|
Language seems endlessly miraculous. All humans learn some language. Language need not depend on visual nor aural cues, but some language is part of the hard-wiring of all humans. The almost effortless way most people learn their "home" language and the ability to do so much with language leads most people to behave as if language and communication can achieve anything. We don't often think of the failures of language.
To digress: Actors must be effective communicators. Indeed this writer would venture that good actors are expert communicators – communicating with fellow actors and audience and/or camera simultaneously. As such, we sometimes fall into the fallacy of believing that communication always works. Or, put another way, that "more" or "better" communication can always solve problems. We have a very optimistic view of communication. In reality we forget that sometimes people really understand each other and really disagree. Communication won't solve the problem. The interested parties already understand the issues, the issues and/or parties are beyond compromise, and talking won't change the essential nature of the conflict. Witness the question of who should have "ownership" of a particular mountain in the midst of Jerusalem. But, as I say, I digress.
Language fail? Thousands of years before any of us came to occupy our place under the sun, Homer sang his songs. The recitation of those words or enactment of those words can continue to move us to this day. Likewise any of the ancient stories. Language fail?
Try to define the word or concept of spiral without using your hands. Obviously it can be done. But studies show that most people use their hands to describe a spiral. To describe that effectively, verbal means don't seem to be effective on their own. Something more is needed.
This problem describes the central difficulty in describing acting. The psychology of good acting remains elusive. The 'craft' of acting remains just as elusive. Despite this writer's admiration for Jon Jory's book Tips for Actors, the description of the "Half-Hitch" is probably confusing to someone who hasn't seen the half-hitch. And a demonstration of the half-hitch would be quick and simple – simpler for more people than to try to describe only using words.
I have had the immense pleasure this summer of watching a talented group of young actors in a production of Much Ado About Nothing. While the whole cast is strong, some actors in the cast are stronger than others. But I have no means to describe how or why beyond a few fumbling clichés. And this writer prefers to delude himself into believing he has a decent vocabulary and a better than decent understanding of the issues involved in good acting.
Beyond our abilities as communicators, actors possess the heritage of ancient communication technology – gathering people in a space and telling a story by acting it out. With the advanced communication tools available in the world today, theatre people seldom seem to take advantage of those new tools. (This writer being equally guilty.) We know that the best way to communicate about acting is through doing and demonstrating – like explaining the concept of spiral or the half-hitch. But, as a teacher, most acting texts don't come with an accompanying CD-ROM nor DVD of demonstration/explanations. Most of what we get in the media tends to be elliptic conversations about acting moderated by James Lipton, which usually have as much to do with biography of the interviewee as anything else. The John Barton/RSC videos about playing Shakespeare form a peculiar exception by being purposefully pedagogic in their demonstrations and remain popular despite being about twenty years old.
In consequence the Internet seems curiously devoid of anything of real interest to the advancement of acting technique or ideas. Our art will remain provincial and repetitive until we can find a way to use all of the available tools to enhance our communication about acting.
|
