Acting

One would think it would be a requirement Jeffrey Pemberton Perhaps it is for a successful professional career. I am always amazed by actors who can't stretch themselves by playing a character so different from themselves. I think actors do need to be careful what they post on social media as it may alienate the audience who doesn't share their views. They may find themselves limited in the roles they book as well, since producers and directors may not be able to see them as certain characters. I remember Amy Carlson saying she quit BLUE BLOODS because it was too poltically conservative for her, and I thought that was an odd reason to quit a show. That to me, is limiting yourself as an actor, professionally and creatively. But may be to her it's not just about the paycheck.

Suzanne Bronson, I make it a rule to give 'villains' an understandable and rationalizable reason to be the way they are, because they are flawed humans like all other characters, but then I take them down in a way that humiliates them most in that belief. I don't think antagonists have to 'change,' but they do have to have an arc. What that comeuppance is depends on the story and genre, I think, more than my feelings about them.

First, accept it. That's the real world.

How many people out there are working jobs they hate, just to survive? Acting is no different. When a character you dislike lands in your lap — the challenge is making it yours.

Look at Heath Ledger. He locked himself in a room for weeks. Stood in front of a mirror. Rehearsed alone. And created one of the most iconic characters cinema has ever seen. The world knows what that dedication produced.

Here's the truth about actors:

A real actor accepts any character. But acceptance alone isn't enough — you have to study it.

Serial killers, terrorists, addicts, murderers — they exist in the real world. They didn't wake up one day and choose evil for no reason. There's always a motive.

Find that motive. Feel it. Enter that character completely — not just perform it, but live it.

That's the actor's real job.

Not just to perform a role — but to make the world believe it."

— BASHA Penukonda

SWA Certified Writer-Director | #76633 | INDIA.

Honestly, I’d work with the guy if he has a point, even though I’d probably find him annoying. In the end, that friction could be good for both of us and for the project, as long as we learn to agree with each other sometimes. But if the person dismisses our vision, has a problem with the theme, or clashes with something core to the story, then I’d find it hard to work with him.

A great writer is one who possesses a "comprehensive mind" capable of accommodating two opposing ideas simultaneously without losing their balance. Writing about characters different from yourself doesn't mean you're compromising your principles; rather, it means you deeply understand human nature. This is the secret that makes your writing touch the hearts of millions, because it reflects reality in all its complexity.

For me, it’s a combination of both analysis and instinct.

I usually begin with the script and the character’s backstory to understand their emotional foundation — what shaped them, what they fear, and what they’re trying to protect beneath the surface.

Once that framework is clear, instinct takes over in performance. That’s when the emotional truth starts to feel lived rather than simply interpreted.

For me, it usually begins with script analysis.

I look first at what the character wants, what they fear, and where their internal contradictions live—because that tends to reveal the emotional engine beneath the surface.

Backstory helps when it meaningfully informs behavior, but I try not to invent psychology that isn’t supported by the text.

From there, instinct takes over in performance—but instinct grounded in structure tends to be far more reliable than instinct alone.

I think it’s a combination of all three, but instinct is usually what helps me access the emotional truth beneath the surface. Script analysis gives me structure, while backstory helps me understand emotional patterns and contradictions within the character.

Thank you, Ashley.

For me, it usually begins with understanding the emotional contradiction inside the character — what they show externally versus what they are suppressing internally.

Script analysis helps me understand structure and motivation, but I think emotional truth often comes from discovering the hidden fears, desires, or wounds beneath the dialogue. That deeper layer tends to shape both performance and character development in a much more authentic way.

I think it becomes a mix of all three over time.

The script analysis usually gives me the structural understanding of the character — what they want, what they hide, what contradictions they carry — but instinct is often what helps me access the emotional truth underneath those layers.

I also spend a lot of time thinking about the character’s internal history, even when it’s not explicitly on the page, because I feel like behavior becomes much more specific when you understand what emotional patterns shaped them before the story even begins.

For me, the most interesting performances usually come from that intersection between structure and instinct rather than relying entirely on one approach.

We appreciate you sharing this valuable information, Tyler!

Great tips, Laura Hammer! Must-read post for actors, writers, directors, etc.!

Speaking as a writer, I am always thinking of the actor when writing, both the emotional and physical challenges of a scene, and sometimes adding brief contextual notes is helpful in historical drama.

Appreciate teh share Laura Hammer

Acting and psychology are closely related. I majored in theater and minored in psych. Psychology is understanding human behavior and acting is protraying human behavior. I think understanding why someone makes the choices they do, or where they are coming from is important for character develoment.

For me, Jason Raymaker it depends on what I am trying to memorize. A monologue, I just repeat over and over until I have it down. If it's a scene, I write down the other characters' lines and try to guess what my character would say until I have it down word for word. I will also just run lines with the other actors. I know some people record the other lines, and then say their lines in the gap. The big thing is not doing rote memorization. I still want to learn the lines in a way that makes it feel natural. I think just reciting the lines and then going back and trying to make them natural is actually harder and may stunt me emotionally. I want to know what it is I am saying, how I am feeling, first, then I worry about the lines. Any actor will tell you, the lines are really the last thing you need to focus on.

The knowledge that I'm on the right path and the support of fellow creatives. Just last night at an industry mixer, a director complimented me on my ability to take direction. Another actor said he admires how I transform from me into a character.

Though I'm no longer actively pursuing acting, I focused on it from 2014-2020 when COVID came along before there were vaccines because it no longer fit in my life circumstances at the time. During those 6 years, I had speaking roles in smaller non-union films and a lot of featured background work on series and major features. The thing that kept me invigorated during times when taped auditions weren't leading to casting was the joy of getting on a set as featured background. I think actors have to love being in the set environment for any reason because it is always a learning experience. The golden chalice in holding tent conversation was always SAG eligibility. There was always a chance in a union production, even if remote, the director would pluck you from the crowd for a one-liner and, boom, you would be SAGe. Suddenly, your day got a LOT better, going from background rate to scale. I saw it happen more than once. In my case, I was voiceover cast for a SAG interactive video game in 2017 which led to my eligibility. Didn't get around to joining right away and may do so some day but for now, screenwriting.

.The positivity of the comments in this group is uplifting and delightful to read. For me, acting is a second career, having spent my first many years in the hotel/hospitality industry. The story of change is too long to tell here. Suffice to say, I have used the same approach in both careers. Doug Kayne's comment "it's a marathon, not a sprint" is, in my case applicable in both industries. But in addition, I have always taken a very simple philosophical approach to the people around me, to those who told me "you'll never get that job;" to those who said "why would you want to work for them"; "why do you ever believe you could make GM": "there are men cleverer than you around who cannot make CEO;" "there are better actors than you who cannot get a gig." Negative contacts are useless., and if accepted, soul destroying! My philosophy? To those negative persons, my comment?---- GO JUMP IN THE LAKE!! (or actually less polite words to that effect). It always works beautifully!!!

I think one of the hardest but most important things creatively is learning how to continue building even during the quieter seasons — when there’s no immediate validation, no visible momentum, and no guarantee of outcome.

What keeps me going is staying connected to the work itself: the storytelling, the curiosity, the process of creating worlds and characters that feel emotionally true. Over time, I’ve realized longevity is less about constantly “arriving” somewhere and more about continuing to evolve without losing connection to why you started creating in the first place.

You often overhear actors talking about "trying acting" or "Doing the Deal" "Waiting for the big break" Acting isn't something I am trying. It's something I do. And I do whatever I can to work and improve my skills. Lately I've been doing independent films and bit parts. The Writer/Director/DP/etc. works very hard and I donate my time to his projects. I enjoy it. Because acting is something I do.