tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7061169479567725895.post2796972247304491005..comments2023-08-24T04:22:57.146-04:00Comments on Empathy & Irony: The Cult of the ImpossibleRisa Shouphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16420435189541972875noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7061169479567725895.post-43906175028573879912008-05-07T22:28:00.000-04:002008-05-07T22:28:00.000-04:00http://www.villagevoice.com/art/0716,bent,76387,13...http://www.villagevoice.com/art/0716,bent,76387,13.html<BR/><BR/>hey! i didn't get my money back!ishkaneihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18366175422920085918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7061169479567725895.post-20861811298309273962008-05-06T14:14:00.000-04:002008-05-06T14:14:00.000-04:00Dear Risa,I know that you believe that art/theatre...Dear Risa,<BR/><BR/>I know that you believe that art/theatre should be the initiation of a conversation with the viewer, and so i thought I'd "respond" to this post.<BR/><BR/>Trivial things out of the way first: <BR/><BR/>1. you wikipedia-link all over yourself.<BR/><BR/>2. you should make links that open a new tab so that the world wide web doesn't escort us away from your blog and erase our memories.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Okay. now i wax philosophical. and not a bit argumentative.<BR/><BR/>After a first reading of this post, something didn't sit quite right with me. It took until after the third and fourth to finally understand what irked me.<BR/><BR/>What stands in conflict is this comparison between INTENT and BELIEF. They don't carry the same definition and yet are used interchangeably. You mention that the concept is the "INTENTION of the IMPOSSIBLE," and then go on to say that as an actor, you believe your own lie, implying that in order to exact the "intention of the impossible" philosophy, you need to BELIEVE in the impossible.<BR/><BR/>A good con artist does not believe his own lie; a deluded person does. Which, I suppose, is what an actor does. He deludes himself into believing what he's portraying. He's not conning the audience--acting is a far more pure endeavor than trickery. The viewer isn't TRICKED into caring for the protagonist or hating the antagonist. The viewer's pathos is coaxed by the actor.<BR/><BR/>Isn't that the point, though? To PERSUADE the audience to believe in him? If he's deluding himself into becoming a thin person when he is fat, a woman when he is a man, and so on, then he is consequently also deluding the audience. And by deluding the audience, isn't he doing it "right"?<BR/><BR/>Risa, it seems as though the problem you had/have with your performance in SITI was not due to a lack of ability or talent or training but, simply put, a lack of self confidence. You were so caught up in the fact that the very philosophy you were attempting to act out was contradictory that you forgot that that was the purpose of the exercise. <BR/><BR/>Like Baudelaire's vision of "l'idéal," it's known that you never reach this impossible state of perfection. But in trying, you discover new avenues of exploration. I'm getting wordy. I mean that in constantly "intending the impossible--telling yourself you can achieve perfection whilst simultaneously knowing it's total crap--you do touch it in some way. And the audience can tell and wants to come along for the ride.<BR/><BR/>There's a great passage in Philip Pullman's "The Subtle Knife" (have you read it? cause you really really should), wherein a character is attempting to concentrate on a difficult task while in great pain. His friend Lyra says to him that he has to ACCEPT the pain and in some way DIRECT it into his concentration. He has to say to himself, "Yes, it hurts, but I can't do anything about it and right now I have to concentrate." So what I'm getting at is that you were right to doubt your ability to do it "right." But you let that stop you instead of letting it guide you back to itself.<BR/><BR/>So that's that. ..I may or may not have just blogged.<BR/><BR/>love,<BR/>Sachasachalouisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06455612961756667011noreply@blogger.com