“Stop acting!” “Stop indicating!” “You don’t have to work so hard!” We’ve all heard acting teachers and directors issue these exhortations, or ones like them. The first is the only thing I remember my father saying to me in my early years, and now I find myself repeating it, and countless variations, to my own students all the time. It is a source of endless frustration to them, and to me . . . until it clicks for them. Getting students to understand and accept that all they have to do is have the experience, that they must forget about the audience or the viewer or the camera, is my primary aim as a teacher. The hurdles that trip students up on their way to this goal are many and varied. And so I poke and prod in order to remove crutches and habits, and to explain in as many different ways that I can. One of the stumbling blocks for many actors is that they don’t believe that the simple experience that they have during a scene will be enough. They worry that the audience might not “get it,” won’t understand what they are thinking and feeling. This comes, in part, from the ego and a misconception of how much responsibility the actor has for the telling of the story. And while I believe that the actor at her best is crucial to effective storytelling, the way that they are crucial is misunderstood by many students. In order to examine one aspect of this misunderstanding, it’s useful to look at something called The Kuleshov Effect.
The Kuleshov Effect was demonstrated in the early part of the 20th century by the Russian filmmaker Lev Kuleshov. Kuleshov was exploring the relatively new art form of cinema and how meaning could be derived from montage and the juxtaposition of images. To show the effect, Kuleshov edited together a shot of a bowl of soup, followed by a shot of a man looking into the camera. The next shot is of a young girl in a coffin, followed again by a shot of the man looking into the camera. The last shot is of a woman reclining on a chaise, followed by the final image of the man looking into the camera. The story told by each pair of shots is remarkably different, with the man appearing hungry, sad, and enticed as the shots progress. Yet the shots of the man are identical. It is in the juxtaposition of the images that the viewer perceives meaning and actually imputes different emotional states to the actor whose expression never changes. You can watch it for yourself below.
This is useful for the acting student to consider. As actors, we are only a part of the process by which meaning and story are conveyed. We are a cog in the machine, and we must remember that we are not responsible for telling every aspect of the story. That weight is carried by the production as a whole, by the sum of the parts and all of the artists involved — the writer, the director, the other actors, the costume, set and sound designers, the editor, the entire production team, be it a staged or filmed production. So we must engage in the experience and play our role, but throw off the weight of carrying the production and telling the story. The team tells the story, and by playing our part in that telling, with simplicity, honesty, and authenticity, we allow the audience to witness it.
The Kuleshov Effect was demonstrated in the early part of the 20th century by the Russian filmmaker Lev Kuleshov. Kuleshov was exploring the relatively new art form of cinema and how meaning could be derived from montage and the juxtaposition of images. To show the effect, Kuleshov edited together a shot of a bowl of soup, followed by a shot of a man looking into the camera. The next shot is of a young girl in a coffin, followed again by a shot of the man looking into the camera. The last shot is of a woman reclining on a chaise, followed by the final image of the man looking into the camera. The story told by each pair of shots is remarkably different, with the man appearing hungry, sad, and enticed as the shots progress. Yet the shots of the man are identical. It is in the juxtaposition of the images that the viewer perceives meaning and actually imputes different emotional states to the actor whose expression never changes. You can watch it for yourself below.
This is useful for the acting student to consider. As actors, we are only a part of the process by which meaning and story are conveyed. We are a cog in the machine, and we must remember that we are not responsible for telling every aspect of the story. That weight is carried by the production as a whole, by the sum of the parts and all of the artists involved — the writer, the director, the other actors, the costume, set and sound designers, the editor, the entire production team, be it a staged or filmed production. So we must engage in the experience and play our role, but throw off the weight of carrying the production and telling the story. The team tells the story, and by playing our part in that telling, with simplicity, honesty, and authenticity, we allow the audience to witness it.
RSS Feed