HANDOUT – Emotion Versus Technique

Taken from:
Ommanney, Katherine The Stage and School (Fifth Edition).
and Sckanker, Harry H. McGraw-Hill, Inc., United States of
America,1982.

There are two major approaches to acting. Supporters uphold each and point
out the followers from among the world’s artists to support their claims.

In one, the emotional or subjective approach, the actors live their parts so that
they actually weep, suffer and triumph before the audience. They become the
parts they play, as far as possible, and experience all that their characters do.
In the other, the technical or objective approach, absolute control based upon
perfect technique is the aim. The actor analyses the play’s structure and the
characters. Then technical skills in acing, movement and speech and
interpretation are used in the creation of a role. No emotional response is
allowed to interfere with the conscious artistry that alone is responsible for the
results obtained. The actor does not live the part but acts it so well that the
illusion of living the part is maintained.

In the first case, the emphasis is placed upon the actor’s emotional response
because of personal inner reactions. In the other, the emphasis is placed
upon an assumed personality based on a conscious technique.

There is much to be said for both points of view, but today most actors use a
combination of the two approaches. You would do well then, to identify
yourself with your part so that you can interject it naturally, simply, and
spontaneously, using your technical training to achieve clear cut, convincing,
and consistent characterization. Lose your individuality in the part you play,
but never forget that you are presenting it to be seen, heard and appreciated
by your entire audience.
The most discussed acting theory today, “the Method,” was formulated by the
dominant actor-director of this century, Konstantin Stanislavski. His books –
My Life in Art, An Actor Prepares, Building a Character and Creating a Role –
set forth his theories on the art of acting together with practical exercise in the
techniques of vocal and bodily expression.

Stanislavsky’s theories have been interpreted and misinterpreted by earnest

theatre people. Too much emphasis has been put on the actor’s use of self-
analysis and personal emotional experiences in creating a role and not
enough on Stanislavsky’s equal insistence on disciplined control of the
techniques of vocal and bodily expressiveness. As a result, many so-called
Method actors on the stage become so involved with their inner resources
that they fail to communicate with the audience because of slovenly speech
and action.

Probably Stanislavsky’s most valuable counsel to help you in creating a

characterization is his “magic if”, which can be called the key to his method.
While using the full powers of concentration and imagination, the actor should
ask himself or herself whether he or she were intimately involved in those
events.

The answers to these questions lead to an analysis of both the actor’s own
and the character’s inner natures, the basis for kinship for the part. Only then
can the actor use the technical resources of voice and body to interpret the
reactions of the character truthfully and naturally. This analysis also leads to
appreciating exactly what the author had in mind and to a correct
understanding of the play itself.

Today actors, directors and trainers who use the method have advanced their
own approaches to it. The Actor’s Studio, under the direction of Lee
Strasburg, has been the controversial center where many well known actors
have studied and worked. You are probably familiar with many of them,
Geraldine Page, Rod Steiger, Anne Bancroft, Marilyn Monroe, Marlon Brando,
Paul Newman, Julie Harris, Eli Wallach, David Wayne, and Shelley Winters.

In contrast to Method acting is the theatrical style that emphasizes conscious

technique rather than emotional involvement. Its outstanding exponent was
the dynamic director Tyrone Guthrie. Guthrie disapproved of the intensive
analysis and frequently inarticulate speech of Method actors, believing that
people go to the theatre to be thrilled and entertained. His influence has been
very strong in this century, where he directed and lectured on many university
campuses and produced in a number of repertory and regional theatres.

Most actors today believe in working seriously and imaginatively to create

roles through understanding them, and using their own abilities of
interpretation to present them effectively to the audience. There is a growing
enthusiasm for understanding the motivations behind an actor’s physical and
psychological responses. Bringing the play to life and making the author’s
meaning clear through careful teamwork is the aim of most director teachers.
As a student, you should try to be as flexible and spontaneous as you can,
applying your technical training to making your character a living personality
for your audience. Thus, you will appreciate that the best principle to employ
is emotion and technique.