Consciousness,
Literature and the Arts
Archive
Volume
1 Number 1, April 2000
_______________________________________________________________
The Ego and the Self in Actor Training
by
William
Weiss
Character analysis is a description of a personal
identity, the ego. The ego is necessarily idiosyncratic, all egos are unique,
because the identity is defined as being different from others. Since the
actor’s ego does not disappear when playing a role, the process involves both
dis-identifying with herself and finding a common identity with a character who
is unlike herself. This process demands awareness of the impersonal and the
universal because how else will the actor make the transition from his to other
egos?
In actor training, character
analysis requires the recognition of the universals in ego identification,
whereas bodily and voice training demand an identification with a mind that is
neutral and impersonal. Although the term mind
encompasses the mind of the ego, we will use it to refer to our spiritual
identity, which pre-supposes that our existence as bodily beings was preceded by
a spiritual existence [1]. The paper will show examples of the universals of ego
description and will discuss voice and movement as neutralizing mind processes.
These are necessary tools for actor training.
Description
of the ego
The Canadian Dictionary definition is adequate for the
purposes of this discussion: “The self, esp. as distinct from the world and
other selves”. We can think of ourselves, within this definition as being
separate from others and from the world. We have a personality distinct from
other personalities, we have a body different from other bodies, we have a
unique personal history, we have an individual perception of ourselves, of
others and of the world.
This uniqueness makes each of us very special, given
that no one was or will ever be like us. We are different. But it also makes us
vulnerable. What we want is not necessarily what the world will give us. Being
in a world of different beings we will never see the world exactly as others do.
Defining ourselves as biological beings we are prone to famine, disease, war and
death. Because of our differences we are necessarily in conflict with one
another, and with all the situations of our lives. Individual consciousness
gives us a vast array of possible choices – all involving possibilities of
conflicts.
Description of the mind or the spiritual self
One of the definitions of mind in the Canadian Dictionary is “Intelligence or the
nonmaterial aspect of being in contrast to the material”. It is possible to
interpret this reference as pertaining to a universal consciousness as opposed
to the individual one. But given that we still experience ourselves as
individuals we can call it a “spiritual self”, the “self” being our own
experience of the universal. That identity is the opposite of the ego because it
is not linked to the interests of the ego. Whereas the ego seeks survival, the
nonmaterial is not prone to loss and death. It cannot be hurt, it is formless,
it cannot change, it cannot be in conflict, it is not separate from others, it
cannot be different, it is collective.
Humans are aware of the spiritual self but necessarily
translate it into human terms. The human rendition of the spiritual is
inevitably an unsatisfying approximation; often, a series of concepts, that we
can call “ideals”, that often are expressed as myths. At other times, the
spiritual is an experience that cannot be expressed or communicated directly.
For example the concept of “justice” is quite imperfect when we get a
parking ticket, it is justice according to city by-laws, but it is experienced
as injustice by the recipient. The following are some other examples. The
concept of “love” is constantly challenged between lovers, and quite
amazingly can transform itself into hate. The conflicts between parents and
children, and even between friends, show the shortcomings of the myth of love.
The concept of “peace” is sometimes a cessation of war because of the
weakness of one of the parties, or because of agreements involving a series of
reluctant compromises. True inner and outer peace is so rare that we often
equate it with death. The concept of “freedom” is restricted by our
individual abilities and collective interests. Some philosophies see our lives
as being largely determined in a way that true freedom becomes an impossibility.
Finally, the concept of “happiness” is constantly challenged by our multiple
conflicts and limitations. Happiness is thus experienced as temporary and
subject to the ever changing events in life. Because of their seeming
impossibility, these characteristics of the spiritual are most often translated
as concepts in the world of the ego.
The universal ego
Although the ego is defined by its separateness and
uniqueness it has universal characteristics. Our bodies are different, but we
all have bodies, our conflicts are different but we all have conflicts, our
needs and desires may be different but we all have them. We may have different
fears but we all have fears. We are all aware of unfairness and we often feel
victimized. We may interpret situations differently but we all feel anger and
disappointment. We may even accept that others can view life differently, but we
still experience sadness when experiencing loss. We can understand our limits
and those of others but we still seek love and approval. And we all have a sense
of our own imperfection and therefore experience guilt.
More significantly we experience ourselves as
incomplete. So we want to be better than we are, we need to have what we lack,
and we must do whatever is necessary to fulfill our needs. The theatre, where
conflict plays a primary role, portrays the world of the ego. I will develop
this with more details shortly. But first I’ll define the Universal Spiritual
Self.
The universal spiritual self
It is most commonly called the divine. Whereas the ego
is separate and distinct the spirit is wholeness and union. The ego sees itself
as imperfect, prone to error and to unpardonable actions (original sin) whereas
spirit is innocent and incapable of sin. The ego is therefore guilt ridden
whereas the spirit is guiltless. Thinking that it acted badly, the ego is
fearful of consequences whereas the spirit is loving and fearless. If the ego
sees guilt and fault in others, the spirit overlooks it only recognizing calls
for love. The ego is angry, it feels victimized by life and others, it blames
those who diminished its happiness and who therefore attacked it, while claiming
its own innocence, whereas spirit is always peaceful never attacking,
invulnerable to attack. The ego is often disappointed when it does not get what
it wants, anger and sadness are the results. The spirit is whole and not liable
to loss, joy is its natural expression.
I said before that the universal spiritual self is
whole and that the ego sees itself as incomplete. It is this sense of
incompleteness that leads the ego to action, whereas the spiritual self needs to
do nothing. Hence the ego looks for objects to love and to be loved by, for
material goods to insure its safety and satisfaction, for deeds and situations
to increase its pleasure and the recognition of others, and for the fulfillment
of needs and the redressing of injustices of the past. Unless these lacks are
satisfied the ego suffers. The suffering leads to further action that seeks
relief. Obviously the spirit is not incomplete and therefore does not suffer. It
lives in a world of safety and certainty. The ego, by contrast, is often in
doubt. The ego is in doubt about its actions and often regrets them. The ego is
in doubt of its safety and about the support of others, and often feels
betrayed. The ego can thus lose its bearings in total despair, all while the
spirit is calm and hopeful.
The ego’s identity is the body, and consequently
lives on a constantly fluctuating continuum of pleasure to pain, health to
illness, conquest and defense, autonomy and dependency, life and death. The
spirit is immaterial and not subject to fluctuations. The ego lives in a world
of form whereas the spirit is formless. Hence for the ego the form is
fundamental and is a carrier of meaning. For the spirit form is immaterial and
content is all that matters. For the ego, body and mind are one, whereas for the
spirit, its essence is non-material and the body is a projection of the mind.
For the ego different forms, or different gradations of form, have different
meanings. For the spirit variations of form, size and intensity are irrelevant.
For example, the ego recognizes qualitative differences in anger. It can range
from a twinge of irritation to a murderous fury. The spirit makes no such
distinctions, it is categorical. For the spirit a minor insult and the genocide
of millions are the same, both are expressions of attack. For the spirit there
is no order of difficulties. For example, forgiving Hitler would be no more
difficult than forgiving a neighbor who omitted to greet you. As we’ll see
shortly, it is this categorical, either the one or the other but not both,
non-dualistic point of view of the universal spiritual self that can be of
service in actor’s training.
Finally, the spirit is changeless and not subject to
the transformations of time and space. By contrast, the world of the ego is
constantly changing, is has memory of the past and it prepares itself for the
future. The ego is historical while spirit is eternal, the ego is finite and
comes in a myriad of forms, the universal spiritual self is formless and
infinite, it is only content.
Actor training: from personal ego to universal ego and
back
The actor, who has an ego, plays a character, which is
another ego. It would be difficult for an ego to play another ego unless they
were very similar. In which case the actor would play herself in imaginary
circumstances, and that would entail little difficulty.
If the character is dissimilar there would have to be a
process of dis-identifying with one’s ego in order to portray a different one.
The sheer possibility of relinquishing one’s ego for the purposes of
playacting implies the possibility of identifying with the mind or the spiritual
self even if only temporarily. Is this what Stanislavski refers to in his
numerous appeals of searching for the spiritual? Perhaps. But then the actor is
still called to portray another ego. Is this really possible? Well, the ego is
unique and therefore it can express only itself. But it can refer to the
universal ego where, even if the circumstances are not identical, they share a
common mechanism. Suppose that you are playing Othello but you have never killed
anyone. Stanislavski would have asked you whether you have felt like killing
someone (emotion memory) and then use that memory in your stage actions. But
suppose, for argument sake, that you do not have such a memory. That brings us
back to the spiritual self for whom irritation, impatience, sarcasm, anger,
hate, attack, criticism, blame, violence, victimization, injustice, aggression,
envy, murder, debasement etc. are all the same phenomenon. You can pick any
experience from within the continuum of that universal ego and have your version
of Othello. You are back, in fact, to your ego. Chances are that you have
experienced some variation of anger, that you therefore understand the situation
from your point of view, and that you can portray it.
The substitution of one feeling or expression for
another is a recognition that although they may be different in form they are
identical in content. However, the ego being specific, would not recognize that,
for it, shades of emotions are distinctive. The actor would have to refer to her
spiritual self to see the sameness of different forms. Hence, in actor training
the process requires the recognition of a universal ego and a universal mind.
Examples of actor training techniques where
universal
ego and mind identification is needed
The
purposes of the ego and the mind
There are theatre exercises where the students are
encouraged to use their imagination. A chair can be transformed into a lookout
of a war bunker, and a table into a throne. These exercises have been imported
from children’s play. Jacques Copeau was perhaps the first one to observe
children at play and then have his actors reproduce the games. My four-year-old
has an uncanny habit of transforming everything into a sword, whether it is a
pencil, a piece of soap or a carrot. The idea behind these gestures is that a
purpose does an object make. A glass, for example, can be the container that
helps to quench the thirst of an eager child, or holds drinks that accompany the
rapturous sighs of lovers, or it is the hope of revival of an office worker
needing her shot of caffeine, it is also the weapon with which an Austrian
officer offends a rival by throwing the contents into his face, or the container
that holds the medicine of a frail but still hopeful patient.
The point is that we don’t really see the glass but
its purpose. Do you look at a glass and really see it? Or do you recognize a
form that you think you know, thereby seeing your stored image of a glass. Hence
the very Zen-like exercises of seeing a chair, looking at it, really seeing it.
Do you really see it? Do we see anything but the past? The ego sees everything
linked to the past. It may be the dissatisfactions or guilt of the past or the
pleasures and whatever seemed good about it. So its purpose is either to
reproduce, or to redress the past, in the future. It is important to see that
all the doings of the ego are linked to the past and are designed to create a
better future. Are any of your actions not linked to the past? Or to the future?
So why did actor training import the “here and now”
concept from Gestalt psychology? Perhaps the idea is that if we are to portray
another ego we have to be able to get out of our own ego, which is getting out
of time. This is the realm of the spiritual self who is always in the realm of
the eternal now. This is one of the reasons for meditation as practiced in
Eastern religions, to let go of the past and of the future and to therefore
cease to exist for some moments as a human identity. So student-actors are asked
to cease being a person for a small while, in order to be able to portray a
person different from themselves. The universal ego of the new persona is also
trying to bridge the past to the future. The link of the actor to her spiritual
self is a resting instant in the present, when thoughts about the past and
worries about the future are let go. This is a purpose of the spiritual self.
I’ll be talking soon about neutralization, dis-identifying, relaxation, and
other theatre exercises that appeal to the spiritual self as a stepping stone to
acting. But before that, we’ll visit the first of some steps in acting
techniques of the Western tradition.
Character
analysis
This is very simply the description of the ego of the
character. It is unique by definition and form, but universal in its dynamics.
The ego is incomplete and seeks completion. The ego is unique and attached to
its uniqueness. The ego seeks to redress the grievances that it holds. These are
the habitual purposes behind the actions of the ego. The ego manifests itself
through actions whose purpose is to satisfy its needs. The universal ego dynamic
is:
NEED
FULFILMENT
Universal needs such as security, love, justice, honor,
fidelity, freedom, are usually unquestionable. In the theatre there is normally
a specific object or form of these needs which could be called “wants”. So
Romeo wants Juliet, but his need is the love of a woman, and beyond that he
simply needs love without which he would feel incomplete. Nora wants to leave
Torvald, her need is for independence, if she did not leave she would feel
unfulfilled. The ongoing scheme is of tension and resolution, tension being the
need, resolution being the fulfillment.
Because the ego is unique its wants are also unique.
Romeo does not want any woman, he feels that he specifically needs Juliet, and
so he wants Juliet. And so every character has specific needs that lead her into
actions to fulfill them. The work of an actor playing the role is to recognize
the universal needs of the character, at which point she could recognize those
needs in herself, which means that the particular ego form will not be an
obstacle to understanding and identifying with the role.
The recognition that we identify ourselves as unique
but that underlying that uniqueness there is a universal ego and that therefore
we are activated by the same mechanism independently of our form and history is
a spiritual realization. The idea is that there is a universal mind and that
every mind is linked to it. And in any case, if there were not a universal mind
the universal ego would be the universal mind. And if that were the case, we
could never step out of our ego.
Coming back to character analysis, the process is
seeing what the character wants, then ascertaining the universal need, then
identifying with it. Clearly, we can identify with and see the identical needs
of the character and ourselves, even if the form is different, even if the moral
system of the character is objectionable to us. Understanding the character from
a universal ego point of view is just the beginning. The actor has to take into
account the given circumstances which define the psychological makeup of the
character. This is the painstaking craft of the actor. However, every
psychological trait conforms to the dynamics of the ego, after all, psychology
is the study and treatment of the ego.
I will borrow some psychological character descriptions
from a previous paper of mine [2]. “When a character is submissive, there is
an underlying notion that the tactic will work in order to get love and support.
The search for love connotes a loveless world and a lack of self-esteem, a sense
that one is not good enough to satisfy the gods. The actor has to be in touch
with the need to be loved and with the sadness when love is withdrawn. The need
to seduce another person implies that one is incomplete and that the other will
provide for one’s lacks. Again, the actor has to be in touch with the need to
force others to love us and with our sense of loneliness and lack. Imposing
one’s will upon others may hide a vulnerable side that lost hope of getting
love and approval without effort. The actor has to be in touch with the pretense
of strength and the sense of weakness that forceful behavior may hide. If the
character is withdrawn, there may be a mask of despair, a feeling that one’s
emotional needs may never be satisfied. If a character is proud, there may be a
fear that one is not good enough.
Notice that these emotions can be viewed both
psychologically and spiritually. Spiritually speaking these emotions portray
universal unfulfillment, that is, fear, guilt and disappointment with life, with
the gods. The actor has to be in touch with this cosmic need for happiness. If
the character feels victimized, it portrays an unjust world, a point of view
that sees the world as untrustworthy. The point is that we have all of these
feelings within ourselves, although we do not usually have the circumstances of
the characters. These feelings are not idiosyncratic, they are universal, and
they allow us to understand and have a connection with any character.”
One can look at the interpersonal psychology, the
social psychology, the physical psychology and the psychophysical psychology of
the character, but they all refer to the universal ego. Race, gender, social
class, physical attraction, handicaps are all distinguishing traits of ego in
relationship to other egos. Understanding the universal is the door to the
particular.
The ego is very specific. This includes the ego of the
author and her point of view, the ego of the character, the ego of the actor and
the ego of the director. The ultimate product is specific and results from a
combination of these points of view. If these points of view are divergent then
somebody’s point of view will have to be left out. However, if there is
constant reference to the universal ego then everybody’s point of view will be
taken into account. Egos are only in conflict on specifics.
Text
analysis
I said above that the theatre is the realm of the ego. Looking at the
nature of the dramatic situation all of the definitions of the ego are present.
Let’s look at them briefly. Conflict:
It is an essential component of the dramatic situation. It can be internal or
external. It has to do with conflicting goals and desires or personal
limitations, and it is a result of the essential incompleteness of the ego. The
ego fears it won’t get what it needs and wants. If the character identified
with the spiritual self it would feel complete and happy, there would be no
conflict. Objective: It expresses the
goal, purpose or intention of the dramatic situation. The ego, being incomplete,
seeks to get whatever it feels it lacks and needs. The objective of the
spiritual self is peace and that would require acceptance, forgiveness and
relinquishing the ego. Obstacles: The
ego, in its attempts to complete itself, finds itself in hostile circumstances
and seeks to overcome them. The ego often feels victimized by others and by
circumstances. Whatever the reasons --human nature, competition, bad luck,
society -- the ego has to struggle to attain its goals. This heightens the
energy of the drama. It also expresses the anger and the blame towards an unjust
world that one has to combat. If the conflict is internal the expression is of
self-hatred and guilt. The spiritual self, unhindered by the ego, has no
obstacles in accepting and forgiving any situation. It never feels shortchanged
or compromised because it does not judge and does not condemn. Action:
It is the means to alleviate and resolve the conflict by attempting to achieve
the objective. The ego is a doer, and playing a role is called acting.
The spiritual self, being complete has nothing to do, it expresses only joy,
happiness, love, union, acceptance. Given
circumstances: The conditions of the character seem to determine its
objectives and actions. Reflecting the ego, there is a myriad of forms defined
by time and space that justify the conflict, the objective and the action. The
spiritual self is not determined by circumstances, it is changeless and always
sees the same situation.
The actor is seen as both the artist and the instrument
of expression. If one identifies with the ego this is certainly true. Seeing
oneself as mind, on the other hand, entails no longer seeing oneself as an
instrument but rather seeing the body as an instrument. One can use one’s
personality and body to create a character but there is a certain objectivity or
distancing. This objectification of the ego allows for deconstructing the
dramatic situation. The actor understands the mechanism of the character and can
re-create it with her body, and because bodies and perceptions are unique, the
rendition will be unique. The interpretation of the actor will comprise her
judgments, abilities, motivations and tastes. The character or the ego sees its
needs and conflicts as essential, the actor must understand and empathize with
the character, but it sees the alternatives to the ego. This way, beyond the
interpretation coming out of ego identification, there may be hints of spiritual
options. It would show the basic conflict of a fighter who aspires to peace, a
trickster who wants love, a lover who would like to be free of the fears of
passion. Because the greatest of conflicts is not the needs of the ego, it is
not the obstacles that prevent the character from achieving its goals, it is not
whether one should get married or study medicine, it is between the ego and the
spiritual self. From that point of view, the ego is always on the wrong path
because it seeks a substitution for what the mind wants. And what the world can
give are at best substitutions for what it deeply yearns for. The world’s
meager versions of peace, love, union, joy and justice, are at best
approximations and compromises for what the mind truly wants. Perhaps, it is
when we perceive this conflict between the ego and the mind, that we recognize
truly great acting.
Play analysis
I said that the ego is active. At every instant it is
working within the structure of tension and resolution, need and fulfillment.
This ego structure is always operative, whether in every word and action of the
character or in the macrocosm of the play. The ego is constantly constructing
its reality, and its constructions reveal its structure. So, an Aristotelian
plot structure of exposition, complication, crisis, climax and resolution,
reflects the ego’s ploy to complete itself, to fulfill its needs, to ascertain
its uniqueness, to redress the past, to prepare a future, to defend itself from
attack, to survive. Actors are asked to find a superobjective which is the play’s central purpose. If in the play
Oedipus Rex, for example, the
superobjective is “to save the city” it is not difficult to see the ego’s
need for self preservation, for redressing the past, condemning the guilty,
purifying the sinful. The earthly concepts of justice, health, righteousness are
evoked. But their failure in bringing true satisfaction, peace and happiness is
also obvious. In fact, the message is that achieving your goals will not make
you happy. The city is saved but the cost is terrible. Implicit is the yearning
for spiritual peace and justice. That yearning is played in the structure of
every scene, every beat, every moment of the play. And if the play does not
provide the specifics of the given circumstances of where, when, how, why and
who, the actor has to provide it. Because, the ego is created at every instant,
it is linked to the past and it seeks the future, the mind seems helpless in the
face of this inexorable evolution, but its hopes are still implicit.
The
actor’s motivation for playing
Although the actor may have to accommodate her ego to
the ego of the character her ego does not disappear nonetheless. Egos can not
disappear because they see survival as their main task. So what is the
motivation of an ego playing another ego? We have to look for an answer in the
universal ego. The ego, being separate, needs to be loved in its uniqueness. If
it has doubts about its loveliness then it needs even more manifestations of
praise, approval, notoriety and fame. All of these are substitutions for
universal love. Acting somebody else’s script, playing an ego different from
oneself, allowing somebody else to direct us, are all acts of submission that
have to be rewarded with love and approval. Otherwise the vicious aspect of the
ego may make an appearance, and the hitherto compliant actor will show her
aggressive side. For the ego every interaction is an exchange and it does not
like to be shortchanged.
At this point it is becoming perhaps clear that the ego
is a creation of the mind and that there must be a spiritual reflection behind
each of its actions. So, the idea of relinquishing one’s ego in order to play
another one is a recognition that egos are equivalent, and if we can play one or
the other, then fundamentally we are not egos, we are mind. In other words, we
are also playing our own ego, persona or mask. It must be tiring to play our own
ego. Playing someone else’s can give us more rewards. It is perhaps more
restful to forget about ourselves and to identify with others. Stanislavski said
“A characterization is a mask which hides the actor-individual [ego].
Protected by it, he can lay bare his soul [ego] down to the last intimate
detail” (1985, 28). This function would be self-discovery, self-expression,
release of wearisome tensions -- all added benefits. Is not this what we do as
spectators of a play or film? In which case playing a role or watching it would
be a similar endeavor. But let’s come back to actor training.
The body is the most important symbol of the ego:
bodies are separate and unique. Most conflicts are body based and conflict is
the basic ingredient of the theatre. Without bodies there would be no action,
physical attraction, struggles for power or territory, quests for survival and
freedom, status differences, and life, aging and death. The theatre as a visual
performance needs bodies. Even radio plays presuppose bodies.
Movement
training
The ultimate goal of movement training for actors is
physicalizing the character, which allows for the externalization of the ego
characteristics. The character is then minutely composed with regards to its
center, energy, rhythm and gestures.
Furthermore the body represents the ego’s mind. In
movement training the body is seen as the mind. So the body is seen as the
engine of emotions. Relaxation is physical relaxation, tension is muscular
tension, blockages are bodily blockages. The body is not only seen as the tool
that affects the mind but just another facet of the mind. It is no wonder that
neutralizing exercises are basic in movement training. The idea is that if the
body represents the actor’s ego, that ego has to be erased momentarily, in
order to allow her to play another ego, which means different bodily
characteristics. In exercises such as centering, kinesthetic awareness,
relaxation, alignment, breathing, yoga (a favorite) and even meditation, the ego
is neutralized. The trainee is encouraged to “let go” of tensions, stress
and even emotions. The actor observes her body as if she was outside, the body
no longer represents her personality and its goals but becomes an object. The
actor dis-identifies with her most important ego image. It becomes then a
springboard for the portrayal of new egos. Is not that a moment when the actor
identifies with her mind? If the actor sees herself as awareness of her body and
not her body, then that awareness is free to roam elsewhere, beyond the body.
That awareness may still be seen as personal and therefore separate, but it
still distinguishes between the body and awareness, between emotions and
awareness, between thoughts that are active and awareness that is passive. There
is no action in awareness, there is no conflict in awareness, there are no
emotions in awareness, although one can be aware of emotions, and if one can be
aware of formlessness with no thoughts one is aware of the non-ego self which we
called the spiritual self. From that experience the actor can return to the body
and see it as a symbol, whereas before she would see it as being herself. As a
symbol the body can play different egos, whereas if the actor sees herself as a
body it can only be itself. In fact, if the body is a projection of the mind,
then the body cannot learn, it is the mind that learns, bodily training is mind
training.
The body as a symbol can be subdivided because the ego,
as a composite identity, can be fragmented. But each fragment represents another
aspect of the ego. When the actor puts her awareness in the head the expression
is intellectual. The mental has to do with understanding, planning, mastering,
plotting, all ego devices for control, domination, defense and attack, necessary
for a being in a situation of conflict and fear.
Moving while putting one’s attention on the sexual
organs is an expression of seduction or domination, a need to be fulfilled by
the ego who needs to complete itself by mating with other beings. If attention
is put on the belly the expression is down to earth, practical, concrete,
laboring. The ego does things and makes objects, it is a worker. Expression from
the chest has to do with openness of communication, the heart being the symbol
of earthly love and the connection to friends and allies. After all, the ego is
dependent on the support of others.
One could go on fragmenting the expressive qualities of
the body. And given that different characters emphasize different aspects of
personality the actor has a tool for creating new combinations of traits.
Intrinsic in this process is the idea that the ego would be incapable of
choosing aspects different from itself, just like a computer could not choose to
operate itself beyond the operating system in which it was programmed. So,
bodily training of actors necessarily appeals to the non-ego mind.
Jacques Lecoq said in one of his school brochures that
sublime movement tends to immobility. The body can move and create wonderful
images but the spiritual yearning is for total union. In great acting there is a
painful paradox of seeking union, which the body being separate is incapable of
accomplishing.
Voice
and speech training
Voice and speech training is bodily training. Voice and
speech are produced by the jaw, the tongue, the larynx, the lungs, the chest and
the abdomen. Speech is the most sophisticated means of communication of the ego
because it uses words, which are symbols. The word “glass” is not a glass,
and a glass is also a symbol, as we saw above. Hence, speech is a process of
communication with symbols twice removed from reality. The listeners decipher
the symbols and substitute their own images for them. Therefore the ego
communicates by symbols and images. The spiritual self is connected to the
universal mind and therefore is linked to other minds, it communicates directly
and needs no symbols or images, it needs no language. The ego is so dependent on
language for its survival that humans see their language as an intrinsic aspect
of their identity. Language expresses ethnicity, geography, historical period,
social class, education, culture, age, all details that define the uniqueness of
the ego. Given the strong identification with language, in actor training the
task again is to dis-identify with that aspect of the ego.
The process again is to neutralize the body, to become
aware of the mechanism of speech production, and to revisit objectively each
bodily part that produces speech. Through this process the actor discovers that
speech can be produced differently, and that makes possible the pronunciation of
different manners of speaking such as dialects, accents, voice qualities, and
different language styles, whether conversational or literary. The task is
similar to that of learning a foreign language, and entails the same
difficulties, which essentially is laying aside that identification.
The more the student is attached to her self image the
more arduous the task. The student is asked to lay aside her already mastered
speech and to start the learning process again, like an infant. In that process
other aspects of the ego in its individual relationship to the world are
uncovered. The voice, being a bodily expression, reveals personality traits such
as shyness, roughness, self-esteem, stridency, seductiveness, immaturity,
resistance, sloppiness. The task is again to neutralize these ego
characteristics opening the way to new character compositions. The student is
asked to let go of her social and psychological traits, in a process similar to
psychological therapy. The realization is that one is not indelibly linked to
one’s ego characteristics. And that process of loosening the ego reveals, even
if only by inference, the arbitrariness of ego, and the possibility of
identification with the mind. The student also learns that new voice qualities
express different ego characteristics.
Being able to produce different manners of speech is an
invaluable tool for an actor. Nevertheless speech is an expression of the ego,
great acting expresses the yearning behind speech, it is a yearning for the
elimination of the necessity of speech, it begs for silence and for the direct
communication of the mind.
Theatre
anthropology
There are theatrical creations that tend so much
towards the abstract that there is no longer a perceivable narrative form.
Grotowski’s productions, the Open Theatre, The Roy Hart Theatre, Robert
Wilson’s productions, Noh Theatre, Bhuto performances, as well as traditional
Eastern forms such as Kathakali and Balinese dancing come to mind as examples.
If there is a coded or an idiosyncratic bodily and sound language which is
understandable to the initiated then there is still a narrative form in spite of
the non-realistic elements. But these “non-daily” techniques which have
attracted the attention of the new “theatre anthropologists” such as Eugenio
Barba, are examples of molding the normal ego images into abstract ones. In the
case of Eastern theatre the training starts in childhood, the actor devotes her
life to the theatre, and the intention is that of sacrificing the ego. The
ritual origins and spiritual intentions are quite clear in these forms. The
Western creations mentioned above also seem to question the ego. If there is no
communication which the ego can understand, then there are only images, which
normally are the realm of the ego, but which no longer seem to represent the
interests of the ego. The ego then loses meaning and feels threatened. And the
reflection can be that of the formlessness of the mind and the meaninglessness
of images. It would be impossible for the ego to identify with such images.
Actors in such productions would not get the usual ego rewards of success but
would be giving a metaphysical message by abandoning their habitual ego images.
The idea is that we invented the world we see and that there is nothing stopping
us from inventing another one.
The theatre from its beginnings was seen as a didactic
tool. By portraying the ego the theatre warns of its shortcomings. Sometimes
very directly, like Voltaire’s pieces à
these, naturalism, Shaw or Brecht’s theatre. The idea is that by
understanding the ego one can avoid its pitfalls and create a better ego with an
improved moral system. What would be the effect if actors were trained to
perceive the universal ego, with its basic premises of separateness, guilt,
fear, condemnation and attack? The focus would shift from the ego to the mind.
The motivations of the characters would be of more interest than their actions.
All needs and desires would be of interest, not their fulfillment. Such
unquestioned premises as succeeding in the world, being victorious in one’s
endeavors, eradicating injustice, getting love, would be redirected to the mind
and its perception and judgment of life’s purpose. Acting itself reflects the
world of the ego whereby we are all acting out our individual egos. We don’t
seem to have a choice about our habitual ego identity but from the point of view
of the mind we have chosen it. But actors could bring in the hidden side of the
character by bringing to life its ego, the actor’s ego, the universal ego and
the universal mind. The universal mind is not quite expressible with the body
and the voice, it is rather an inference, the opposite of the world we know, an
experience of the mind that transcending the form would communicate directly to
the mind of the audience. In fact, the expression of the universal spiritual
mind would normally be in contradiction with the reaction of the character. It
can appear as an unsaid recognition that the world one is yearning for is not
this one. The message there is that the world can be the theatre of the ego or
of the mind.
Notes
[2] “In spite
of the supposed ritual origins of theatre in ancient Greece is there a
connection between Western theatre and religious rituals?”, International Federation for Theatre Research, Theatre and
Holy Scriptures. Tel-Aviv, Israel, June 1996.
Works
Cited