TO KNOW wisdom, you must first know ignorance.
So allow me to help you with the latter. I wish to discuss something I know nothing about (reader: "There's a first"). My subject is acting.
I've a fascination with actors. Haven't we all? How could we not? Most of us watch them every day of our lives.
They influence us in our looks, walks, talks, clothes and even philosophies. Well, at least their characters do.
The point baffling me is this: how is it that, in the behind-the-scenes shots you get in DVD extras, where the filming of the filming is filmed, the acting — seen in the raw — always looks so, well, rubbish?
They just look like they're saying stuff no better than a man or woman off the street could do. And it all seems so lackadaisical.
You hear them saying to the director. "And I just go over there and say this, do I?"
And they do. And that's it. And by the time it's on the screen it looks brilliant. And they get paid a fortune.
It's a piece of nonsense. I was going to say anybody can do it, but since I can't even pose properly for a still picture, I guess there must be something more intangible to acting in a film.
I'm not making a point, despite deploying the arguably controversial word "nonsense".
I'm just bewildered and wondered if you'd noticed this too. I suppose actors' charisma must interact with the lens in a chemical way. Or something.
The music will help too.
They don't even look that great in the raw, a bit common-or-garden, even with make-up, but by the time it's down on film they're all shiny and godlike.
What you need for screen-acting, it seems, is to have a face that can look potentially good or interesting, if the camera takes to you.
Theatre is different. For that, your biggest asset is a voice.
There's the whole question of emoting, of course. But, even there, I say again: when you see it filmed informally, it looks unconvincing.
Then by the time it's on screen it goes straight to your heart.
I love actors and worship them. They are, effectively, our gods.
But I confess: I have no idea what they're doing and how they do it.
And thus I have taken the first step towards wisdom.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article