The Great Acting Blog: “Where Does This Fear Of Independence Come From?”
Buster Keaton believed that the locus of artistic control in film should be with the performer. His style of long shots and long takes, was largely developed in order to give his performance as much freedom as possible, and to draw attention to his physical comedy. This belief in the performer’s artistic freedom stemmed from his years in vaudeville where producers rarely got involved directly in the work of the performers, instead they limited their role to booking the acts and arranging the bill. The performers had complete creative control over their work. It’s natural then that Keaton thought the same set-up should operate in the cinema.
We live in an era when it seems that most actors just don’t want artistic control. We see this clearly in the theatre, where a hundred years ago lead actors routinely headed their own companies, now it is something of an anomaly for them to do so. In cinema, it has never been easier for actors to control their own work – developments in digital technology now mean that it is possible to make a world class feature film on a desktop computer, and yet we see so few taking advantage of this opportunity. Further, so many actors believe that they cannot act unless they have a director to tell them what to do, and so as a result they do not even have artistic control over their own performances let alone their own productions (we even see critics praising the director for the actor’s work: director X drew a marvellous performance from actor Y). Ironically, it was around the same time that Keaton was making it in Hollywood that directors began to get a stranglehold on actors in straight theatre (see, it wasn’t always this way). If Keaton’s mindset, his independence, was the result of his background in vaudeville, then we might ask where today’s fear of independence came from? What is it in the backgrounds of today’s actors which leads them to be happy to await instructions rather than seize the initiative? Actors are willing to sit at home, unemployed, waiting for someone to hand them work when it’s never been easier for them to go out and start their own company. Why?
mary cigarettes/ 02.01.2014
perhaps it stems from a fear of a bad reputations…so much of what endears artists to their respective terrains is how capable they are of taking input from other people.
a young visionary actor would be branded a control freak in a new york second.
i’m also wondering that maybe now that we’ve lived through several decades where the allure of fame’s become a greater motive than the love of the craft itself, that it maybe breeds a type of creature who just wouldn’t be motivated to fully embrace a wider role.
it’s interesting to think of folk like david lynch and john waters who are wonderfully individual actors, yet very much gravitated to the role of directors before placing themselves in front of the lens.
James/ 02.01.2014
I completely agree about how the lure of fame has had an impact. It seems that for many, particularly in acting, if they’re not going to be famous by a certain age, then it’s not worth doing. This mindset also cripples the notion of “community”, of artists coming together to create projects and do work, which, as we all know, is the best way forward.
It’s interesting to note also, that when the Lyric Hammersmith refused to let Donald Wolfitt play Hamlet, he went to the bank, took out a loan, and produced the play himself. Such a production would just never get off the ground today.
Many thanks for your comment.