Being an actor is a unique experience for, unlike, say, being a painter, the actor has the distinction of being both an artist and a tool for the artist. A show is like a painting, a moving one, in which the tableau becomes vivid and real by the hands of actors, directors, and designers—who of these is allowed to exercise the most autonomy of thought? Who, essentially, paints the picture? Certainly not the actors; they have been given a script, a character, and are expected to “fall in line,” do as they’re told. If art is ego: if it is the raising up or denigration of a concept or thing, in what ways are actors allowed to express this? It can be argued that character is the manifestation of the actor’s perspective or taste, but rarely is an actor granted free reign on the subject. In the theatre there are a great number of outside forces which act upon what little decision making the actor is allowed, so that the actor’s job often comes down to “getting it right,” to agreeing upon the intention and subtext of a scene then finding the emotional state necessary to represent this, and executing. This causes a dilemma in regards to the voice of the actor, as the ability to comment on the work being done, or to comment through the work, is limited by the script itself, and these outside forces. Therefore, the artistry of the actor (by this definition) is limited. Has this always been the case? Is it possible to allow the actor more of a voice, more perspective? What would it look like to allow the actor to be more of an artist? 

In form, there are certainly ways of going about changing this. For one, devised pieces allow actors choices in the creation of the piece, and improvisation can afford some relief, but I’ve found the former to be, at the least, more communal than personal, and unspecific for this reason, and the latter as not nearly enough. For a deeper understanding, let’s turn to the situation which sparked this essay. 

A video recently surfaced in which an actor speaks on recently being let go from a show after (in a scripted outfit change which happened on stage) they revealed a politically charged outfit with a message written on it instead of the usual, agreed upon costume. The act was approved by the director, but the producers and theatre itself did not sanction it, and had even hinted to the actor that a statement on the matter would be discouraged. In the video, the actor argued the hypocrisy of the institution for disallowing the protest when the show itself, they said, mirrored the point being made. The struggle of the character is (so the argument goes) similar to the struggle of the geopolitical situation being brought to light by the unsanctioned act, and that to fire them for speaking out on the injustice of said situation was proof that the intentions of the institution were antithetical to the morality they wished to portray through their art. Now, whether the actor was right or wrong does not matter for the purposes of this article; what does matter is the fact that it touches upon the point: to what degree do we allow actors to have a say in the content and intention behind the roles they accept? 

The difficulty behind allowing actors to have more of a voice, and what the actor fails to admit to and refute in the video, lies in the unilateral change which occurs from the altering of some or any elements within a show. If the show is a painting; the director, a painter; and the actors, paint: imagine the wrath incurred when the painter, attempting to fill in an azure sky, looks down to see the orange of a sunset dripping off his brush. Of course the director did allow this act to occur, but this abdication is rare, and still there exist a great number of outside forces (the theatre, its producers and patrons) which expected the azure sky. Now, don’t get me wrong, the “outside pressures” I’ve described are, more often than not, a wholly positive force upon the quality of a work, especially for young artists who have not yet fully developed their instincts and artistry. The answer to this question is not, in my mind, to allow actors to “run rampant”—to allow them total freedom to edit and define a piece as these changes would be so one-sided. Theatre is communal, that much is true. It is an ensemble after all. In fact, I argue that actors are given exactly the correct amount of sway in any piece. That is not the problem. The problem arises when actors take on shows, or join institutions, which do not reflect their own morality. The artistry of actors, their bringing up or rejection of a concept or thing, becomes not a reflection of their individual intentions or beliefs, but the content which they participate in and help to create. 

Unfortunately, young actors get very little say in this matter. They are told, after all, “to just do the thing,” and to take on as many opportunities as possible, whether they believe in the message or intention of a piece or not. But, that is the very problem: by taking on these things regardless of one’s perspective, the work suffers (for what art could be good if it is done dishonestly), and the artistry of the actor is increasingly reduced (the ability the actor has to exact change or perspective on a piece). The indifference of actors agreeing to be in things which they don’t believe in has led to a profound apathy among young actors, and a general disillusionment which older creatives and these outside forces mistake as the inability to perform, to create. If actors wish to continue to lack a voice then they should continue to work on shows which do not reflect the changes they wish to see in the world. There can be no quietism in theatre: what you do is what you are; what you think about the world does not matter if the script says otherwise. It will be difficult, and there will be strife, that is, if young actors were to shun opportunity. But, I believe from the ruin of this system will arise a new one, better, stronger—one which offers the actor an actual artistic position.  

Think of it as a boycott extending to all aspects of a show: moral, aesthetic, monetary, etc. If a show represents something you don’t believe, if it doesn’t look the way you think it should, if it doesn’t pay you for your time, then don’t do it. It is only because we think so lowly of ourselves and our artistry that we force ourselves into spaces we don’t fit, which causes headache and strife, makes us question ourselves, and perpetuates a system which runs perpendicular to what we believe. Only do what you wish to be done, and soon the rest—the fluff!— will disappear and be replaced by something better. There can be no separation between the intention of a piece and the personal perspectives of the actors, for this would be to divorce them from the definition of being an artist, relegating them back to being nothing more than tools. 

 

Other than “fixing the system,” which always sounds so lovely when you say it, what else can be done to combat this issue? In this day and age, it is important for young people to feel like the media they are consuming, the companies they interact with, the services they use, reflect their own morality. A contemporary manifestation of this fact we often see through the implementation of boycotts upon products which have been known to act contrary to our own system of beliefs. Because an actor does not have the ability to unilaterally change the message of a play or piece without changing and affecting the choices and artistry of other individuals, what the actor can do is invariably choose pieces which reflect their own morality, so that they become a representation of their perspective whether or not they are allowed to change or direct the message or themes of a piece. Essentially, the idea is to only accept the roles you wish to see in this world. This is hard for the young actor, who has been told to “just do the thing,” and to take every opportunity regardless of potential or scale, and who hardly gets the choice. But, I believe that the hammering down of this fact upon the next generation of actors would act much like a boycott, in the way that plays which do not represent the people who create them would no longer be feasible. This would be positive, for who would want to see a show that is not believed in by its creators? This extends too to the issue of pay: if you believe there should be more shows which pay nothing to young actors, then accept that role for nothing. What actors choose to do is a representation of their morality, and of what they believe in this world. There can be no separation between the intention of a piece and the personal perspective of the actor for this would be to divorce the actor from the definition of being an artist, relegating back to being nothing more than a tool. 

The actor who was shown the door for overstepping and changing the meaning of the show they were in (though they may argue otherwise to that point), is a representation of the frustration I so often see in actors who must perform in something which they don’t believe in. Until the actor is seen as (or allowed to be) an artistic equal in the process of making a piece, until the actor is intellectually and pedagogically confident, until they once again prove the pertinence of their perspective and the quality of their taste, the stigma will continue, and less and less will be asked of the actor. The artistry of the actor must not be reduced simply because it does not serve the wishes of the producers, or the sentiments of the theatre, for the work suffers if it is not believed in by the people who make up its ranks. This is the great fact, and the reason why mediocrity has taken hold upon American theatre and its institutions. 

 

But, the question remains: to what degree can the actor be an artist and have a perspective? How can the actor have more say without infringing upon the artistic rights of the other creative forces of a show? 

Before I answer this, I wish to clarify my reason for writing this essay. It is not that I wish there to be a world where actors have the final say on any matter relating to theatre or to a work, rather, that I’ve seen and felt this inability to express myself through a work, and have seen this frustration, not unlike the actor in the video, many times. But, too, what I’ve seen occur from the refinement of the study of acting as an “institution” is the denigration of individuality, and, more importantly, intellectuality of the actor. The umbrella of “theatre” used to be rife with ideology, with movements and groups which argued for the merits of ideas and concepts. There used to exist in this city, titans of pedagogy. Teachers like Strasberg, Hagen, Meisner, and Stanislavski—where have they gone? Their institutions remain, but it seems as though this benefits mostly their children, the students of their students who now teach there, and people with disposable income and inflated egos who have time after five. This is the culmination of a century of theatrical thought? These are the sanctuaries? In all of the old masters’ books, the greatest emphases were put upon the idea that actors must read, listen to music, study language—that their job is to build an understanding of what it means to be human, a specific understanding though broad in scope. These days, this idea is still touched upon, but what is the emphasis of these institutions? Certainly not self improvement and perspective; this is not profitable for them. So, the onus falls upon technique: scene study, vocal training, and movement—these words cause a buzz, and look good on the itinerary. But, these things don’t mean anything if actors do not understand people, or, more importantly, what people mean to them. It’s like Strasberg said, “Just because you know what to do in a scene, doesn’t mean you’re able to do it.” It is because of this devaluing of intellectuality and pedagogy, of the emphasis on taste, that the actor is, more often than not, left in the lurch when it comes to the meaning and intention of a piece. It has become the expectation for actors to be excitable, unthinking individuals who are happily corralled from one end of the stage to the other. If what one desires is to have more say, it begins with the refutation of this, the climbing out of the whole known as “being a warm prop.”