“I believe in imagination. I did Kramer vs. Kramer before I had children. But the mother I would be was already inside me.”
— Meryl Streep, Actor
Acting is hard. That’s the first thing one has to acknowledge when one begins to study its form. Some would even say that actors are born and not made. For visual artists, such as animators, acting is something quite elusive; we’re given the task of acting, with little to no training in it. Let’s face the fact: most animators are nothing more than “ham” actors at best. Still, we have a job to do, which is to give a convincing performance. Through our control of shape and movement, down to the smallest pixel and fractions (1/24th) of a second, we must make our characters live as a real living actor would. Thus, it would make paramount sense, if not a necessity, to study what it means to act and the various schools of thought in the acting world.
History:
Acting goes as far back as Ancient Greek theatre where plays were performed on a semi-circular raised stage called a theatron, as early as 6th Century B.C. Its format and popularity spread throughout the Mediterrannean. Stage actors donned elaborately designed masks which represented “personas” — which is where the word “person” comes from — and played parts or roles in a drama, which was a story that was larger than life and often tied to the mystical. In the East, theatre and acting had its own forms of dramatic storytelling such as the Kathakali in India, or Noh Theatre and Kabuki in Japan, each one a form of song and dance performance that told rich stories associated with Gods and Demons, not unlike that of Greek or Roman mythology.
Today, due to the advancement of technology — by which we’re referring mostly to the freedom of the camera — acting has taken on more specific styles of performance. The broadness of a stage performance changed. Long Shots (where characters are framed full bodied) dictated more suitability for action or comedy. While medium and close up shots (where only a portion of the body is seen), were saved for drama. Shot selection also gave directors freedom to express an idea with just the shot, even if an actor did little in terms of action. Subtlety was gradually introduced, both in live action and animation. Still, acting required action, for that is the root of its word. Stillness was relative, and like all art, it’s the build up and contrast in acting and shot sequencing that gave texture and tension to the filmmaking. Good actors never forget that it is through action that an idea or emotion is expressed, and this skill and its control takes many many years to develop.
Schools of Acting:
There are 5 major schools of acting and the following is only a very rudimentary introduction to those famous acting styles. What’s most important is to remember that acting is not just action, but also an expression of an idea, story and emotion that makes a character believable, real and interesting. It’s a tall task for any artist. For those who work in animation, it would be valuable to understand at least the basics of what acting is and can be; we must learn to observe what a real actor does and why. Only then can we have any hope of making the best use of our craft to create something honest and special to the craft of animation, which has it own unique characteristics that make it different from a physical acting performance.
Classical:
Founded by Konstantin Stanislavski — his famous book, An Actor Prepares should be on every serious actor’s or animator’s shelf — the classical method is the most foundational form of acting on stage and in films. Founded on the idea of using one’s experiences and emotions to find the right connections to a character one is playing, this methodology puts the actor in the mindset of the character after long and carefully studied preparation. The Stanislavski method requires serious concentration and elaborate character analysis as well as learning voice and physical skills to create a convincing performance. Almost all other acting methodologies have their roots in Stanislavski’s system.
Checkhov:
Founded by Stanislavki’s student Michael Chekhov, the Checkhov Technique is a psycho-social approach to acting, bringing the performer closer towards a mind-body transformation. The actor here internalizes the problems of the character and finds a gestural way of expressing his story. The idea is that performance comes via physical memory at the unconscious level, thus bringing about a more honest performance at the conscious level. Here, physical action is a result of a merger of mind and body. It’s proponents include actors like Clint Eastwood, Lloyd Bridges, Jack Nicholson and Marilyn Monroe.
Method:
The Method technique, founded by Lee Stralsberg, is also rooted from Stanislavski but builds on it, encouraging an actor to dig very deeply into personal emotions and memories. Things such as sense memory (physical sensations tied to emotional events) and affective memory (memories from a similar situation) are developed, allowing the actor to behave more “in character.” Some altered forms of method acting, such as that led by Stella Adler, encourage more imagination in the creation process and less “all out” becoming of a character all of the time which can pose dangerous psychological issues and burn out for the actor. (See what Meryl Streep had to say after using Method Acting for her role in The Devil Wears Prada.) Still, the Method techniques have produced some of the most powerful actors ever including such stalwarts as Dustin Hoffman, Christian Bale, Daniel Day-Lewis, Robert DeNiro and Marlon Brando (the latter two being more devout devotees to Stella Adler’s version).
Meissner
This school of acting, created by Sanford Meissner in New York, famously uses repetition exercises — acting exercises that encourage the actor to explore actions and reactions to an identical given phrase. Due to changes that occur in meaning, tone and intensity while using the same words, one actor’s behaviour alters the behaviour of the other. This methodology is sometimes referred to as improvisational acting where the actor is responding more reflexively and naturally to a situation and is very effective in two-character interactions. The phrase “acting is reacting” comes from this methodology, which allows for more free and spontaneous performance both vocally and physically. Actors in the Meissner mold include Diane Keaton, Kristoff Waltz, James Gandolfini and Grace Kelly.
Practical Aesthetics
This more modern school of acting (often referred to as the Atlantic School) joins both Classical Stanislavski and Meissner methods while incorporating ideas from the Stoic philosophers such as Aristotle and Epictetus. Created by director/playwright David Mamet and actor William H. Macy, the core idea springs around creation and response as coming from the actor rather than the character. Its techniques are built around motivation from the actor within the situation and is considered a more practical approach to acting by demystifying the acting process. Repetition, Performance Technique and Script Analysis are the means for actors to develop the mental and physical skills necessary. Its proponents include the likes of Rose Byrne, William H. Macy and Felicity Huffman.
Conclusion:
Animators rarely take acting classes. This means that we know very little about what it means to be on an actual stage or film set. But what visual artists can do is explore and study the performances of good actors, including that of good animators. How an artist gets inside a character, how he chooses to move the body is important. An animator can never produce the presence or subtle look with an impact on screen like a great live actor would — for there are just too many nuances that make live acting exceptionally powerful and thus, irreplaceable — but we can do something else. Firstly, being unconfined to the limitations of our bodies, we can do almost anything we want with our imaginations and make it look real. Secondly, animators have another distinct advantage — we can see and design the movement in real-time because we can see our characters performances while animating; a live actor will always have to depend on and trust the director that his staging and posing looks good and right. This makes the animation process much more a construction rather than a performance, allowing time to tweak and adjust our vision as we create. The live actor must perform on the fly, like a musician or an athlete. This explains one of the reasons why good actors seek out good directors.
Now, that said, the live actor is a serious actor, a real one. The animator is not. After many years in training and development of their craft, live actors truly build, create and then execute their performance, mind, body and voice, for that is the language of their craft. Animators are visual artists — our language is in shapes and movement of those shapes on screen. Any animator who thinks they can just hop in front of a camera and act, then copy the recording frame by frame for translation on to his character model/rig, would be a fool to believe that his/her performance is actually any good (there are exceptions, of course). This probably explains why there is so much bland and wooden acting in animated films today since there is such extensive over-reliance on self-shot video reference. Animators should never forget that the strength and wonder of animation lies in its imagination and the mastery of its techniques such as weight and design; we can design the physicality and the movement with utmost precision towards a unique and orderly personal vision. The exercise is an exercise of the mind.
“The actor has to develop his body. The actor has to work on his voice. But the most important thing the actor has to work on is his mind.”
— Stella Adler, Actor/Teacher