Comments on: An Actor’s Life http://blog.steppenwolf.org/2006/08/10/an-actors-life/ Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:51:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0 by: Nathaniel Swift http://blog.steppenwolf.org/2006/08/10/an-actors-life/#comment-116 Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:49:47 +0000 http://blog.steppenwolf.org/2006/08/10/an-actors-life/#comment-116 George Orwell listed four motivations that he believed all writers share in "Why I Write": Sheer egoism, aesthetic enthusiasm, historical impulse, and political purpose. I think actors (and probably all artists) share in some combination of those reasons for doing what we do. And all four of those motivations, for me at least, are more important than the motivation to be financially secure. I also think that having a high tolerance for ambiguity is a necessary tool for an actor to have, since, as you point out, there's never a guarantee that a working actor will still be working after the show they're in at the moment. And certainly it helps to keep us all hungry (literally and metaphorically) and keep our skills sharpened. That said, though, I don't think I'm comfortable with the idea that the level of risk that actors must endure is a "needful crucible" - I think it's more a response to the economic realities of theatre. Good theatre usually doesn't make good money. Steppenwolf is a shining exception to this rule (we're lucky to have a few such exceptions in Chicago), but you're always going to make more money on a revival of Cats than you are on a production that fulfills the four motivations Orwell listed. And since we know we won't make lots of money doing good theatre with most theatre companies, and since we know (to borrow another metaphor from writing) we can't not act, we make the decision to put up with the risk. Maybe it makes us better actors, but it's not a trial that we must go through to develop our acting chops. At least hopefully not for much longer. George Orwell listed four motivations that he believed all writers share in “Why I Write”: Sheer egoism, aesthetic enthusiasm, historical impulse, and political purpose. I think actors (and probably all artists) share in some combination of those reasons for doing what we do. And all four of those motivations, for me at least, are more important than the motivation to be financially secure.

I also think that having a high tolerance for ambiguity is a necessary tool for an actor to have, since, as you point out, there’s never a guarantee that a working actor will still be working after the show they’re in at the moment. And certainly it helps to keep us all hungry (literally and metaphorically) and keep our skills sharpened.

That said, though, I don’t think I’m comfortable with the idea that the level of risk that actors must endure is a “needful crucible” - I think it’s more a response to the economic realities of theatre. Good theatre usually doesn’t make good money. Steppenwolf is a shining exception to this rule (we’re lucky to have a few such exceptions in Chicago), but you’re always going to make more money on a revival of Cats than you are on a production that fulfills the four motivations Orwell listed. And since we know we won’t make lots of money doing good theatre with most theatre companies, and since we know (to borrow another metaphor from writing) we can’t not act, we make the decision to put up with the risk. Maybe it makes us better actors, but it’s not a trial that we must go through to develop our acting chops.

At least hopefully not for much longer.

]]>