--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > In honor of the Pip who is MIA this week: > > http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/2011/09/23/friday_night_seitz_overacting/slideshow.html > > :-)
I found this article funny and meaningful because 1) I've had to watch a lot of bad movies and TV series lately, and thus have had to endure a lot of overacting, and 2) the whole phenomenon of overacting seems to me to be strongly related to overreacting. What IS the characteristic that we intuitively perceive as overacting, whether we find it on the silver screen of a movie or a TV show, or on the computer screens of cyberspace? As I think about it, it's what happens when an actor becomes more interested in protecting their own image as an actor or as a self than they are in projecting an honest character. "Honest characters" -- in movies or in cyberspace -- tend in my experience to be in the moment and more concerned with telling the story their character is telling at that moment than they are with their own self or self image, and the projection and maintenance thereof. As a general rule, the more defensive and protective of one's self image one becomes, the less believable the character being portrayed becomes, and the more likely it is that the actor will be accused of overacting. Think about it in TM intro lecture terms -- when you are feeling rested and clear and good about yourself, is there anything that *anyone* can say that can push your buttons and make you get all defensive and uptight? In my experience, the answer is No. It's only when one is "off," and feeling the *lack* of something expected from an audience -- be it attention or appreciation or the silliest thing of all, the desire to be taken seriously -- that the overreacting and thus the overacting come into play. The more an actor seems to me to be trying to be taken seriously, the less serious I am able to take them. Think Nicolas Cage. Who could ever take him seriously? Right? Well, it's sorta the same for me on Internet forums, especially the so-called "spiritual" ones. In a way I can see good acting as a parallel to what New Agers might call Self realization. The more grounded in Now and just being oneself (or one's Self, if you prefer) a person is, the more "natural" they are likely to come across to others. But slip into unease, and the need to defend one's self or the image of that self that one has overly invested in, and in my experience the majority of viewers are going to -- over time -- perceive the chronic overreactor as a chronic overactor. Now this is just my opinion, and one based on having a personal aversion to drama queens. While I can appreciate the occasional over the top performance from an Al Pacino or a Gary Oldman or a Bette Davis, I much prefer the more naturalistic performances of actors who seem to find a way to so immerse themselves in the everyday naturalness and normality of the characters they play that they come across as...surprise...more natural and normal. The more histrionics they need to convey a scene, the less I am interested in them as characters, and as actors. I've heard from actors I have known that Stanislavsky was at one point a student of Gurdjieff, and that some of the latter's techniques for self development can be found in Stanislavsky's techniques for acting. But I haven't really studied either writer enough to either agree or disagree. I only know how it feels subjectively to be subjected to overacting. That "feels" to me as if the actor is stuck inside his or her head, unable to let go of the actor's self and relax into the character's self. It feels as if there is always a bit of a whiny inner child self "behind" the character's self, screaming "Don't pay attention to the character I'm playing...pay attention to what is *important* here...ME, and how well I'm playing the part. Isn't my performance Oscar-worthy?" Well, no, it isn't. That's just being a drama queen. What is impressive in a good actor is when they can become so naturalistic *as* the character they're playing that you in the audience forget that there is an actor even involved. For me, the less "craft" or sense that the actor is trying to project a certain image, or that there is an actor at all, the more likely I am to enjoy the character, and find them either believable or someone I can empathize with. Same, for me, in cyberspace. The characters I tend to find interesting are those who just "shoot from the hip," and who thereafter can rarely be lured into justifying or trying to "defend" their aim. That, to me, speaks of some degree of integration of Self. The opposite always strikes me as a self, not only stuck in itsself but trying to sell it to others. Sorry...no sale.
