The Great Acting Blog: “Bad Criticism Is Catastrophic”

The Great Acting Blog: “Bad Criticism Is Catastrophic”

I read a piece on Peter O’Toole recently that was so feeble in it’s explanation of the actor’s talent, that I’ve decided to single it out as indicative of the lack of understanding and appreciation of acting in general, and a lack of critical tools and language for examining the nature of an actor’s talent.

The writer says that O’Toole was an “over-actor”, that “he acted like crazy” – the inference here is that the very act of acting is in itself over-acting. The craft of acting in general is being criticised, not just one actor or one performance. It’s similar to the gobble-de-gook phrase “don’t act” – nobody knows what this really means, and still nobody knows how to do it. The real mis-understanding here, is that over-acting has got nothing actually to do with the amount you act, it’s to do with falsity: simply lifting a cup of coffee can be over-acting if it is done without truth. Critics need to understand what over-acting actually is, and they need to stop talking about acting itself as though it is some kind of disease which the actor needs to be cleansed of.

Richard Burton and Oliver Reed are included in the analysis when the writer says; “that they didn’t care too much about the craft of acting”. The ignorance here is breathtaking. Does anyone seriously think that these actors got to where they did because they didn’t care about what they did? Can anyone imagine saying that Van Gogh didn’t care too much about painting? Or that David Mamet didn’t care too much about writing? This is one of the most corrosive points-of-view about acting out there, especially for young actors, for it infers that acting is not a skill and an art and therefore does not require practice and dedication [which of course it does], that you need only to show up as your charming self and all will be well. This view has catastrophic consequences because it de-values each individual actor to zero, that all actor’s are pretty much the same, interchangeable and expendable.

Then there is; “O’Toole excelled when he was playing himself”. This is another common mis-conception. The actor is always himself, it is always the actor speaking lines of dialogue. The character is an illusion created in the mind of the viewer by the juxtaposition of the actor’s actions and the fiction of the script. Again, the notion of the actor “playing himself” is a destructive one because it infers that the actor isn’t doing anything, when in fact the opposite is true: it takes great skill on the part of the actor to merge his work and his personality into one. Similarly when the writer goes on to say; “”Peter O’Toole at his most OTT was still like a real-life person”. This is so tragically crass and ignorant that I almost don’t know where to begin. When is an actor not “like a real-life person”? The actor is a real life person. It is always the actor up there, it’s his humanity on display, his personality, his life.

Of course, acting, like anything else, is done with varying levels of skill and talent, and O’Toole had plenty of both. However, the value of the actor’s contribution will continue to tumble while the critical analyses of the work is so weak. This does especial damage to the expectations and attitudes of young people going into acting. They need to know that it’s a noble and worthwhile profession, that their work has value, that it needs to be treated with care and respect. Those who write and comment on acting, must ensure that they do so with a proper understanding of it, knowing how to  communicate that understanding in a meaningful way. Only then will they be providing a proper service to the public, and helping to advance the art of acting.

Subscribe to The Great Acting Blog