On Being a Thinking Actor

When Konstantine Stanislavski (1863-1938), suggested that the best actors are those who borrow elements of themselves to give to a role, then we are sure he had a preference for naturalistic performances.

However, there is already in place (because of the writer's text) specific notions of a character - much different, perhaps, than that of the real actor's own character. Stephen King did not necessarily have Jack Nicholson in mind when he wrote "The Shining".

So, in any performance situation we can say there is the private writer, the private actor and a soon-to-be public character. How are we to bridge this gap between writer's thoughts and actor's person?

The answer, according to Stanislavski is in the truth. There is a truth in the writer's text, a truth in the fictional character, and their situation(s) and, ultimately, a truth to be had in the actor's performance. The writer has initiated and an actor is left to follow it through. And, like some keen FBI agent, an actor must search for that truth. In this regard, an actor can never overthink.

Again, the "truth" may not be as subjective as one might immediately think. The writer, after all, was addressing some element of human nature. There is both an objectivity and subjectivity in this. Objectively, human beings share common traits - we are emotional. But, subjectively, we all feel different things in differnt situations. That is the glorious thing about theatre. Theatre constantly attempts to reveal the truth. But, that truth will mean 50 different things to 50 different audience members.