Friday, April 22, 2011

Authenticity in Acting

Taking a break from my English paper for some rambling thoughts on authenticity and experience. It must be the caffeine in my blood - I'm not a big coffee drinker.

Where was I? Oh yes. Just thinking about what kind of movies I like and it somehow progressed to an internal monologue on actors, as always. I was thinking about the difference between the movies that romanticize and the movies that stir far deeper emotions. Generally, the movies deemed the greatest (Citizen Kane, The Godfather, etc.) have a tendency to leave an romantic impact that leaves the viewer mostly unharmed. Movies are fake, of course, but they can make a genuine and personal connection to the viewer, but the ones that mine the deepest are usually too strange or subjective to be universally praised. All the movies I've truly loved - Bright Star, a random Korean war movie, something else - have left me deeply hurt or vulnerable. And I don't mean "general crying and sorrowful emotions for the character", though that occasionally is the case - but rather something that settles in me and feels much stranger and stronger than conventional reactions. A couple of Jane Campion's movies, for instance, unearths this intangible longing, some sense of beauty and loss that - as strange as it sounds, and I'm not a particularly religious person - brings me closer to something like holiness, and I become so unbearably and inexplicably sad that I have to go distract myself. Other moments from movies of mixed quality stay with me over time and wound me in a way I can't even acknowledge. And most of the time I end up scolding myself, but I feel like I can be so easily seduced by cheaply romantic moments. That's why I love movies so much, and aren't we all? But I think that these rarer moments can count as authentic ones, because they always pass and I can't get quite the same feeling again from watching the movie. Or is that a contradiction? Ugh, it's frustrating.

That was the first part of my thought. Then in a bizarre way, I started transitioning from thinking about authenticity in movies to authenticity in actors. Take Kristen Stewart. She and a host of other young, precocious actors are undeniably good and sensitive, but they seem incapable of mining any deeper force of emotion. And though it's all about "good acting", I truly think that great acting has always been able to draw on genuine experience and emotion. All the great actors - from Brando to Dustin Hoffman and Greta Garbo to Meryl Streep - have in common slightly fucked-up early lives that surely lent authenticity to their performances. And I started thinking about Kristen Stewart's constant moping and angst in movies - and how strange, because isn't angst an emotion that's natural but insubstantial, and in our modern culture, mocked for being increasingly fetishized? She may be a smart, sensitive individual who's generally in tune with her emotions, but my theory is that she doesn't have the requisite pain of true experience. She's had too much of a good life insofar. As much as she defines herself as apart from the celebrity sphere, she's still part of the lifestyle and the inevitable complacency and coddling that irons out any surface-level angst pretty quickly. She, like other child performers, may have experienced a taste of pain and open emotions during childhood, but child emotions are just fundamentally different in expression than adult emotions. That's why, in my opinion, so many child actors are inferior adult actors, even if they are successful. Wisdom can't be cultivated through contrivance, and what was originally deemed precocity becomes a static quality that drags you down if it isn't expanded through natural progress. In my opinion, Anna Paquin has given the same exact "precocious" and child-like performance for the past fifteen years or so, I have a feeling that Dakota Fanning will head the same way.

Well, that was an exquisitely unorganized thought process - I was basically shitting my brains out onto the internet, but oh well, that's what a personal blog is for.

4 comments:

  1. This is very coherent and thought provoking shitting of your brains out on the internet haha. Definitely giving me something to ponder as I procrastinate too.

    I am hesitant to say that experiencing true pain or a rough childhood is necessary for good art. That is asking a lot of any artist, sacrifice your happiness for great art. Some artists do need to do that though and I respect that, but it shouldn't be some bar put on everyone.

    It also devalues the nature of art in the first place. Whether you're acting or writing fiction, you're existing in a madeup world (even if your film is based on a true story, it is partially fiction because you can never truly capture the individual or story). Sometimes this madeup world is about a biologist and sometimes its about a witch, the whole spectrum of human experience cannot comprehend everything and that's where acting or writing comes in. Allowing someone access to this world and make some sense of it even if it doesn't have any resonance in their reality is the basis of anyone's career who works with fiction. This what imagination and empathy are for. If acting and writing were solely based on experience then anyone could do it, but not everyone is an artist and that's the point.

    However I do agree that child actors are rarely as intriguing as those who had lives before they were actors, not matured in tandem to it. They don't have basic resources to mine into for their art. Highschool can be quite formative, but most actors are homeschooled (Stewart) or even if they attend a regular high school they can never have the same experience (Fanning) because they're already famous. They don't have the wanderlust of worrying about the future, the anxiety is sorted out for them. They have their own anxiety of course- papparazzi, public perception, body issues, professionalism, but it is so far removed from average joe experience that it must be hard for them to channel that into a film. A painful childhood isn't needed, but some sort of childhood is and this is what is robbed from most of these child stars. Ironically, this is what will be the crux of their career. They will get to a certain point where they aren't playing superheros or vapid book characters and will need to tap into the experience they won't have. No wonder why Stewart and Fanning worked on The Runways, they were portraying real people they were able to meet and discuss motivations with. They didn't need to use their own experiences, they could use someone elses (cough Keira Knightley cough). I think why Stewart is so angsty is partially because teens are angsty and Hollywood enjoys portraying them that way, but also because her own adolescence is a bit delayed from being in the movies. What we experienced at age 15, she is only getting to now. What we love about Stewart and Fanning now, that they're play people their own age, will probably hold back their careers. I do hope they can transcend it though.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry for taking so long. I must confess, when I first saw this on an email notification I just sighed and said "i'll read this some other time..." it was not the greatest of weeks. But I must say, I agree with all of your comments. I still think that breadth of natural experience is necessary (if I can make a flawed analogy - can you imagine pink if you've never seen it?) but I still agree that imagination is an absolutely essential ingredient. all of my favorite actors have been great improvisers, and some of the most memorable cinematic moments have been unscripted.

    It does make me wonder about the whole child-star issue, as being a good actor requires staying in a constant mode of discovery and yet it's too easy to get acclimated to the good life, and why wouldn't they? It's such a continual conflict. Thanks for your thoughts. I love reading them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Stella,

    Thanks for your thoughtful comment on my final Quintessentially Quirky post. Although you suggested that I will miss blogging, I don't think that will be true because I'm not quitting blogging, just one particular blog. As you can see, this is a different account and one that uses my real name. The blog that follows is a travel blog I've done a bad job of keeping up throughout this academic year when I moved to Scotland, but now it is my primary focus and will hopefully improves. It's been really refreshing having a blog that my family and friends can read and once I realized I could combine my real and blogging worlds together it didn't make sense to keep QQ online. Plus it just grew tiring to have two of everything- two blogs, two emails, two twitters, too much time for both. It seemed like the right time to get of fashion blogging considering its expanded so much since I started six years ago when it was just girls showing off their new pair of shoes and not getting invited to fashion shows. Fashion blogging is a force of its own now and one I don't really want to be a part of anymore or am that interested in. Back in the day I was okay with keeping it my own secret world, but when I started meeting bloggers in real life it felt duplicitous. How could I explain to my real life friends that I flew out of Nashville to meet a blogger? I managed, but it felt disingenuous. Similarly, although I was using pseudonyms on QQ, the friends I was writing about had no idea they were on my blog, it seemed unfair to them. Also, I happened to read Emily Gould's 9 page NY Magazine article about how she selfsabotaged herself on Gawker and although she is an extreme example of oversharing online I could relate and don't want to share her fate. I've always wanted to try creative writing, but previously I've been too afraid of it and used blogging as an excuse to avoid it. I hope that by getting rid of my oversharing presence online I can channel it into fiction. I still think this new blog will be personal, but in a different manner. It will be more honest about my daily life and interests without spewing out my problems as much. I know right now the new blog looks very haphazard, but I hope to expand it into a lifestyle blog in the loosest meaning of that category. I hope you'll keep reading and feel free to comment. I will definitely stop by here from time to time.

    Thanks,

    Tess

    ReplyDelete
  4. *sorry for the typos, blogger has been really erratic tonight and deleted this 3x so I may have hastily written it.

    I meant *hopefully improve (not plural) and *get out of fashion blogging not get of fashion blogging haha

    ReplyDelete