I have often heard actors being identified as “high priests” of theatre—usually meant as no more than a metaphor. But I wonder if there is perhaps some validity in that remark after all. Otherwise, why would the comparison be made so often as it is? Surely there are some spiritual dimensions to the actor’s art. Notable theatre practitioners of the 20th century, including Stanislavski and Grotowski have used these dimensions to inform their work in theatre. One might assume that these spiritual aspects were superimposed on acting from the outside, and that is when they became spiritually endowed. But this seems like an oversimplification of the art, and I believe the conclusions these individuals drew would not have been possible had there not been some spiritual qualities latent within this ancient tradition. But if so, what are those qualities? How does acting resemble a spiritual journey? In observing certain religions and faith traditions of the world, one can draw parallels between the actor’s process and performance, and certain ideas and roles in religion. An actor has all the potential to be a kind of monk on the road to enlightenment, a model for ethical behaviour, a shaman healing the community through story, and a heretic who goes against establishment to keep it from stagnating.
One of the actor’s primary intentions is to pretend to be someone else. In acting training we are taught that to accomplish a truthful portrayal of a character it can only come with the acceptance that we are capable of any kind of behaviour. In studying the art of Half-Mask, we improvise with the mask to find a character, depending on what kind of impressions the mask makes on our bodies. It would be incorrect to say that what develops, what character arises, is not the person from whom it arose. The character is an aspect of the actor, and the mask is a channel that gives that person license to act and behave in ways they would not under everyday circumstances. Even the language used about the creation, finding a character, implies that they were waiting to be discovered rather than consciously contrived by the actor. If we are to agree with Erving Goffman’s theory that all human interaction is acting, then this notion does not seem so farfetched (252). When we embrace a wider view of our Selves, we see that the things we assume to make us us are not as fundamental as we thought. My “Self” is a combination of genetic inheritance and experiences. Free will comes into play of course, but we act largely as a result of these factors. This is a central idea in Buddhist thought about the Self. The Sanskrit word Atman means “Self”, but Buddhism subverts this, and rather acknowledges Anatman, “No-Self”, the idea that there is no fundamental I upon which a person builds their identity (Prebish, 48). Acting as an art form recognizes this plasticity of human nature more than most. The “Magic If” tool used by actors challenges the belief that our identities are solid and unchanging.
A term I always hear when applied to acting is being in the moment. An actor’s hope is to be able to perform with all of their attention focused in the present moment onstage. They are not to be thinking about what they are supposed to be doing next or what their next line is, and must be focused on their character’s objective. Actors must make themselves innocent in a sense, becoming open and childlike to what may happen onstage. This sounds strangely like the Biblical passage about how Jesus’ disciples would never enter the Kingdom of God unless they entered it with the open-eyed consciousness of a child (New International Version, Mark. 10:15). The focus of achieving a character’s objective in a play is a highly complex task, and paradoxically simple. It is as difficult for people every day to live in the present as it is for actors to live in the present of their performance. Often actors use tools to help them attune their bodies and imaginations to the specific needs of the role, a warm-up which can often manifest as a kind of meditation. To be rooted in the present, an actor is like a monk in the Buddhist tradition practicing Mindfulness meditation (Eckel, 63). This often involves physical tasks a monk carries out, to be fully in that task, with their mind not wandering, daydreaming, or thinking to the future while they are carrying it out. The hope is that when a person is doing something, they must do it one hundred per cent with all of their energy. This is exactly what an actor is doing.
As actors we are taught to not “anticipate”. We must not try to play for an effect or a quality, but play the action of the character only, and trust that the desired effect will arise naturally. This is also directly related to the concept of dethroning the ego, which is perhaps the most central element of all of the major religions. “On action alone be thy interest”, says the author of the Hindu text, the Bhagavad Gita. “Never on its fruits; let not the fruits of action be thy motive, nor be thy attachment to inaction” (14, 2:47). It is this doing something for its own sake, and not for results, money, or approval of critics or the audience, that is prized most in an actor. This says more about human nature than it does about acting, and it might be questionable that acting can even make a person more selfless and trusting, rather than these qualities making a good actor. But it might work on a person in that way. Stanislavski said that “unless the theatre can ennoble you, make you a better person, you should flee from it” (276). He believed it could make people more enlightened, more in tune with the world; and I do not think he was alone. The goal of letting go of self-consciousness in order to become a better actor might be a way of indirectly helping somebody on that path, helping them because they are relieved of the pressure of being aware that they are on it.
This is an extreme claim to make, connecting the path to spiritual enlightenment to the art of the actor—after all, a good actor is not necessarily an enlightened, or even a good person. But many prominent theatre practitioners have argued that this compartmentalizing of art and life is actually counterproductive. Grotowski argued that for an actor to even take part in the act of creation, “his health, physical condition and all his private affairs cease to be just his own concern. A creative act of such quality flourishes only if nourished by the living organism” (260). This comment is echoed in other artists who worked in a more traditional theatre setting. “If you should feel schizophrenic about attempting to stay an honest artist and worker in our present-day theater,” said Uta Hagen, “for the health of your soul and mind, remember that what makes you an artist is your private domain…only when you are functioning can you try to influence or make a better theater” (212). Stanislavski said that the actor’s “part is not played out when the curtain goes down. He is still bound in his everyday life to be the standard bearer of what is fine. Remember this from the very beginning of your term of service to art and prepare yourselves for this mission” (280). The ethical side has been addressed more than once. Theatre is such a highly social art form and demands working as an ensemble to create quality art, so its very nature forces artists to cooperate, which also demands an adherence to moral principles. As a positive result, it creates a strong sense of community under ideal conditions.
A shaman is a figure in non-industrialized cultures that acts as a spiritual leader, a mediator between the world of everyday humans and the realm of the spirits. The job of a shaman is to use ritual and technique to enter this spirit world, in order to bring healing and protection to the community. In a secular, post-Enlightenment society, belief in spirits is a minority. But that does not mean the shaman disappears; rather, he reappears in a form that is compatible with that society. Anthropologist Piers Vitebsky says that a shaman covers the roles which in “industrial societies are played separately by the doctor, psychotherapist, soldier, fortune-teller, priest and politician.” Vitebsky ought to add ‘Actor’ to that list. Although a shaman may be all of those things, he fulfills these needs through theatre, something which only actors actually recognizes as part of their occupation. Vitebsky says the shaman must be able to “sweep the audience along with the power of his or her performance” (52). I think Vitebsky uses terms like “performance” and “audience” to describe what the shaman does, because it is unavoidably theatrical. However, this is not to reduce what the shaman does to mere charlatanry. Rather, if we recognize the spiritual dimension of the actor’s craft, this comparison somewhat elevates expectations of the actor to that of community healer, and spiritual voyager. An actor plumbs the depths of their imagination and subconscious in the way the shaman plumbs the depths of the spirit world (An Actor Prepares, 305). Both must not get lost there, but externalize the experience in the form of a narrative for the audience. Both use a conscious technique or ritual to achieve this balance (Vitebsky, 65). He is careful to note that shamanism is more than ‘only acting’, as if to imply something false. The shaman’s performance transforms the consciousness of everyone involved, which “makes the question of trickery irrelevant” (120). This might separate the shaman apart from the actor, but that might not give the actor full credit for their potential as an artist. I believe an actor is more than a charlatan; but someone who takes part in a public narrative ritual like the shaman, says and does things that need to be said and done for that community, when nobody else can do it. Whether or not one believes in the spirit world, the shaman’s efficacy in healing is in part because of the reality the community believes in. “Shamanic cultures have particular assumptions about what exists (ontology) and how things happen (causality),” says Vitebsky. “If one shares these assumptions, then the possibility of effective shamanic action follows” (143). Likewise, the power the actor has to heal the community relies on a community that is literate in the actor’s art, and the actor’s sensitivity to the things that carry meaning for that community.
But what does the work of the shaman for the community have to do with the actor in the 21st century performing repertory at a regional theatre in North America? Maybe nothing. Does the content have to be a particular type to benefit society? If so, perhaps only the theatre of a highly moral or overtly religious tone would be permissible. This would leave no room for non-canonical, non-religious drama, subversive or slapstick comedy, spectacle, or art for art’s sake. In that case, the actor’s performance cannot always benefit the community as a whole on a spiritual level. But I think this implies a very narrow view of spirituality, and even morality. The stories we tell ourselves survive because they have something to do with the human spirit. We operate in the theatre with the belief that the spirit can be enriched by joy, silliness, and pure imagination, as much as morality. Humour, even that of an irreverent, scathing flavour has a place in a moral universe. When Augustine of Hippo called theatre an anti-temple, with anti-rituals, and actors its anti-priests, he probably would not have imagined that eventually he would be doing us a huge favour (Barish, 64). If we are to agree with his statement, we must take this as a great complement and a great responsibility. This might be where an actor least resembles a priest. A priest upholds a tradition that a community generally puts their faith in. The actor, as an artist, doesn’t necessarily buy into it as well. That is why the actor must play the role of Heretic. He must be the Outsider who challenges the rites and rituals of the Establishment, not to replace it, but to keep it in check and offer a broader view of the human condition. The actor does this by daring to create new rites, by daring to laugh at the Establishment, and by daring to laugh at himself.
The answer to the question of how acting intersects with religion is complex. At the end of the day an actor is not quite a monk, a priest, or a shaman. An actor is an actor. To overlook the differences of each would do a great injustice to all of them. I am not trying to elevate the status of actor to someone better than anybody else, within the theatre or without. There's nothing worse than that kind of moral superiority complex that runs amok in art and religion. And there is also a danger of mystifying acting in making these kinds of claims. But I believe there is also practical value and technique in what a monk or a shaman do, so the comparison isn't as outlandish as one might think. I also think that there is room for mystery in art, so let's not look on it as a bad thing. And while acting isn’t a spiritual vocation by necessity--sometimes it can't be--it has all the potential to become one. Even in my own experience I have been unable to avoid the parallels. Those parallels imply that there is something in acting as an art that goes beyond itself. It is not simply what story the actor is telling that causes some sort of vague religious experience. It is the act itself—the event of summoning one’s courage, discipline, cooperation and imagination to share something with a community, to share the community with itself—where those spiritual dimensions can be most tangibly found.
Works Cited:
-Barish, Jonas. The Antitheatrical Prejudice. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1981.
-The Bhagavad Gita. Trans. Franklin Edgerton. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.
-Eckel, Malcom David. Buddhism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
-Goffman, Erving. Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday Publishing, 1959.
-Grotowski, Jerzy. Towards a Poor Theatre. New York: Routledge, 2002.
-Hagen, Uta and Haskel Frankel. Respect for Acting. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons,
2008.
-The Holy Bible: New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
-Prebish, Charles S. and Damien Keown. Introducing Buddhism: Second Edition. New
York: Routledge, 2010.
-Stanislavski, Constantin, Elizabeth Hapgood trans. Building a Character. trans. Elizabeth
Hapgood. New York: Routledge, 1989.
---, An Actor Prepares. trans. Elizabeth Hapgood New York:
Routledge, 1989.
-Vitebsky, Piers. Shamanism. University of Oklahoma Press, 1995.
Whew! You made it! Well, thanks for reading. Hope you got something out of it!
I'm thinking about writing another Christmas-themed tale this year, but we'll see. Either way, I'll be back shortly!
-Liam
No comments:
Post a Comment