PERFORMANCE PERSPECTIVES

"Being John Malkovitch"
THOUGHTS ON BEING AN ACTOR

• Exhilaratingly different.
• Adventurous in concept.
• Entertainingly executed.

This is a film that is worth seeing.

"Being John Malkovitch" is a film which is different in a number of ways.

It's different because it convincingly establishes an absurd but identifiable world - an unusual achievement for American Cinema.

It's different because despite an intense scenario for all its characters it manages to keep an audience laughing.

It's different because it uses special effects only to explore and extend story and not to impress or astound or embellish. In fact a number of areas of the story telling which could have been "tricked up" are handled in extremely simple ways.

And it's different because it provokes people to talk about its thematic content more than its plot.

So, what is this film really about?
Is it about wanting to be someone else?
Or wanting to be a celebrity?
Perhaps it's questioning the definition of reality?
Or is it asking the question, "Who am I?"
Does it explore the nature of self?
Or the existence of soul?
Or maybe the nature of love/sexuality?

Whatever thematic vision you have of the film, this production is also interesting for actors in two other ways. All the performances in this film are excellent. They are cohesive and part of the same "whole". There is no doubt everyone in this movie is working towards telling the same story. It is particularly interesting to see the simplicity with which Cameron Diaz creates a character so strikingly in contrast to her role in "Something About Mary". And it's also interesting to see John Malkovitch dealing with the impulses of being "possessed" (again 'the complex' is dealt with through 'simplicity') to great effect.

John Malkovitch is of course an actor and if this film touches on such thoughts as "Who am I?" or "Might I actually be someone else?" or rather "Might I be created in the image of someone else?" then these concepts are worth examining from the point of view of the actor and the acting process.

Let's digress for a moment.

Who for example is the actor when they are playing a character?

Are they themselves or are they the character?

There are a mixture of responses to this question…….

"The aim is to become the character."
"Always myself. I can only be me."
"There's only me...except sometimes I enter an almost trance-like state when perhaps I'm not really sure who I am."

Because of varying levels of experience, knowledge and process different actors will respond differently to these questions. Some actors whose process is largely intuitive may feel that they do largely become the character. And there is nothing wrong with this view of process. Difficulties only start to emerge for this style of actor if on some occasions the intuition fails to respond.

Others spend much time observing the world and building a store of observations about human interaction. This again is very useful and it could be said that these influences take actors away from playing themselves and lead towards playing a character that is removed from the self. This is useful process because sometimes we see in others, elements that are difficult to recognise in ourselves. However, the danger here is that this approach leads to imitation. And imitation of behavioural patterns brings an immediately detectable element to performance. So actors need to find a way of relating unfamiliar behavioural responses back to themselves. This will allow them to ultimately trust in making their own choices for the character. Remember acting is about "doing", not "imitating" or "imagining". If the actor is "to do" then the only path to this is through "understanding" and "ownership".

On the other hand it could be said that we are comprised of two halves - our conscious and unconscious selves. So when an actor draws on their unconscious experience then maybe they do in part become their other self.

This element of process is a valuable one to ponder and each individual will have their own distinctive view of the variables for them. The complexities of "Being John Malkovitch" touch on all these concepts. So, maybe before your next performance it is worth while pausing to consider whether you are pursuing being "John Malkovitch" or anyone else - rather than using those strengths that are uniquely and individually your own.

However "Being John Malkovitch" also raises other aspects of the actor's existence. There is a moment in the film where a fan recognises him and commends him for a performance he never made. This touches on the complex area of actors being known by large numbers of people for the image they have created of themselves rather than for who they really are. It seems to leave the actor in a slightly schizophrenic world involving image, fantasy and adulation. And in John Malkovitch's case being known and loved for something which was not about him at all.

And then there is the suggestion that if we become self-absorbed and 'get inside our own heads' we become entirely self-centred and see no one but ourselves.

This is a film that provokes much thought about life as well as about being an actor.

And "Being an Actor" is obviously a pursuit that requires a fair amount of diligence to make sure that not only are your feet on the ground but that your head is not in the clouds.

Copyright © The Rehearsal Room 2001. All rights Reserved.