Act Read

Response to Cole

I have long believed that the power of reading is fundamental to many skills that seem otherwise unrelated. There is substantial research supporting the idea that increased reading results in the improvement of many skills, and Cole adds acting to the list with a very plausible and lucid argument. In fact, his argument goes well beyond the relationship between reading and acting and actually makes them synonymous, concluding with an argument that acting reinstates the “”lost” physicality of reading that the physicality of acting proposes itself” (Cole 30).
In the first chapter, Cole outlines the inherent aspect of reading that is prevalent in the works of many of the theorists examined in the course thus far. “Brecht, for example, views reading as a means of preserving rather than abolishing emotional distance between two actors” (8). “For Stanislavski it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that acting begins and ends in reading” (8). “[E]ven in approaches to acting which openly denigrate reading, reading may find a place” (9). “Grotowski defines his theatrical enterprise as “confrontation with myth””. “Our myths are texts” (9). “The Artaudian production of a classic play, “stripped of [its] text,” “without regard for text,” not only presupposes a reading of that play, it is a reading of that play” (9).
This Artaudian description is perhaps the most poignant in exemplifying how Cole extends his definition of reading far beyond mere engagement with orthography. He outlines a series of metaphors in which society has universally agreed that the definition of ‘reading’ fits a “bewildering variety of situations” (2). But he points out a shortcoming in his discussion of reading as acting. “Reading, in short, is every bit as great a puzzle as acting is. What can one possibly hope to gain by offering an explanation of the actor’s work in terms of another process at least as mysterious as acting itself?” (2). Herein, however, lies the very heart of acting as a paradoxical, artistic skill. And contrary to his claim, he reconciles the paradox. “[C]haracterization – consists largely in an attempt to endow one’s character with the inner life the general reader has had to leave off being in order to play him” (15). In this statement, Cole finally empowers the actor and character to co-exist simultaneously in one body without requiring one to occur at the expense of the other. It is almost self-evident and entirely lucid.
Coles’ ability to reconcile is brilliant. He explains the inherent similarity in such disparate elements as the ‘action’ of actors and the ‘passivity’ of readers. Most importantly, however, Cole describes perhaps the single most valuable lesson that any actor can follow in trying to develop some applicable system from the plethora of paradoxical theories that exist. “Forget about the public: Think about yourself . . . If you are interested, the public will follow you” (11).
The list of fascinating revelations provided by Cole with which I agree is exhaustive and it took me some effort to find anything about which to respond other than with a simple, “I agree.” However, on one point he makes about acting, I do take issue. He states “the semiotic description of performance as a reading by the audience of the stage action” is “misleading” and defends the idea by saying that “if the actor performs his reading, then audiences are having reading performed for them by actors” (18). Although the idea supports his fundamental claim that acting and reading is the same thing, he overlooks a crucial point in the art of acting. It is true the actor is trying to present their reading of a text, but the presentation they offer may vary greatly from , and indeed be quite weak when compared against the reading they envision in their minds for a certain character or situation. The skill of an actor, therefore, lies not in their ability to read or interpret a text or character, although that skill is admittedly a fundamental prerequisite, but rather in the transfer from their imagination to their presentation. That is to say that their reading may be very poorly presented, and it is this very acted presentation in which the audience reads the text as presented, not read, by the actor.