Thursday, May 29, 2008

AN ACTING THEORY PUT TO THE TEST



Have you ever heard actors say that all acting is reacting? I imagine what they mean is that everything you do or say on stage should come from your reaction to what someone else has said or done. Well, that's probably true. It must be helpful when an actor's trying to figure out what to do with his hands. Yeah, I can accept that.

The thing is, I can't help I can't help but interpret this more broadly. For me what's being said is that the reactor in a scene is more interesting than the actor. In other words, the person receiving the pie in the face is more interesting to watch than the person throwing the pie. If that's true then it says a lot about the way a scene should be written and set up, and what kind of actors you should use. With so much at stake I just had to test it.

That's what the five-minute video above is. I tried to make the actor and reactor equally interesting, and I gave them the same time on screen. I wanted to see whose role was innately more memorable, and who carried the weight of the scene. It's probably a silly experiment, with a predictable outcome, and everybody reading this is no doubt mystified about why I went to so much trouble, but it helped to clarify things for me, and now I share it with you.

The video is about 4 1/2 minutes. Sorry about the many, many flaws. I just didn't have time to fix them.

31 comments:

kellie said...

But they were both reacting!

On your Hamlet example in the film, isn't the whole play about Hamlet's reaction to what the ghost says? So in the hypothetical scene, it isn't Hamlet acting, and a second actor reacting, it's the ghost reacting to being murdered, Hamlet reacting to the ghost, and everyone else reacting to Hamlet. The original act, the murder of Hamlet's father, is only referred to, not seen.

The Horns and the Hawk said...

watching the video and reading the post, i have 2 thoughts:

1. in the old time comedy duos like jerry lewis/dean martin and abbot/costello, the fall guy i think always gets more attention because his reactions are more overreactions and so far over the top.

2. most acting is just reactions. really, once one person gets the ball rolling, the rest of it is just how these 2 or more people continue to react to each other, which kind of leads me to believe that...

3. it's easier to react. the guy who has to deliver the Shakespearean soliloquy from Henry the 8th is going to have a harder time of it sounding believable and passionate than the guy who just watched the bad guy blow up the elementary school, or the guy who just got hit with a pie in the face.

Michael Sporn said...

Our attention is on both guys. Each is as interesting as the other and almost every action performed is a reaction. A reaction not only to the actions of the other, but to the circumstances and the environment as well. That's what makes your pieces so brilliant.
Great exercise. The best part is that it was funny, too. (As expected.)

Vincent Waller said...

But Eddie your actor is reacting to your re-actor before before he acts causing a re-action.

Adam Tavares said...

The guy getting hit with the spitball was more memorable. I think it was because his movements were more violent especially when he got hit at the very end. I think it really comes down to who moves around more it'll draw your eye and that's who you'll remember. At least in this case.

It's like hockey. You remember the guy that got hit really hard or made the break away goal. Violent spurts put your mind into alert mode. It doesn't matter whose acting or reacting it's all about acceleration.

Brendan Body said...

Hey Eddie,

Interesting. I felt like there was too much time spent on the 'reactor' in your movie ... I'm not sure why.

By the way, have you ever thought about spicing up your blog appearance, perhaps with a banner.

Stephen Worth said...

Actually, you only had one character reacting... the one who blew the spitball. The guy receiving only reacted in the instant he was hit, while the one blowing was looking at his victim, scheming sadistically and reacting to his victim's irritation all over the place.

The interesting one was the one blowing the spitwads. He was funnier because he had more obvious thought processes going on that we could identify with.

See ya
Steve

Kali Fontecchio said...

YAY EDDIE!

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Kellie, Vincent, Steve: Interesting! it gets hard to keep track of who's reacting to whom.

Brendan: True, a number of scenes went on too long. If I'd had time I would have reshot them.

A banner's a great idea. I'll try to think of something!

Michael: Thanks! One reason film is so interesting is that there's so many ways to play everything. A great assignment in film school would be to take a short scenario and shoot it with a different emphasis each time.

Adam: I have to admit that the guy getting hit is innately more interesting, though I tried to balance out the two roles.

Comedy follows weird rules. I wonder if Chaplin's "The Rink" is on YouTube. It would be fun to talk about the weird sructure of that film.

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Horns: It is easier to react in most situations, but then imagine Barney Fife reacting to Andy. There the reactor is king!

mike fontanelli said...

Yay! Back to Eddie live-action cartoons! No more (groan!) gardening hints with Crotch's victory cabbage, or whatever.

Trevor Thompson said...

Yes, but in the case of the Three Stooges, who's the reactor? They pretty much all react as a whole to outside stimuli, and then react among each other.

Or do I have that wrong too?

Great video as always Eddie! Mistakes or none.

- trevor.

Vincent Waller said...

Aside from acting and reacting issue. Great job on both Eddie. A real joy.
I think you should play Rowan Atkinson's American cousin.

The Jerk said...

as other have already said, both actors were "reactors," because reacting is more than just a response to another person's actions, but also to one's situation. the spitballer's (new word?) reaction to his situation (boredom, possibly irritation with his victim's attitude?) is in his facial expressions as well as his act of spitting paper at him.

still, I think the reason so many people use the phrase "all acting is reacting" is mostly to address what can be a problem actors have with not paying attention to the other performers on stage- a lot of beginning actors only act when it's "their line," then drop character, when the performance should continue as the character reacts to the other performer's lines or stage actions. Often this act of "listening" by other performers is what gives the lines meaning beyond what the speaker's inflection or body language can provide. thus, though not every thing an actor does is technically a reaction in sense that you use it, acting certainly must include reacting, and not be "just saying lines."

and i also agree that the reactor can often be the more interesting to watch, i recall seeing a documentary about the Magnificent Seven where the actors were recalling an actor's rivalry between Steve McQueen and Yul Brynner, where Brynner became irritated that McQueen was "stealing scenes" from him by making little actions such as playing with his hat, or reacting in interesting ways in scenes while Brynner was speaking. both actors seemed to understand that these types of "reactional" histrionics drew attention from the performer who was "acting," and used it to steal screen time from each other.

Eshniner Forest said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjV0DKCCJbY

Anonymous said...

Well I gotta say the victim stuck out the most. Did they actually have (roughly) the same screen time? Cause it seems the poor hapless victim was there a lot more, but maybe that's because he stuck out. I dunno.

I'm not that big a fan of that theory though. Somebody obviously has to do something that isn't a reaction for someone to react to it, right? They both deserve credit. I dunno though.

By the way, I like how the poor simpleton victim is just sitting around (I'm assuming in a public place...) cleaning his buckteeth with a q-tip until he's viciously accosted. I've seen public flossing, but not tooth-q-tipping.

Josh Heisie

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Eshniner: Interesting!

Mike: City Dweller!

Vincent: Thanks!

Pseudonym said...

John Cleese had a similar theory. Watching Basil Fawlty assault Manuel is funny. Watching Manuel's reaction is funnier. But the funniest of all is watching the random bystander who is watching all this happening.

Patrick McMicheal said...

I have to say my attention was focused on the shooter! I was interested in his response to the victim and what he would do next!
I ABSOLUTELY LOVE that saxophone quartet music! I am a life-long saxophonist and I would love to know where you yanked that music! I gotta have it Eddie!

pappy d said...

The experiment is a great success, conclusions aside.

Anonymous said...

http://kotaku.com/5011869/picture-yourself-in-fable-2 thought of you

Aaron T. said...

The Rink is available here: http://revver.com/video/400183/charlie-chaplin-the-rink/

Trevor Thompson said...

Cleese got that advice from Marty Feldman during 'At Last The 1948 Show'.

Marty said that watching someone behave crazily isn't nearly as funny as watching someone who is watching someone who is behaving crazily.

Speaking of British comedy, I think Vincent's on to something. You do somewhat resemble Atkinson, Eddie. Both in look and comic timing.

- trevor.

Anonymous said...

Anyone here seen Rowan Atkinson? Other than Mr.Bean?

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Pat: I don't have the name, just a fragment that I duped a long time ago. Since I don't have the whole piece I just play the fragment over and over.

Pseudo: True!

Anon: Thanks for the tip. Boy, they don't provide much information!

Aaron: MANY thanks for The Rink!!!!!! It's my all-time favorite silent comedy.

Boo: Marty Feldman truly was one of the great theorists of comedy!

I do have some Atkinson characteristics. It's strange, some of his mannerisms have become part of my everyday behavior, so that even when I'm just trying to be me there's a little of him in it. Ditto for some other people who've influenced me.

Another big influence on me is Leon Errol. Strangely enough the influence is based on a faulty memory of something I saw him do when I was a kid. I later saw his work as an adult and was extremely disappointed. It goes to show that you can benefit from a misunderstanding of an idea, just like you can benefit from the real thing.

Once I told Mike about how great Leon Errol was and he ran out and bought a tape of Errol sketches. They were all horrible and Mike wanted to kill me afterward.

Anonymous said...

Isn't the point of the statement that when you "act" if all you do is "act" there is no intrinsic motivation? What happens in life is not that you say prepared lines, stuff happens and you react to it. It happens around you, it happens in your head, it happens with other people.

So, acting is reacting means that you have internal motivations prompted by whatever. Not necessarily just the guy with the spitball, but your experience being bullied with a spitball in 3rd grade that makes you pull out the machete and take a swing at him, etc. It's not about who's doing the action and who is subject to it. EVERYONE reacts. Even in a monologue. Or you can just parrot or read or spew forth canned lines and gestures for no reason other than they are on the page which is BAD acting.

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Anon: Well said!!!

Trevor Thompson said...

My favoritie Rowan Atkinson bit is the one man sketch he did about the guy who checks you in at the gates of hell.

Hystyerical!

"Christians, over here. Bet you feel a bit of a fool, don't you? Terribly sorry, but the Jews were right."

Also Eddie, I think the first character was reacting to the IDEA of irritating the other character.

Just my theory.

- trevor.

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Boo: Wow! A good gag!

cableclair said...

In acting you want a reaction from the other actor and you try to get that reaction out of this other person by behaving a certain way but by doing that,

you find yourself focusing on that other persons reaction and adjusting your actions based on that reaction,

so you're always reacting to someones reaction from point zero on.

You're either reacting on the theory you have on the persons reaction beforehand (that's your first action)

Or you're reacting on the persons actual reaction.

In good acting, the other person does the exact same thing, but usually has goals that conflict with yours, and this dynamic is making the scene interesting.

The person receiving the pie is only interesting when there is a person reacting to it and the person reacting to it is only interesting if the pie-receiver has a follow up reaction to the reacting person.

Anonymous said...

wow I never realized how influenced you were by Jerry Lewis before. The silent acting here was very reminiscent of some of his best pantomime, especially playing with your teeth and the amazing moment when the victim finishes wiping his face and settles back into idiotic bliss before being attacked again. I mean it as a compliment-- the comparison to Lewis, who I am a huge admirer of.