Ahhhkting

Film critics squabble endlessly over how much to talk about visuals and “the language of film,” versus how much to talk about story, narrative, and political subtext. Broken down, the conflict is over whether to focus on story or technique. There is no answer to this, although I doubt that will stop critics from taking sides because, well, that’s what critics do. But what gets lost in this dichotomy is something that too few film writers seriously talk about: acting.

Now, it is true that performers get talked about. In out celebrity obsessed culture (sorry; impossible to finish a post like this without that phrase), we fawn ceaselessly over those adorable collections of neatly sculpted figures, sharp cheekbones, and glistening, perfectly trimmed hair. Like the custom built Italian sports cars they drive, they are fragile, outrageously expensive, rare, and undeniably beautiful. But talking about performers is not at all the same as talking about performing. No, in too much film criticism, acting gets left out, save for a few tossed off phrases about watchability or dullness.

It strikes me as plausible that many critics aren’t entirely certain what, exactly, actors do. Oh sure, they can namedrop Stanislavsky and talk a little about blocking because of its visual nature, maybe drop in a few funny lines about how Keanu Reeves is still a surfer dude. “Whoa.” Ok, fine, but the more quickly we get back to discussing the color palette’s weird mix of sorrow and delirium the better. Film schools and lit programs don’t teach much acting; they teach story and technique, and consequently, that’s what gets talked about.

So it gives me great pleasure to see this excellent, informed post on acting from Lee Siegel over at TNR. It’s not entirely about film acting, but it draws nice, clean lines between film and theatrical performance, explaining, quite rightly, why neither is particularly easier than the other.