The Actor's Role and Responsibility

The last couple of posts have gotten me thinking about the role of the actor in the play and how creativity fits into the equation. Is the actor an independent agent pursuing his own creative path? How does the actor fit into the director’s vision or the playwright’s intentions? It's a balancing act, and I think it's something that has to be explored anew in every theatrical experience.

Stanislavsky said that we create a new being every time we do a play: you as the character in the part. He felt that the ultimate character was a unique combination of the text, the character, and the particular experiences of the actor. I've always liked that idea, because I think it leaves room for artistic expression for everyone; no one is a puppet. One important element of acting as art is the actor's ability to bring him/herself to the role. It’s kind of a cliché, but we have to bare our souls and let the audience see inside us. Whether we do this is the difference between entertaining an audience and moving them. I’ve seen far too many performances where an actor simply did an impression of the movie version of a role, often to the delight of the audience. Yes, they were entertained. Yes, the playwright’s intentions were met. The director may have even pushed the actor toward the ordinary. But this is still mediocrity on the actor’s part, and a lack of fulfillment of responsibility.

The actor has a responsibility to present a live, truthful performance every time, even if Saturday night is not the same as Friday. She has a responsibility to reveal something of herself to the audience. Most importantly, she has a responsibility to continue to grow in every role and never settle. These things make the difference between an actor and a performer. I say we should be actors.