Tough Act
Someone I met recently said that many people think that a good actor/actress is one who can cry. He commented that for the nominees of Star Awards Best Actress, the candidates are rivalling against the one who can cry the best. He was just echoing what the masses think, because we both disagree. All of us hold different opinions on what constitutes good acting and for me, being able to emote deeply is an art I would like to master, regardless whether people think that is good acting or not. It's like how you can watch a close-up of Chinese actress Zhou Xun's face, as her expressions turns from bliss to betrayal, all without having to twitch an eyebrow. That is what I call good acting. It is the process she goes through with ever so subtle changes in the emotions, but yet clearly conveying to me what she felt.
Dialogue and gestures help make a more convincing act, but the real challenge lies in acting without using any verbal or nonverbal cues, how to convince people the emotion you're feeling without outwardly displaying it. TV doesn't quite allow for this. I guess it isn't called "drama" for nothing. TV dramas tend to have this "dramatic" element to it, so there is more dialogue than anything else. Yet even then, it's not easy to bring across what is supposedly most natural in our day-to-day encounters.
The same someone I met recently said to me how is it that sometimes your friend sitting next to you can tell that you're jealous or angry, even though you never really said it to him/her. Just by looking at your face, or the way you sit, you have sub-consciously displayed a particular emotion, without trying very hard. So, how to act this out without appearing like we are?
To a certain extent, a lot of our local TV actors and actresses are probably trying to overcome that. They end up literally acting. They adopt a certain stature, a kind of presence, a series of habitual gestures to help them portray their character, while still preserving a bit of themselves. It's not a good or bad thing, because I can give reason why it's hard to achieve.
First of all, it could be the audience's own perception. Maybe because we see our local actors and actresses doing so many other things like endorsing products and going on variety shows or singing at events, that we already have a glimpse of this actor's/actress's real-life personality. So when we watch them try to be a cripple, or a chicken-rice seller at 7 pm and then at 8pm they are playing Snakes and Ladders on a variety show, we can't quite believe that they have grown into the role. Either that, or they haven't got an in-depth grasp of the character.
Even if it's the latter, you can't quite blame them either, because at the rate dramas are being churned out, and the amount of preparation time given to the actor/actress (from the time of receiving the script to actual shoot), it's hard for them to grow into the character they play.
Earlier I mentioned about how some actors/actresses preserve a bit of themselves in each role. Again I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing and I'm not about to judge. Another friend said it is necessary for TV, because one part of it is to let people get familiar with you as an artiste (in other words, an actor/actress-cum-host-cum-singer-by-occasion-cum-clown-cum-stuntsman/woman-cum-celebrity). But on the other hand, I'm just wondering if it actually limits the actor/actress's performance? For e.g. if Actor A and Actor B are given the same script for the same role, no doubt they will have different interpretations, and at the same time, while they may play the character different, each of them inevitably preserves a bit of themselves in the character. Now, what if Actor A completely forgets who he is, and while still playing the character based on his own interpretation, actually bring in the personality/character traits of Actor B? Would that make the fictitious character more wholesome and less like Actor A himself? Or would that make Actor A's acting become unnatural or fake?
Hmm...I'm thinking too much, and staring too hard at this screen.
Now that's food for thought.
Gee, I'm hungry.
Dialogue and gestures help make a more convincing act, but the real challenge lies in acting without using any verbal or nonverbal cues, how to convince people the emotion you're feeling without outwardly displaying it. TV doesn't quite allow for this. I guess it isn't called "drama" for nothing. TV dramas tend to have this "dramatic" element to it, so there is more dialogue than anything else. Yet even then, it's not easy to bring across what is supposedly most natural in our day-to-day encounters.
The same someone I met recently said to me how is it that sometimes your friend sitting next to you can tell that you're jealous or angry, even though you never really said it to him/her. Just by looking at your face, or the way you sit, you have sub-consciously displayed a particular emotion, without trying very hard. So, how to act this out without appearing like we are?
To a certain extent, a lot of our local TV actors and actresses are probably trying to overcome that. They end up literally acting. They adopt a certain stature, a kind of presence, a series of habitual gestures to help them portray their character, while still preserving a bit of themselves. It's not a good or bad thing, because I can give reason why it's hard to achieve.
First of all, it could be the audience's own perception. Maybe because we see our local actors and actresses doing so many other things like endorsing products and going on variety shows or singing at events, that we already have a glimpse of this actor's/actress's real-life personality. So when we watch them try to be a cripple, or a chicken-rice seller at 7 pm and then at 8pm they are playing Snakes and Ladders on a variety show, we can't quite believe that they have grown into the role. Either that, or they haven't got an in-depth grasp of the character.
Even if it's the latter, you can't quite blame them either, because at the rate dramas are being churned out, and the amount of preparation time given to the actor/actress (from the time of receiving the script to actual shoot), it's hard for them to grow into the character they play.
Earlier I mentioned about how some actors/actresses preserve a bit of themselves in each role. Again I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing and I'm not about to judge. Another friend said it is necessary for TV, because one part of it is to let people get familiar with you as an artiste (in other words, an actor/actress-cum-host-cum-singer-by-occasion-cum-clown-cum-stuntsman/woman-cum-celebrity). But on the other hand, I'm just wondering if it actually limits the actor/actress's performance? For e.g. if Actor A and Actor B are given the same script for the same role, no doubt they will have different interpretations, and at the same time, while they may play the character different, each of them inevitably preserves a bit of themselves in the character. Now, what if Actor A completely forgets who he is, and while still playing the character based on his own interpretation, actually bring in the personality/character traits of Actor B? Would that make the fictitious character more wholesome and less like Actor A himself? Or would that make Actor A's acting become unnatural or fake?
Hmm...I'm thinking too much, and staring too hard at this screen.
Now that's food for thought.
Gee, I'm hungry.
posted by Me at 1:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home