"Professional" Acting Technique

I'm often asked about acting techniques. Which is best. Which do most actors use. That sort of thing. As most of you know, I don't generally talk about the craft of acting but, rather, the craft of success.

However, I do have some observations about what it takes to be considered a good actor. And the type of actor who seems to build a career effortlessly.

About nine years ago I had the distinct privilege of writing a half-hour comedy pilot for HBO. The cast was an amazing group of actors: David Huddleston, Jack Elam, Harry Morgan, John Hillerman, Wilford Brimley, and Paul Williams. (Look them up on IMDb and be amazed at the length of their resumes)

Naturally, I spent a lot of time with these guys. They were all excellent actors, but for me it was the stories, jokes and verbal by-play that made the journey memorable. I was laughing most of the time.

Now, each of these lovely gentlemen was unique. But, despite their differences, all had accomplished the most difficult task every actor must face; they were always "in character" -- because, no matter the role, they always managed to be themselves. In my opinion, the characters they played were usually indelible because of that distinction.

When they rehearsed, it was an acting lesson from six different angles -- all valid, yet from different places. John Hillerman started in community theatre and is an artistic type and David Huddleston was a protege of James Cagney, with a blunt no-nonsense approach. Jack Elam was a movie company accountant who realized that actors were getting paid more than he was. Wilford Brimley was a horse wrangler in the days of Gower Gulch who worked his way up the ladder. Paul Williams was the most eclectic with his music, writing and acting and Harry Morgan had come up the old fashioned way from stock, to Broadway, to Hollywood.

In other words, they had all been there and done that - cubed.

Six completely different techniques, six ways of working, six methods, six human beings... and yet, when they stood toe to toe, trading gags, it was like watching a perfectly realized series of gears and flywheels that resulted in getting a 200% response out of my 50% lines. Never a sour note. It was a writer's dream.

In the scores of hours I spent with them, I never heard a single conversation about acting. They all, seemingly, understood exactly how to "dance" with each other without ever resorting to discussion or investigation. Needless to say, I was entranced by this "mystical connection." Since they never discussed acting, I felt loathe to bring it up, so I had to make do with my own imperfect observation.

I'm still uncertain how 6 actors from six different "schools" meshed so seamlessly, (almost like a team that had played together for years) but I suspect it had a lot to do with each actor remaining "true to himself." The difference between who they were in the coffee-shop and who they became on stage was imperceptible. And I believe it had something to do with the show business part of the art.

They were all 'pros.'

I'm sure it was the "pro" aspect that was crucial to each man -- as each unconsciously "accommodated" the character of the other -- a bit of business agreed to without fuss, a line-reading given approval by an adjustment in the next line, a cross helped along by a counter-cross - like I said, dancing.

It was a beautiful thing to watch.

After that experience I have come to believe that great acting is that which reveals the true character of the actor without seeming to do so - while, at the same time, giving your partner enough "dance space" to do the same thing.

And, simultaneously, counting the house.

Those who can do it are brilliant. I wish I were one of them.