As more and more directors strive for social realism in film more and more non actors are used to gain the kind of authenticity that these productions require. The non actors’ performance is generally one of hyper realism, as if the camera is somehow hidden and the artifice of reality is created by a literal transference of the characters real life onto the camera. Obviously criteria must be met, the non actor must be able to ‘act’ or appear comfortable for the audience, naturalistic and create effectively the world of the film. The question that I ask my self when watching realism is one of technique and whether this type of performance is indeed acting?
It seems at complete odds with the old days of stanislavskian method actors, where in emotional memory was an a performer’s main tool of expression. Performers using stans’ method would relate the Mise-en-scène to a similar event in life and try to recreate the emotions felt there.
Even using Bertolt Brect’s method where an actor would remain an actor and wear the character like a dramatic cloak are insufficient. So what technique is employed to create ultra realistic performance, used by actor or non actor, and can it even be considered acting?
In Sarah Gavron’s 2019 film Rocks the story revolves around the lives and struggles of a group of kids in inner city London. The film populated by non actors has a documentary like feel and the artifice of realism is perfectly realised. The performers are playing the self’s in front of the camera, recreating there lives for film. Is that acting?
In Chloe Zhao’s The Rider the titular character is in life exactly what he portrays on screen. A cowboy unable to cowboy, because of injury gained, well, cowboying, again his existence is cinematically rendered on screen. The film making is beautiful the artifice of reality realised, but is it acting.
Then we get to Nomadland. Ahh Nomadland, can you answer the question? I think the answer lies in the comparison between actor and non actor. If an shred of technique was on show in Frances mcdormand's exquisite performance it would have rendered the the film utterly bunk and completely unrealistic. So the acting technique she employed, in order to gain absolute realism was one of non performance.
Not a inch of performance technique is present and reality is perfectly produced for the screen. No mean feat for any actor.
Like Marilyn Monroe and Laurance Olivier in The Prince and the Showgirl where Marilyn had been off studying Misner technique and made the world’s greatest living actor's performance look acty (can anyone say Keanu). This same effect would be devastating for the any of the films mentioned above and in no uncertain terms destroy the film and the artifice of realism completely. So is it acting?
The answer my loves lies in an exact recreation of reality, with absolutely no technique visable. I always felt it was a lot harder to play Gilbert Grape as apposed to Arnie, harder to play Bruce Wayne than Batman, what I mean by this is the more 'normal' and rooted in reality the character is, the deeper you have to search for the characters' truth. I suppose with all this in mind the answer to the original question has to be yes, it is certainly acting. The very subtle and highly skilled technique employed by actors, the technique of non performance.
By @any_left
RATE THIS ESSAY
6
5
4
3
