So often the actor must make compromises in his work because he is dealing with directors, other actors, writers etc, and these compromises can leave the actor, especially the young actor*, bewildered, and this is especially true when the young actor comes up against a forceful director who speaks nonsense, muddying the muddiest of waters. However, by writing and producing his own work, the actor needn't make these compromises, he will get a crystal clear view his work, and therefore a greater understanding of it which means the actor can define his own aesthetic (ie – what it is he actually does, or wants to do, his theory and technique of art as it were ), and then apply that aesthetic to each situation (castings, rehearsals, etc) he is confronted by in order to deal with it, as oppose to trying to re-invent himself for each situation. Of course, the individual actor must fit himself into the mode of the production at hand and not vice versa (and anyone who has worked with an actor who thinks the whole production should fit into his individual mode knows that this leads to misery for all concerned). The director is the actor's boss, and the actor must do the job he is brought in to do, which often means that the application of the actor's personal aesthetic is done in private, rarely will the actor work with people whose aesthetic matches his perfectly, he may even encounter colleagues whose aesthetic is contradictory to that of his own, however, the point is that the actor should not freak out, politic, or collapse into a slough of despair, rather he should rise to the challenge for the challenge is a test of his aesthetic, and if his aesthetic does not hold up under pressure, then perhaps he need go back to the drawing board instead of brandishing everyone around him an idiot (whether in public or in private). And so then, by defining a practicable aesthetic, the actor becomes a happier and more productive, and in the end, more creative worker – suddenly he possesses the capability to liberate all that he has to offer, potential is translated into accomplishment, and becoming that person he always wanted to be begins to seem possible. Ultimately, after producing is own work, the actor can come away with a greater sense of his own value, a rational self-esteem, and he can proceed with confidence – he is an individual creative artist who takes responsibility for his work.
There are those who say that actors should not be entrepreneurial but should hang around hoping to be picked, some even say that if the actor has created his own work rather than been given it, then that work is not “legitemate”, and/or the actor should feel “shame” for casting himself. I might point out that it was only in the latter part of the 20th century that actors became toy soldiers, until then they offered leadership in British theatre, Olivier** is the obvious example, of whom Marlon Brando said had done more than anyone to keep the fire of British culture alive after World War Two. I also refer to the astonishing number of actors who have gone on to create great masterpieces of cinema, Orson Welles and John Cassavetes are two immediate examples. Would film culture be richer of poorer if they had declined to force their visions upon the screen, at great personal cost, and had decided, instead, to spend their lives “going on auditions”? I, for one, will always hold their example aloft without shame, but with pride, for their accomplishments are worth aspiring to.
*Infact, the young actor does not view these compromises as compromises, but as evidence of his own incompetence, which diminishes his confidence still further, leaving his well being in the hands of the arrogant and manipulative.
** Laurence Olivier was the founding artistic director of the National Theatre here in London, it's europe's largest theatre complex. Very difficult to see an actor appointed as artistic director today, much less given the responsibility for starting up such an organization.
So often the actor must make compromises in his work because he is dealing with directors, other actors, writers etc, and these compromises can leave the actor, especially the young actor*, bewildered, and this is especially true when the young actor comes up against a forceful director who speaks nonsense, muddying the muddiest of waters. However, by writing and producing his own work, the actor needn't make these compromises, he will get a crystal clear view his work, and therefore a greater understanding of it which means the actor can define his own aesthetic (ie – what it is he actually does, or wants to do, his theory and technique of art as it were ), and then apply that aesthetic to each situation (castings, rehearsals, etc) he is confronted by in order to deal with it, as oppose to trying to re-invent himself for each situation. Of course, the individual actor must fit himself into the mode of the production at hand and not vice versa (and anyone who has worked with an actor who thinks the whole production should fit into his individual mode knows that this leads to misery for all concerned). The director is the actor's boss, and the actor must do the job he is brought in to do, which often means that the application of the actor's personal aesthetic is done in private, rarely will the actor work with people whose aesthetic matches his perfectly, he may even encounter colleagues whose aesthetic is contradictory to that of his own, however, the point is that the actor should not freak out, politic, or collapse into a slough of despair, rather he should rise to the challenge for the challenge is a test of his aesthetic, and if his aesthetic does not hold up under pressure, then perhaps he need go back to the drawing board instead of brandishing everyone around him an idiot (whether in public or in private). And so then, by defining a practicable aesthetic, the actor becomes a happier and more productive, and in the end, more creative worker – suddenly he possesses the capability to liberate all that he has to offer, potential is translated into accomplishment, and becoming that person he always wanted to be begins to seem possible. Ultimately, after producing is own work, the actor can come away with a greater sense of his own value, a rational self-esteem, and he can proceed with confidence – he is an individual creative artist who takes responsibility for his work.
There are those who say that actors should not be entrepreneurial but should hang around hoping to be picked, some even say that if the actor has created his own work rather than been given it, then that work is not “legitemate”, and/or the actor should feel “shame” for casting himself. I might point out that it was only in the latter part of the 20th century that actors became toy soldiers, until then they offered leadership in British theatre, Olivier** is the obvious example, of whom Marlon Brando said had done more than anyone to keep the fire of British culture alive after World War Two. I also refer to the astonishing number of actors who have gone on to create great masterpieces of cinema, Orson Welles and John Cassavetes are two immediate examples. Would film culture be richer of poorer if they had declined to force their visions upon the screen, at great personal cost, and had decided, instead, to spend their lives “going on auditions”? I, for one, will always hold their example aloft without shame, but with pride, for their accomplishments are worth aspiring to.
*Infact, the young actor does not view these compromises as compromises, but as evidence of his own incompetence, which diminishes his confidence still further, leaving his well being in the hands of the arrogant and manipulative.
** Laurence Olivier was the founding artistic director of the National Theatre here in London, it's europe's largest theatre complex. Very difficult to see an actor appointed as artistic director today, much less given the responsibility for starting up such an organization.
So often the actor must make compromises in his work because he is dealing with directors, other actors, writers etc, and these compromises can leave the actor, especially the young actor*, bewildered, and this is especially true when the young actor comes up against a forceful director who speaks nonsense, muddying the muddiest of waters. However, by writing and producing his own work, the actor needn't make these compromises, he will get a crystal clear view his work, and therefore a greater understanding of it which means the actor can define his own aesthetic (ie – what it is he actually does, or wants to do, his theory and technique of art as it were ), and then apply that aesthetic to each situation (castings, rehearsals, etc) he is confronted by in order to deal with it, as oppose to trying to re-invent himself for each situation. Of course, the individual actor must fit himself into the mode of the production at hand and not vice versa (and anyone who has worked with an actor who thinks the whole production should fit into his individual mode knows that this leads to misery for all concerned). The director is the actor's boss, and the actor must do the job he is brought in to do, which often means that the application of the actor's personal aesthetic is done in private, rarely will the actor work with people whose aesthetic matches his perfectly, he may even encounter colleagues whose aesthetic is contradictory to that of his own, however, the point is that the actor should not freak out, politic, or collapse into a slough of despair, rather he should rise to the challenge for the challenge is a test of his aesthetic, and if his aesthetic does not hold up under pressure, then perhaps he need go back to the drawing board instead of brandishing everyone around him an idiot (whether in public or in private). And so then, by defining a practicable aesthetic, the actor becomes a happier and more productive, and in the end, more creative worker – suddenly he possesses the capability to liberate all that he has to offer, potential is translated into accomplishment, and becoming that person he always wanted to be begins to seem possible. Ultimately, after producing is own work, the actor can come away with a greater sense of his own value, a rational self-esteem, and he can proceed with confidence – he is an individual creative artist who takes responsibility for his work.
There are those who say that actors should not be entrepreneurial but should hang around hoping to be picked, some even say that if the actor has created his own work rather than been given it, then that work is not “legitemate”, and/or the actor should feel “shame” for casting himself. I might point out that it was only in the latter part of the 20th century that actors became toy soldiers, until then they offered leadership in British theatre, Olivier** is the obvious example, of whom Marlon Brando said had done more than anyone to keep the fire of British culture alive after World War Two. I also refer to the astonishing number of actors who have gone on to create great masterpieces of cinema, Orson Welles and John Cassavetes are two immediate examples. Would film culture be richer of poorer if they had declined to force their visions upon the screen, at great personal cost, and had decided, instead, to spend their lives “going on auditions”? I, for one, will always hold their example aloft without shame, but with pride, for their accomplishments are worth aspiring to.
*Infact, the young actor does not view these compromises as compromises, but as evidence of his own incompetence, which diminishes his confidence still further, leaving his well being in the hands of the arrogant and manipulative.
** Laurence Olivier was the founding artistic director of the National Theatre here in London, it's europe's largest theatre complex. Very difficult to see an actor appointed as artistic director today, much less given the responsibility for starting up such an organization.
So often the actor must make compromises in his work because he is dealing with directors, other actors, writers etc, and these compromises can leave the actor, especially the young actor*, bewildered, and this is especially true when the young actor comes up against a forceful director who speaks nonsense, muddying the muddiest of waters. However, by writing and producing his own work, the actor needn't make these compromises, he will get a crystal clear view his work, and therefore a greater understanding of it which means the actor can define his own aesthetic (ie – what it is he actually does, or wants to do, his theory and technique of art as it were ), and then apply that aesthetic to each situation (castings, rehearsals, etc) he is confronted by in order to deal with it, as oppose to trying to re-invent himself for each situation. Of course, the individual actor must fit himself into the mode of the production at hand and not vice versa (and anyone who has worked with an actor who thinks the whole production should fit into his individual mode knows that this leads to misery for all concerned). The director is the actor's boss, and the actor must do the job he is brought in to do, which often means that the application of the actor's personal aesthetic is done in private, rarely will the actor work with people whose aesthetic matches his perfectly, he may even encounter colleagues whose aesthetic is contradictory to that of his own, however, the point is that the actor should not freak out, politic, or collapse into a slough of despair, rather he should rise to the challenge for the challenge is a test of his aesthetic, and if his aesthetic does not hold up under pressure, then perhaps he need go back to the drawing board instead of brandishing everyone around him an idiot (whether in public or in private). And so then, by defining a practicable aesthetic, the actor becomes a happier and more productive, and in the end, more creative worker – suddenly he possesses the capability to liberate all that he has to offer, potential is translated into accomplishment, and becoming that person he always wanted to be begins to seem possible. Ultimately, after producing is own work, the actor can come away with a greater sense of his own value, a rational self-esteem, and he can proceed with confidence – he is an individual creative artist who takes responsibility for his work.
There are those who say that actors should not be entrepreneurial but should hang around hoping to be picked, some even say that if the actor has created his own work rather than been given it, then that work is not “legitemate”, and/or the actor should feel “shame” for casting himself. I might point out that it was only in the latter part of the 20th century that actors became toy soldiers, until then they offered leadership in British theatre, Olivier** is the obvious example, of whom Marlon Brando said had done more than anyone to keep the fire of British culture alive after World War Two. I also refer to the astonishing number of actors who have gone on to create great masterpieces of cinema, Orson Welles and John Cassavetes are two immediate examples. Would film culture be richer of poorer if they had declined to force their visions upon the screen, at great personal cost, and had decided, instead, to spend their lives “going on auditions”? I, for one, will always hold their example aloft without shame, but with pride, for their accomplishments are worth aspiring to.
*Infact, the young actor does not view these compromises as compromises, but as evidence of his own incompetence, which diminishes his confidence still further, leaving his well being in the hands of the arrogant and manipulative.
** Laurence Olivier was the founding artistic director of the National Theatre here in London, it's europe's largest theatre complex. Very difficult to see an actor appointed as artistic director today, much less given the responsibility for starting up such an organization.
I'm delighted to share "Man Crossing Street" with you, a no wave short film I made recently, about the individual amid the turburlence of a busy city.
So often the actor must make compromises in his work because he is dealing with directors, other actors, writers etc, and these compromises can leave the actor, especially the young actor*, bewildered, and this is especially true when the young actor comes up against a forceful director who speaks nonsense, muddying the muddiest of waters. However, by writing and producing his own work, the actor needn't make these compromises, he will get a crystal clear view his work, and therefore a greater understanding of it which means the actor can define his own aesthetic (ie – what it is he actually does, or wants to do, his theory and technique of art as it were ), and then apply that aesthetic to each situation (castings, rehearsals, etc) he is confronted by in order to deal with it, as oppose to trying to re-invent himself for each situation. Of course, the individual actor must fit himself into the mode of the production at hand and not vice versa (and anyone who has worked with an actor who thinks the whole production should fit into his individual mode knows that this leads to misery for all concerned). The director is the actor's boss, and the actor must do the job he is brought in to do, which often means that the application of the actor's personal aesthetic is done in private, rarely will the actor work with people whose aesthetic matches his perfectly, he may even encounter colleagues whose aesthetic is contradictory to that of his own, however, the point is that the actor should not freak out, politic, cause trouble or collapse into a slough of despair, rather he should rise to the challenge for the challenge is a test of his aesthetic, and if his aesthetic does not hold up under pressure, then perhaps he need go back to the drawing board instead of brandishing everyone around him an idiot (whether in public or in private). And so then, by defining a practicable aesthetic, the actor becomes a happier and more productive, and in the end, more creative worker – suddenly he possesses the capability to liberate all that he has to offer, potential is translated into accomplishment, and becoming that person he always wanted to be begins to seem possible. Ultimately, after producing is own work, the actor can come away with a greater sense of his own value, a rational self-esteem, and he can proceed with confidence – he is an individual creative artist who takes responsibility for his work.
There are those who say that actors should not be entrepreneurial but should hang around hoping to be picked, some even say that if the actor has created his own work rather than been given it, then that work is not “legitemate”, and/or the actor should feel “shame” for casting himself. I might point out that it was only in the latter part of the 20th century that actors became toy soldiers, until then they offered leadership in British theatre, for example, Olivier** is the obvious example, of whom Marlon Brando said had done more than anyone to keep the fire of British culture alive after the World War Two. I also refer to the astonishing number of actors who have gone on to create great masterpieces of cinema, Orson Welles and John Cassavetes are two immediate examples. Would film culture be richer of poorer if they had declined to force their visions upon the screen, at great personal cost, and had decided, instead, to spend their lives “going on auditions”? I, for one, will always hold their example aloft without shame, but with pride, for their accomplishments are worth aspiring to.
*Infact, the young actor does not view these compromises as compromises, but as evidence of his own incompetence, which diminishes his confidence still further, leaving his well being in the hands of the arrogant and manipulative.
** Laurence Olivier was the founding artistic director of the National Theatre here in London, it's europe's largest theatre complex. Very difficult to see an actor appointed as artistic director today, much less given the responsibility for starting up such an organization.
No comments:
Post a Comment