Acting in the Age of Authenticity

Elizabeth Mcdaniel

 The actor creates his model in his imagination, and then, just as does the painter, he takes every feature of it and transfers it, not on to canvas, but on to himself.”

– Constantin Stanislavski, An Actor Prepares

In an era when graphic vulnerability and authenticity are at an all time high, realism in acting has reached a new level; Christians must navigate the murky waters of modern acting methods with discernment and caution, so as to protect both their audience and themselves. The history of acting methods have rapidly progressed over the past century to a whole different state, and as a result performances have the opportunity to pack a more powerful punch, but also cause damage to both actors and audience members; therefore, Christians must approach this method with caution and discernment in order to determine whether it is something that should be used in the church or whether they should engage with it at all. 

History

Acting, as an art form, has existed since the ancient days, and acting methods have come a long way from their early beginnings. It was not until The Enlightenment era that acting methods shifted towards realism. Following the Romantic period, which was reflected in almost all art forms, theatre as a whole faced a dramatic development. Romantic theatre was melodramatic, formulaic, and described morals as black and white, with good always prevailing in the end (See Modern drama in theory and practice 1, Styan 3). The plot of these plays always centered around a clear hero or heroine, “with whom the audience was expected to empathize” (4). The revolution of realism in theatre was connected to the scientific revolution of the early 19th century as well as a parallel literary movement “represented by such naturalist novelists as Balzac, Flaubert, and Zola” (2). This movement was clearly much larger than theater by itself. 

Acting method was not the first thing to change in the shift. It would have done little to no good to improve and develop the method when the material was left in its Romantic state. Instead, the shift started with the playwrights. Émile Zola, primarily a novelist, turned his novel Thérèse Raquin into a play in effort to “help the cause of naturalism in the theatre and to bring drama into line with the parallel developments in fiction” (7). Essentially, Zola’s goal was to write content that was as close as possible to real life in order to convince the audience of his “illusion of reality” (8). The key to making this change, he recognized, was the language of the dialogue. Instead of using the cliché and bravado of stage speech of his time, he strove to write dialogue that was nearer to the everyday speech of the people. From there, theater increased its efforts to produce historically accurate productions, traveling and experiencing and replicating as much as possible all that was to be represented on stage. It was also during this time that footlights were abandoned in favor of overhead lights, because real light typically comes not from below, but above (36). Otto Brahm, nailed the core of the realism movement when he wrote,

“The motto of this new art… is one word – truth ; …the truth of the independent spirit who has nothing to explain away or hide ; and who therefore knows only one adversary, his arch-enemy and mortal foe : the lie in all its forms.”

– Otto Brahm, Modern drama in theory and practice 1

This sense of truth telling was developed further by Russian actor and director, Constantin Stanislavski. 

Constantin Stanislavski – Moscovery

Stanislavski and the Moscow Art Theater paved the way for this new era of theater by rewriting the rules for how actors are to act. The Stanislavski system trains actors to go beyond mechanical or melodramatic acting, and to step into the character more fully by emotionally aligning with it. In his book, An Actor Prepares, Stanislavski describes the responsibility of an actor as, “to live his part inwardly, and then to give to his experience an external embodiment” (17). He likens this process to creating a human spirit which is given an external form through the actor and the stage.

This kind of realism presents many moral and ethical questions: How far is too far? What does it do to a person who acts a character who is evil or immoral? At what point should certain emotions, actions, and mental spaces not be embodied, that they are too dark, too harsh, to evil to enact?

The Bad It Can Be

When the Moscow Art Theatre made it over to America in 1922, the Stanislavski’s system became known as The Method (Styan 118). It has now become the standard for modern acting method, even in its simplest and barest points. It has also extended beyond the stage and into the film industry, as many movie stars have demonstrated their adherence to method acting. It has come to a point where, if one is not aware that they are observing an actor or actress at work, they would not likely be able to tell that they were acting at all. It could even be argued that realism in acting peaks with film performances, because where tiny details are lost in a large auditorium, the camera misses nothing on a close-up. Additionally, the advancement of CGI technology and makeup artistry makes it harder and to tell what is real and what is fake. Even so, actors sometimes take The Method to extremes, both physically and mentally, and it has very real consequences as a result. 

One example of such extreme method acting, out of many, is that which Anne Hathaway did for her role as Fantine, for which she won an Oscar, in the 2012 Les Misérables musical movie. In an interview with People magazine, Hathaway admitted to losing “an unhealthy amount of weight,” roughly twenty-five pounds, in just two weeks in attempt to more fully empty herself and align with the physical and emotional state of the character (Falcone).

Anne Hathaway as Fantine in Les Misérables – Fandom

This particular role is one that is not only inhuman, but is essentially the embodiment of pure evil, without so much as hint of a soul. After the filming was completed, Skarsgård described letting go of the character as “an exorcism – him exiting my body and getting rid of the Pennywise toxins.” However, it was not quite all over for Skarsgård: “I was home, done with the movie, and I started having very strange and vivid Pennywise dreams. Every night, he came and visited.” Some of these times he dreamed of himself with the clown, but separate from him, and other times he was the clown again. This sort of deep mental and subconscious alignment with a character of this kind is frankly alarming.

Even more alarming is how these characters stick with the actors that play them. Skarsgård, upon returning to play the character in the sequel film, found it relatively easy to tap back into Pennywise. He says, “I was surprised how much of the character was just there already, I instantly could access him again, like it was yesterday that we wrapped the first one. It was just all there” (Sharf). Even when the actor may not be thinking about these kinds of characters and acting them out anymore, there is an extent to which these roles lurk in the recesses of their memories, and actors that play them may never quite be able to shed them completely.

Additionally, these types of characters and the extent to which they are played can be mentally harmful for audience members to watch. Films, especially of the horror genre, can have both immediate and lasting negative affects on the people who watch them. Many movies have caused audience members to faint or feel intense fear in the moment, and some like The Exorcist, have even caused their viewers to vomit in the theater. There have also been more lasting impressions made on those who have seen these kinds of films. A study on cinematic neurosis, published in the American Journal of Psychotherapy, reveals that in some cases, movies have the potential to cause “the development of anxiety, somatic responses, dissociation, and even psychotic symptoms after watching a film” (Ballon 211). Some of these cases have required the affected viewers to attend psychotherapy as many as seven times (213). A handful of extreme cases include suicide and murder, as inspired by or resulting from watching particular films. It has been observed that these responses are usually evoked from people of a particular set of vulnerabilities. It goes without saying that without the level of realism that has progressed in the past century, these responses would not happen. Thus, these disturbingly convincing films and the responses that have already been recorded bring up the question of whether actors should engage in performances of this kind, not only because of the danger to themselves, but also because of the potential danger to audiences. Obviously, the viewers are ultimately responsible for themselves and knowing what they should or should not watch, but there is an element of knowing when something is simply too much or too far to even be a part of making. Despite the negative possibilities of these realistic methods of acting, there are contexts where, to some extent, it is still appropriate and beneficial.


The Good It Can Be

Realism and genuine emotion with acting can produce powerful, stunning stories that leave a lasting impression upon the audience and cast alike. What is realistic is believable; what is believable is moving. Audiences are able to identify with a character’s emotions, and in turn empathetically feel those same emotions. In Performance and Cognition, a collection of essays on the relationship between cognitive science and theater, Bruce McConachie and F. Elizabeth Hart write, “most spectators engage in empathetic observation as soon as a performance begins,” and as a result, mirror neurons in the brain allow, “spectators to replicate the emotions of a performer’s physical state without experiencing that physical state directly” (5). It is for this reason that a well-done, convincing performance will move audience members to tears, either of joy, laughter, sorrow, or simply because of sheer beauty of it.

Take Titanic for example: until 2010, James Cameron’s Titanic was the highest grossing film of all time. It is a whirlwind heart-tugger story with devastatingly realistic sets and acting. Young Leonardo Di Caprio, a renowned method actor, and Kate Winslet sold themselves as Jack and Rose beautifully, and their story leaves audiences in love and in tears in just over three jam-packed hours of footage. 

Kate Winslet and Leonardo Di Caprio in TitanicCulture Trip

It is a classic plot, a very basic Romeo and Juliet romance, but that has not kept it from being one of the most iconic films of all time, and from being beloved by both veteran viewers and those who are watching the film for the first time. Pretty much everyone who sits down to watch it already knows the biggest plot point of the whole story: the ship sinks. So why do people bother watching it? In an article from ABC News on the 20th anniversary of the beloved film, James Cameron is said to have answered a similar question: 

“How do you make people care about a ship they know is going to sink? By making them care about who’s on that ship.”

– James Cameron, ABC News

That is exactly what happens for viewers of this movie, and that would not be possible if Di Caprio and Winslet did not invest themselves in their characters to the extent they did.

Additionally,  realistic acting will certainly do a story justice better than a caricature would, unless, of course, the story was written to be a caricature. Imagine, for a moment, if someone produced the musical adaptation of Les Misérables as exaggerated and caricatured. Granted, the Thénardiers are somewhat caricatured characters already, but for the rest, they would lose credibility. No one would believe the characters to be truly miserable, and then, what is the point? If people do not believe what they are seeing onstage, they will lose interest.

Cast of Les Misérables at Sondheim Theatre, London – Evening Standard

A decent production of Les Misérables should be enough to make just about anyone shed a tear at least once, if not multiple times throughout. The deep meanings of this story lie in its wide variety of characters, motives, dreams, and miseries. There is a point where anyone with a heart should be able to empathize with at least one of these characters. It will break their heart when they do, for the musical is true to its title, but it is a beautiful, wonderful thing.

Method acting also forces actors to go beyond pure technique with their acting. An actor can have all the techniques perfected, deliver his lines clearly and appropriately, and never make a mistake, but still miss something crucial. This is what Stanislavski calls “mechanical acting,” to which he says, “that begins where creative art ends. In mechanical acting there is no call for a living process, and it appears only accidentally” (Stanislavski 25).  This is because mechanical actors do not actually experience or truly feel the emotions they are presenting. Any emotion they display is essentially manufactured. Stanislavski goes on to say, “With the aid of his face, mimicry, voice and gestures, the mechanical actor offers the public nothing but the dead mask of nonexistent feeling” (25-26). It would undoubtedly be harder for audience members to empathize with the supposed emotions of a character they are watching if that character’s emotions are not truly felt by the actor portraying said character. If audiences feel nothing while watching a performance, especially live, something is off. McConachie and Hart would argue that cognitive science reveals both empathy and emotional response to be “crucial,” possibly even more so than the basic image and sign decoding involved in watching a performance (5). Art is inherently emotional; theatre is no exception. It makes sense then, that to a degree, actors should genuinely feel the feelings they represent. It is a transcendent moment too, when that does happen.

It is possible that some stories simply should not be told in any way but that which is realistic; certain subjects presented in any way other than realistic, or true-to-life, could be dangerously offensive and degrading. Upon first glance, the new film Jojo Rabbit would appear to do just that. It is described as “Nazi Satire” and would seem to make light of the Holocaust. The main character, Jojo himself, has an imaginary friend version of Adolf Hitler who accompanies him throughout the film. Such a topic and setting is certainly a sensitive and deeply tragic one that should hardly be made fun of, and is controversial at best. However, there is a lot of room for forgiveness with the understanding that the plot is from the perspective of a 10-year-old boy, much like Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom, a film that makes almost no sense without that understanding. While it would seem the film’s audiences have generally found it to be heartwarming and unoffensive, it is still met with a measure of hesitation. The mere idea of seeing someone portray Adolf Hitler as a child’s goofy imaginary friend sounds outrageous, however genuinely child-like it may be. This kind of caricature is a dangerous portrayal to tamper with. Should one even try to acknowledge glimpses innocence and comedy in light of something or someone so horrific and awful? There is no clear yes or no to such a question; it is a fine line to walk that is up for debate, but it certainly is one to consider. Jojo Rabbit makes a bold move by walking this line.

In contrast, the 2013 movie adaptation of Markus Zusak’s The Book Thief arguably does far more justice to life for the children of Nazi Germany, keeping both elements of horror and childish innocence in balance. There are heartwarming and humorous moments amidst the tragedy and horror of the setting, but the characters and the way they are played do not ever seem to make light of the situation, ultimately ending in one of the most heart-wrenching scenes imaginable.

Sophie Nélisse and Nico Liersch in The Book ThiefJoe’s Geek Fest

Again, such tragedy and justice to the situation would not be possible if these characters were not believable. Rather, the audience falls in love with the sweet and innocent Liesel and her new friend, the adorable and ambitious Rudy, as played by Sophie Nélisse and Nico Liersch. It is not difficult for children to act like children, but for the complex and mixed emotions Liesel experiences, it is no small task for a twelve-year-old actress to portray. Nélisse does a phenomenal job, however, and the result is a beautiful film that really is a must-see.

Essentially, we have reached a point where a certain degree of method acting, even in its most basic elements, is expected in almost any and all acting if it is to be considered good. The bar has been set, and to revert to anything older or less developed would hardly be well received. The Romantic style of acting, if put on today, would likely be found laughable and seriously inferior to the authenticity of modern productions. People like to find themselves and the feelings they feel represented in lifelike ways in both film and theatre performances, and that is not likely to change any time soon. That being said, while there is obvious good in the development of acting method for producing such moving performances, it is not always practical, biblical, or healthy in all contexts and to all extents.

For the Christian Method Actor

The Christian who finds themselves in the acting realm will undoubtedly come across principles of The Method and those who adhere to them, as it has become “all-pervasive” in American acting training of any kind (Styan 148). Then question, then, is should they also employ these methods, and if so, to what extent?

Context must be considered. For dramas that take place in a church setting, true method acting is really not worth it for multiple reasons. A couple of the main reasons would be that it is a very time-consuming process and that there are only a handful of actors in church that have the necessary skill and training to pull off this level of acting. In short, it is simply not practical.

Rob Laugher – Unsplash

Also, the Christian actor must understand that they have a responsibility to handle their craft well and do their best with it (2 Tim. 2:15). If presenting a character well means engaging in method acting, which it often does, then the Christian actor should be willing to give it their best and try. There is a danger, however, in investing quite so much time in the preparation process: that it will become all-consuming and idolatrous. Stanislavski writes:

“In the creative process there is the father, the author of the play; the mother, the actor pregnant with the part; and the child, the role to be born.”

– Constantin Stanislavski, An Actor Prepares

Stanislavski actually says that the nine months, or even longer, is a good representation of how long it should take to prepare a role like this. Christians must prayerfully consider if the amount of time they are expected to commit or are planning to invest is too much, especially if it forces them to forgo spending time with family, to stop attending church (Heb.10:24-25), or to quit a job. Acting method, no matter how good it is, should never take priority over spiritual and family life; it is not worth the sacrifice.

There is also a danger of focusing too much on oneself or pleasing others, and getting caught up with method and material rather than the message, causing the focus to fall away from glorying God and being on success and skill instead (Gal. 1:10). Ideally this would never be the case, but in a fallen world it happens. Christians must be vigilant in checking their hearts and motives to make sure that every thing is order (Prov. 4:23Psalm 19:14). A Christian’s acting should never become a source of pride or self-glorification. It is a gift from God, and He deserves the credit.

There are also a lot of grey waters to navigate with method acting. It is difficult to draw definitive lines, when every actor has different skills and weaknesses. As a result, a large part of the biblical response would be an in-depth evaluation of one self. A Christian actor, first and foremost, must decide what is too far for themselves as an individual. They must know what tempts them to fall into sin (James 1:14) what they are capable of and what they are not, and where they would likely find themselves compromised. It is best to draw lines upfront, so that when a conflict comes along, they already know where they stand. This involves deciding what productions to audition for, what roles to turn down, and how to be upfront with directors about what they are and are not willing to do.

Some examples of upfront lines would be: to say no to any and all LGBT+ roles, or to refuse to lose or gain anything more than 10 pounds for a role. One might limit the specific number of hours they commit to working toward a production a week, aside from necessarily consuming ones like tech-week. If a Christian actor is married or in a committed relationship, they might refuse any roles that have prominent romantic relationships with other characters in the show. One might also have specific rules about where and how they allow other actors to touch them, or where and how they allow themselves to touch other actors. There’s a myriad of possibilities, depending on what specific areas an actor might struggle with.

Unfortunately, setting boundaries like these will likely mean not always getting cast, or being replaced. In the theater world, there is almost always someone willing and ready to take someone else’s place when they fall short of what is expected of them. That is the harsh reality of it. A Christian may find they never get the lead for these very reasons, and that is something they will have to accept, for the consequences of compromising could lead down a very dark path away from the Lord. 

Prayer will be key. The Christian must rely on the Spirit’s leading. If they seek first His will and trust Him, God will make the path they walk straight (Prov. 3:5-6). They must also pray “not to fall into temptation” (Luke 22:40Matt. 6:13). They may also pray for wisdom regarding any and all situations (James 1:5). Praying before each rehearsal and performance sets a tone for the proceedings, even if that prayer is only participated in by the sole Christian present. It is also an opportunity to share the gospel with fellow cast and crew members. Praying for other members of the cast and crew is a great way to love them, Christians or not (1 Tim. 2:1-4), and will certainly benefit your relationship with and attitude towards them, even those who are not as easy to love or get along with (Matt. 5:44).

Communication about boundaries is important as well. Having conversations with directors and fellow actors about issues is far better than shutting up and putting up. If a Christian is uncomfortable with something they are asked to do for any reason, they should pray for the courage to speak up and work towards a solution. They will find that some directors or actors are willing to respect their wishes, and others are not. They may not be able to work with those that do not, and have to forfeit their roles under them. Additionally, talking to other Christians about any concerns or areas of uncertainty would be beneficial. Seeking counsel is never a bad idea (Prov. 11:14). 

After all these, this next point is arguably the most important: know when to stop. This point comes in after a Christian is already involved and in the thick of a production. If the Spirit prompts them, if they feel as though something is heading in the wrong direction, they must have the courage to step down. It will not be easy, but to ignore the signs would likely lead to spiritual corruption and potentially physical and or mental and emotional harm. At no point should a Christian personally inflict or allow anyone else to inflict lasting physical damage to themselves. Accidents happen, but what is intentional can be stopped or prevented. There is no good reason an actor should knowingly allow themselves to be harmed in such a way that could be scarring or leave any kind of permanent damage.

The same goes with the mental and emotional side of things. Minds can be dangerously fragile, and if at any point the actors finds their identity confused or compromised by their character development, or if their emotional alignment puts them in a traumatizing or damaging place, they must step down, for their own protection. 

This also goes for the effects of one’s method acting on those around them. If at any point, one’s acting methods become damaging to the other actors, it is time to stop. This means the Christian actor must be attentive to those around them, and ask for clarification if need be. They should not assume that the other actors will tell them to stop, so they must be ready to recognize for themselves when a fellow actor is uncomfortable or in harm’s way.

Discretion is also required with anticipation of audience response. If there are any particularly sensitive, graphic, or controversial issues being addressed or known psychological triggers, one must consider making clear disclaimers or not including or participating in them at all. No one wants to be the reason someone in the audience was caused to stumble (1 Cor. 8:9-13) or have a mental or emotional breakdown. 

Christians are responsible for rightly handling the tools they are given by God to use, and this includes acting methods; while the church is generally not the place for method acting, it is still a valid art form that can be employed for good elsewhere. It is a difficult method to master, but one that has the potential to reap great reward. The authenticity of method acting is undeniable, and is something that this decade has developed quite the appetite for. Even so, this level of authenticity must not be taken to a point where it becomes harmful physically or mentally. It takes careful consideration and diligent prayer for the Christian to know when to stop, to disengage, even forfeit a role for the sake of protecting their physical, mental, and emotional health, as well as their spiritual lives. It is a task the Christian actor cannot ignore or take lightly. There is too much at stake to downplay the importance of maneuvering through the deep waters that actor are called out into.

Works Cited

Blair, Rhonda. “Image and action: Cognitive neuroscience and actor-training.”  Performance and Cognition: Theatre studies and the cognitive turn, edited by Bruce McConachie and F. Elizabeth Hart. Routledge, 2006, pp. 167-185.

Ballon, Bruce. “Horror Films: Tales to Master Terror or Shapers of Trauma? .” American Journal of Psychotherapy, vol. 61, no. 2, 1 Apr. 2007, psychotherapy.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.2007.61.2.211.

Breznican, Anthony. “Pennywise Haunts the Dreams of ‘It’ Actor Bill Skarsgård.” EW.com, Entertainment Weekly, 9 Jan. 2019, 9:00 AM, ew.com/movies/2018/01/09/pennywise-haunts-dreams-it-actor-bill-skarsgard/.

Falcone, Dana Rose, and Jess Cagle. “Anne Hathaway Says Her Dramatic Weight Loss for Les Misérables Made Her ‘Really Sick’.” People.com, People, 1 Feb. 2019, 9:00 AM, people.com/movies/anne-hathaway-les-miserables-sick/.

Goldstein, Thalia R., and Paul Bloom. “The Mind on Stage: Why Cognitive Scientists Should Study Acting.” Mind and Development Lab Yale University, Ce Press, 2011, minddevlab.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/The%20Mind%20on%20Stage%20GoldsteinBloomMindOnStageTiCS.pdf.

Hart, F. Elizabeth. “Performance, phenomenology, and the cognitive turn.” Performance and Cognition: Theatre studies and the cognitive turn, edited by Bruce McConachie and F. Elizabeth Hart. Routledge, 2006, pp. 29-51.

McConachie, Bruce, and F. Elizabeth Hart, editors. Performance and Cognition: Theatre Studies and the Cognitive Turn. Routledge, 2006.

McKenzie, Joi-Marie. “Ill-Fated ‘Titanic’ Love Story Has Audiences Still Watching 20 Years Later.” ABC News, ABC News Network, 19 Dec. 2017, abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/titanics-ill-fated-love-story-audiences-watching-20/story?id=51863697.

Nellhaus, Tobin. “Performance strategies, image schemas, and communication frameworks.”  Performance and Cognition: Theatre studies and the cognitive turn, edited by Bruce McConachie and F. Elizabeth Hart. Routledge, 2006, pp. 76-94.

Ohikuare, Judith. “How Actors Create Emotions: A Problematic Psychology.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 10 Mar. 2014, www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/how-actors-create-emotions-a-problematic-psychology/284291/.

Pollard, Alexandra. “’Hollywood Gets Queer Stories Wrong’; Should Straight Actors Play Queer Characters on Screen?” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 16 Jan. 2019, www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/straight-actors-playing-gay-roles-characters-ben-whishaw-darren-criss-cate-blanchett-rachel-weisz-a8723421.html.

Shaughnessy, Nicola. Affective Performance and Cognitive Science: Body, Brain, and Being. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2013.

Sharf, Zack. “Bill Skarsgård Says Returning for ‘It: Chapter Two’ Is ‘Weird and Surreal’ Now That Pennywise Is a Pop Culture Icon.” IndieWire, 16 July 2018, www.indiewire.com/2018/07/it-chapter-two-bill-skarsgard-pennywise-adult-cast-interview-1201984550/.

Stanislavski, Constantin. An Actor Prepares. Translated by Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood, Routledge, 2003.

Styan, J. L. Modern Drama in Theory and Practice 1: Realism and Naturalism. Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 1981.

This rapid and drastic weight loss took a serious toll on her health both physically and emotionally. Hathaway said, “I didn’t know anything about nutrition. I taxed my body, and my brain bore the brunt of it for a while. I just felt very anxious and very lost at that time” (Falcone). This experience took her a long time to recover from. It also all happened right around the time she was getting married, a time when she would ideally be at her happiest. Unfortunately, that was not the case, as her methods for acting negatively affected her whole life, on set and off.

Another startling fact is that while there is a significant rise in characters in film, television, and on stage that are LGBT+, the vast majority of the are being played by straight actors and actresses. There has certainly been push back on this for a variety of reasons, but one of the key ones has to do with how much society stresses the fact that sexuality is a part of identity. So when someone who does not identify as LGBT+ steps into a role that requires them to attempt to portray that characteristic, there seems to be a missing link. Alexandra Pollard writes for Independent saying, “For one thing, being queer is an identity in a way that being an alcoholic… is not” (Pollard). Whether sexuality is or is not actually an essential part of one’s identity is a whole other argument, but it would seem that quite a lot of people in the West seem to think so. Many straight actors would argue that this issue, like any other, is not one that should be off the table for any actor. Acting, by nature, forces actors to pretend to be that which they are not or have never experienced. Cate Blanchett, who played a lesbian role in Todd Haynes’ Carol, said, “I will fight to the death for the right to suspend disbelief and play roles beyond my experience” (Pollard). This raises more questions, such as: is there a point that is too far, are there simply some areas, like dabbling with the LGBT+ community’s identity, that an actor who wishes to remain untainted by their craft should simply steer clear of?

There is also an extent to which actors can go too far in their mental alignment with a character. Employing acting methods to the extent Stanislavski taught essentially means that the actor becomes the character; not just in costume, makeup, stage, action, lines, and emotions, but that the actors so mentally puts him or herself into the character’s shoes that there is no point where the character ends and the actor begins. He writes, 

“[the actor’s] job is not to present merely the external life of the his character. He must fit his own human qualities to the life of this other person, and pour into it all of his own soul. The fundamental aim of our art is the creation of this inner life of a human spirit, and its expression in an artistic form.”

– Constantin Stanislavski, An Actor Prepares

The way Stanislavski describes it is almost as though the actor becomes possessed by the character. This is obviously far more than external representation. It would not be a stretch to say, then, that there are characters better left unplayed if the actor is going to invest so much in them, even if they do an excellent job at it. This is especially true for characters that are deeply evil. It would be relatively impossible for an actor playing such a role to such an extent and to remain completely uninfluenced or unaffected by it.

Bill Skarsgård is a recent example of an actor who took on a terribly evil character. While he unarguably did a phenomenal job as Pennywise in the two-part movie series IT and IT Chapter 2 based off the Stephen King novel, he did not come out completely unscathed. The actor said in an interview with Entertainment Weekly, “I liken every character that I do to a relationship that you’re in… I’m trying to figure out who he is and I have to devote so much time and effort to this other person – or thing, in this case – and that goes on for months” and he went on to describe this relationship with the murderous clown as “very destructive” (Breznican). He enjoyed the role, but was miserable at times as well.