\n<\/p>\n
Actors? Take a seat. Get comfy. Help yourself to donuts and coffee if you like. We need to have a talk. Nobody here is judging, and everything being said is coming from a place of deep love and respect. However, we need to tackle this obsession with \u201cfeelings\u201d and \u201cemotions\u201d, on stage or screen. It might feel good\u2014it might even feel right in the moment! But letting your work be driven by emotion is doing you no favours, and it\u2019s better you hear it in a safe space, from the people who care about you most, than out there in the industry.<\/p>\n
Many actors obsess over experiencing emotions in their performance, or at least conveying the feeling of their character\/s to the audience. While this might seem like an important connection to make, it often results in a performance too focused on the actor, rather than the wants of the character in a given scene. Emotions in acting should be viewed as a by-product of a character\u2019s thoughts and deeds, rather than the endgame of the performer portraying them.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n We\u2019re tackling this contentious topic today for two main reasons. First up: letting go of emotions and feeling as an actor will free you up to do better, more truthful work. (We\u2019ll explain exactly how in detail below.) The second reason is far more important. Some actors worry that if they lack an emotional connection to a character and that character\u2019s feelings, they\u2019ll fail to connect with the part\u2014and therefore cannot play it. This is simply untrue. You exist to serve the character\u2019s wants, not their feels. Any other opinion is misguided at best, self-indulgent at worst.<\/p>\n So what\u2019s the big, you might be asking? Humans have emotions, why not characters? And if the emotional journey of a character is important, then why not use it to navigate a scene: the part where they\u2019re happy, the part where they\u2019re upset, the part where they get mad and decide to get even?<\/p>\n The problem is that emotions are a result<\/span> of stimuli, not stimulus themselves.<\/strong> Something happens: therefore we feel. We do something in response to that feeling: we feel something else. Feeling is the byproduct of another person\u2019s actions, or our own actions towards others. Of course they\u2019re important! But they\u2019re also, by definition, passive. Emotions are a state of being, rather than what happens next\u2014which means they\u2019re unable to drive a narrative forward.<\/p>\n This is why it\u2019s not enough for a character to go onstage or screen and simply \u201cbe sad\u201d or \u201cbe angry\u201d. No matter how raw and real their performance mioght feel, they\u2019re not actually moving the story along. Anybody who\u2019s suffered an actor aimlessly crying or screaming through a scene in an acting class<\/a> knows what a boring, self-indulgent exercise this kind of acting is. And the worst part is, they think they\u2019re nailing it\u2026<\/p>\n One of our incredible StageMilk contributors, actor Jack Crumlin, wrote an excellent article titled \u201cHow to act \u201cEmotionally\u201d\u201d<\/a>. Early on, he states: \u201cEmotion is an obstacle, not an objective.\u201d <\/em>Sure, your character can feel something. But rather than showing us their emotions, show us what they plan to do about it.\u00a0That<\/em>\u2018s\u00a0the drama the audience paid money to see.<\/p>\n So how can we turn our awareness of a character\u2019s feelings and emotions into an asset, rather than a liability? We can use emotions to inform a character\u2019s actions and tactics within a given scene.\u00a0<\/strong>Here\u2019s an example usin \u201cBlue Cardigan\u201d, one of our popular short monologues for actors<\/a> right here on StageMilk:<\/p>\n Grieving widow Charlotte shows up at the door of her deceased husband\u2019s lover Helen. She\u2019s there\u2014so she says\u2014to ask if her husband might have left his blue cardigan there before he died and, if so, could she have it back?<\/em> (Take a look at the full text available here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n It\u2019s a scene with plenty of wiggle room in terms of characterisation<\/a> and circumstance<\/a>. There is subtext<\/a> galore to allow an actor to do just about anything they like with the words on the page. Is it an emotional piece? Absolutely: how could Charlotte not be emotional at a time like this\u2014and in this particular situation! But this is the exact moment to get specific about the scene, rather than make sweeping assumptions based on surface emotional cues.<\/p>\n How does grief manifest in Charlotte? As the actor playing her, you have to answer that in a way that speaks to her and nobody else\u2014especially not yourself. Does grief make her feel regretful? Bitter? Perhaps even relieved?\u00a0 No two people are guaranteed to feel the same way in the same situation. No two people react to emotions in the same way. In your own life, you might shut down completely when dealing with loss. But when you play Charlotte, you might conclude that she uses the exact same state to compel her to act: perhaps driven by anger for Helen and her husband\u2019s shared infidelity.<\/p>\n By all means identify the emotions of your character. Then think about how they might use their emotions as fuel to pursue their objective<\/a>\u2014aided by tactics that reflect how they feel.<\/p>\n This brings us to the heart of the argument for \u201cdoing\u201d rather than \u201cfeeling\u201d. What do you do as an actor if you can\u2019t equate your personal feelings to those of the character? What if the way they feel about a person or situation is totally foreign to you, or they make a choice based on feeling that you just can\u2019t get behind?<\/p>\n If you focus on the actions of that character, you don\u2019t have to share an emotional affinity.<\/strong> In \u201cBlue Cardigan\u201d, you don\u2019t need to have experienced the grief of losing a spouse, or even the shame of being cheated on. When you let yourself be driven by the action of the character, all you need to do is focus on Charlotte\u2019s want: her goal to get the cardigan back (and possibly confront Helen in the process.) Her emotions might allow you to empathise with her, to contextualise her actions\u2014to understand her motivation\u2014but they\u2019re secondary to you showing up at that front door with the main goal of the scene in mind.<\/p>\n Remember: audiences are there to see what a character does, not how they feel. In situations where you\u00a0can\u00a0<\/em>relate to the feelings and emotions of a character, you might find yourself at an advantage in portraying their experience. But only so far as their responses to these emotions mirror your own. Otherwise, it\u2019s up to your best guess. Your imagination. Your ability to act.<\/p>\n So if you lack what you perceive to be an emotional connection to a character, don\u2019t think for a second that you\u2019re unable to play them. Crack them open and work out what makes them tick: be a detective, be an empathy machine! We don\u2019t ask actors to be convicted murderers to guest-star on Law and Order<\/em>. Why should any other role be any different?<\/p>\n Another reason actors cling to emotions and feelings is to chase this idea of being \u201cemotionally raw\u201d in their performance. We often equate this descriptor with truthful and realistic acting<\/a>, as though an actor is at their best when the line between performer and role is hopelessly blurred.<\/p>\n The truth is: \u201cemotionally raw\u201d is as much a marketing term as it is a descriptor of an actor\u2019s work or process. \u201cEmotionally raw acting has none of the fancy tricks of a person <\/em>pretending, they\u2019re <\/em>actually\u00a0experiencing these thoughts and feelings! The tears are real, the actor does all their own stunts and eats the cockroach on camera every take!\u201d<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n But if you can\u2019t make the distinction between an actor and the character they play, that isn\u2019t good work\u2014that\u2019s the actor winging it: they\u2019re wilfully giving up or losing control, which may prove extremely emotionally damaging for them. It\u2019s the reason method acting<\/a> is so misunderstood. Because at some point, people decided that \u2018method\u2019 meant letting go rather than maintaining control.<\/p>\nActing Emotions<\/h2>\n
Harnessing Emotions<\/h2>\n
Feeling as the Character vs. Feeling as the Actor<\/h2>\n
\u201cRaw\u201d and \u201cRealistic\u201d Acting<\/h2>\n