I went to see Oedipus Tyrannos and Antigone on Friday at U of C, by myself, unfortunately. But it was a good performance. The chorus bugged me from time to time, because often they'd deliver there lines in a very unnecessarily intense and "artsy" way, without any motive. That was annoying. I liked the characters though. My favourite was Tiresias, who was in both stories.
When I was watching the play, I remembered something that I forget: I enjoy being more onstage more than I enjoy watching it. Not to say I didn't enjoy watching it, but in my mind, I kept thinking "I wonder how I would perform in that role" and things like that. It's egotistical, I know. But come on, all actors do it; which is my point exactly. I AM an actor, so I do it. It was relieving, that I identified with actors, and to know that I think like that, that my place is not to be a mere spectator, but a participant in this art.
Up until a few weeks ago, I was seriously doubting not only my acting ability but the legitimacy of acting as a respectable art at all. I hated thinking this way, since it's been a part of my life for so long. I didn't as much of myself into the Mad Hatter in Alice and Murray in A Thousand Clowns as I could have. My heart just wasn't in it, and nothing that people could tell me would change that. For me it's not enough to know that I love doing something so that's why I do it. There has to be more than that. I wanted some outside reference to legitimise my love for acting. Legitimacy is the difference between acting as a hobby and acting as a serious study and profession. I don't love it irrationally. I love it because it's great, and because it's important, and not because it just makes me happy. So why is it important?
It strikes me as odd that one of the chief purposes of theatre is to entertain. It feels so insignificant when that is all people get from it. And then it occurred to me that this is only what most people experience as an audience. But thankfully I should also remember that it doubles as entertainment AND art. Bad actors can still be entertaining in some ways. In fact you don't need any acting skills whatsoever to be entertaining. Good actors turn it into a high art, while simultaneously entertaining people.
But then I saw Christopher Newton's lecture, who deeply inspired me. Later on, in one of the final classes with Ned he gave us the quote from Hamelt, that goes: "the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is to hold as ‘twere the mirror up to nature". This was a real eye-opener. It reminded me what art is about.
I eventually decided I'd still aim for acting, and now my resolve is stronger than it's ever been. I still doubt my acting abilities, but I don't doubt why I'm still doing this. Now I must double my efforts to study it, and put in a level of commitment and determination like I've never exerted before. I'll read anything about acting I can get my hands on, watch movies and read plays and get a couple monologues under my belt. I'll try to become more fit and healthy, and do vocal exercises daily. I probably won't do all of this as much as I hope, but there's no harm in trying. And really the hardest part is just getting started, getting into a habit. So I'll have to force myself. I know I'll be glad I did in the long run.
I realise I can do all these things, and they can benefit myself as a person, but no matter how hard I work, if I don't pass the audition, I don't pass the audition. And that's fine. If I don't get accepted into Acting, nobody will say that I didn't do my damn'dest! Anyway I do like to think that any extra work I put in to this will give me some sort of an edge, over myself if not over the "competition". And I don't really see my peers as competition, anyway. I'd prefer to think of this as like golf, a constant effort to improve your own score, regardless of how others are doing. Ok, so you DO compete in golf, but....yeah, you get the idea.
