On the Performance Art course, we read and discuss a range of articles about acting. Here, I have brought together my reflections on seven articles we were assigned to study — what resonates with me, the questions they raise, and how their ideas connect with my own acting experience.
1. Discipline
I agree with Stanislavski that discipline is one of the fundamental principles of an actor’s work. For me, it is like the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid – the foundation on which everything else is built. If an actor is late for a rehearsal or comes unprepared, it affects not only them but the whole company. It can interrupt the creative process, affect other actors’ concentration and even destroy a moment of inspiration.
I also found Stanislavski’s idea of leaving everyday problems outside the theatre very important. An actor should come to rehearsal ready to work and to concentrate on the role. At the same time, the work does not stop when the rehearsal finishes. An actor needs to continue working at home: learning the text, thinking about intonation, movement and facial expressions, analysing the character and observing people and life around them.
For me, this is what professional discipline really means. It is not only about being on time and following rules; it is about taking responsibility for your own development and respecting the people you work with. I particularly agree with the idea that discipline does not limit creativity. On the contrary, good preparation gives an actor more freedom on stage, because when you are prepared, you can stop worrying about what comes next and actually live in the moment.
2. Subtext
This article made me think about what really makes an actor act on stage. One of the most important ideas for me was reaction – decision – action. An actor should not just say the words or make a movement because it is written in the play. We need to understand why we react, why we make a decision and why we do something. Then the acting becomes real.
I was also surprised by the idea that words are only about 10% of what happens on stage. If we only say the text, it is just reading the author’s words, not really playing a role. There is so much more: pauses, looks, gestures, facial expressions, movement and the way we react to other actors. Sometimes we can show something without saying anything at all. We can even have theatre without words, like physical theatre, and still understand the characters, their emotions and what is happening.
This reminded me of our movement class when we worked in pairs with impulses. One person gave an impulse and the other person had to follow and react to it. I think acting works in a similar way. Another actor gives us an impulse through a line, a look or a movement. We react to it, make a decision and then act.
Another idea that made me think was Stanislavski’s idea about objective and inspiration. I have often wondered what comes first. Do I do something because I feel inspired, or does inspiration come because I have a strong objective? Before, I thought inspiration came first. But while thinking about this article, I realised that maybe the objective comes first. If an actor really knows what the character wants and really wants to achieve it, inspiration can come from this. So maybe we do not need to wait for inspiration. We need to know what we want and act.
For me, subtext is not only the hidden meaning behind the words. It is everything that is happening inside the character: what they want, how they react, what they decide and what they do. Playing a role is not just saying the words. We have to live in the character and react to what is happening around us.
3. Six Basic Questions
The first three questions – what? where? when? – seem quite simple to me because we can usually find the answers in the script. But the next three – why? what for? how? – are much more interesting because they help an actor understand the character more deeply.
The question “why?” helps us understand the reason behind the character’s actions. Why did they say this? Why did they react like that? Why did they do it? But for me, the question “what for?” is even more interesting. I think an actor needs to answer this question even when playing a negative character. We cannot just say, “My character is a bad person.” We need to understand their reasons and, in some way, justify them. For example, Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment kills the old pawnbroker. It is not enough for the actor just to know that he committed a murder. He needs to understand what Raskolnikov wanted to achieve and why he believed he had to do it. I think an actor needs to justify the character from inside, even if personally they do not agree with their actions.
The last question is “how?”. I think the real answer to this question comes during rehearsals, when we start to play the role physically. How will I say it? How will I look at someone? How will I move and interact with another actor? How can I make the audience understand what I want to show? This is why I think we should use these six questions not only when we first read the script, but throughout the whole rehearsal process.
These questions also made me think about a Chekhov production I saw recently. They used Russian music which I know very well, but for me it did not match the period of the play. The costumes and the story showed one historical period, while the music came from a much later period in the twentieth century. This created a strong feeling that something did not fit. Of course, a director can mix different periods, but as an audience member I need to understand why and what for. If there is a clear idea behind it, an unusual choice can work very well. But in this production I could not understand the reason for this choice.
This made me realise that these six questions are useful not only for actors. We can ask them about almost every choice we make in a performance: Why are we doing this? What for? And how will it help the audience understand our idea?
4. Imagination
This article is about imagination and how important it is for an actor. I really agree with the idea that imagination is like a muscle: we can train it. The more we observe, remember and imagine, the more material we have for our acting.
One of the main ways to train our imagination is observation. We need to notice people and how they behave: how an old woman walks, how a young man gets on a bus, or how a pregnant woman walks differently. We can even observe animals and birds and the way they move and react. I really enjoy people watching. When I am on the Tube, I like watching people, noticing their faces, movements and behaviour, and sometimes imagining who they are, where they are going and what they are thinking about. For an actor, I think this is not just curiosity. We are collecting information that we may use one day for a character.
I also found the connection between imagination, memory and physical feelings very interesting. For example, if we imagine cutting a fresh lemon, seeing the juice coming out and then biting into it, our body will probably react. Our mouth may start watering, we remember the sour taste and even our face may change. There is no real lemon, but our imagination creates a real physical reaction.
An actor can also use imagination when they need to play something they have never experienced in real life. For example, a young actress may need to play someone who has lost her parents, although she has never experienced this herself. She can start from feelings and experiences that she already knows and use her imagination to create the situation. She can think about how this experience might affect her body, her movements, her voice and her behaviour. Would she cry or become quiet? Would she move slowly? Would she scream or close herself off from everyone? There is no one correct answer because every person reacts differently.
For me, this is why imagination is such an important tool for an actor. We cannot experience everything that our characters experience in real life, but we can observe, remember and imagine. This helps us find a reaction that feels real for us and can also feel real for the audience.
5. The Magic If
This article was a little less interesting for me than the previous ones, maybe because I had already read about the Magic If before. But I found the connection between the Magic If and given circumstances interesting. An actor does not need to have the same life experience as the character. Instead, we can ask ourselves: “What would I do if I were in these circumstances?”
For example, if an actor needs to play someone who is in love but has never been in love themselves, they can start with some physical actions: looking into the other person’s eyes, noticing their eye colour or looking closely at their face. But I think this is not enough. I would also observe couples: how they look at each other, how they talk, how they touch each other and how they behave when they are simply sitting together. Then I would try to imagine myself in the same situation and think about how I would react.
I also remember the example from the article about an actress who was preparing to play a mother who had lost her child in terrible circumstances. She visited the place connected to the tragedy, and being there changed the way she imagined the situation. Normal things around her started to have a completely different and much more emotional meaning. This example showed me that sometimes it is not enough to sit at home and try to create an emotion. Research, observation and the environment can give our imagination much more to work with.
For me, the main idea of the Magic If is moving from the question “What does this character feel?” to “What would I feel and do if I were in their situation?” I do not need to stop being myself or try to copy someone else’s emotions. I can take myself and imagine myself in the character’s circumstances. This can help me find a more personal and truthful reaction on stage.
6. A New Body and Moving the Centre
Mikhail Chekhov’s article about a new body and moving the centre reminded me of a technique I already knew from my acting education in Russia. It also reminded me of one of my own experiences on stage.
When I was about 18 or 19, I played an old woman in a performance. I needed to create a completely different body: a different walk, a different centre of gravity, heavy legs and slower, more difficult movements. At first, my acting looked too artificial.
At that time, my grandmother had had a stroke and found it difficult to walk. I started observing her at home. Sometimes I quietly walked behind her around the room and tried to copy her movements and the way she walked. Her back hurt, her legs were heavy, and sometimes she put her hands on her thighs to support herself when walking. I watched how she moved her weight, how she held her body and how every step needed an effort. Slowly, I started using some of these observations in my role.
I did not tell anyone about this. After the performance, my mum, who was in the audience, said to me: “You know, I saw Grandma in you.” This has stayed as a very strong memory for me. My grandmother is no longer with us, but I still remember the way she walked and moved. For me, this experience shows how observation and changing your own body can help an actor find the physical truth of a character.
I am also interested in Chekhov’s exercise of moving the centre to different parts of the body. For example, if we imagine the centre at the tip of the nose, the person may become more curious. But what happens if I move it to my temple, my left eye or my right knee? How will it change the way I walk, move and look at people? Can it even change the character?
I have not been on stage for a long time, so I would really like to try this exercise again and see how my body reacts to different centres. I like the idea that we do not always have to start with the character’s thoughts and emotions and then find the body. We can also start by changing the body and see what kind of character and emotions come from it.
7. Intention and Tactics
Katy Mitchell’s text about intention and tactics was completely new material for me. I am quite familiar with Stanislavski: I have read his books and worked with his system before. But Katy Mitchell’s approach was new to me, so I found this article especially interesting.
I really liked the idea of analysing a role in detail before starting rehearsals. We should not just read the text and understand the general story. We can break the role down and look at what events happen, what the character wants, what their intention is, why they do something and how their actions are connected to what is happening. I also think it is important to check our ideas against the text and the stage directions. We can have our own vision, but it should still have a connection to what the writer gives us in the play.
I was especially interested in the idea of tactics. My character has an intention: I want something from my partner. But my partner may want something completely different, so there is a kind of struggle between us. I choose a tactic to try to get what I want. If it does not work, I need to change my tactic and try something else. I think this is very natural because we do exactly the same thing in real life. We change the way we act depending on how another person reacts to us.
For me, this can make a scene much more alive. An actor does not just decide in advance exactly how every line will be said. They know what they want, try one tactic, see the other actor’s reaction and then change their behaviour. This makes the action feel real rather than completely planned.
I would like to explore this approach more and read Katy Mitchell’s book in full. I think working with intention and tactics could be very useful for analysing a role and during rehearsals, because it can help make a character’s behaviour clear, logical and alive.