The "topic" is the content of the story, and there has to be some mutual 
understanding about it by the writer/director/actor/audience for it to mean 
anything.     It seems like the potential importance of the "role" is to say 
some messages can't be communicated without an actor who is taken to be 
sincere.    That's what I have a problem with.

On 1/28/19, 1:55 PM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[email protected] on 
behalf of [email protected]> wrote:

    OK. Again, I don't think I disagree with (what I think) you're saying.  But 
I am having trouble understanding why this is related to the difference between 
an undercover LEO versus a method actor. Are you willing to connect the dots 
more explicitly?
    
    Although I agree with the gist of what you've said just below, I disagree 
with the (apparent) implication that an actor gets their story from *the* 
play/movie script.  From what I've heard, an actor has to dig into their 
private, more grounded, stories in order to do a good job exhibiting the 
emotion the play/movie script (and the director in particular) need.  Pile that 
ambiguity underneath the ambiguity that any good play/movie will *also* rely on 
the private stories inside the audience members.  And that goes beyond merely 
ambiguous endings or director/theater cuts.  It might lie in every inflection 
and movement of the actor(s).  An actor *without* a backstory, more finely 
granulated, than that presented in the script alone, will likely give a 
flatter/2D performance.  Even if (or especially because) the audience member 
can't "feel like"/empathize with the actor, they will likely have (or not) a 
"believability" or "suspension of disbelief" that percolates through the 
performance.
    
    
    
    On 1/28/19 12:40 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
    > I would again make a distinction between private stories and public 
stories.    I may delude myself, but I also have a set of experiences that are 
only mine and that I either could not or would not share.   My self-stories 
(and dreams) are grounded in a way the stories I read are not.   A fiction 
writer is trying to be entertaining, or at least sell books.   An opinion 
writer is trying to persuade or manipulate.     The actor's story comes from a 
script, and in that sense the it is static.   A diary is distinct from these.   
There aren't the degrees of freedom available in a real life that are available 
to a writer inventing characters.    Empathy one extracts from a story is not 
actually empathy, it is something that has been teed up for the reader.
    
    
    -- 
    ☣ uǝlƃ
    ============================================================
    FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
    Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
    to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
    archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
    FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
    

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Reply via email to