When I was studying performing arts, one of my lecturers gave me the best advice I have ever been given as an actor. It was simply, "Don't act. Be". He was very much of the Stanislavski school of acting and this advice is obviously a nod to the needle in the curtain exercise. (Don't act like you're looking for the needle in the curtain - look for the needle in the curtain.) If you're playing a traffic warden, don't ACT like a traffic warden - BE a traffic warden. When I was given this little nugget of purest gold, I actually heard choirs of Angels singing the Halleluia and i think - I'm not sure, but I THINK there was even a lightbulb involved. Because of this train of thought, I have real difficulty getting my head around a certain issue. And to be honest, it's an issue which I went for years never hearing about, and all of a sudden it's happening more and more.
My view on acting is that we are essentially illustrations in a book. The script is the story, we are the moving images that go with that story. Therefore we need to look the part. And if we don't already, we must be willing to alter our "look" so that we do. The first ever paid gig I had was an Ebay commercial back in 2006, playing a goth. I'm not a goth. Never have been, never will be. My hair was longer than it currently is but the same style as it is now. However, I really wanted this role so I turned up to the casting, wearing all black (which admittedly wasn't a massive leap from my own taste) but I did not wear any make-up. I decided I'd rather get to the casting in one piece and put the make-up on when I arrived. So I signed in, and locked myself in the toilet with my trusty white Snazoo (the make-up. I don't call my willy Snazoo, it's the make-up) and began applying it to my face. I got a lot of funny looks from the other actors there but I got a call back and ultimately got the part. When it came to the shoot itself they wanted to alter my hair and they wanted me to shave. I agreed.
My point is, in my eyes, we actors are puppets, we're balls of plasticine that are to be moulded into the required shape of the character. Yes casting directors tend to look for the actors who are closest to the character originally but an actor, i believe, should always be willing to change their "look" if necessary. We change our accents, body language, everything else. Why do some actors have issues changing how they look? Once the play or the shoot is over they can always go back to how they were.
Case in point:
In April I was shooting one of two commercials in Spain where the hotel was supposed to be run down and nasty and so the hotel maid had to reflect this. This was in the casting breakdown so everyone who applied for the role knew they were going to be made to look haggard and miserable. The crew tried to shoot both commercials in one day so as soon as they finished one, we were called to make-up. When the actress who was cast as this haggard run-down maid saw herself in the mirror, she was NOT impressed and became quite upset and almost seemed betrayed that she was being made to look so terrible. She confided in myself and the other actress. We were both of the opinion that it's what the part required and she needed to look terrible. Anyhoo, the actress then confided in the producer and our shoot was put off until the next day.
When our call time came, we went to make-up as usual and then the actress in question walked in stating that she'd done her own make-up. She looked normal. This really upset the make-up artist as well as the producers. But it was too late to cast someone else so we went ahead with it.
My question is, what's your opinion? Should actors be willing to change their "look" for a role or should the role change to suit the actor?
Leave your opinions in the comments section :)
This was a great blog. I agree though. Sometimes people spend too much time trying to look like they are looking for a nail, they don't spend time actually looking for it.
ReplyDeleteBut wow that actress! i mean, she knew what the part required. Honestly, I don't like looking like myself because then it doesn't feel as real. I will do anything looks wise that matches the needs of the character. if you looked at any of my pictures from House Hunting - I spent the whole month looking haggard and bloody and tired. And I loved it because it matched the character. That girl needs to get over herself.
I think that it's a given. You've stated it very eloquently. Part of our process as an actor is to become our character. To 'be' them and what that character wears, how they do their hair, right down to the chipped nail polish is a part of that. It's not always pretty but then that's the beauty of it. Any actor who is not of this mindset won't get very far, they themselves will only be a poor imitation of an actor.
ReplyDeleteI echo the sentiments of Rebekah and Kirsty. Get on the acting train and do what is required. From a professional perspective I imagine they would never consider working with that actor again though.
ReplyDeleteI witnessed a similar moment recently when an actor was told some "castable roles" they would suit and they pulled a face and said 'no way'. When you are told by a professional who has 10+ years of experience I do believe it is worth taking notice of their suggestions.
Great blog David. Looking forward to reading more.
Having experienced success in landing roles using the 'Being' method I totally concur with your advice.
ReplyDeleteIn answer to your question however I would add that when an actor enters the casting studio, (whether you are submitted by representation or yourself), the responsibility lands on the shoulders of the actor to do all they can to land the role (this obviously excludes 'bumping off' all competition!)
I am rarely submitted for roles that are not my casting so I have never experienced a situation where I have to be anything other than me. So I applaud those, like you, who put themselves forward for roles outside their compass. I think it shows a level of commitment to their art and a mind open to learning more about the self.
The degree of success and respect that actors have is in proportion to the amount of preparation they do for a role. Would Christian Bale be a multi-million earning Hollywood lead if he didn't take the job as seriously as he does?
I would like to know if the "haggard" actress was cast or given the role. If cast, she was doing a disservice to her profession, her colleagues - cast, crew, agent, CD etc. and herself. If not, one can only assume that the producer didn't do their job thoroughly. Moreover it would be interesting to find out what kind of industry reputation she has.
In conclusion I would say: Yes, should actors be willing to change their "look" for a role - if they want it enough. When you get it the role will naturally evolve not to suit the actor but to compliment the production.
Gert blog and topic for discussion.