User:Emilysw/A History of Acting: On the face of it

Greece

In ancient Greece three actors played all the roles, and may have shared characters over scenes. This interchange would have been made possible by the wearing of masks as was custom in Greek theatre. These were made of linen or wood and complete with hair, and made characters easily distinguishable in part and emotion, with bold yet natural features of simple expressions. Thus facial expression of the actors themselves was of no importance though their gesture and movement was. This too was simplified, possibly into a set of conventionalised, stylized or symbolic and recognized gestures.

With such limitations of physical expression, vocal expression was of the highest importance. Even to simply be heard in such a vast auditorium was a challenge. But, in an age enamoured of public speaking and rhetoric, actors were judged by the beauty of vocal tone, and ability to convey mood and character through it. It is likely that line delivery was declamatory, but the importance of projecting the correct emotional tone was over and above that of even correctly representing age or sex. A modern day opera singer provides a good analogy as to how actors trained and exercised their voices. Some actors attained high standards of vocal excellence, other apparently ranted and roared.

Middle Ages in Europe

Members of the merchant or working classes comprised the majority of “actors” during the Middle ages. Most were men, but women and girls appeared also. In liturgical drama, with its origins in church services, the words were chanted. With the emergence of the vernacular plays, delivery shifted towards everyday speech. Quality of acting varied as might be expected when the actors are chosen from the people but again voice was prized above all else. Stereotyped characters employing a few clear-cut actions and emotions such as joy, anger or grief, removed any need for skilful or realistic acting. Attempts to be realistic posed extremely hazardous for the actors on occasion, with one near fatal incident during the hanging of the character Judas in Metz, France, another with Satan’s costume catching fire, and miscellaneous injury of actors in Hell scenes via cannons and such like devices used to create noise, fire and smoke.

Comedia dell'Arte

Small roving troupes of actors performing street theatre in the market places of renaissance mainland Europe began this simple theatrical form that developed over two hundreds years and still influences today. Popular, familiar tales were improvised with great energy, humour and life, the performers drawing inspiration from the life and people they saw around them, creating recognisable character types.

Translated it means “the plays of the professionals” and the performers were certainly highly skilled, dedicated to honing the craft of improvisation and physical theatre. The performance space and play differed each time and improvisation was the key, and crucial at that. Surviving scenarios are just guideline sketches, marking only entrances and exits, and an objective for the scene. As long as the story was told the performers made up what they said and did and without this living element the surviving textual examples seem lifeless and inane. The actors were masked, displaying individual characteristics. These were made of thin leather and so were movable and did not completely void facial expression but were not aiming for realism by any stretch.

Elizabethan

Debate as to the acting style in Elizabethan theatre falls into two main categories: Double casting, males playing female roles, conventionalized stage background, and a large repertory would have made detailed individualized characterizations difficult, and the limited rehearsal time would suggest a “formal” conventionalized acting style. On other hand, a more realistic style is expressed in Shakespeare’s own “advice to the players” in Hamlet, and this theory is bolstered by contemporary references to the convincing characterization, the emphasis on truthfulness of the human psychology portrayed in the Tragedies, and the fact that the spectators were so close to the actors that overly formal and stylized gesture would have been highly exposed.

It is popularly asserted that the audiences of Elizabethan theatre went as much to hear a play as to see it. It may be therefore that the mark of a skilled actor was simply their ability to connect with the text they spoke, rich with imagery and emotion ready to be unlocked, simply allowing the words to work without the need to impose any interpretation or style at all. This however is mere conjecture.

Restoration

Acting style varied from formal to realistic, a mix of tradition and innovation. The dominant approach prior to 1750 was declamatory and led by actors Quinn and Betterton. It was customary to strike a pose and more or less hold that for an entire scene. Verse would have been recited in a long intoned chant that observed the meter. Quinn’s style was “lofty, grand and ponderous,” relying on voice to express emotion. Betterton, who remained completely in character throughout a performance, was noted for his restrained but powerful action and speech. Roles were passed down with their interpretations attached, and this tradition of traditional playing meant that novel characterizations or even line readings often produced sensations, such as Charles Macklin’s very much humanized Shylock of 1741.

But it was Macklin’s approach that paved the way for possibly the greatest actor of our time, Garrick. It is Garrick who is credited with a major change from a traditionally conventionalised and formalised style of acting. With Garrick the concept of acting was transformed, and he marks a new beginning in acting. On seeing him, predecessor Quinn was quoted as saying “If this young man be right, I and the rest of the players have been wrong.”

What Quinn was referring to, are the glimmers of psychological realism Garrick had bought to the stage. Revolutionary for the 18th Century, this concept could now be said to lie at the heart of the trade.

References:

Brocket, Oscar G.: History of the Theatre. 8th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1999

Timson, D: History of Theatre. Naxos Audiobooks; Unabridged edition 2000