Anything Goes : Theatre by Darren A. Furniss

amen...

Does an actor not "pretend" to be another? Does he not take on the persona of the character he/she wishes to portray? As a lighting designer I am called upon to recreate a "realistic" environment. Am I not creating a pretend scenario?

Bad actors pretend and in them we see, not the character, but the actor trying to play the character. Good actors find a truthful path and we see, not the actor, but the character. We then see everything else the character sees and does as truth and it is unquestionable. It is in the latter that great actors are born.

I will never make an actor. I'll just stick tp pretending to be a LIghting Designer!

:p

You're not pretending Graham, you are a very truthful designer and a great one! :)

Thanks Darren. I wish more people said it from the heart, like yourself. If you are up for it... why don't we discuss doing a production together...?

That sounds like a good idea Graham. I'm filming a short film this month, but if you are free in September it would be great to meet and discuss working on something. I will drop you an email next week.

No, no, no. There is no "should"; a prescriptive theatre is a theatre devoid of artistic merit. That merit comes from your desire to create, and that desire comes from many different sources, not just having a truth to expound. You may as well say all actors "should" be method actors - and that'll never work: everyone has their own motivation and their own modus operandi.

Hi Andrew, I don't think it's the same thing as saying all actors 'should' be method actors at all. I would be interested to know what you look for in your work?

I beg to differ, because they are both prescriptive. One of the beauties of the Creative life is that you have a relatively free reign; the only proviso is that it doesn't step outside the description "art". But then given that few know where that boundary exists, that is a moot point which will keep philosophers in gravy for eternity. If you want to explore truth in your work, that's perfectly valid: but then if I want to explore ephemera and the beauty of living, surely that is no less relevant, 'though I would imagine that would bore your fans rigid. I used to think that art should be purposeful too, once upon a time. But then there's art that isn't "for" anything - one can probably put "easy listening" in that category - and its lack of purpose shouldn't be conflated with a lack of validity. My own work, I'll confess, is always for something. I am a troubadour of the Old Ways, of the ancient Kelts and their majickal path. This is what my opera and my novel, and also the choir music I compose, are in aid of. My poetry and other writings, too, drew the reader's attention in that direction, as indeed do much of my visual artworks. I will, though, paint a beautiful scene with no conscious aim in sight - it's as if I am painting automatically, as if my brush were a conduit channelling the Gods themselves. I believe there's a song by Alanna Myles called "Black Velvet"; now, the song is itself quite beautiful, with its poignant hooks and its catchy lyrics. However, as I'm not an Elvis fan, I can do without knowing the song is about him. Indeed, thus knowing has marred the song. Likewise, it's not music to my ears that the Manic Street Preachers are politically sympathetic to Castro's Cuba, as their songs are aural honey. You see, if you set up too much of a moralising, preachy tone, some will come flooding in, but a greater tide which might otherwise have enjoyed the music for its own sake will ebb out, never to be seen again. The folk songs of old were social documents which circumvented a tide of forced illiteracy in our fairly recent past and told of grim realities in a way which bypassed the censorship of the times - and also fairy stories passed old lore down the ages past the unsuspecting noses of a tyranically monopolistic church. They say, also, that William Blake's "Jerusalem" is a heavily disguised Pagan cachetism. All these things, if indeed they are covert conveyers of old lore, are popular because to those that don't know they are just popular tunes, but to those that have the nous to know, they are historical documents. I think if we tell a story or make a point, we should tell it lightly. If not it becomes tedious for one, and for another, how does it engage an audience if it gives them no work to do?

We all seek our own truths through our art and the art of others - the minute we stop seeking that truth - it becomes pointless. Theater is a living breathing moment of time. Films are a living breathing moment of time captured through a lens. Audiences watch these art forms to see themselves, not the actors. It is our job to mirror their truths back to them - that is why we laugh, cry, become terrified, or get turned on when we watch these moving pieces of art. It is why we the creators do this.

Very well put Mara.