collaborated or dictated) of the Director, known as blocking. The fact that i even have to point that out should give you an idea what acting is about.
Acting is about Human Behaviors both well and ill, emotional responses and addressing thoughts of hypothetical situations. Of the PERFORMING ARTS, it is one of the most difficult as it incorporates human society both local and foreign including using fictional (not true) cultures including extraterrestrial as apart of Hypotheticals.
Writing is the purest form of the arts as even bad writing is reflective of the level of skill any person has. Writing both awful and well calculated, demonstrates the level to which a person can communicate their thoughts within agreed upon symbols that express ideas (known as words and calligraphy) of either formal training, skill developed through observation and/or personal style.
@@tristannguyen8205
Thanks for sharing your insights!
I've read that "honesty" is an important part of acting. In other words, the actor must believe that what he/she says and does is true in order for it to be convincing. Does that ring true to you, or would you argue that that's still basically just lying?
@@danielwilliams7161 like teaching children Subtraction as a means to understand addition of a negative integer, tapping into a person's honesty (more accurately Honest emotion) is a means to manipulate the audience into believing the character regardless if the character is being honest OR skill in lying (especially with sarcasm and its usage from tame to exaggerated for comedic effect and/or drama).
Think of it this way: Performers such as Magicians (or as Penn and Teller prefer, Stage Illusionists) use props, acting (Penn and Teller define Acting as Honest Lying: a conceptually agreed upon unwritten contract between performer and audience regardless of location consisting of formal or informal; inpromptu or selected in advanced; for the sake of entertainment.
Walking into the area of performance, especially formally disclosed location with Advertisements and Advertisers, the audience knows for a fact that the performance is not truly happening but a convincing usage of communication to tell a story, BUT there is an informal form of acting done for comedic effect in seeing an honest reaction from an unknowing party, and it is the responsibility of someone either attached to the performers or at least one of the performers to relieve the unknowing party that it was to the truth, be it cameras and saying stating what truly occured.
Shoutouts to this amazing and talented interviewer. The way she conducts her interviews, shows not only her deep understanding of the arts and crafts of picture/film/storymaking, but also of human nature. She allways has a way of getting her guests to share their most valuable lessons and experiences🌷
This is a really great message for directors to hear. Understanding actors, their philosophy, and craft can make one a better director.
Acting is easy. Once you have done the work of discovering the truth in the scene and understand your character's motivations, it's almost trivial. That work is extremely difficult and that is what actors mean when they talk about the "craft." It's also part of the reason people who are not actors misunderstand what acting is. That's why it can appear as lying, since you're acting as if you are feeling those emotions when, clearly you're not. Except for the fact that if you're really acting, you *are* feeling those emotions. Once you've put in that work, those emotions are there for you to call up when needed in that scene. I can think back to some scenes that deal with serious loss that I had performed years ago and they are still painful to this day. Acting is not easy.
you could have just said that acting requires you to bring your own emotional lens to the words of a script. and that the hard part is just trying to be as authentic and responsive to the moment and your scene partners.
i think acting is really hard in a professional capacity. scenes are not done in order. directors or scene partners may not approve of your interpretation or help give you direction. it may be hard to get the scene done in a certain amount of takes before the director has to move on.
george lucas said "why cant you do it, its right there on the page." clint eastwood would move on after one take and when asked about additional takes, he replied to the actor "do you want to waste everyones time?" stanley kubrick emotionally tortured shelley duvall to get the result he wanted, and the actress was recorded on video saying "we both wanted the same thing, he didnt have to do it that way."
so... acting requires not only you to be able to be in touch with your emotions regarding a particular scene, and command yourself to respond to it honestly... but you have to take directions from your scene partners and directors.
acting isnt a solo show.
@@uglystupidloser
Great reply. I was going to say something similar, but you expressed it perfectly.
I know I always say this about your guests but I absolutely love her!
"Man is least himself when he acts in his own person. Give him a mask and he'll tell you the truth."
- Oscar Wilde
Adore her. She is so spot on to me ❤
Thank you Judith ! And FC!
yup.
acting , is the search for emotional truth. that gwat I was taught. and that s why good acting is hard, because many are lying.. it's not about u but the character.
that's why comedy is hard.. playing it for laughs vs characters reacting truthfully in thise situations.
@Evan Hodge i replied to another comment that its bringing your emotional lens to the words on the script.
an actor and director may not interpret the words like the script writer envisioned, but i dont think most actors would be able to be interested enough to find their inspiration to act without a compelling script in the first place.
so i would argue that the written word actually does help shape their acting. but i can see why anyone could say that the script is not the important part of what they consider acting.
Applies to writers as well. Thank you.
Applies only to writers. Actors are liars. They lie to themselves, that they're someone else. They lie to themselves and other people about what they're thinking and feeling, in a given moment, based on what a script tells them to think and feel. While writers can write their truths, what they're thinking and feeling, if actors are to portray those truths on-screen, they must lie. If an actor is offended by this truth, then it's because they subscribe to the common idea that lies are bad. It's more about intention. If an actor lies to bring the truths on the page to life on-screen, then it's not really bad. Those lies don't really hurt anyone. It's only entertainment.
@@G360LIVE Writers lie too. It's fun to pretend. You can't say fiction is true. So it's a lie. If your a fiction writer your lying for someones entertainment. It's not a hurtful thing. It's just entertainment.
I’ve always thought that the best actors were astute students of human nature, especially their own. Thanks!
Acting isn't intrinsically by ill intent, but by the gift of transmitting emotional expression to others.
@Film Courage 0:01 - Judith is already wrong, in her first sentence. Most people WANT to show their feelings far more than they do---it's only that they understand the enormous cost of doing so with destructive feelings at the wrong time with the wrong person. // Her next idea is wonderful, though, albeit wildly incomplete: 0:38 - "...but really, acting is being more truthful than you get to be in real life." It is, and it very much isn't. While acting you're creating a bridge b/t your own experience and that of the writer filtered through a very disciplined art form very much removed from feeling---rather, the part in a film is very much removed from authentic feeling and greatly informed by the medium of film with its own highly distinct imperatives often having nothing to do with feeling, but rather with the _representation_ of feeling.
Excuse me, but.....
I'm gonna need you to TALK TO EM!
SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK!
i can understand the points you make and i think that they are valid.
but i think she is just saying it in a way that is very easy to get. its a very easy way to emotionally connect to the concept. "we all would like to be ourselves, but we act because we are afraid to; so acting is a place where you are free to find ways to express yourself without suffering the normal social consequences"... and her examples are presented in a story that builds upon that concept.
lets say you say what you said, word for word, which is accurate, to a class of students.
how many people are actually going to GET that? if they dont have some kind of previous knowledge or experience that helps them ground that information?
now, if you had to choose which way to say something, which would you choose? your method that may possibly lose a good chunk of your class from the start, or this ladys way where a class can follow along, little by little, until their acting muscles lets them stand on the level of your understanding?
and... i think you are deeply missing out on the value of her points.
you also seem to assert that creating a film has nothing to do with emotions and only the technique which produces a product.
are you trying to say that an actor, a director, a camera person, does not make decisions from feeling a certain way, and trying to find a technique that can help them express that feeling?
film itself is a platform where feelings are manifested through technical execution. and acting is a platform that calls a professional to command their own emotions on an authentic level... which they hope that the director and audience will like.
you could also take what you are asserting about writing: that you dont need feelings at all to write something, and all you need to do is execute and deliver something that is a representation of feeling.
and i think any writer and actor will tell you that you CAN do that... but that literally takes all the fun out of it.
speaking of fun. children could also play without feelings, but what would be the point then?
am i sufficiently addressing what you are saying?
do you feel like defending any of your claim?
Love the thumbnail!
BRILLIANT!
yeah... this resonates with me. thanx.
Resonates with me at all levels
Very good, pleasant to listen to and informative
I... am not an actor, I dab in writing. And when writing, the MOST CRUCIAL THING is to let go of yourself, your own thoughts, feelings, ideas, your mememememememeIIIIIII and let THE CHARACTER be a fully separate PERSON within the material. Only then does it truly work. Only when everything I am is completely and totally disconnected from this here character, do THEY spring into life.
I'd expect an actor has to do the same. Otherwise, at worst, they'll be either specialzed or typecast.
The difference for example like Ben Mendelsohn, who is majestic as this particular type of a villain. Vs Gary Oldman who can do anything and you might not even recognize it was him until the end credits reveal it.
Maybe I am entirely wrong, but it seems to me that the idea of the actor expresisng themselves through the character harms the character.
It's an astonishing blind spot we have - acting is at the core of what attracts people to movies and TV in the first place, and there's so much discussion and debate among those involved - and yet every time I see actors interviewed or discussed it's like those covering it have absolutely no idea about any of it - it's refreshing to at least see a practitioner given the chance to respond (her books on the subject are excellent)
Regarding Brando's point - I think he was mainly reacting to his own success - look at what happened on that Dick Cavett interview - his whole condition for being there was that they include those activists
- he's talking about how upside down our society is - our media ignores those struggling w real issues of life and death, and instead spends its time asking celebrities like him frivolous questions about their personal lives
- and considering his early and enormous success, it seems like he's attributing the whole premise of his stardom to this upside down value system - I think he didn't see his success as based on anything real - and he extended this to the idea of acting in general, and the role it plays in our tabloid culture -
- there's a kind of jaded, mercilessly self-deprecating way he talks about everything - basically saying his own craft is based on how we're all hypocrites, and he illustrates this very well, not excluding himself
- and remember he was also a genius at acting, so even though he also worked hard at it, and had excellent teachers and training, it had always come easily to him, so that may have added to his disbelief at the basis of his own success, especially when talking to the general public, on a show like this
- James Lipton had long wanted Brando on his Actors Studio show, and I think Brando would have discussed acting very differently in an environment like that, addressing young acting students directly about it - he even developed his own training course for actors later on, which he then withdrew
Weston's point about the role of acting also points in general to a kind of prevalent social repression - and to the role of art in general here (it's a debate that dates back to Plato) - it would be interesting to compare some different cultures in terms of this repression
Thank you! Love your points about the Brando interview. I send you warm wishes.
@@judithweston Thanks for your response - I notice your video here was posted within a day or so of Elia Kazan's birthday, and he's the one who knew just what to do w Brando - it feels like they launched one another -
I don't know why the debates around Stanislavski are so insulated from public awareness - IMO they're an important part of our cultural philosophy - whether we realize this or not - I wonder if Brando's moral disillusionment w Kazan impacted his disillusionment w acting -
Stanislavski associated acting w this idea of Truth - and Brando speaks of it in relation to lying and manipulation - Brando would likely say the most successful liars are the ones who can also deceive themselves
I agree that real art is about revealing, not concealing - my sense is that Brando's own aesthetic ethos was about getting people in the audience to look at themselves, especially in moral terms - it seemed to inform his choices in selecting projects and interpreting characters
I notice Stanislavski practitioners often deride the expert "pretending" associated w traditions of the British stage and Classical Hollywood, etc - but, given Brando's later moral misgivings around the idea of lying and hypocrisy -
- I'm wondering if he might have ultimately preferred to have trained in a tradition more at home and up front w the idea of artifice - maybe Brecht, like his one-time teacher Piscator? I'd have been curious to hear Brando's response to Brecht's critique of Realism
Would a Brechtian Brando have been our loss or our gain? Because re Brando and Stanislavski - each was certainly God's gift to the other
Fascinating topic IMO - I don't know if such exchanges interest you, or where the best place for them would be - I noticed you have Q & A on your own site, but wasn't sure whether to post there - anyway, thanks so much for your lovely commentaries here
What is your definition of acting?
Acting is lying so well that you can even fool yourself for a short time, and actually, the danger of acting is when you start becoming unaware that you're fooling yourself.
I believe acting is communicating emotions that resonate with the audience. to touch on what Weston said. there are a lot of emotions that people in everyday life hold back bc it might not be socially appropriate or might not be received well. but the actor/actress expresses some of that and so the audience can feel some release of a feeling that they have felt. or maybe the audience did not exactly feel what the actor is expressing in their own life but they can still somehow relate to on an emotional level.
Acting is to be fully alive !
Acting is a broad term. Cheers Film Courage!
I hate when people ask me if I'm fine because sometimes I'm not but I'm not gonna burden them with why because they weren't *really* interested if I'm fine or not, they ask it out of politeness alone.
Interview with Marlon Brando on the Dick Cavett Show (1973) - ua-cam.com/video/uU-4wmwc2Rw/v-deo.html
idk if you know this. but not pinning your comments causes your comments to get buried in the comments section.
maybe it isnt such a big issue for you because there arent that many comments, but it might be more convenient for your audience, and easier for them to engage with you, if you pinned your comments.
I still don’t get it, honestly. But love this channel!
Absolutely correct ****
Amen
Giving to power to phrase "act as if" but better put, "be as if"
Good actors are truthful to the audience - which makes them believable - but the characters they play may be motivated to not be truthful with other characters.
Do you .
Wow. That is such a different look at acting. " acting is Living truthfully under imaginary circumstances" 🙄
Yes, that's such a good way of describing it!
In my opinion, acting is highly controlled manipulation with a finite number of applicable responses.
You got your thesaurus close by, huh.
@@JohnDoe-tm9wz Oh. A snarky remark from a nameless, faceless profile. Original.
@@derrickedmond6461 Hit a nerve there, Derrick?
@@JohnDoe-tm9wz Not at all, I just call like it is.
@@derrickedmond6461 Sure pal, sure.
Now imagine a politician speaking and not an actor?
This definition of acting may be true for certain parts on certain movies, but it's not applicable across the board. When you look at those awful Disney movies, for example, those people aren't going anywhere deep within themselves to portray something important. They're cashing checks pretending to be superheroes. Modern studios like Disney and Warner Bros. have helped to destroy any art that may have been inherent in acting.
And maybe there wasn't much to begin with. This lady sounds awful pretentious to begin with. A person who's good at what they do doesn't need to tell you how good they are.
"This lady sounds awful pretentious to begin with." You're not wrong, she does sound pretentious. I don't think Ms Weston is pretentious. The nature of the interview has her talking about aspects of her profession that are difficult for people to understand without context. Perhaps she is just providing that context.
i think you are projecting your frustration at her. i think she says it concisely and without fluff. this is actually a high quality explanation.
its fine to think that she is pretentious. but it really just shows how you dont want to agree with her when she is actually telling you something important in an easy to understand way, without the usual shroud of self importance that people have.
and yes. i see your point. your cynicism towards acting that seems to be low quality in popular media.
here is an example: twilight is widely regarded to be poor writing in terms of prose and construction, but it is extremely popular. but twilight does not mean that writing does not have a level of craft that can go beyond what it has demonstrated.
and, not necessarily to antagonize, but you are probably just projecting your own negative feelings at her.
if you study acting for a few years, you can come back to this interview and realize what good advice/ perspective it is. you can practice acting for decades and talk to hundreds of people and you will probably never get an explanation this clean and simple.
Of course actors are lying. It's not a hurtful thing. You're not actually the person your playing. If the story is not real. It's just a big lie. For entertainment. It's fun to pretend. Quit trying to justify lying. There is nothing harmful about pretending.
“Jean Shelton.. used to say ‘people think that acting is lying. But really acting is being more truthful than you get to be in real life.’ And that was always the joy of it for me.. I always felt my characters were saying and doing things that I didn’t dare to do, that they were a deeper part of me. That’s what I love about acting. That it’s more truthful than real life. It’s not lying at all.” Absolutely how I feel about the joy and privilege of acting, also. Such a transformative experience when one gets to experience this or when this occurs in real time whilst performing. This paired with seeking work that helps or does good in the world, helps further people’s understanding of the world, earth or humanity in some way, that’s the end goal for me (one day!). 🤍
Thank you for this video.