Oscar Winners Sacrifice
From an interview a few years back,
Tom Hardy expressed an opinion on acting, stating:
“Fundamentally…
There are two types of acting,
Convincing and not convincing”.
And while this statement
Perhaps lacks a little nuance…
I tend to agree.
It’s hard to argue with;
Either the a performance believable or it’s not.
But what is the difference
Between convincing and not convincing?
Between what’s believable and what’s not?
And more importantly… who gets to decide?
In this same interview Tom is accused
Of being a “method actor”.
I say accused
Because he’s very quick to point out that he isn’t.
Going on, he states that an actors ‘method’
Is any means necessary in getting from A-B,
From being not convincing to convincing,
Including “fake it to make it”.
I love this.
Here’s one of the great film stars of his generation stating:
“I could be saying something [on screen]
And thinking ‘what’s for lunch’?
And that could work and translate”.
He’s suggesting “fake it to make it” is as legitimate
As the traditional idea of method acting
If it works for the actor
And translates on screen.
That’s a pretty bold statement in a world where
Working really hard
Through blood sweat and tears to be
Real, authentic and “truthful”
Are considered the height of artistic expression.
Now while this might not be his point,
Tom touches a few things in this moment.
Firstly… that he’s not afraid
Of looking like he doesn’t work hard.
But what he’s really touching on
Is the idea of self permission:
Those who are willing to do what ever it takes
In order to be convincing,
Including “fake it to make it”.
So I’d like to posit an idea:
The difference between
Convincing and not convincing
Is self-permission.
Those willing to do what ever they need to,
In order to give the performance they want to give.
And… perhaps a controversial opinion
But I think
With self-permission,
And of course, time and effort
Almost anybody can be convincing
In a role that suits them
As long as their willing
To do the work.
***
So, if the difference between
convincing and not convincing
Is self-permission,
Then what’s the difference
Between convincing and sublime?
What separates “good” actors
From those sit in the top echelon of our artistry?
My answer is:
Sacrifice.
Those who are willing to give more.
Those who are willing to
Sacrifice their fear for their love
And offer up a true and honest
Part of themselves to a role.
Sacrifice as a principle of top performance
Is often misunderstood as simply being about
Giving up time with friends or family
In pursuit of achieving excellence.
In fairness… this is absolutely
Included in the idea of Sacrifice.
But it’s only half the story.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines Sacrifice as:
“To give up—often something valuable—in order to help another person”.
Then it goes on to simplify it even further:
“You sacrifice something for something else".
So…
At its core, sacrifice is an act of generosity.
You are giving something up,
For something of even greater value.
And it’s through this generosity that we create connection.
The top performers in any field,
Especially in creative work,
Aren’t just technically skilled.
They’re not just hard-working or disciplined.
They are willing to give up something of themselves.
They offer up a real, honest, vulnerable part of who they are.
And in doing so, they create
A powerful connection with the people watching.
The sacrifice they make
In being open, honest and vulnerable
Is an act of artistic generosity.
And this my friends,
Is what separates the good from the great.
But what the hell do I mean when I say:
“To sacrifice your fear for you love”?
Well… sacrifice doesn’t just refer to
Blood, sweat at tears, or the
The demands on our time and energy,
But to the what we give up in every decision we make.
Every day, in every choice, we decide
Whether or not to give up the what we fear
In pursuit of what we love.
To trade one for the other.
This idea may sound
A touch over the top when it comes
To choosing whether to drink
Tea or coffee…
So here’s another way to think about it:
Making decisions based on what you either
Fear (literally what you’re afraid of happening)
Or
Love (which are your highest values).
But to use this tea/coffee metaphor for a moment:
You may really want to drink another coffee
But it’s 6pm
And so you choose herbal tea instead,
Because you want to make sure
You can fall asleep at night.
That is sacrificing your fear of feeling tired now
For your love of a good night’s sleep later this evening.
In a broader sense;
By giving up what you’re afraid of,
And this might be;
Fear of judgement,
Fear of the unknown,
Fear of looking or feeling stupid
Fear of rejection
Fear of rocking the boat,
Whatever,
The list of fears is endless….
By acknowledging those fears
And sacrificing those fears for your love,
You allow space for what is actually important to you
Your highest value.
Which might be…
Trusting your instincts.
Doing things your way.
Taking your time.
Being honest.
Asking the “stupid question”,
Being silly and irreverent.
Allowing yourself to “go there” etc…
Again the list is endless.
When it comes to our profession,
If you’re an actor
Giving convincing performances
But don’t yet feel like you’re
Quite able to give everything:
Build a system of practice
That encourages you to
Sacrifice fear for love -
What you’re afraid of,
For you highest value.
Music Producer Rick Ruben
Writes in his book The Creative Act:
“Create an environment
Where you feel free to express
What you’re afraid to express.”
And that’s a genius way to
Start moving towards becoming
A more generous actor
Working at the peak of the mountain.
***
At the end of the day
The fact of the matter is…
Art is subjective.
So in answer to the question,
“Who gets to decide
What is convincing acting and what is not”?
I say:
No-one. And everyone.
It’s not like there’s a definitive way of proving
Whether someone is believable or not.
It’s an unquantifiable feeling.
It’s not up to the actor.
Our responsibility lies in what we can control.
Anything outside of that…
Is not really our business.
Where the definition that all acting is either
Convincing and not convincing
Lacks nuance is that it doesn’t
Take into account
Genre, style and interpretation.
Jack Black and Timothee Chalamete
May be convincing in respective genres,
But I wager there are people
Who gravitate towards Jack
And others towards Timothee,
Feeling that one is more
Convincing an actor than the other.
Convincing is not a fact.
It’s based on an
Individual’s pallet for different acting choices.
When I was a kid,
I thought Nicholas Cage was a terrible actor.
So much so that it became a joke in my family
To the point where my brother-in-law and I have
For years now,
Sent each other Nicholas Cage inspired
Gifts every year for Christmas.
I considered Nicholas Cage the least
Convincing actor in the world.
But as an adult…
My understanding of acting has changed.
My pallet has changed.
And I’ve seen for more strange behaviour
In real life
Then any of the performances he’s given on screen.
And in fact,
Now I would argue that Nick is the poster boy
For self permission and sacrifice.
No one would accuse Nicholas Cage
Not expressing himself fully out of fear!
He gives everything of himself to every role .
Which is pretty damn special
And in my opinion,
Absolutely worthy of admiration,
Even if you don’t think he’s convincing.
***
In the end
We can’t please everyone.
And it’s pointless to try.
One day we may be convincing
Another we be sublime.
And on another day… perhaps not.
It’s not up to us.
All we can do is to keep showing up,
Keep sacrificing our fear for our love,
Keep being generous
And making choices in line
With our highest value,
In order to give the work
That makes us proud.
Have fun out there.
Dx
