"Good Acting": A Definition. Sort of.

There is no such thing as good acting. I agree that this is a bold statement. Bear with me.

There is no such thing as good acting. There are ROLES that show us talent, drive, watchability, etc. There are actors who often succeed at the roles they are given. There are actors who get cast a lot. (Which is a different animal entirely.) However, there is no UNANIMOUS DEFINITION for good acting. We all see talent in different ways and places. Let's break it down. (For the purpose of this exercise I'll be using examples from film for accessibility. However, this post was sparked by stage actors.)

1. Good acting can be achieved by playing a role that takes effort but appears effortless. I believe that it's easier to put your finger on it when you know or have seen a lot of roles played by the actor/actress -- we know what they are like in real life and we don't recognize them at all in the role. Case in point: Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight. The role of The Joker had to be physically exhausted with all of the ticks, the voice, etc. but he pulled it off without a hitch. He terrified and thrilled us all. And I would classify his performance in this role as good acting.

2. Similarly, when we recognize the actor, or have seen a lot of their work, we can recognize the types of roles they usually play and can identify when they are out of their comfort zone or IN a role that stretches them to their highest, most watchable potential. Good acting is something that we WANT to watch. Case in point: Vivien Leigh in A Streetcar Named Desire. She's unhinged within the confines of the script's world yet in control of the role at the same time. She's gorgeous to watch on screen and pulls you through every step of the story.

3a. We wouldn't be able to recognize Vivien Leigh and Heath Ledger as "good actors" without the roles they are tackling. Therefore, while good acting is the combination of many factors, good writing often produces good acting. Good acting is hard to come by when a poor script is at large. And when we see good acting in a show with poor writing, it is even more astounding to watch. You can cast Meryl Streep, Al Pacino, Kate Winslet, and Clint Eastwood in a film but if the script is uninteresting, their performances aren't going to be that noteworthy.

3b. How do we define "good writing?" For me, good writing consists of the following: the element of surprise (I don't want to know how the play ends on page one. I want to watch a chain of events), characters who definitively WANT something, REVEALS that we infer not ones that are spelled out for us, necessary dialogue (aka if the conversation isn't relevant to moving the plot again - get it out of there), and appropriate length for the subject matter/plot.

There are many other ways "good acting" can occur, but I think you're starting to get the point. What we refer to as good acting is NOT always consistent within an actor, it is the perfect storm of the right casting, the right writing, the right push, and the right watchability. I heard Michael Shannon speak in Feb. 2009 right after he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor in Revolutionary Road and he put it like this: winning an Oscar doesn't mean you're the best actor of all time. It's the recognition that in this particular role, you did justice to your craft and stood out among your peers. His remarks have stuck with me and therein lies my personal definition for good acting. It is a phenomenon that occurs with the right combination of elements. Not every good actor is set up for a good performance with every role he or she takes, but when it does occur, it is an incredible thing to watch.

I'd love to hear your thoughts. What is your definition of good acting?

Stuff Theatre People Like: Artsy Independent Coffee Shops

This installment of Stuff Theatre People Like is for all of your writers out there. Sometimes the hardest thing about writing is getting started. Even though I know I have a task in front of me, I just can't sit down and do it in my apartment. (Especially if there's no deadline.) There's tv, the room I'm supposed to be cleaning, Facebook. But in a coffee shop, somehow it's easier to ignore those little chat windows. Or not. Which is fine, because I have the attention span of a small child, but anyways. At least there's no tv. Moving on.

I decided to start working on a couple of projects that I've had on the back burner and as I was driving around doing errands, I decided to stop in Taste in Newtonville. It's a cute little place with table service, gorgeous cappucinos (they're sooo pretty. and tasty too. but really pretty), and the best lemon poppyseed muffin I've ever had. There was no need for headphones (which saves my computer battery!) because the staff makes a great playlist to set the mood - everything from the Beatles to Phoenix to Foo Fighters. It was chill, quaint and made me feel better about spending money on coffee than I do at Starbucks. (Plus there was free wi-fi. Holler.)

And the best part is, I ACTUALLY GOT WORK DONE. I'm reworking some scripts that I've started (GASP) and I'm helping a friend hash out the start to a screen play. It was nice to settle into my nook and do some work and I would highly recommend it to those who might be passing through the area looking for a place to do work. Regardless of whether you hit up taste or not, that's my weekend recommendation to all of you. Even if you're feeling stuck, a change of scenery might be what you need. Or a muffin. A delicious, delicious muffin. :)

Status Updates vs The Handshake

Over the last year-ish, since beginning to blog in earnest I have noticed a serious uptick in how much Boston-theatre-related information I am gathering through my social media outlets. And how much our blog has grown simply through the CoLab's presence on facebook (we have recently expanded to Twitter - follow us @colabtheatre). It is interesting to me how much my newsfeed has seemed to blow up with theatre related news, events, and anecdotes since January. And it makes me happy to see so many new and interesting things happening. But it makes me wonder how much momentum we are truly building and can we put our money where our status updates are?

Part of what made play. so exciting for us was the fact that it was promoted almost exclusively through virtual word-of-mouth. But it was also terrifying to rely completely on information we were gathering on-line. Just because someone clicks Attending on your facebook event doesn't actually mean they will show up and buy a ticket. For a lot of people it's a way to show support without actually having to back it up with an expenditure of time or money. The barrier of the internet makes it easy to skew numbers and levels of interest. Just becasue some one "likes" our link or retweets a blog post doesn't necessarily mean they are going to come see our shows, participate in a workshop, or donate to the cause.

We are truly grateful for (and I am ever impressed by) our on-line friends and followers. And sure there is a little surge of ego-boosting that runs through me when I meet someone in person for the first time and hear, oh yeah, I read your blog! And there is no doubt that I get most of my information on-line, so staying present and keeping ourselves moving forward through social media is one of the most effective ways to stay on people's minds.

But I feel like we are moving faster virtually than it is possible to do in real-life, thereby missing some of the essential steps. Networking isn't always my favorite thing to do, but when I can actually shake someone's hand and say hello, I'm Mary-Liz Murray, I'm a Co-Founding Artistic Director of The CoLab Theatre Company, what do you do? I know the impact is more likely to stick than flashing across a computer screen. The same is true when I run into friends and acquaintances and catch up on what they are doing. Personally,I am much more likely to go see a show if I commit to it verbally than virtually. If I am face to face with a friend or colleague and say, yes I'm coming to see you, not going is a much bigger deal to me. And so I wonder how true that is across a larger board, what does your physical presence and commitment mean that your virtual stamp doesn't?

I think businesses and organizations across the board are only starting to measure that. Lately there has been such a push to move everything online that I think the fallout from losing person to person contact has yet to be realized. There are other types of businesses where a bigger online presence makes more sense, and providing information and services online makes a huge impact. But theatre is about a live event, a symbiotic relationship between performers/directors/technicians and their audience. If an audience doesn't show up, does the play still happen? The actors may get up on stage and run the show, but if no one is watching it's completely irrelevant. So devaluing the in-person networking and feedback and conversation by simply putting a company's life, mission, and event online is a dangerous game.

I'm happy to be online. To have the CoLab be online. To read other theatre blogs and accept invitations to Facebook events. But if you see me out on a Friday night, come say hello, introduce yourself, tell me what you do, because that I will actually remember.

Commedia in Boston

A few weeks ago, I experienced my first ever live Commedia Del'Arte performance. The troupe, Teatro Dell Maschere has posted their performance on youtube, for your viewing pleasure! I LOVED this performance, and I encourage you all to check these guys out in the future.

If you don't know about this theatrical art form, read up on the wikipedia article. Every actor should at least know about this stuff.

The things I notice in this video: The freedom and sense of ease. The characters are over the top, and flamboyant. But they don't seem strained. The performances are at ease, but not lazy. there is a balance between strength/energy and grace/lightness. Each character is specific, and no one seems like they're "Trying too hard." This is what I'm talking about when I describe the difference between Naturalism and Realism. This is far more natural than half of the realistic performances I see. Good acting isn't about being "Realistic". It's about being "Real". As an acting teacher once said to me:

"I'm not asking you to act falsely. I'm asking you to act truthfully, but stretch the definition of what truth can mean."

Best,

K

Tony Clifton!

My life is just surreal sometimes... Case in point, here's a photo from last night in front of Deep Ellum in Allston...

He's performing at the Wilbur Tonight. He's actually quite a nice guy in real life...lulz!

David Mamet For Kids!

I saw this in a bookstore today. I didn't have to inspect further, but yes, this is in fact THE David Mamet.

I'm not sure what the content of the book is, but it looks like a children's book... if so, this makes the man a playwright, director, "expert" on anti-semitism AND... and now an influence on our children.

Our straight talkin', hyper masculine, potty mouthed children.

K

What kind of actor am I?

Lately in my life there has been a lot of discussion about what makes a successful actor. How to become one, how to sustain being one, what does it mean to be one? And it's made me think a lot about the kind of actor I want to be, and the kind of life that will create for me.

There is no right way to be a theatre professional. There are definitely WRONG ways. But finding a "right" way to make your career as an actor, director, technician, administrator or any combination of those things is impossible. There are people who think they know. And there has been an entire industry built around rules and norms that are really fuzzy and broken more often than followed.

There is no rhyme or reason to success. But there is immense pressure to be "successful".

But what makes a successful actor?

Is it longevity - is doing one show every eighteen months and working as a cater waiter while auditioning for 20 years straight success?

Or fame - becoming a household name or a soap star or a frought druggie diva success?

Maybe it's consistency - working steadily and being paid a barely living wage to work on plays, films, commercials, industrials, and voice over work in exchange for holidays, family time, and a a social life to say the only thing I do is act?

{ See this clip from Dustin Hoffman's acceptance speech for the Acadamy Award he won for Kramer vs. Kramer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhDmNRQgKLM. It is one of the most eloquent and classy ways to put these sentiments into words ever. And I generally hate Oscar speeches.}

I would guess the answer is different for a lot of actors. And non-actors generally only think of fame as the acceptable answer. In general, I find, the metrics for measuring the successfulness of an actor, director, or other are very skewed.

For me being a successful actor is a lot of things. The most important thing is doing the kind of work I WANT to do. The kind of work I believe in. It's not a particular genre or type of role, but more about the process and the people I work with. The feeling of camaraderie and respect I get from being in a well run rehearsal and being allowed to explore, experiment, and build. But in my life I don't only want to be a successful actor. There is so much of theatre and creating that is important to me. And being able to mesh my acting career with the other kinds of directorial and administrative work I do is really important to me.

And there are many people out there that will tell me I can never be a successful actor if I don't give it 100% of my focus. If I'm not willing to sacrifice all of the other goals and roles in my life, I won't know success. But I won't accept that. Firstly because as long as I am working, as long as I stay involved, as long as there is theatre to be made, I will be successful. But also because my overarching goal in life isn't to be a successful actor. I want an acting career that is fulfilling, sure, but I also want a social life and a steady income (I like nice things and buying groceries, so shoot me). I want to travel and enjoy my family and read books and go camping and SEE plays and movies and go dancing or on a spur of the moment road trip. Being tied to making my entire existence about the pursuit of my next acting job won't help me to achieve any of that.

I admire the people who want the kind of acting success that only comes from sacrificing every other part of themselves. It's a dedication and motivation that is awe-inspiring (though sometimes a little....intense) but not something I possess. And the biggest thing I've learned so far is that that is OK. That I don't want to be a "give it everything in my being" kind of actor is a valid choice. That choosing a life full of relationships and experiences that INCLUDE but aren't exclusive to theatre and acting is just fine. And if that's what makes me happy, than why even question it?