Hello and welcome to another Thespian Thursday; the day of the week where I ask an interesting question about the theory behind acting, and then share an interesting insight about it.
 |
| Books. BOOKS! I just realized I've made no mention of books in over 30 days of blogging. Shocking. If you want me to do so, let me know in the comments. Don't be shy. |
Have you ever wondered at the intelligence of actors? How smart do you have to be to accurately portray a role in a believable way? Is it as simple as monkey see, monkey do, or can the knowledge of the actor make a significant impact as well? Let's talk about it.
A while ago, (A long while to be precise, 2 years back.), I found this interesting infographic which talks about some of the people with the highest IQ's. Interestingly enough, the last person the graphic mentions is the actor James Wood, who, according to the infographic, has an IQ of 180. While I didn't think much about it when I first found the image, (considering I saw it 2 years ago), I remembered it when the thought of today's topic occurred to me a few days ago. (At random yes. I seem to be under an endless barrage of thoughts at the best of times, not that it's necessarily a bad thing.)
So here's the question, does intelligence play much of a role in acting, or even simply performing as a whole. My guess: Yes. When acting, there are a few things which play a role in how believable your portrayal of the character is. As I mentioned in an earlier Thespian Thursday, understanding is key to a believable casting. In acting, knowing what you're talking about is about as necessary as it is for actually being an expert on the subject. Casting someone who struggles with language as a linguistics professor is about as sensible as letting a janitor oversee a nuclear power plant. On that basic level, it's a good idea for the actor to have the knowledge, (or to find it, quickly), of whatever they're portraying, lest their inexperience with subject show through and ruin the suspension of disbelief.
However, it's not merely as simple as knowing about the subjects the character knows, it's also about having the intelligence to understand more about the character and his interactions both within and outside of the 4th wall. In my personal opinion, the subjects of psychology and acting are very closely related in the necessity for understanding the pathos of the characters. To use another analogy, a mechanic can be good at putting engines together, but to properly ensure it functions as intended requires a fundamental knowledge of the parts and what they do. Similarly, how can a character be accurately portrayed if you only know what he does, but do not understand why he does this; a subject I also mentioned in the aforementioned post.
There is also, of course, the need to know how your actions on the stage, as well as the pacing and tone of the story, can influence your audience, much like a book. There are a multitude of things which have an interesting effect upon the audience as they witness it, and the manipulation of these factors are often the difference between a good production and a fantastic one. A fantastic example of this in personal experience, was during my portrayal of the character "Shadow" in one of my old school productions. The character was designed somewhat around the shock value of a completely black individual who enjoyed the suffering of the play's victim, and was often mainly the characterization of her inner thoughts. As such, one such "factor" as I called them earlier, was the facile guise of humor and friendliness that I portrayed as it slowly dissolved into anger and hatred, much as you would expect of the inner thoughts of someone who has been through a traumatic incident. While never originally part of the script, this allowed the story to lull the audience into believing that perhaps the character was not as black as his appearance portrayed, (teehee, see what I did there), eventually adding an additional angle of betrayal to the production as the girls own thoughts seemingly turned against her. (The ending was strangely poetic that her eventual suicide was characterized by her own thoughts murdering her.)
Thus, my manipulation of appearances allowed the play to become that much more enriched in it's frightening development. As much as it sounds like bragging, someone that did not understand how people identified with first impressions and the words someone uses, would not have been able to pull that off.
Which effectively answers the earlier question, does intelligence play a role in acting? Most certainly, for without it, accurate portrayals of characters and the manipulation of the audience in order to create a more impact experience would be the work of chance of luck and serendipity alone, rather than acting skill.
And thus, this interesting Thespian Thursday discussion draws to a close. I hope that you have found this post interesting and insightful, and perhaps even useful in your own pursuits. Do you have anything to add to the discussion, or perhaps have a suggestion for next week's Thespian Thursday? Please leave it in the comments section below. Also, if you enjoyed this post, perhaps consider sharing it with other people who enjoy the theory behind acting. If you especially enjoyed this post and would like to see more like it, consider liking my Facebook page and/or following me on Twitter using the associated buttons on the bar to the right so that you can get the newest posts, when they happen. Of course, regardless of what you do, I thank you for reading and hope that you have/had a FANTASTIC day.
Until next time.
