One of the main differences between Western theatre and Asian theatre technique is where actors place their emphasis of study. Traditional Asian theatre has influenced modern acting theories, like Suzuki's technique, in that the primary focus of an actor and his performance should be the physical movements that denote action. However, in the West, beginning with theorists like Stanislavski, actors have developed methods for reaching the emotions necessary to bring a character to life.
Both methods, physical response and emotional response, have their merits but both also have their shortcomings. In a theatre that focuses entirely on physical we lose the emotional connection that we might have to the characters in a piece. If the characters aren't displaying emotion, why should the audience? Acting techniques that focus only on drawing upon the right emotional responses fails to work with the actors' body, which is just as important for advancing the stories and emotions in a piece; after all, body language is something that everyone can read and understand.
I do believe that Western actors should focus more on training their bodies like an athlete because acting can be hard work. From my fight combat experience I've learned that you might be cast in a show that requires some athletic ability (like being involved in a fight) and if you don't have the necessary tools in your body, learning and performing the choreography to the director's standards could be a challenge. However, I also believe that an all physical theatre experience is not enough; there has to be emotion in the physical movements or the piece will not come alive for the audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment