Feeling vs. Emotion
Know the difference? It's key to being a GREAT actor...
Based on some recent conversations with Chloe, here's what I've come to believe:
A feeling is a complex, unpredictable fluid state of being. An emotion is usually an expected reaction that is static and predictable.
Example:
If I sneek up on you and smash your big toe with a hammer, you'll scream. You'll fill with rage--it's predictable.
But if I ask you, "What does disappointment feel like?" "What does gratitude feel like?" "What does love feel like?" "What does betrayal feel like?"
Immediately you will change, your body will begin to bathe itself in the feeling, whatever that feeling means/stirs in YOU. The feeling will mutate and change--it's alive.
Now imagine you're an audience member watching an actor on stage or on screen. What would you rather see? An actor emoting? Or an actor feeling?
I think 'feeling' is vastly more interesting...it draws the audience in...we empathize with the actor and can interpret his feelings and story for ourselves.
All of this ties into the idea that there is no right and wrong on stage if you're being honest with your feelings as the character. If you're committed to the character's journey, allow yourself to feel EVERYTHING...you will be vitalized! And of course at times some things will stir your emotions--that's GREAT! Just try to understand the difference and it will empower you as an actor and a human being.
11 Comments:
I think you are on to something here... however, I think you have it backward. If someone asks you "What does disappointment feel like?" You will think of a time when you have been disappointed. That takes you completely to another place.
However, if I smash your toe with a hammer, I'm acting upon you with a very REAL force and you give a very TRUE and honest reaction in the moment. You are reacting because of what you feel at that moment.
Emotion is the assigning of names to what you have felt before. You don't think, "I'm so sad and dealing with loss," when your dog dies. You think, "He's gone, and I miss his face."
I agree, as an audience member, it is vastly more interesting to watch someone "feeling" rather than "emoting." I just think you have your analogy mixed up.
I think that she has a point--though you can portray both on stage (whether or not it's true)and your audience can react and even emote along with the actors and their "acted" emotions. Though, my reason for coming to your blog was to say that you did a fab job last week at the "piazza." My first trip to the big apple couldn't have been complete without some music by guettel. i also have to say your other brother michael/guiseppe is a really nice guy--we met on the subway after the show. hope you have a great week of performances. btw, does michael happen to have a blog, do you know? visit my blog if you wanna see a pic of michael and i in the subway.
Regardless of the analogy, the unpredictable is why I believe people go to see theatre. It's live and anything can happen, like a tightwire act. I think this pertains to the emotions/feelings as well. At one time, I think audiences were content with watching "emoting" but are now sophisticated enough to want live "feeling."
Uh-oh, I'm not sure who Chloe is but you are moving into territory where further education is necessary. First off, a lot has been written about feeling and emotion by people who are experts in these areas and you need to do some reading (If you are feeling ambitious, you can try "The Feeling of What Happens" by the great neurologist Antonio Demasio). Second, you need to find out if the people you know in acting are using these terms in idiosyncratic ways, in other words, if they are making up their own definitions of these terms and why. Since so much has been thought about and written on the topic of emotion, then it seems to me that should be clear. For instance, if you were going to advise people about exercising a particular part of their body and made up your own definition of how that body part works, ignoring whatever scientific and medical evidence exists, -- i.e. if you said drink plenty of water if you want to strengthen your legs because your leg muscles are strengthened by effective functioning of the sweat glands --then you would have to have darn good reasons why you believed that the leg muscles are strengthened by the sweat glands. Look into how emotion is written about by a range of people and how, historically, acting technique has been consistent or different in its way of regarding emotion - say, Stanislovski) and then see what you some up with.
dear anonymous,
I appreciate your comments, but I must point out that my entries are geared towards actors, not physicians. Having almost attended medical school, I'm well aware that the scientific explanation of feelings/emotions may vary greatly from the actor's "definition". I only know what works onstage.
As far as reading books are concerned...I entered grad school a complete academic and learned first hand that the same studious practices that led me to graduate from Duke magna cum laude, were not going to make me a better actor. At the time, however, I didn't know that. And as such, I rigorously highlighted my Stanislavsky texts while raising my hand to question our acting teacher on the Stanislavsky's theories. I was missing the essence of acting...which i have come to believe lies in this truth:
To live truthfully on stage (and in life)--one must SEE.
To see is to FEEL.
To feel is to DO.
To do is to BE.
Aaron, I did assume your entries are geared towards actors. I too am a male actor working in theater, TV, and film. I am only a few years older than you but I am just not as certain of the "truth" as you are so I read about things in a broad range of areas, including science, and feel it is important to be curious. The people I know in acting talk about things differently. They are also not so sure of the "truth". My acting is rooted in Meisner's technique, and I usually keep a phrase I learned in mind, regarding what works on stage..."doing truthfully under imaginery circumstances". Is that something like what you are referring to in your last paragraph? Hard to tell...
Sorry pal but I gotta agree with the guy's posting. Hold onto some humility, the biz can make you lose it. You're getting into Tom Cruise territory. Prbably good to aim for that level of successful and rich but not that arrogant. Good luck with your career. I enjoyed the show. You have a great voice.
Ethan
Anonymous,
"Doing truthfully under imaginery circumstances..." is exactly what I'm talking about. But I'm trying to describe it in more detail: i.e. what is 'doing truthfully'? Hence my: To SEE (to truly and simply take in the actors and space in front/around you) is To FEEL (feelings arise that we must honor). To FEEL is to DO (if you honor those feelings that arise, action results--we 'do'.) And To DO is To BE (or as meisner might say, to BE is to LIVE truthfully in imaginery circumstances.)
I think every actor could describe great acting in a way that is uniquely truthful to them.
But, enduring a long run of an intensely physical and emotional show, I've also found FLOW on stage. When SEE-ing/FEEL-ing/DO-ing/BE-ing are almost a result of the body being on auto-pilot. And the way to continue to discover and be in the moment despite the endless repetition, is to really honor every feeling that arises and let them lead you to new (in the moment) actions. It's very slight, but incredibly key to an actor's sanity and our desire to BE.
Some of you may be familiar with the Alexander Technique. Often, in the training course for the technique, we get into a different discussion about 'what is feeling?'. As you can imagine, we can physically 'feel' changes or tension or release in our bodies. But those feelings may also be connected to our emotions...for example, if you are releasing tension in your hips one may recall that they had an injury when they were a child which resulted in the tightness in the hips, and this can be psychologically traumatic. In this instance, we find it best to use words other than 'feel' because of the dual meanings of the word. So I think there is a complete connection between 'feeling' and 'emotion.' In this regard, we can look at 'feeling' as a physical manifestation of the emotional experience.
In the Alexander Technique philosophy, the mind and body is completely connected...Alexander terms it the 'psycho-physical.' So I think we can work from 'feeling' into 'emotion' and from 'emotion' into 'feeling' because of the mindy/body connection.
To be looked at from the actor's perspective, I suppose if we allow for the possibility that our 'feelings' will constantly change from day to day, then I believe that will bring about new and changing 'emotions' in the character and connection between characters. Or, if we allow that our 'emotions' can be in a constant state of movement (not trying to hold on to the way it 'felt' the time before), then the 'feelings' we have as actors/singers/musicians will always flow.
Make ANY sense? :)
I can't really pick a side in this debate, if there are sides to be chosen. All I know is I saw you in Piazza tonight and you were amazing, so whatever you are doing, which you are calling "feeling," is working, so keep on doing it. Your portrayal of Fabrizio came across to me as so genuine, so beautiful and pure, that I was moved to tears several times during the performance.
I only wish I had seen the show sooner, because I would like it see it again!
I am very critical of actors and often the first to point out what I didn't like about a play or a musuical -- and I've been involved in theater with small companies over the years in many capacities, as actress, director, hopeful playwright, producer and more, but mostly I'm a lover of theater and have stayed in New York because I get to see so many wonderful productions. But I don't think I have been so moved emotionally in quite a while and most of it was due to your performance.
So thanks for your performance. I hope I can make it again before closing night. What a precious show, it must be so hard to see it end. I noticed tonight Patti Cohenour seemed very emotional at the curtain call, this being her second-to-last night playing Margaret.
Incidentally, I was happily surprised to see Kimberly Grigsby was the conductor. She was my vocal coach at one time! She gives such a delightful energy to the orchestra.
P.S. I read some things on your web site, and I think you need an editor! ;) Lots of misspellings.
Cheers!
I don't think that anything we feel is more complex than anything else. To take the example you gave, if someone smashes your toe with a hammer, yes you will feel rage. But you will also feel shock and surprise that someone just smashed your toe with a hammer. You may feel betrayed that someone you trusted just hurt you, and you will feel confused because you don't know why they did it. So although rage may be the dominant feeling, the confusion, shock, surprise, and betrayal will all be under the surface mixing in. Every feeling or emotion has many complex layers and overlaps, I don't think it is possible to feel one pure emotion, or one that is more complex than another one.
So where does that leave us as actors? I definitely agree with you when you say that when you produce an emotion on stage you have to make it complex and multi-dimensional. We have to consider the event from all sides and produce all of the emotions and feelings that it could evoke, otherwise you're just reciting the script on the surface level and not portraying a real person and like you said, no one wants to watch a one-dimensional person. No one can relate to that.
Thanks for posting this blog, it really made me think about my beliefs on this topic, and there is nothing more important that knowing what you believe.
Sloan
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home