Jeff Taylor has his B.A. in Drama from University of New Hampshire, and his M.F.A in lighting design and technical direction from Temple University. After graduate school, he and his wife Sue were on staff with Campus Crusade for Christ for nine years where they founded Crusade's drama ministry. Since 1980 Jeff has been the designer and T.D. for Northwestern College, Orange City, IA, where he holds the rank of Associate Professor.
ABSTRACT: This paper explores the essence of acting and its relationship to God, Satan, communication, and dramatic art. The relationships which are discussed provide some general principles which are freeing for the Christian who is an dramatic artist, while providing a basis on which the artist, can grow in discernment and accountability.
The late A. W. Tozer, a Godly and highly influential pastor, was known to dismiss drama with the comment, "What is fake is fake." I am convinced that the craft of acting is a high form of communication and a universal form of human behavior which even God Himself utilizes. Our contrasting views poignantly illustrate the controversy over drama which exists in the evangelical world. To say the least, such an attitude is distressing to me, a theatre artist.
Yet no less distressing to me is the reaction of so many arts-oriented Christians to those with a critical view of drama. They grimace and dismiss Tozer's (or whoever's) opinion, intellect, godly walk and ministry as superficial. They can muster great resentment against anyone who dare challenge the adage "art needs no justification." There is all too often little or no effort expended to build bridges of dialogue.
A Christian who has the orientation toward a strong pulpit ministry might well expect a theatrical production to offer instruction for living, and if it does not clearly do so he questions the production's worth. Yet most plays do this rather poorly. It is a matter of expectation for, as Roger Hazelton puts forth, dramatic theatre is far better suited to disclose truth by acting as a vehicle for reflection and meditation.{1} It is all too easy for arts-critical persons not to make the effort to question their expectations of drama in such a radical way unless they have a dialogue established with someone who is respected by them and who respects them.
How rarely is such a dialogue established! Instead the pro-drama Christians give the impression by their unwillingness to establish dialogue that they are superficial in their commitment to the Bible in contrast to their commitment to culture.
I am unwilling to accept such suspicious attitudes on either side of this sometimes blatant, sometimes subtle controversy. I hope this paper will provide a medium for discussion and dialogue between those of contrasting opinions regarding dramatic theatre. In fact, I quite enjoy the role of a peacemaker. Yet this role has its own hazards. Those on the arts-needs-no-justification side could easily view me as an art-masher fundamentalist in the disguise of an M.F.A. Those on the arts-critical side could easily take me for an artist who compromises his Christianity but who still knows how to use all the terms. Still, I'll take the risk for I feel I'm uniquely qualified for the role of peacemaker.
By unique qualifications I first refer to my nine years on the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ. I appreciate the emphasis on evangelism and discipleship which so many conservative evangelical Christians have. It is an emphasis which has directly benefited me. I deeply respect this tradition and I understand it. Secondly, however, I understand both Christian and secular artists because I became a Christian late in my education and because of my own growth as an artist in the Theatre Department at Northwestern College. I do not follow in the tradition of those who criticize drama, yet I respect their criticism. That respect is essential for the patience of a peacemaker.
Those who write off Tozer's "What is fake is fake," as shallow are probably not aware of the intellectual and sophisticated heritage of that statement. John Rainoldes, the elite scholar who was to become president of Corpus Christi College wrote in 1592 concerning stage plays:
f As madde man casteth firebrands, arrowes, and mortall things; so is he that deceyueth his neighbour, and saith, was I not in sport? For, the care of making a shew to doe such feates, and to doe them as lively as the beasts them selves in whom the vices raigne, worketh in the actors a marvellous impression of being like the persons whose qualities they express and imitate: chiefly when earnest and much meditation of sundry dayes and weekes, by often repetition and representation of the partes, shall as it were engrave the things in their minde wit a penne of iron, or with the point of a diamond. In which consideration the Spirit of God instructeth us, that we ought to imitate resemble, "g folow God, and h Godly men, and i that wich is good; k not any evil thing, but good onely; and 6 meditate, l exercise those things."{2}
f Prov.26:18
g Eph.5:1
h I Cor. 11:1 and Heb. 13:7
i I Pet. 3:13
k 3 Ioh ve II
6 Taütu
1 I Tim. 4:14
Rainoldes touches on the concerns with which I will deal in this paper. Part I The Universality of Acting, and Part II The Art of Acting and the World of the Work should deal thoroughly with his concerns, the same concerns with which many modern evangelicals struggle. Witness this timely letter to Moody Monthly magazine:
As a former actress I think the only way to face this matter honestly is to admit that the 'performing arts', or acting, is little more than wholesale promulgation of deception. An audience is paying for...the debatable but artful display of pretense.
.There is no evidence, biblical or otherwise, to suggest that theater's false arts were suffered in the New Testament church
Karen Kelsey, Frankfort, IL{3}
We must start a dialogue with the Karen Kelseys. I hope this paper will facilitate just that. I've tried in my approach to treat both sides of this controversy with respect and patience.
The first objection to the legitimacy of acting, be it on or off the stage, is that acting is deception: the actor deceives the audience into believing he is a certain character. What is the basis for this charge? I believe there are at least three main reasons which support it.
First, there is the natural tendency for the general public to identify actors with their roles. It seems inconceivable to the public that an actor can be so convincing on stage and not be affected in some way by the role. There is truth to this. It would not be unusual for an actor to develop deep respect for a character he portrays on stage such as Tom Key developed for Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Paul Scofield for King Lear. An actor might also develop respect for the brilliance with which a character carries out his evil intensions such as that displayed by Iago or Salieri ("Amadeus"). Of course there is nothing wrong with this except the public suspects it goes far beyond just respect: that the character would taint the actor personally. That fear is not new. For that reason Plato wrote that actors ..."should neither do a mean action, nor be clever at acting a mean or otherwise disgraceful part on the stage for fear of catching the infection in real life..."{4}
Unfortunately Hollywood gives reinforcement to these suspicions. Actors and actresses who only play a certain type of character seem to confirm the suspicion in a lay person's mind that actors have more than a professional relationship with their roles. There are the "machismo" actors who play "machismo" roles: John Wayne, Bert Reynolds, and actresses who play the "sexy" roles: Marilyn Monroe, Brooke Shields. The yellow journalism media are quick to amplify any tendency that actors and actresses show to live up to their screen image in actual life; sometimes, unfortunately there is little need for amplification.
There is the popular belief (it goes beyond a suspicion) of the public that actors always agree with the point of view of the particular character rather than the viewpoint of the artistic work as a whole. Again it is easy for people to assume that there must be some carry-over into the private lives of the actors. One only has to ask if he would be comfortable with the thought of Larry Hagman babysitting his children to carry the point home. Of course he does not know Hagman in his private life, but that is the point, for one naturally allows the screen image of the evil character he has played to color his first impression of his private character.
Second, there is the a priori assumption that it is hard to tell when an actor is being honest and when he is "play acting." No one would assume this attitude with actors he knows in person, if he does know any in person, yet he is all too ready to jump to this conclusion with those he does not know privately. I've heard the statement more than once from colleagues, "I don't trust Reagan, he's all show, he's an actor!" If a professor, any professor, at a progressive liberal arts college would readily use this to bolster his/her suspicions of weak character or insincerity then bias against the craft of acting is alive and well.
The third reason, which I feel is the most thought-provoking for Christians, is the example of Satan's deception of Eve through the use of acting in Genesis 3. I interpret this facet of the Fall as Satan having put on the serpent as an actor puts on a costume. He then spoke to Eve through the character of the serpent.
It is a chilling thought that the serpent was in effect being used as a living costume. Satan's presence in the serpent is clear for Genesis 3:15 has God's address switching from the serpent to Satan:
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.{5}
Satan very obviously is held accountable for Eve's deception. But the serpent too is not regarded as a helpless victim, it too is held accountable:
Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.{6}
I would deduce that for God to hold the serpent accountable it had to allow Satan to possess itself.
The use of acting here is essentially no different than the use to which a con man puts it. A con man, like Satan, is a master at being "an angel of light." Let's examine both the means and the intent of their mutual con games.
Total deception is their means. This involves the establishing of trust, then a betrayal of that trust. And the deception is very permanent in nature, with the con "artists" only confessing to it when they are apprehended.
The intent of these games is communication for the purpose of fulfilling self-centered desires. This in turn has
With this goes the denial of responsibility for setting up the victim.
Who could consider acting in a positive light when this is the background associated with it?
It is important to distinguish between the craft of acting and the art of acting as I use these terms. The craft of acting is the action of a person willfully pretending to be something (an animated object or an animal) or someone for a limited period of time in any circumstance for any purpose. The art of acting is the use of the craft of acting for artistic purposes. Acting used in a theatre context and in some forms of storytelling would be examples of the art of acting.
It is probably a controversial assersion, yet I maintain that the craft of acting always has some element of communication as part of its purpose in any given instance. I am not speaking of an objective communication, but a highly subjective communication which deals in those regions of our humanity that are best shown and felt rather than described.
If the legitimacy and universality of the craft of acting can be established as healthy human behavior, then there can be no objection to the art of acting within plays or storytelling. There are no biblical examples or references to the art of acting as in theatre, although men such as Paul were surely familiar with it. There are, however, scattered references which reveal the craft of acting.
I Samuel 20:42-22:1 is the passage where David feigned insanity before Achish the King of Gath, a Philistine vassel king. David offers a challenge to Broadway's best for he had to have done an incredibly brilliant acting job to convince Achish that he was "a generic madman" after his identity was already known. Remember David was a man of reputation among the Philistines. Later he returned to Achish's court in I Samuel 27 and is not recognized as having played the part of a madman even then!
It was the conclusion of at least one Reformed pastor with whom I discussed this incident that David was obviously sinning for the following three reasons:
If this is very often
done,
A man becomes the other one.{7}
Was David sinning in his debut?
David's behavior was obviously deceptive, but is all deception sin? The Bible condones the deceptive acts of (a) the use of spies, (b) Rahab hiding the spies, (c) Hushai in Absalom's court. From these examples and more one could even distill an ethic for deception in actual life - one which Dietrich Bonhoeffer lived out. Deception would be permissible, even appropriate, when Evil anticipates the righteous to betray themselves by their own honesty. The pragmatics of Scripture suggest there is no value playing into the hands of Evil. Yet Scripture also is clear in its examples that this cannot be carried to the extreme of denying one's God as Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were tempted to do. This ethic is complex and if we pursue it any further here we will be far afield of David's acting. It is enough to say that not all deception is sin, and because David's actions were deceptive it cannot be concluded a priori that David sinned.
To deal with my pastor acquaintance's second objection we will see if Scripture supports the notion that David was out of fellowship with God both during and previous to his performance.
Psalms 34 and 56 are marvelous cross references for revealing David's heart condition. Psalm 34 is titled "Of David, when he feigned insanity before Abimelech [another name for Achish, King of Gath], who drove him away, and he left." Psalm
56 is titled "...Of David...when the Philistines had seized him in Gath." The entire content of both psalms forces us to the conclusion there was no break in fellowship between David and his God. Furthermore, David in verses 12-13 of Psalm 34 admonished "Whoever of you loves life and desires to see many good days, keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking lies." David obviously didn't view his deception as an elaborate lie.
Previous to David's arrival to Achish's court was he "in sin"? There is no problem in his fleeing from Saul, I should hope. What of his lie to Ahimelech the priest in I Samuel 21:1-9; was that not sin? I believe not for these two reasons: (1) David did not encourage Saul's subjects to choose between Saul and himself as Saul assumed any traitor would, (2) in keeping Ahimelech ignorant of his true mission he supposedly protected Ahimelech from Saul's wrath just as Michal's lie protected herself from her father's wrath in I Samuel 19:17. There was no value in playing into the hand of Saul and his evil intentions. Unfortunately Doeg betrayed both David and Ahimelech to win Saul's favor.{8} Finally David's violating the showbread was not sin either, for Christ exonerates him in Matthew 12:3-4. Therefore, we are forced to conclude there is nothing which indicates David was out of fellowship or in sin.
My pastor acquaintance's third objection was the concern of David "profaning his temple of the Holy Spirit by acting mad" and presumably compromising something of his self-image. There are two aspects of this objection. First there is the inference that the Holy Spirit must do everything with decency and order. Yet it was Christ who drove the merchants out of the Temple in anything but a decent or an orderly fashion. Too often we give the Holy Spirit less credit for His respect for human behavior then He is due. Secondly, there is the concern of David compromising his self-image. A working definition of self-image is "the picture I have of myself to which I refer from time to time to know who I am."{9} Contemporary theatre jargon might well lend one to believe the loss of self-image is in order by the phrase "becoming the character". However no currently popular acting text promotes the loss or compromise of self-image. That is a phrase which deals with appearance, not with inner psychology. As we look further at the issue of self-image we must look at David's purpose or objective in acting insane.
David had a rational and reasonable objective: he wanted to escape! Not only did he want to escape, he wanted to do it in a way which would not alienate a host who seemed to have sympathetic tendencies for maverick Israelites. It is humorous the extent to which he accomplished this: "Look at the man! He is insane! Why bring him to me? Am I so short of madmen that you have to bring this fellow here to carry on like this in front of me? Must this man come into my house?" Then: "David left Gath and escaped...."{10} The point of all this is that madmen do not have rational and reasonable objectives.
In order to accomplish his clear objectives David could not afford to confuse his self-image with that of his crazy character. To do so would risk what acting jargon calls "losing control." Losing control means that an actor forgets that the situation is pretend and gets carried away by his part. It would have changed biblical history considerably if at this juncture David had gotten so carried away by his fantastic madman performance that he provoked some guard into thrusting a sword through him! David was able to give a highly convincing performance while maintaining a critical eye on his audience (just as any good actor on the stage does). He was able to do this because he never confused his self-image with that of his madman character.
According to both Psalms 34 and 56 David knew his self-image was tied up in God's unique relationship with him. These Psalms indicate such intimate warmth and trust in God in this crisis that it would not be too much to state David acted the role of the "generic madman" in the power of the Holy Spirit. Isn't doing any action in that Power the best indication of a unique and healthy relationship with God at that moment?
The circumstances of David's acting were quite different from the craft of acting used in modern drama. Despite the unemployment rate in Actor's Equity, survival for an actor today is not to be compared with the issue of survival David faced in his command performance before the King of Gath. Yet, in essence, David's brilliant acting is very much the same craft which our theatre students wish to excel in today.
Yes, David's acting is essentially the same craft as that used today, and as that used at the beginning of time by Satan. Perhaps acting still seems tainted due to Satan's effective use of it, however Jesus's words in Matthew 10:16 should give us some insight here. "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves." The startling contrast here denotes and connotes more than "keep your wits about you." "Shrewd" has as much of a negative connotation to it as "crafty" does according to Webster's. The contrast of Christ's command is so extreme that it becomes a paradox, for the dove is as strong a symbol for the Holy Spirit as the serpent is for Satan and sin. Obviously Christ is not commanding his disciples to be innocent yet to deceive. Rather he is exhorting them to exercise effective communication techniques and enough common sense not to fall for the tricks and traps of their critics. David used the most effective communication mode for his situation. The craft of acting is a powerful communication medium which is why David used it and that is why Satan still uses it. He excels at taking good things and using them for evil just as he took the fruit of a tree created by God which was pronounced "good" and used it in his con game to betray Adam and Eve into his power sphere.
The craft of acting is not tainted because Satan used it first nor because it is a tool of con men. It is a valid and a sophisticated form of communication which God gave us as part of our natural behavioral makeup.
Children love to pretend! We do not call their pretend play the craft of acting, but it fits our definition. Occasionally, like student actors perfecting their craft, they tend to confuse their pretend world with the actual world resulting in someone getting banged over the head during a "castle" assault. Children, like student actors, must learn control. Adults must intervene and clear up misunderstandings and reinforce their discernment between the pretend and the actual world. Learning control means keeping this discernment always active. With our two boys my wife and I would reinforce their discernment something like this when Dan was pretending to be a baby warthog.
Mom What are you, Danny?
Dan Oink, I'm a baby warthog.
Mom Are you really a baby warthog?
Dan (out of character for an instant and rather condescending) No, I'm Danny.
Mom Well it sure is fun to pretend. What do you want me to do?
Dan (back in character) You find me under a thorn tree and I've lost my mother...
Or sometimes a child will try characterization to get out of a responsibility. This of course must never be allowed: creativity does not supercede accountability in the actual world.
For example Scott may be pretending to be a dinosaur when he is supposed to be picking up blocks.
Scott (begins picking up blocks with his mouth making dinosaur noises)
Dad Quit pretending to be a dinosaur. You can't get out of your responsibility that way. It is clean up time.
Creative, pretend play which involves the craft of acting begins very early in child development. Yet the discernment between the pretend and actual worlds, between the self-image and the pretend character, must be learned. If a child, like an actor, has a weak self-image and low self-worth then some pretend character traits might be a shield that is rarely laid aside. Obviously the antidote is to improve the child's (or actor's) self-image and self-worth, not an easy task.
Given children who have healthy, developing self-images it is easy for them to learn to continually discern between the pretend and actual worlds. When someone gets carried away defending "the castle" and knocks an attacker, the solution is not to ban play which has anything resembling physical conflict, but rather to stress and enforce his accountability to the actual world, i.e. to a playmate's health
Once a child understands the difference between real and pretend it becomes tremendously freeing and creative play flourishes. Inhibiting self-consciousness (stage fright) disappears because the child realizes his/her self-image is not tied to the characterizaton or to the activity. Once the world of the pretend opens up, the sky's the limit and imagination blossoms. Even characterizations of bad guys can be played with
great gusto and without harm as long as the total tenor of the play remains positive. In fact I believe it is even healthy in this context because understanding of evil motives can be explored. The imaginative pretend play of a child is much of what makes childhood a vibrant, celebration of life itself. Imaginative play - the world of the pretend which the craft of acting is a part - expands the imagination beyond the immediate or the obvious. It is the place where the impossible can be explored.
Imagination for both kids and adults is of critical importance for not only can the macro-world be explored, but so can the micro-world, the world within a person. Deep fears, joys, emotions, and feelings can be vented, explored and communicated. It is crucial, I believe, for parents to be aware of this and even create situations in which this venting occurs. Young children's pretend play after a crisis will often reflect what was going on in their emotions. If only adults were so uninhibited. If we are lucky we have nightmares, if not so lucky, high blood pressure. There is a role for drama therapy here. Pretend role playing which necessarily utilizes the craft of acting can help us discover the health of our subconscious. Certainly to know oneself and not to hide "skeletons" in the "closet" of the subconscious is important in order to be wholly honest in any relationship with others, God in particular.
God and his kingdom here on earth in us must be imagined for faith to make the transition from the written Word to the living Word. Yes, we must obey, but "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" approach can all too easily become legalistic and joyless. An uninhibited imagination stimulated by the Word and accustomed to the unlimited world of the pretend can much more readily fathom the warmth and joy of the personal relationship with Christ. The "assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1) is based on more than intellectual knowledge, the joy comes with tasting it and owning it!
The concepts of pretend, imagination, and faith are at times inseparable. Peter J. Kreeft in his excellent book Heaven, the Heart's Deepest Longing, says the heart's intuition can be "pretend" and "real" together as we look at Christ through the eyes of a child.{11} Our imagination which has been stretched and trained by the pretend becomes the receptor of a reality "that surpasses knowledge - that [we] may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God...who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to His power that is at work within us..." (Eph. 3:19-20) The imagination is the raw human stuff of the heart which must be stimulated by the Word and inspired by the Holy Spirit.
To ascend the sky of reason we must become hard: doubting, critical, endlessly testing and proving. We need hard heads but soft hearts. Here in the depths [of our hearts desires] our strength is our softness. We must become little children, for only a little child is strong enough to open the greatest gate, the gate of the Kingdom of Heaven.{12}
What strength does a little child have that enables him to open the gate of the Kingdom of Heaven - imagination accustomed to the unlimited world of the pretend. Certainly such an imagination has already thought of the Person who forgives, understands, always accepts and loves and whose home is a place where there is no sickness, abuse, pain, or hunger.
If acting is, as I believe, a high form of communication and a universal form of human behavior then could not God utilize acting too in that He created humans in His own image? God displays acting through His prophet Nathan in II Samuel 12:1-13
when he confronted David with his sin of adultery and murder. The detail, feeling and imagery of Nathan's story was essential to make David believe it to be a true account. Before the conviction of the Holy Spirit could take place David, the shepherd, had to emotionally identify one hundred percent with the poor man. Feeling one's offense from the victim's point of view is a must for repentance.
David's response in verses 5-7 is not words of intellectual agreement; he is furious at a specific individual and swears an oath in God's name that justice be carried out. His heart and spirit were aroused for justice and righteousness, and WHAM!, Nathan convicts him with his oath still ringing in his ears. What a marvelous example of drama therapy. Did the world of pretend blend with the actual world here?
God displays acting through Joseph's reconciliation with his brothers in Genesis 42:6ff. Joseph's accusations and harshness were tools of conviction used by the Holy Spirit in 42:21. In this way the brothers in effect confessed their sin by acknowledging their guilt from their victim's point of view. Joseph's role playing of the tough Egyptian and his carefully calculated threats which were delivered in a most fearful manner also brought his brothers to the point of repentance. By upping the ante in framing Benjamin (Gen. 44:1-13), a selfless response was demanded of the brothers which they rose to by Judah offering himself as a substitute for Benjamin. The old brotherly envy was broken - repentance had been accomplished and it was then Joseph knew intuitively to reveal his identity.
God displays acting, drama therapy if you will, personally in His command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac in Genesis 22:1-19. I maintain in this incident that God never intended for Isaac to be sacrificed but that He very much intended for it to appear to Abraham that his son's sacrifice was required. God acted! Abraham's incredible trust in God's character, not the circumstances, set an example for all time. God drove home the point to Abraham (and hopefully for all of us) that if nothing is held back from God, He will hold nothing back from us: that "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matt. 10:39). Thus Abraham's response enabled God to bless his descendants so fully that "all nations on earth will be blessed" through them. The craft of acting was the most appropriate mode of communication for God to reveal, and strengthen Abraham's faith.
The craft of acting is indeed universal. It has been used continuously from the beginning of time to the present. It is a healthy mode of communication which surfaces naturally in early childhood and plays a key role in the early development of imagination. It communicates and vents emotions from the subconscious to the self thus aiding our self-knowledge and facilitating honesty with others, God in particular. Because of its role in imagination and emotions, it is important in our quest and reception of faith. The craft of acting is one facet of the very image of humankind. Thus it should be of no surprise that God Himself makes use of the craft of acting.
The craft of acting is universal. It is present in all societies yet some societies choose to inhibit its natural presence as soon as it is observed in childhood. Other societies condone it only when it is enshrined on the stage. Yet the obvious remains, that the creative pretend play of childhood would benefit all ages. It would lend much to the vibrant celebration of life itself. Who has the right to supress it?
The art of acting in the theatre is the institutionalization of childhood's celebration of life in creative pretend play. A theatrical "play" is aptly named. When the art of the theatre is at its best it too is a celebration of life.
When the audience comes to the theatre they come expecting to enter the world of the pretend for a short while. Their trust in the institution of theatre would be betrayed if they were disappointed in this regard. This world of the pretend Wolterstorff calls the "world of the work" which he defines as "the fictional world the artists have created for us to envision."{13} This world stimulates our imagination beyond the immediate, the obvious, the actual world. Yet this along with empathy for the characters and the vicarious experience of it all can only happen if the audience willfully enters into the world of the work. J. R. R. Tolkien puts it this way:
That state of mind has been called 'willing suspension of disbelief.' But this does not seem a good description of what happens. What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful 'sub-creator.' He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates as 'true': it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, 'inside.'{14}
Wolterstorff succinctly explains the relationship of the real or actual world to the world of the work:
This world of the work is normally incompatible with the actual world: the world of the work and the actual world cannot both occur. Though indeed some of the things comprised in the world of 'Macbeth' occurred, the totality of them did not. But even when the world of the work is not incompatible with the actual world, that is, even when everything constituting the world of the work actually occurs, still the world of the work is only a segment of the actual world, never the whole of it. Thus the world of a work of art is always distinct from the actual world.{15}
The concept of the distinction between the world of the work and the actual world is the same concept we explored in Part I under the subheading "Learning Control in the Craft of Acting." Yet confusion still occurs, perhaps because the difference between the two worlds is not always as concrete as Wolterstorff implies.
There is a well-known proposition that the incarnation is a form of God acting. Norman A. Bert in his article "The Christian Actor and the Incarnation", uses this proposition as the main support for a Christian apologetic for acting. The problem lies
in the confusion between the world of the work and the actual world, and between self-image and the pretend character. The confusion lies in the interpretation of Phillippians
2:5-8 where these phrases are used to describe Christ: "...taking the very form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man..." as though His humanity, His suffering and His death were not real but somehow their own "world of the work" presumably from the Father's point of view in heaven.
More error is revealed when this interpretation of Philippians 2:5-8 implies Christ's taking on the role of a man is the same as an actor taking on a role of a pretend character, or even as Satan taking on the characterization of the serpent. The actor and his role are always separate, just as Satan's and the serpent's were. God judged Satan and the serpent separately, while at the crucifixion the Father judged Christ, body and soul, guilty for our sins. If He were not fully God and fully man in essence as well as form, the crucifixion would not have been fully substitutionary.
The primary source for a play script is that segment of the actual world from which the script gets its inspiration. There is always accountability between the world of the work of the script and its primary source. Although the style of the script (whether it is a documentary, historical melodrama, or a fantasy, etc.) greatly alters the nature of the accountability, still it remains.
I've chosen three plays and one opera which have raised questions over their accountability to their primary sources. They are "Jonah and Big Fish" by Richard Young, "Jesus Christ Superstar" (opera) by Webber and Rice, "Amadeus" by Peter Schaeffer and "Golda" by William Gibson.
"Jonah and Big Fish" produced by Northwestern College received criticism from the principal of the Orange City Christian School. In his letter to the play's director he had several objections, the third and fourth relevant here.
Thirdly, there are points where we question whether the message is authentic to the Bible's account. Part of the script, and especially the last part, is totally extraneous to scriptural account. May we take that freedom with the Word? Distortion creeps in also with the constant presence of Gabriel and the various points of view introduced through Jonah, the fish, the caricature of the Ninevites, etc. While we cannot question that the message is there, it tends to be lost and overshadowed by the distortion and extra Biblical material.
Fourthly, though implied in the above, we are concerned about the general tone of the play. Dutchmen describe it as spotten. The point is that we may not make light of God's revelation. For example, the bush says, while looking up, 'You didn't tell me about this part' or the description of God's omnipresence in 'He really gets around.'{16}
These objections to the play fail to distinguish between the actual biblical account and the world of the work. The play was not Scripture or a paraphrase of Scripture. The general plot of the book of Jonah was used to create a pretend world where selective Biblical principles could be shown in action
"Jesus Christ Superstar"'s title is meant satirically in that Christ is presented as anything but a superstar. He's shown to be a confused victim of circumstances while sympathy is extended to Judas for his betrayal. Truth was definitely not served in this case for two reasons: the tremendous divergence from the actual characteristics of the historical Jesus Christ, and Judas's betrayal of his friendship is condoned in spite of the weak motivations given for it.
Schaeffer builds the plot of "Amadeus" around an unsupported rumor that Salieri, motivated by envy, plotted Mozart's murder. History has not revealed Salieri to have been such an Iago, although he could have been. The point of the play is not to open up a new investigation but to study the power of envy and the irresponsibility of naivety. Yet has Salieri been dead so long that his reputation is public domain? I don't know. To whom is Schaeffer accountable?
"Golda" by William Gibson is based on the autobiography of Golda Meir. While in rehearsal Moshe Dayan's staff appeared and insisted that the script be rewritten so at least 50% of the conflict presented between Dayan and Meir be based on his autobiography. When the script was altered to please everybody there was no dramatic conflict left in it. Perhaps the producers missed their chance to produce a companion play entitled "Moshe"!
What is the maximum angle of divergence between the world of the work and reality? Or, to put it another way, if the world of the work is illusion then can the attitude be adopted "anything goes" on stage? These are ultimately questions of responsibility and accountability.
Since each play is unique, specific consideration has to be given to the script in hand. Yet perhaps there are some very general principles which would serve the concept of accountability.
Inside the world of the work everything must relate to the laws of that world for it to be temporarily believable and enthralling. But within even that world the artist still has a responsibility to God and the audience to reflect truth about the actual world. For instance, good must be good; never must good as we know it in the actual world be treated as evil as the accepted and condoned norm in the world of the work. Anotherprinciple is that characters are responsible for their actions and/or must deal with the consequences of their actions. Still there is great latitude here. Certainly humorous treatment of serious subjects is permissible. Yet the humor still should be relevant to the style of the play and how that style relates to the primary source.
But why should theatre artists even bother about accountability to the primary source, or for that matter to anything? To most artists the concept challenges the right for complete artistic freedom. To struggle with the concept of accountability while its application seems confusing and draining, seems a waste of time.
Even though the application of accountability is never an easy one, artists and producers still have the responsibility to grapple with it. Nicholas Wolterstorff states that artists must exercise their responsibility because it is a key element of their human dignity.
The artist is not to pick up his responsibilities when he lays aside his art - he is to exercise his responsibilities in the very production of his art. And we who make use of his art are not to leave responsibility behind when we enter art. In our very use of it we are to exercise our responsibilities.
Undoubtedly it is on this point of art and responsibility that the Christian image of the artist diverges most sharply from the heaven-storming image of post-Enlightenment Western man. For where the Christian sees the artist as a responsible agent before God, sharing in our human vocation, Western man in the Gauguin-image sees him as freed from all responsibility, struggling simply to express himself in untrammelled freedom. Though often it is assumed that the public has responsibilities to the artist (as man has responsibilities of gratitude to God!), even more often it is assumed that the artist has none to the public. Indeed, it is often suggested that if the artist so much as thinks in terms of responsibility his flow of creativity will be stanched. One might ask why, then, the architect remains creative? But more profoundly, our discussion enables us now to put this question: Why should the artist, an earthling with the rest of us, be seen as deprived of that human dignity which resides in the fact that man and man along among earthlings is a responsible creature?{17}
Wolterstorff's sweeping assertion may well be intimidating to many artists, theatre people and actors not being the least among them. But this concept only states artists are not free from accountabiltiy. Each artist must grapple with it and must not abandon the struggle.
It may seem that the corporate nature of play production would defy any attempt for individual theatre artists to exercise their accountability regarding the end product, the play's performance.
Plays are one of the most complex forms of art based on the collaboration of many artists, technicians, managers and business persons. Obviously then this responsibility/accountability is then shared. A railroad foreman's comment to me seems appropriate here: "shared responsibility means no accountability." It seems that if one actor has only very limited influence on a production then he bears no moral responsibility for it.
Albert Flores and Deborah G. Johnson sum up this point of view in their article "Collective Responsibility and Professional Roles".
The general conclusion of this argument is that since individuals in organizations act not as individuals but within the confines of roles which they do not them- selves define, they do not fulfill the necessary conditions for bearing moral responsibility. Hence, the collective moral responsibility for the organization can never be apportioned to these individuals.{18}
However they counter this point of view with three arguments:
First individuals freely choose to become members of a collective organization and as such they voluntarily asssume the roles they play. . . One is absolved of this responsibility only if it can be shown that one's acceptance or continuance is in some fundamental way coerced.
Second, though the individual's actions are generally constrained by the ends of the organization, individuals usually benefit personally from the profit or achievement of the organization, and thus they never act wholly impersonally.
Finally, though there are constraints on individual action, individuals can bring various moral qualities of their own to the positions they fill.{19}
Just to carry this line of reasoning to completion, what if some members of a production team feel they are far enough down on the organizational ladder that they are removed from and thus not responsible for the artistic goal of a production? Constantin Stanislavski would respond:
Every worker in the theatre from the doorman, the ticket taker, the hat-check girl, the usher, all the people the public comes into contact with as they enter the theatre on up to the managers, the staff, and finally the actors them- selves - they all are co-crators with the playwright, the composer, for the sake of whose play the audience assembles. They all serve, they all are subject to the fundamental aim of our art. They all without exception, are participants in the production.{20}
There is no loophole to get around being responsible and accountable for one's work in the theatre. The world of the work does not have priority over moral and ethical truths. Unfortunately it is seldom an easy task to discern when one world is infringing upon the other. Developing the wisdom based upon knowledge and compassion to exercise this highly subjective and intuitive discernment is certainly a goal of those of us involved in Christian Liberal Arts education.
Has the separation between the world of the work and the actual world always been maintained in the history of drama? Embryonic drama did not have that distinction. I believe that not until that distinction became evidient was dramatic theatre born.
This has ramifications for acting instruction in the modern classroom. It also offers reassurance for those who may have reservations about the theatre due to its prehistoric association with cultic worship. I will have to indulge in some historical speculation to come to these conclusions.
Drama somehow grew out of the ecstatic worship of Dionysus. The cult of Dionysus celebrations "often involved intoxication, sexual orgy, and rending and devouring of a sacrifical victim (frequently human)."{21}
Dance surely was a major part of the cult's "order of worship." In fact dance was there long before there was even a fertilized egg of drama. According to Curt Sachs, the great dance historian, "Since the stone age the dance has assumed neither new forms nor new content. The history of creative dance is completed in prehistory."{22} So dance predates drama and according to Van der Leeuw, "...dance is beyond doubt the art which plays the most important role in the structure of the drama. The drama can do without words and without music, but never without movement."{23} It is safe to say that worship and dance were the placenta of drama.
In primative cultures there was no compartmentalization or separation of the areas of life. In primative cultures "prayer, work and dance - for us strictly concepts with fully different modes of expression - belong together, indeed, so closely that they can scarcely be differentiated."{24} In essence in primative societies there was no difference between world of the work of dance and actual reality anymore than there was between work and reality.
Let's explore this merging of the world of the work and reality (actual world) further by looking at the nature of primative dance.
First, primitive dance "by its very nature is religious for through it holy [spiritual, non-earthly] power is freed."{25} In other words there is something about dance that makes it very fitting for service in the spiritual world. As man
. . .dances with weightly seriousness... for his gods, indeed...in pantomime the deeds of his gods. This brings us toa new path to the other, the holy: the depersonification that lies in the playing of a role, the turning away from everyday life that is involved in putting on a mask. The mask unites the dancer with the being that is represented by him, whether animal, god, or spirit of the dead."_D26_U
The depersonification that lies in taking a role is somehow significant in this process of contacting the non-earthly, the spiritual realm.
Second, the dancer is not really in control, but rather the dance is in control of him: "But the dancer who gives the impression that he is executing a well-thought out plan, instead of surrendering to a power which uses his limbs as willing instruments is not a true dancer."{26} Also, "Here the dance is a compulsion which assumes control of a man, a madness sweeping him along...the ecstatic dance is always a kind of taking possession."{27}
Third, dance became secular or as Van der Leeuw put it "profane". Yet that did not change the essential characteristics of the dance we've just summarized.{28} [my paraphrase]
Fourth, "depersonification", "surrendering to a power", "taking possession" and "madness sweeping him along" all sounds very ominious from a Christian perspective - like the Voodoo machete dancers in a trance or the cult dancers of Baal in a frenzy on Mt. Carmel with Elijah in I Kings 18:26-29. Just what is this "power" or "madness" which first requires depersonification before it can "take possession"? Am I inferring too much of a supernatural connotation from these words which might only have a limited artsy meaning? I don't think so, for Van der Leeuw is talking about primitive dance such as used in the ecstatic worship of Dionysus whose "order of worship" you and I would rather not even witness, much less be involved in.
There is another consideration to this ultimate in the merger of the world of the work with actual reality. It seems that loss of self-image is a necessary step for this merger to occur for the self is immutability rooted in the present, actual, here and now world.
I would be antagonistic to any new acting fad which literally encourages the putting aside or loss of self-image so that the spirit of the character can take over the body and mind. If someone is seeking to "take drama back to its essence" and get the "primitive creative juices flowing which gave birth to drama," then these elements of primitive dance we've discussed might well creep into the acting exercises of the academic classroom.
Fortunately for us and our culture drama was expelled from its ecstatic womb. Somewhere in prehistory, accountability of the drama to the gods became practiced. And when the worshipers who were not performers lobbied for a richer experience, account- ability of the producers (the priests), actors and theatre architects to the audience was born. If acting still had the possive ecstatic nature of dance then at this stage it ceased.
When an actor becomes aware of his responsibility to an audience, he, like David before Achish, must have his self-image in sharp focus for he cannot risk losing it to the forces which have no care for responsibility. Drama and the art of acting were born. Dramatic theatre, entirely free from its cultic associations, was now free to serve culture.
Next, probably, the playwrights and actors assumed the burden of responsibility for the audience's understanding of the drama. As a result drama embraced the whole of culture. Symbols and metaphors could now be drawn from a deep cultural pool and in turn their use in the drama refilled the pool. The poetic achieved importance along side the plot. Drama became a "priest" to the culture for the affirmation and celebration of life and a "prophet" for the criticism and exhortation of society. Acting became a respected and highly disciplined art with a high position of social esteem. In ancient Greece actors were even exempt from the military draft!
We have sped through a time warp from the prehistoric origins of drama to the golden age of Greek theatre. We've seen how drama freed itself from the bondage of the cultic to become an accountable servant of society where the craft of acting became truly the art of acting. It is obvious, that although dramatic theatre was born in fallen culture, its artistic benefit to culture makes it a gift from God through the channel of common grace.
It is a sobering thought to speculate that if ever the element of the estatic is introduced into acting instruction and play direction then the art form we've so benefited from will begin to celebrate the darker side of human nature.
A strong proposition of this paper has been the necessity of keeping the distinctions clear between the world of the work and the actual world, between the actors self-image and his characterizations. But this emphasis may encourage a very timid approach to the craft and art of acting. An actor must identify in some way with his characterization which would not compromise his self-image. Did David identify in this fashion with his madman characterization?
The answer is yes. He did it through borrowing some of his own emotions and using them to give the appearance of life to the madman characterization. In a similar way the respected Greek actor Polus actually used his son's funeral urn as a prop. This
may seem a bit extreme, but the point is he borrowed those deep emotions associated with his son's grief and applied them to his character's situation. Yet he did this without compromising in anyway his true self-image or without compromising the emotions he originally felt when he actually mourned for his son. On stage he was relying on emotional memory which only a sound self-image can consistently supply.
Constantin Stanislavski explains it in the format of a teacher, Tortsov, addressing his acting students in An Actor Prepares. Note, too the relationship the world of the work has to this concept of emotional identification.
..Tortsov led us to the conclusion that there are two kinds of truth and sense of belief in what you are doing. First there is the one that is created automatically and on the plane of actual fact ...and second there is the scenic type, which is equally truthful but which originates on the plane of imaginative and artistic fiction.
To achieve this latter sense of truth and to reproduce it in the scene of searching for the purpose, you must use a lever to lift you onto the plane of imaginary life,' the Director explained. 'There you will prepare a fiction, analogous to what you have just done in reality. Properly envisaged 'given circumstances' will help you to feel and to create a scenic truth in which you can believe while you are on stage. Consequently, in ordinary life, truth is what really exists, what a person really knows. Whereas on the stage it consists of something that is not actually in existence but which could happen.
'Excuse me,' argued Grisha, 'but I don't see how there can be any question of truth in the theatre since everything about it is fictitious, beginning with the very plays of Shakespeare and ending with the paper mache dagger with which Othello stabs himself.'
'Do not worry too much about that dagger being made of cardboard instead of steel,' said Tortsov, in a conciliatory tone. 'You have a perfect right to call it an impostor. But if you go beyond that, and brand all art as a lie, and all life in the theatre as unworthy faith, then you will have to change your point of view. What counts in the theatre is not the material out of which Othello's dagger is made, be it steel or cardboard, but the inner feeling of the actor who can justify his suicide. What is important is how the actor, a human being, would have acted if the circumstances and conditions which surrounded Othello were real and the dagger with which he stabbed himself were metal.'{29}
Stanislavski is saying, in effect, that a character's actions are emotionally identified with the actor, but they do not flow from the character to the actor, rather their source is the actor himself. The character actually has no life of its own, so that it cannot influence the actor in the ways so feared by Plato, Goethe, and Rainoldes.{30} To the spectator it always appears the other way around: the character seems more real than the actor; if it is good acting it seems impossible to imagine the actor as different from his character. For the mature actor the character (who exists only in the world of the work) is always separate from, yet dependent upon, his true self (reality).
Never are the two confused.
The world of the work and the art of acting have an inseparable relationship in the art of dramatic theatre. Yet as in all of life, there is the mandate to be good stewards of this gift given through God's common grace. One facet of stewardship is to humbly acknowledge our accountability in all phases of the practice of drama.
There is the accountability theatre artists have to their primary source. It is worth testing the apparent boundaries and taking risks, yet those risks must never be taken naively or arrogantly. Failure, such as William Gibson experienced with "Golda" is worth the risk.
If all the theatre artists working on a given production acknowledged their responsibility for what that production artistically communicated, there would be a commitment and collaboration that would transcend artistic and economic barriers. It would also result in a production that would entertain and challenge its audience in a unique way.
If the concept that "theatre artists are responsible for what their work communicates to their audience" became the accepted norm, then the art form of theatre would become much more audience-centered and less narcissistic, less "art for art sake" oriented. The "priestly" and the "prophetic" roles of theatre would become stronger and richer so that society and its culture would be pandered less and challenged more.
The origins of drama are securely hidden in pre-history. Yet, even if my speculations are only partially accurate, then my warning regarding the destructiveness of blending the world of the work and the actual world during loss of control should be remembered.
Finally, the concept of emotional identification in acting put in its setting of the world of the work is the life-giving element of a characterization. In the same way Polus used the funeral urn of his son to recall and then loan his emotions to the character he was playing, children lend their emotions from a previous crisis into their pretend play without recreating that crisis.
In the same manner children in creative pretend play and actors practicing the art of acting are spontaneously asking what could happen and how they would feel if it did. The dramatic theatre as we know it is the institutionalization of childhood pretend and imaginative play. When it is at its best it becomes a vibrant celebration of life just as its natural counterpart is. This is the "putting the mirror up to nature" in its truest sense.
So much work needs to be done on both sides of this division over the arts. The vicious cycle of suspicion and criticism must be interrupted by a dialogue. The Karen Kelseys, A. W. Tozers, and John Rainoldes must never be written off as unapproachable.
Neither can we who are theatre artists elevate ourselves and our art above criticism. To ignore criticism would only atrophy the necessary ethic of responsibility and accountability. It is the responsibility of those who understand both drama and the conservative arts-critical mindset to establish dialogue. I sincerely hope this paper can be of some small service in establishing such a dialogue.
Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. Ephesians 4:2-3
{1}Roger Hazelton, A Theological Approach to Art (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1967), pp. 21 - 25.
{2} John Rainoldes, William Gager, and Alberico Gentili, Th' Overthrow of Stage Playes (New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1974), p. 19.
{3}Karen Kelsy, Letter, Moody Monthly, 85 (February 1985): ll.
{4} Republic, III. 395, 396, quoted in Norman A. Bert, "The Christian Actor and the Incarnation," Christianity and Literature, 27 (Spring l967): 32.
{5}All biblical quotations are from the New International Version. Genesis 3:15.
{6}Genesis 3:14b.
{7}Das Jahrmarktfest zu Plundersweilern quoted in Gerardus Van der Leeuw, Sacred and Profane Beauty: The Holy in Art (NewYork : Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. l963), p. 102.
{8} See I Samuel 22:10-18.
{9}Sarah Cirese, Quest A Search for Self (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1977), p. 131.
{10} I Samuel 21:15-22.
{11} Peter J. Kreeft, Heaven the Heart's Deepest Longing (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1980), p. 21.
{12}Kreeft, p. 21.
{13} Nicholas Wolterstorff, Art in Action (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., l980), p. 123.
{14}"On Fairy Stories," Essays Presented to Charles Williams, quoted in Wolterstorff, Art in Action, pp. 123 - 124.
{15} Wolterstorff, p. 123.
{16} Lewis Arkema, Letter to Richard Young, 6 February 1985.
{17}Wolterstorff, p. 78.
{18} Albert Flores and Deborah G. Johnson, "Collective Responsibility and Professional Roles", Ethics, 93 (April 1983): 541.
{19}Flores and Johnson, pp. 542 - 543.
{20}Constantin Stanislavski, Building a Character, trans. Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood (New York: Theatre Arts Book, l948), pp. 258 - 259.
{21}Oscar G. Brockett, History of the Theatre (Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc., l968), p. 11.
{22}Eine Weltgeschichte des Tanzes [World History of the Dance] quoted in Van der Leeuw, Sacred and Profane Beauty, p. 13.
{23}Van der Leeuw, p. 78.
{24}Van der Leeuw, p. 16.
{25}Van der Leeuw, p. 17.
{26}Van der Leeuw, p. 19.
{27}Van der Leeuw, p. 29.
{28}Van der Leeuw, p. 25.
{29}Van der Leeuw, p. 38.
{30}Bert, p. 33.
{31}Constantin Stanislavski, An Actor Prepares, trans. Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood (New York: Theatre Arts Book, l936), pp. 121 - 122.
{32}Assuming moral and ethical principles are not violated. See pages 22 and 26.
Arkema, Lewis. Letter to Richard Young. 6 February 1985.
Bert, Norman A. "The Christian Actor and the Incarnation." Christianity and Literature, 27, Spring 1967, pp. 32
Brockett, Oscar G. History of the Theatre. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc., 1968.
Cirese, Sarah. Quest A Search for Self. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1977.
Flores, Albert and Johnson, Deborah G. "Collective Responsibility and Professional Roles." Ethics', 93, April 1983, p.541.
Hazelton, Roger. A Theological Approach to Art. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1967.
The Holy Bible. The New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Bible Publishing, 1978.
Kelsy, Karen. Letter. Moody Monthly, 85 (1985), 11.
Kreeft, Peter J. Heaven the Heart's Deepest Longing. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1980.
Rainoldes, John, William Gager, and Alberico Gentili. Th' Overthrow of Stage Playes. New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1974.
Stanislavski, Constantin. An Actor Prepares. trans. Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. New York: Theatre Arts Book, 1936.
----------. Building A Character. trans. Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. New York: Theatre Arts Book, 1948.
Van der Leeuw, Gerardus. Sacred and Profane Beauty: The Holy in Art. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1963.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Art in Action. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980.
Ó Copyright 1997 by Jeff Taylor.