Acting with Archetypes

There’s always new forms of approaching character and the art of acting popping up all the time and often they’re new ways of utilizing very old and even ancient forms. As you know my primary interest lies in the most cutting edge advances in acting and its fascinating, constant evolution, and recently I’ve been doing a lot of work in this field of archetypes, especially with the students of The Applied Art of Acting and The Actors Friday Studio.
It takes a little bit of hands on training to make this stuff happen in your performances, but in brief, an archetype is a layer of reality on the surface of your character. It doesn’t matter what kind of archetypes you use, Jungian archetypes, the archetypes of the Commedia or invented archetypes of your own. Now importantly for those who have no idea what an archetype is, it is a very different thing to a stereotype. The difference is that an archetype is something that is specific and TRUE and a stereotype is something that is obviously false and general.
A really good example to use that everyone would know right now is Rory O’Neill’s creation of Panti Bliss. If you like, the “surface” of Panti Bliss is a confident, outgoing, very witty woman, very specifically created by Rory. The true personality of Rory is hidden beneath the hair and make-up and kind of takes a back seat while Panti is there. Yet at the same time, Rory isn’t necessarily trying to disguise himself. Drag isn’t an attempt to fool people that you’re a woman. The channeling of Panti is channelled through the self of Rory but seems to leave Rory elsewhere for the “performance”. So Rory doesn’t somehow magically disappear. He just lets Panti do her thing. Then he goes and takes of the make-up and Rory is there again. Panti Bliss is “real” although a construction. We believe her and yet know she’s really a dude making an important point.
So if Panti is a very intricately created archetype, the stereotype of a gay man is the antiquated, limp-wristed foppish fool. It’s a stereotype created out of fear and to most of us its offensive.
Ok so let’s extend this to all of us and get very intricate about it. We present an archetype of ourselves in our public life. It’s completely true. We don’t “put on a performance” when we go to work. So the me that people see in the classroom or studio is, I hope, a confident teacher who knows his shit and can apply it to make his students very good actors. That’s not an “invention”. It’s an archetype that people believe because I believe it. It’s a reality that I can rely on. I don’t need to somehow “put that hat on”. I behave like that because its truly who I am. You do the same thing.
However, under that there’s a “you” that is not that. You don’t show it to anyone, except maybe your most trusted, intimate partner or friend. And unless you have someone in your life you truly trust, not even they will get to see that person. It’s the pure-form child in you. And here’s the thing, it’s almost always the antithesis of the archetype. It’s its opposite. In a film it’s revealed when the character is alone. It’s revealed to the character’s only trusted, intimate friend, the audience. My students reading this will now be equating this thinking to the exciting work of Lonely Protagonist theory, which is really fun to play with because it’s only when your character is totally alone and naked (in both physical and metaphorical senses) that we truly see the real, pure-form child underneath. And here’s the really interesting thing. It is REAL and TRUE too. As is the archetype. The archetype isn’t something false that’s hiding it’s opposite. If you approach it like that you end up playing the archetype as a stereotype or as a kind of generalization of “confidence” for example as opposed to “shyness”. That’s too general.
Working with these two very specific layers of character can move you towards a multi-layered performance that isn’t hit and miss but very specific. You can decide (without preempting) when you want to reveal this inner truth of the character in cool moments. You can even reveal them when the character is in public. The camera of course loves this stuff and if you are well versed in Triangulation and have built that relationship with the camera, you can work with it to reveal a very intricate and layered performance.
It takes some training, like I say, and you do need to be pretty versed already at psychological and physical characterization to make it work. But it doesn’t take long and it’s really fun. Then as always its a matter of practice, practice, practice. You’ll never act the same way after it either. You’ll wonder what you were ever doing before.
Love these eye-popper tools.
So there you go. The Wednesday Workshop, The Friday Studio and The Applied Art of Acting are always open to applicants. Ph. 087 759 6715. www.davidscott.ie.
See ya soon and have a nice day.
D.