thu 28/03/2024

Opinion: 'Internalised' acting is a complete turn-off | reviews, news & interviews

Opinion: 'Internalised' acting is a complete turn-off

Opinion: 'Internalised' acting is a complete turn-off

Has Method acting ruined the classical actor's craft?

Do Stanislavski and Lee Strasberg have a lot to answer for? Or can we place the blame, if blame it is, elsewhere? I’m referring to the steady, insidious advance of theatre mumbling. You may have noticed it at a theatre near you. It’s the art that disguises itself in “naturalism”, a kind of quasi “Method” style of acting.

It’s not always easy to detect. At first you think you may be mistaken. Isn’t this “great acting” I see before me, the eyes furrowed towards the floor, the voice low, even a little seductive? You blink – and blink again. You wait for something to happen on stage. But wait a minute. Nothing is happening. It’s a trompe d’oeil, it's the emperor’s new clothes.

I had the unmistakeable whiff of this phenomenon last week. Belatedly I’d gone to see a classic in north London. A “great actor” was leading the company. I waited expectantly for things to start happening. I’d better come clean. Stephen Dillane was your man on stage; the play, Ibsen’s The Master Builder, at the Almeida (Dillane pictured below right with Gemma Arterton in The Master Builder).

GA-SD-MasterBuilderI’d seen a very fine production of the same down in Chichester in the summer with Michael Pennington. Pennington is a “veteran” actor having a golden late flowering, and he conveyed a wealth of meanings in the role of Halvard Solness, the architect consumed by guilt and fear of being displaced by the new generation: by turns arrogant, dismissive, entranced, slightly crazed. I was completely engaged in his journey (pictured below left: Pennington as Halvard Solness).

And so I waited for Dillane, supposedly unmatched in the subtlety and originality he can bring to a role, to produce something unexpected, magical, compulsive, illuminating. But as with his Prospero earlier this summer in The Bridge Project’s The Tempest, Dillane’s Solness was stillborn. Something has happened to Dillane, and his affliction is not just unique to him. Maybe you could put it down to the influence of the above mentioned “Method”, or the dominating influence of TV, or sheer laziness on the part of modern directors to ensure actors are actually communicating and can be heard.

Whatever its origins, the effect over the past decade has been to create a gap between what an actor thinks they are conveying and what actually reaches out over the “footlights” commensurate with the Grand Canyon.

MichaelPennington-master-builderIt’s not just about sound, although that can be a major factor. A whispered word can carry way out beyond the boundary. Mark Rylance proved it over and over again at Shakespeare’s Globe, externalising interior thought and emotion in Hamlet or as Olivia in Twelfth Night. “Internalising” your emotion brings us back to Stanislavski; identifying your own emotion with that of your character. Dillane was clearly following that line in The Master Builder but instead of a communication of complex motivation and emotion, what arrived in my seat was stasis. Dead energy. Becalmed, it was as though Dillane was sucking the energy into himself, a black hole of interior introspection and self-immolation cutting off the oxygen from us, the audience. We gasped for some anchorage, something to hang onto. Nothing was forthcoming. Narrative and engagement flew out the door. Shut out, I cared even less.

Others employ this interior internalisation modus, though I hesitate to call it a modus vivendi; quite the contrary from a spectator’s point of view - it's more like a living death.

I watched aghast as Lindsay Duncan and Alan Rickman – no slouches they and steeped in stage experience – proceeded to mutter away to themselves

Director Katie Mitchell, for instance, has become very fond of pursuing a style that requires audiences to hang on every suppressed syllable. I rate Mitchell highly but admiration has gradually turned to exasperation as her actors, seemingly unwilling to let audiences in on their private game, steadily keep us at aural arm’s length. Mitchell is an innovator, experimenting particularly with theatre’s visual potentials in the age of video and camcorders. She seems less interested in experimenting, however, with its speech equivalent, something another practitioner, Andy Lavender, has explored with admittedly mixed but fascinating results in his 2008 Sarajevo Story, using all manner of digitalised, jump-cutting, overlapping sound trips.

Experimentation is fine; pushing the technological envelope as Robert Lepage and Simon McBurney and others have shown is no barrier to theatrical communion, excitement, stimulation – call it what you will.

2.LindsayDuncanI watched aghast in the summer in Dublin as Lindsay Duncan (pictured right in Ibsen's John Gabriel Borkman, Abbey Theatre) and Alan Rickman – no slouches they and steeped in stage experience - proceeded in another Ibsen to mutter away to themselves with such intimidating, closed privacy, it was as though they were telling us to bugger off and leave them alone. Maybe we should have done exactly that. Perhaps the sound of dozens of seats rising and disaffected punters leaving the auditorium would work wonders. Perhaps we should be revolting, en masse, for the effect in Dublin was, as it was at last week's The Master Builder, to create disengagement. It was a huge turn-off.

Now here, perhaps, it gets interesting. Ah, you may be saying, it’s the “alienation effect” at work. What all these directors have in common is a Brechtian approach to theatre, a challenging of the status quo to shake us out of our complacency and usual ways of thinking. How very challenging, if not particularly modern.

But I don’t think that’s what's at issue here - rather this is about egotism, about self-indulgence, and a massive collective directors’ amnesia about what theatre can be about, and should be about: communication.

Share this article

Comments

Stephen Dillane has been Mumbleman for years. His Uncle Vanya for Katie Mitchell at the Young Vic was cut of the same cloth, and that was way back in the last century. I hadn't a clue what was going on in his character's head, even though it's one of my favourite plays, so I've tended to avoid him since. Also in that cast was Anastasia Hille - a fine actress at times, but invariably inaudible when she's in a KM show. Mitchell's best work is throat-grabbing. Unlike some people I thought Iphigenia, Women of Troy, Waves and A Dream Play were quite marvellous. I'm not convinced by any of her Chekhov productions though.

I seem to remember the RSC going through a specially bad mumblephase - it would have been around the time Bob Peck (so wonderful in so many things) gave us his whispered Macbeth. It made, and makes, me smile to think of a crit our English master gave me in our school magazine for my Cassius in Julius Caesar: 'one felt that some sensitive cadences were only reaching to the front rows of the audience'.

You are absolutely so right, Carole. I caught Dillane's Prospero at the Old Vic, like the rest of the audience couldn't hear a word and was bitterly disappointed. I still went along to see him at the Almeida in Masterbuilder but again, he was in a world of his own, totally pre-occupied with his own performance - absolutely no connection with the audience and worse, giving nothing to his fellow actors. It was a very selfish performance. All credit to Gemma Arteton. Hilde is a gem of a part for a young actress but she was entirely on her own and she did well. The main impression I got from her at the end was a huge sense of relief. I haven't bothered with Alan Rickman since he stepped in at the last minute to play Anthony against Helen Mirren's Cleopatra at the National - his pacing was atrocious, every word wrung out for it's inner meaning. He made the play boring! And he and Lindsay Duncan were so very good together in Liaison Dangereuses! I haven't seen her on stage lately and am worried now by your comment re her performance at the Abbey. Fortunately these examples are not typical. We are being blessed with some wonderful ensemble playing at present.

It's in all fair respect a little bit unfair to compare any other actor with Michael Pennington, most of them are bound to lose. ;-) The Master Builder at Chichester was simply magnificent. Every line was delivered to the point and the dialogues between Solness and Hilde perfectly matched, though Michael Pennington complained that it had been very hard to learn the lines!!!

So it isn't just me! Although not a regular theatre-goer, I often grimace at the television when actors mumble their lines, especially when they're speaking 'Estuary English', seemingly in an attempt to appear 'authentic'. And I feel the same in the opera house when the singers are singing in English but seem unable to articulate their words. As far as I'm concerned, if you can't be clearly understood by the audience the rest of your performance is irrelevant, no matter how good it might be.

I just can't relate to that at all as far as Ibsen's John Gabriel Borkman is concerned. I went to see the play in Dublin too, I could see the effect of 'internalized' acting, but it didn't bother me at all. In fact I was thrilled by it, as AR is particularly good at it. It takes great skill to act like that. Whether you like it or not, is a personal matter. I don't like the 'shouting' kind of acting, which is often mistaken for 'expressive' acting. We have a lot of shouters about in Dutch theater and it made me walk out of a performance several times.

Add comment

newsletter

Get a weekly digest of our critical highlights in your inbox each Thursday!

Simply enter your email address in the box below

View previous newsletters