Speaking of "impassive" is an inconspicuous cause which leads to a non aggressive style of actor.
In my experience, I have seen some of the worst manipulated 'method acting' tactics an actor makes, they mistake in doing, because they feel inferior, incompetently - possess a false sense of entitlement. I truly believe method acting in the traditional field of acting has all been a reality of living a lie, a false approach to believability. (I.e. Make believe "choices"). There is an actress I know, whose source of acting habits takes on the form of an intellectual liar, she is believable insofar as she is the one person present in a scene, alienating the world around her.
I have seen the worst form of method actors are those that have some deviant form of memory, (a) brain washed their true vulnerability, (b) they use acting as a device to deceive - (c) only the nature urging themselves as an instrument to feel empowered.
1- The true nature of compromise
2- of giving a sacred nature to art
3- is completely abandoned because of selfish rather than selfless desire.
To become a master of the art: is found in one's purity of the soul, not an excessive branding to what causes acting. That "branding" is the worst kind of method acting; much the same as a world of inhumane "fake"welfare. Acting as a profession is the root against evil.
^I have been attending acting classes as I have only been affected.
"(c) only the nature urging themselves as an instrument to feel empowered." (MA2012)
I want to reissue this, that an actor should use their "power" as an actor, once put into good use, that empowers the world around them, not just themselves as a person. Actors commonly misuse their lack of skill for something selfless, pass it off as acting - which is the furthest thing from the truth. The first (rule) principle to acting, is NOT to act for the purpose of only empowering yourself as an actor.
"2- of giving a sacred nature to art
3- is completely abandoned because of selfish rather than selfless desire." (MA2012)
^ Both terms I apply "sacred" and "selfless" are according to (the true art : the true nature) of being committed to acting, actors self promote themselves as vagrant before taking their level of thinking to a higher level. Actors contort the medium as opposed to making it passion to reality. My "selfless" habits to create something "sacred" as an art. I often find actors bad habits exploit the medium altogether. This is in my most natural state as a human being.
In acting class I have had difficulty with actors that impose their self-absorbed will into scenes making it all about themselves. They have no idea of (a) the idea toward humanities interests, as a real skill to possess. (b) I have to live with what I see is happening, when my heart is completely aware (c) they are living a lie rather than creating true vulnerability. They rather capitalize on their own personal freedom to make uninformed choices, which as an actor is deviant at best.
In acting class I find myself playing dumb all the time, because I care about the art more than I care about myself ego as a person to help criticize. I honestly feel I do not do this for myself purpose, but for my purpose to serve a medium.
Since the art of acting's inception, to Shakespeare methodology, acting has been the art of Kings, subject to royalty, not over competitive. I will - will find this is my journey to a greater good. I simply want to create my own revolution of this.
When the true art of acting takes place, you are empowering something other then yourself; you are taking a quantum leap onto a territory where you allow things to empower you rather than prevent - seek - enable - indicate what your "needs" are.
^This is the true nature of the medium as an artform.
Matthew McConaughey as an actor has a very non emotive approach to acting, which works well on screen. His power as an actor is frightening to me. I somehow relate to it.
To treat acting as a possession is the actors worst unconscious habit that is a sin in the world of acting. My theoretical aims are so much more important than the acting itself.
==================
==================
==================
This text is a deeply personal, philosophical journal entry exploring the author’s (Marco’s) philosophy of performance, his frustrations with contemporary acting classes, and his self-conception as an artist.
Here is an interpretation of the core themes, tensions, and psychology within the passage:
1. The Core Artistic Philosophy: Selfless vs. Self-Serving Acting
Marco draws a sharp moral and philosophical line between two approaches to acting:
- The "Corrupted" Approach (Self-Empowerment & Ego): He intensely critiques modern "Method" acting and the habits of his classmates. In his view, many actors use the craft narcissistically—to feel powerful, center attention on themselves, or indulge personal emotional wounds. He describes this as "living a lie," manipulative, and alienating to scene partners ("she is believable insofar as she is the one person present in a scene, alienating the world around her").
- The "Sacred" Approach (Selflessness & Service to the Medium): Marco views true acting as a spiritual, almost ascetic discipline ("found in one’s purity of the soul"). In his framework, the actor’s role is not to demand attention or display ego, but to become an open vessel that serves the story, the scene partner, and humanity at large. Acting is framed as a moral battleground: "Acting as a profession is the root against evil."
2. The Matthew McConaughey Paradox: Presence Through Stillness
- Marco contrasts the performative, emotionally forced style of his peers with Matthew McConaughey’s screen presence, which he characterizes as "impassive," "non aggressive," and "non-emotive."
- Rather than seeing this style as flat or deficient, Marco finds it compelling and "frightening" because its power comes from stillness, restraint, and an absence of frantic neediness. McConaughey does not beg the audience to believe him; his presence holds space naturally. Marco identifies with this instinctual restraint rather than the high-strung emotionalism he encounters in training.
3. Alienation in the Classroom
A major source of emotional weight in this passage is Marco’s experience in acting class:
- Feeling Morally and Intellectually Isolated: He feels hyper-aware of what he perceives as dishonesty and superficiality in his peers ("my heart is completely aware... they are living a lie").
- "Playing Dumb" as Defense: He notes that he deliberately plays dumb in class to avoid conflict and keep his ego in check, yet this creates an uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. He believes his grasp of the craft’s higher purpose far exceeds that of the people around him, but he cannot express it openly without disrupting the room.
4. Psychological Undercurrents & The Recurring Motif of "Revolution"
Across this and his previous writings, several consistent traits emerge:
- Grand Narrative of Purpose: Marco frames his artistic pursuit not merely as learning a job, but as an epic, high-stakes moral calling ("the art of Kings," "my journey to a greater good," "I simply want to create my own revolution of this").
- Prioritizing Theory Over Execution: The final sentence is remarkably candid: "My theoretical aims are so much more important than the acting itself." It reveals that Marco is primarily a philosopher/theorist of human behavior and integrity. He is often more invested in the ethics, metaphysics, and purity of an idea than in the messy, practical compromises required to collaborate with everyday people in a rehearsal room.
Summary
The passage is a critique of artistic narcissism written by an individual who feels culturally out of place. Marco is striving for authenticity, restraint, and selfless artistic purity (symbolized for him by McConaughey’s understated power), while grappling with profound frustration toward peers whom he views as self-absorbed, manipulative, and disconnected from the sacred purpose of the craft.
No comments:
Post a Comment