Kalliope talks 2: Digging for the “bone of contention” or: Do actors even know what they are doing???

(Of course she is just a male projection! So, probably a bad choice for a banner, but I just love the colours …)

(Upon Claudia sending me a link of Tom Hiddelston as Coriolanus):

Dear Claudia,

Of course I want to watch this! Tom Hiddelston is one of those actors I go to the cinema for.

Yesterday I was on Digital Theatre again: "Much Ado About Nothing" with Catherine Tate and David Tennant as Benedick and Beatrice. I didn't like Catherine Tate as much as I thought I would, but Davind Tennant on the stage  💗💗💗!!!

I went on thinking about our argument. Obviously we agreed that theatre (respectively the fictional theatre situation) is created (mainly) by ACTING whereas this is possible in films but doesn't apply as a rule. That's how I understood you when you wrote that theatre is more DIFFICULT for the actors. They are more in control of the outcome but also have a greater responsibility for the success of the show. Of course this is exactly what actors like James McAvoy or Richard Armitage want, and what they understand as their work - playing on this level. And what British actors are generally trained to do whereas the level of achievement is - to put it neutrally - more diverse elsewhere. (Every time I see that a German actor is able to act after all, I find out afterwards that they are Austrian ...) 

Of course the goal of this playing is the production of the perfect illusion, but I think it can only be achieved by playing - on this level. This is what I meant when I wrote that I have to SEE that somebody is playing. In the theatre I automatically notice when this doesn't happen and get bored whereas this isn't automatically the case in films. Obviously there are different means for me to produce the illusion whereas - in the theatre - I am DEPENDANT on the actors because we are in this TOGETHER. (And it releases much more adrenaline - on MY part as well!)  

But I think there is still a point of contention. Of course I love the perfect illusion, but I noticed recently that it is not what I appreciate most about actors. I totally enjoyed what Toby Jones did as Vanya and noticed that I followed him all the time he was on the stage and appreciated everything he was doing. (And I just watched him again on Digital Theatre (in "Parlour Song" together with Andrew Lincoln 😍!) - to establish again that I find him absolutely fascinating as an actor. 😍😍😍) But there is still something else I enjoy and value even more, and which was there when Richard Armitage came on the stage in “The Crucible” – before he said or did anything - “telling” us: “Now I am here and you just watch out!” Of course I kind of expected it, in this case, whereas it came as a total surprise with James McAvoy because I didn’t expect anything apart from perfection. Then I totally loved it to see BOTH the character and this human being playing at 180 kilometres per hour and totally happy of being so much in control. (It’s why I’d give him the Olivier Award, not Toby Jones, and why I would have given it to Richard Armitage at the time, no matter what. I just googled: We will have to wait for the 2020 winners at least until September because of COVID-19, but my bet stands. If he doesn’t get it I will eat my hat.) David Tennant as well – he has this sublime consciousness of what he is doing that I can see. I think he is the ultimate perfectionist who HAS to know exactly if what he is just doing works on us. Otherwise he would be unhappy. AT THE SAME TIME there is this incredibly sensitive and compassionate human being that wants to “get out”. When an actor in the theatre isn’t happy and doesn’t PLAY – as I experienced it with Ralph Fiennes in “Antony and Cleopatra” when I saw it on stage, or with Richard Armitage at the beginning of “Uncle Vanya” – we notice this at once, and the adrenaline we produced in expectation of the event escapes like the air from a ruptured balloon. I wasn’t THAT disappointed with them, though, because I had seen them both at their unbelievable best (in “The Crucible” and “Richard III”). (I think I was disappointed with Chris Eccleston, though – not wanting to own up to it – because I got the impression that he didn’t care. But the DVD IS great!!!)  

Maybe I managed to nail our common ground and our differences this time?

Dear Barbara,

I noticed Tom Hiddleston for the first time in this crappy film “Thor” because he had this incredible presence. Seeing him live on stage was definitely not a disappointment! He is one of the great actors.

David Tennant is totally fascinating on the stage as well. I loved him as Richard II where he was quite calm and arrogant, just as the character demands. In the play “Don Juan in Soho” (regrettably a bad play!) he was agile, physical, and athletic – and really good. I saw bits of Much Ado on YouTube and found it strange. I was in London at the time it was played and was totally disappointed because it was sold out, but when I saw it on YouTube I didn’t regret it anymore.

Now about theatre and film:

Yes, we are agreed that theatre and film are totally different, and that film is easier. Digression: Film (or television) can go totally wrong as well. Yesterday I hit on some scripted reality crap (where they are showing “real life” with amateur actors) and it was just SO bad. I really want to know how trained actors create the difference. Therefore I would really have liked to watch my fellow singer in the choir, who teaches acting at Kammerspiele, giving a lesson.

(Exactly! Though I usually draw the line at watching a French film, and my preliminary conclusion is: DON’T try and make it look like real life!)

Of course I am aware that actors in the theatre are PLAYING, but I am pleased when I don’t have to deal with it. My greatest praise for actors is that they WERE great, not that they PLAYED great.

Where “Cyrano” is concerned: we have different words for what we both find so fascinating. You saw his superior achievement as joyous playing – the actor himself enjoyed playing and was conscious of it. I only saw Cyrano who made me hold my breath when he confessed his love to Roxane – exactly like the rest of the audience …

(Why do I get a feeling that I have to apologize for something … maybe for being conceited! I just have to insert that I felt the same nonetheless. But I want to uphold that only great PLAYING can ever make me feel something like this. Otherwise I’d feel cheapened. And I just love it when I see somebody having this intense relationship with their text. Sorry for interrupting!)

… Of course I admitted James at once into my personal hall of fame (though I always found him impressive), but I appreciated the emotion, the character, and the actor (in this order).

I think I just got it! If it is great/ingenious, I see/feel the EMOTION. Of course I know that “Who is afraid of Virginia Woolf?” was played (by incredibly fine actors), but I experienced the emotions they presented: disappointment, sadism, masochism, helplessness, confinement, understanding, love, hate and so on …

(Again I agree! If we cannot feel the emotions – usually much more than in real life! – the actors have failed.)

Do actors always know what they are doing and if they are doing well? An anecdote about Laurence Olivier (whom I don’t like as an actor, but who was THE icon at his time). He played Hamlet (or Othello? Doesn’t matter …) in Stratford. One evening, the audience applauded even more than usual. He went to his dressing room, totally pissed off, and refuted the praise of his colleagues – who all said that he had been amazing – with: “I know – but I have no clue HOW I did it!”

(This is a really interesting point I cannot even address. But I know the feeling from shooting my bow. IF I happen to shoot really well this is only ever when I have no idea what I was doing. The moment I THINK about it, it’s gone. It is supremely ANNOYING! And I believe the anecdote implies that he usually DID know.)

In this context: what the contemporary audience defines as good acting changes with the time. We might have discussed this differently 50, 100, or 200 years ago.

(As always, I think that “history” is hugely overrated in THIS respect. We both dislike Laurence Olivier, but, if I remember this correctly, totally loved Peter O’Toole in “The Lion in Winter”. And would certainly have felt the same fifty years ago. (And the overwhelming majority of people who think that Laurence Olivier – or Russel Crowe – was/is a great actor are of course WRONG!!! 😉) Some things change, some don’t …)

Your turn!

Dear Claudia,

… the bone of contention is buried in no. 2. PLAYING versus BEING this person one is playing. I am afraid I will fail where I always fail trying to solve these issues: I don’t know anything at all about acting. Though I have ONE small bit of personal experience linked to it. And there is this observation that (small) children can be really great actors though they couldn’t have had any training whatsoever. I believe that playing is something that “we” are naturally able to do – to a certain degree. It is just that we have to activate and develop certain parts of our behaviour to perfection. And to really work on our ability to IMAGINE things. Why do I believe this? I use to read my beloved Cornwell novels to myself – in different voices. I always could do this, without any training, I don’t know why. (I mean, I could do it rather well, as my nephews were telling me.) And it never works when I think: Oh, this voice is great, I’d like to emulate it for this character! It only works when I have a clear and vivid IMAGINATION of WHO this character is. Then the voice IS there without me (consciously) DOING anything. I think this is basically what I understand by PLAYING.

(This power of imagination is, I think, what great actors are so infinitely better with than people like me. I just couldn’t believe Richard Armitage in “The Other Queen” (audiobook). The amount of detail about a person he can get into his reading! And I hit on his You Tube video about recording “The Other People” – where he explains exactly what I just explained only better – AFTER I wrote this!)

(…) And you reminded me that I still don’t have “Thor” on DVD! Loki is probably one of my three favourite characters in world literature (besides Snorri the Priest from the Icelandic Sagas, and Ulysses – in the “Illiad”) – and Tom Hiddelston IS Loki! (Besides, Chris Eccleston must be in one of these films, though only to get shot … Regrettably they are even crappier than Marvel films usually are. But I have ordered them now.)