Acting: Mastering the Self

“Is it possible for the actor to practice this art without sacrificing his own personality, provided he has one, or must he be without one at all so that he can always be ready to assume… ‘a borrowed soul?’”

Etienne Gilson, Forms and Substances in the Arts

Twelve years of theater has exposed me to two schools of thought in acting, which were also identified by Gilson in his treatise on theater. These two schools of acting can be classified under the two theories of the major theater artists-philosophers Stanislavsky and Brecht.

The first school of acting is more familiar to us as “Method Acting,” a style and approach made popular by Marlon Brando and Paul Newman. In more contemporary times, this approach was practiced by the late Heath Ledger in his portrayal of the Joker in “The Dark Knight” and Christian Bale as Batman or Bruce Wayne in the same movie. The Method was systematized by Lee Strasberg in the 1940’s derived from Constantin Stanislavsky’s system. The system utilizes training of the actor’s emotional memory and psychology. This method aims at the achievement of theatrical truth by immersing oneself in the character he is portraying. The actor draws from his own experiences and reactions to portray the role with psychological realism and emotional authenticity. The actors who employ this system are the ones Gilson mentions: “those who, acting by some kind of instinct, are dominated by their sensibility. Such actors are wholly in the grip of their roles and become as one with the character being portrayed.” (259).

The second school refers to the group of actors who “have no sensibility whatsoever.” Gilson describes their method: “By calculating in advance the manner in which they are to act down to its last detail until they achieve perfection, they succeed admirably in imitating all the gestures and all the expressions of a person like the one whose role they are to portray.” (259) This system requires more physical training than psychological and emotional. This school of acting disregards the need for the actor’s emotional attachment to the role in order to convey emotional truth. Bertolt Brecht was known for giving this system a name, the Verfremdungseffekt. This style was developed by Brecht not just for acting but for the development of theater in general for the purposes of education. Brecht claims that theater should make clear to the audience that what they are witnessing is merely a representation of reality and not reality itself. To achieve his aims of theater for education, Brecht devised this technique in his plays so that the audience will not have an emotional attachment to the characters and situations presented but instead, encourage and provoke them to reflect on what is represented on stage. One of the techniques to achieve this is to break that fourth wall separating the audience from the play and address the audience.

Theater directors and acting coaches developed this into a system of acting wherein the same level of “alienation” is applied to the characters being portrayed. Since they are staging merely a “show,” more importance is given to what is seen by the audience rather than what is felt by the actor. It does not matter whether the actor is true to the role as long as it is believable to the audience.

We have simplified these two schools of acting into what we now call “internalization” and “externalization.” Internalization requires the actor to assume a “borrowed soul” by understanding the psychological and emotional motivations of the character and making it his own. The role is internalized with the belief that what is assumed in the soul will be reflected in the body and will be witnessed by the audience. Externalization requires the actor to study physical nuances and characteristics that will give the role a personality implied by the dramatist. The motives and intentions of the actor are irrelevant to the audience since it will not be seen. What is crucial are the actions and delivery of dialogue that will make the motivations, intentions, and emotions of the characters apparent to the viewers.

In these two approaches, as Gilson concedes, the actor is “never himself.” “Whether he renounces his real being to become the personage of his part or whether, having no definite self-identity, he fashions the soul of his character…” (259) However, I would like to scrutinize closer what Gilson means by the actor being “himself” and his idea of “self-identity” whenever an actor assumes a character using my twelve years of experience in theater as a playwright, director, and actor.

In my years as an actor and director, I have discovered that acting is highly psychosomatic. My first exposure to theater belongs to the first school of thought. Under the Rock Opera Company (ROC), our seniors, the directors Jourdan Sebastian, Iris Yu, and Third Domingo have demonstrated how it was to become methodical in the Stanislavsky sense of the word. In 1997, ROC staged “Lumipad at Dumapo sa Dahon ng Kalachuchi,” a highly-charged melodrama exploring the themes of suppression, lost love and insanity. I was an assistant director then, an apprentice without any background in theater production. The acting workshops were very intense. The actors were subjected to some sort of interrogation wherein they were forced to answer questions thrown by the director and they have to answer as the characters. This was a difficult exercise because in this workshop, the actors will have to respond without the security of the dialogue in the script, depending merely on the emotional and psychological reality of the characters as implied by the script. The process was very tasking and tiring and I conceded that it would take a great amount of creativity and imagination just to complete that workshop. The result was a showcase of the most gripping melodrama I have seen in that time. I would sometimes cringe at the emotional tempest and the “reality” of it as the actors purged their emotions on stage.

Robster Evangelista and Joel Parcon were not to be addressed by their real names a few hours before the show of the 2000 Kultura staging of “Murder in the Cathedral.” As they were dressing up and putting on make-up, they were already Thomas Becket and every action they portrayed was that of their versions of Thomas Becket. In my early years of theater, I have learned the psychosomatic characteristic of acting. This method hinges on the premise that what is in the soul reflects in the body. And actors of this system assumes a borrowed soul at the onset so that their physical realities are altered according to the dictates of the soul they assumed.

It was also around the same time, from 1997-2000 when I got exposed to the second school of acting without me being conscious about it. I would have to admit that I did not have the skill and talents of Joel Parcon, Robster Evangelista, and Third Domingo. Maybe because I did not have the personal experiences to draw upon to transform myself into another being. My first acting gig was in 1997 in my own play “Ang Trono” for ROC. My director and the lead actor had an argument so I had to replace the lead actor since I have memorized the script because I wrote it. However, I did not have the same facility as the lead actor who then was Jourdan Sebastian, known for his practice of the Stanislavsky System. I did not know how to “be” the character I wrote but I did know how to “act.” And so, I acted. I tried to simulate the actions of the characters, his voice, posture, and nuances through externalization. The performance yielded the same results based on audience feedback. In “Murder the Cathedral,” I was one of the priests who wept for Becket when he was brutally murdered. Maybe it was my difficulty with the language at that time which made it hard for me to mourn and empathize with the other characters. And so I faked my weeping by staring long enough into space without batting an eyelash. The tears began to fall and people believed I was weeping for Becket. But inside my head, all I was thinking was “Don’t blink! Don’t blink!”

What is this “himself” that Gilson was referring to? In both plays, and in succeeding plays I have acted in, I was always myself, insofar that I have never let the character take over my emotional and psychological being. But were Jourdan, Joel, Third, etc not themselves when they let the characters take over?

Gilson was correct when he said that the observations on the craft of acting were made “by writers who adopted the public’s point of view.” (262) This “being” is seen only in the perspective of the audience. How about in Method Acting? Isn’t that being assumed within the actor regardless of the audience?

Diderot raises a problem as mentioned by Gilson: “Here is his awesome judgement: ‘It has been said that actors have no character whatsoever, because by acting all of them they lose the one which nature gave them, that they become false just as the doctor, the surgeon and the butcher become callous. I believe that one has taken the cause for the effect and they are fitted to play all the character because they have none.’” (260)

This is where I disagree with Diderot. We go back to the two schools of acting, internalization and externalization. Method acting, or internalization, as described earlier, requires an intense forging of the inner self into another character. Contrary to what observers of theater believe (who have no theater experience whatsoever except for watching plays), it is never easy for an actor to lose one’s self in the exercise. For a real, well-trained actor to alter his emotional and psychological realities completely (or for any person at that), it requires a total brainwashing or hypnosis. The real artist, the actor, must have a complete mastery of his inner life, a full sense of control of his inner faculties, for him to transform it into another’s—to assume a borrowed soul. The actor must be able to access his emotional memory at will, drawing reactions and motivations from them to give life to an imagined person crafted by the dramatist. The actor must be a master of his emotions, calling upon them on cue as the script and the director dictates. An untrained actor, who does not have a personality or does not have a mastery of his inner self, cannot possibly achieve this kind of feat. He cannot call emotions at will or shape his actions easily without a sense of ownership of the self.

Externalization, on the same note, should not be dismissed as something less than method acting. This system also requires another mastery of the self—a mastery of the instrument, the main instrument, of the actor, which is his body. The same is true for actors of this system. Mastery of the body entails mastery of the soul. For the body to be commandeered into performing “alien” nuances and gestures to portray a character, one must have the same level of mastery of the soul. The soul must have an intimate relationship with the body. The body must be disciplined by a soul that has a full sense of himself, an ownership of being, contrary to what Diderot claims and what Gilson was worried about. This is why actors, before entering the stage, undergo physical exercises in the same manner that an athlete stretches his muscles and loosens up his joints before going into court. Every inch of his body must be under his command. As one of my favorite actors, Roni Balbieran would say, “You have not acted well if after the show, you are not physically tired.”

Diderot’s scruple, “one never becomes an actor for the love of virtue” (260) should be dismissed given the kind of self-mastery required to become an actor. In fact, an actor necessarily becomes a lover of virtue to dedicate his life in the perfection of this craft. What is virtue but a mastery of the self? One cannot attain virtue without mastery of the self. In the actor’s craft, both body and soul are mastered by the person so that he can portray a beautiful character with all his faults and virtues, to complete the dramatist’s act of forging an artwork of the beautiful on stage. This is the real actor.

However, we are faced by unfortunate realities where the craft of acting is not given due respect by “artistas” or showbiz actors. We are now under the impression that to be an actor, one must have a loose sense of self so that he can easily take on any other character. We are faced with actors who have no personality whatsoever, taking for their own whatever roles are given them in a mainstream film they have to appear in.

But it does not take a Philosopher of Art to realize that this is merely a misconception. We have been disappointed by mediocrity on screen (and onstage) by mainstream actors who portray this lack of virtue. In this situation, Diderot was not merely becoming scrupulous. He might even have been prophetic. However, in this case, there is no craft being talked about. Randomly interview any of these actors about the two schools of acting and 99 of 100 times, they wouldn’t know what to say. Therefore these are not the real actors. These people, I daresay, would be the “marionettes” Gilson was referring to. But it can easily be spotted in their fruits that there was no artistry involved whatsoever in their portrayal.

The real actor should be given more credit. Real actors can actually become an actor for the love of virtue. The fact that acting entails a tremendous amount of discipline and training to achieve self-mastery should be enough proof that the actor, the real one, is a man of virtue.

Love advice para kay Bartolome

Bartolome,

Hindi ka talaga sasagutin niyang nililigawan mo. Napaka-old school kasi ng mga tactics mo. Wala nang gumagawa ng ganyan. Sa panahon ngayon, lahat ng bagay, nagtaas na. Nagtaas na ang gasolina, nagtaas na ang presyo ng bigas at mga bilihin, nagtaas na ang pamasahe, at lalong nagtaas na rin ng standards ang mga babae. Hindi na uubra yang siopao at kalachuci mo. Lalo na yung huli mong binigay, hopia at santan. Ano ba pare? Ano’ng era ka ba pinanganak?

Pero don’t worry. It’s not too late. May pag-asa ka pa. Hindi pa naman siya kinakasal at di pa niya sinasagot yung crush niya na basketball player. Kahit lamang siya ng sampung paligo sa’yo, daanin mo sa utak at creativity. Dahil aminin na natin, iyon na lang talaga ang pag-asa mo. Heto, bibigyan kita ng mga simple, tried and tested na mga regalo para di siya mapurga sa hopia at siomai. Sundin mo ‘to, tiyak na lalaglag ang bagang niya sa’yo. Mga medyo more than your usual regalong panligaw:

1. Bili ka ng century tuna. Ilagay mo sa isang napakalaking box—yung sinlaki ng TV o kaya box ng desktop PC mo. Tapos balutan mo ng magarang pambalot. Kuntsabahin mo na yung teacher niya sa Calculus. Sa gitna ng klase, bigla kang kumatok sa classroom. Pero dapat, incognito ka. Magsuot ka ng LBC jacket, magshades, at magsuot ng surgical mask. Pagpasok mo sa classroom, iabot mo yung box sa teacher, at papirmahin mo ng acknowledgement receipt. Tapos pabuksan mo in front of everyone. Tignan mong mabuti ang reaction sa mukha niya.

Later during the day, pag tinanong niya kung bakit Century Tuna ang binigay mo, iikot mo yung lata at ituro mo yung sign na “Omega 8.” Pag tinanong niya kung ano yung Omega 8, sabihin mo: “because you’re good for my heart.”

2. Mangolekta ka ng isang dosenang hanger na libre mong nakukuha tuwing nagpapa-dry clean ka. Tapos, sa bawat hanger, isula mo: “I miss hanging out with you.”

3. Instead of roses, kuha ka ng tissue paper sa banyo ng school mo. Gawin mong tissue paper roses. Gawa ka ng isang dosena. Pag-abot mo, sabihin mo, “Ganito kalinis ang pag-ibig ko sa’yo.”

4. Bili ka ng tetra pack ng mantikang Minola. Tapos bilugan mo yung “with Omega 8.” Hindi na siya magtatanong kung bakit.

5. Bigyan mo ng ice cream cone. Dapat cone lang at walang ice cream. Pag hinanap niya yung ice cream, sabihin mo, “natunaw na kakatitig sa’yo.”

6. Bili ka ng sandosenang box ng crayola. Kolektahin mo lahat ng black. Lagay mo sa isang box ng crayola. Sa likod, isulat mo: “Walang kulay ang buhay kung wala ka.”

7. Bigyan mo siya ng mumurahing bumbilya. Alam mo na siguro by this time kung ano ang isasagot pag tinanong niya kung bakit.

8. Itext mo siya ng: “Hindi tayo tao, hindi tayo hayop, hindi tayo halaman. Bagay tayo. Bagay!”

9. Bigyan mo siya ng calling card ng MMDA. Sa likod, isulat mo “para pag nagkabanggaan ang puso natin.”

10. Padalhan mo ng Happy Meal pero huwag mong ibibigay yung libreng laruan. Paghinanap niya, sabihin mo: “Ako yung freebie, at ikaw yung meal na nagpapahappy sa’kin.”

Pag hindi ka pa niyan sinagot, ewan ko na lang.

Call the shot

Directed by X Vallez
Assistant Director: Javi Abola
Director of Photography: Dom Nuesa
Production Design: Issa Lopez
Starring the MDAFI Basic Batch 2008-2009 and MDAFI alumni

Once you go black, you can't go back

Nag-aalangan ako dati na magswitch from PC to Mac. Una, alien ang interface para sa akin dahil nasanay ako sa PC. Namulat ako sa 286 na computer na MS DOS ang kausap ko. Nasanay akong nagtatype ng “DIR” para malaman ang nilalaman ng floppy disk ko at mag-enter ng “PROMPT GWAPO AKO: $g” para magpasikat sa seatmate ko sa IT-Lab. Pangalawa, mahal ang Mac kumpara sa PC. Pero sa huli, hindi na ako nakatiis. Hindi ako eksperto sa Mac pero heto ang ilan sa aking mga dahilan kung bakit pagkatapos kong bumili ng black Macbook, masasabi ko nang: “Once you go black, you can’t go back”

1. Gumugwapo ka pag Mac ang gamit mo. Sabi nila, the best daw ang Macbook kung multimedia artist ka, web designer, lay-out artist, film and video editor, lalo na writer. Sulit daw ang Macbook kung freelance artist ka dahil sa state-of-the-art capabilities nito. Sa totoo lang, kahit wala kang trabaho, kahit di ka freelancer, kahit tambay ka lang, bagay na bagay sa’yo ang Macbook. Punta ka sa Starbucks or sa Seattle’s best, labas ka ng notebook at magsulat-sulat ka kunwari for a while. Maya-maya, pag nagpasukan na ang mga kolehiyala at mga hottie na yuppies, time to bring out your baby. Garantisado, hot ka na rin! Pag nilabas mo ang Macbook mo, mukha ka na ring angst-ridden, eccentric, genius, introspective, freelance artist. Kasing gwapo ka ng gear mo. Dahil mukhang sophisticated at elegante ng design ng iyong macbook, sophisticated at elegant ka na rin.

2. Magmumukha kang mayaman sa Mac. Sure, mahal ang Macbook. Actually, namumulubi ako ngayon dahil sa binili kong Macbook. Cup Noodles na lang ang almusal ko, skyflakes na lunch, at ChocNut na dinner ang tinitira ko para lang mabayaran ko ang inutang ko pambili ng Macbook ko (Take note, hindi ito laptop, its called a Macbook). Pero okay lang. Hindi halatang naghihirap ka na kapag kaharap mo ang iyong hi-powered Mac. Hindi lang siya mukhang mamahalin (dahil talagang mahal siya), amoy mamahalin pa siya! Kahit freelance writer ka lang o multimedia artist na isang kahig, isang tuka, magmumukha kang highly-paid creative director ng isang ad agency dahil Mac ang gamit mo sa paggawa ng brochure ng karinderya ni Aling Pacing.

3. Pang-bobo at Technophobe ang Mac. Kung wala kang alam sa computer, kung takot ka sa technology, kung bano ka operating systems, sa internet, sa pagdo-download, kung napag-iiwanan ka na ng panahon, this is the machine for you. Sobrang simple ng disenyo hindi mo kailangang pag-isipan kung ano ang pipindutin, kung alin ang kakalikutin, kung saan hahanapin ang kung-anu-ano sa computer mo. Walang right click, isang pindutan lang. Walang scroll bars, dalawang daliri lang ang gamitin mo para magscroll. May eject key sa keyboard para sa mga CD mo. Kung may di ka mahanap, type mo lang sa Spotlight sa upper right corner ng screen mo, hahanapin niya sa computer mo, pati sa internet, hahanapin niya, maging file man o dictionary definition pati nawawala mong pusa, kaya niyang hanapin.

4. Conducive to Creativity ang porma ng Mac. Dahil sa hayop na GUI ng leopard OS X, kahit hindi ka artistic, mapipilitan kang gumawa ng artistic na bagay. Ibang klase ang GUI ng Mac. Mabusisi ang bawat icon sa dashboard mo, pambihira ang animation, napakasarap titigan ng interface. Kung laos kang multimedia artist or beginner ka pa lang o di kaya’y amateur, magiging pro ka in less than two weeks katititig mo sa hinayupak ng Graphical User Interface ng iyong Macbook. Sabi nga nila, palibutan mo ng magaganda ang isang pangit, gaganda na rin yon. So kung feeling mo, hindi ka creative; kung pakiramdam mo, pangit kang gumawa ng art, don’t worry! Katitingin mo sa puro maganda sa screen mo, masasanay kang puro maganda ang ginagawa mo.

Ilan lang ito sa mga dahilan kung bakit hinding hindi na ako babalik sa PC. Maliban na lang kung mahold-up ako kapoporma ko sa Seattle’s Best at mapilitang bumili ng second hand na laptop na may Windows 95 para lang mairaos ang mga freelance work ko. Ayoko nang magmukhang jologs angst-ridden starving artist (kahit totoo). Kung may mga Metrosexual, sa Macbook, mukha kang Technosexual.

WITHDRAWAL SYNDROME

I am almost over her.

And then I see her being caressed by another man. His dry, filthy fingers fidgeting, then fearlessly flirting with her pale flawless skin. He is not apologetic about it. His two fingers seducing the rest of her body closer into his lips. Slowly. Under the dim lights I can imagine her innocent whiteness turn into a guilty blush. She knows I am watching. I look away. And I imagine hearing him suck the life away from her naked body.

I was never in love with her. I do not know why I look away. I can feel her eyes calling at me, while her breath is one with his. She mocks me.

The motherfucking temptress.

She giggles loudly. Reminding me of the sounds she made when it was my fingers running down her naked skin. She flaunts her laughter. Louder than when it was my lips that slowly sucked her sweet soul.

“Tired of making other girls miserable?” She laughs.

I reply with a silent “Fuck you.”

She had a point though. It was all the same to me—to me, she was just one of them. They were all the same. I’d summon her, already naked. And then it was the same routine. She had a love affair with my two fingers. I’d turn her on; light her up until she’s red in embers. Then, the foreplay of her skin and my fingers. Then, a kiss. Then another. And another. And slowly, I inhale her breath. I breathe in her soul until she expires and has nothing more to give. And then I’d ditch her. And leave her lifeless and consumed by the floor. If it were a cold night, I’d pick up another one. And I’d leave them all lying naked on the floor, dry and dead.

Then, twenty days ago, I just decided to quit her.

And now she mocks me. I realize, you need not fall in love with her to feel jealousy.

I steal a glance. She catches me, and she smiles. I extend my fingers, summoning her nakedness. I imagine my fingers flirting once again with her flawlessness; my lips are wet again from her kisses.

But she does not come. Another man’s fingers clothe her nakedness. Another man’s lips breathe in her youth and her life—right in front of me.

I take a deep breath and bite my lip. I stare at the man’s fingers holding her.

The man looks at me, and smiles: “Twenty days? Congrats, pare!”

I smile back at him. I stare at his fingers as he ditches her into the ashtray.