Psychological Realism and Characters

One interesting thing about old movies is how different the acting feels- particularly when you get back to silent movies and the first "talkies". The acting in these films was taken from melodramatic theatre, and therefore is highly, well, melodramatic. Facial expressions, body movements, and interactions would be laughable if seen in a film or television show today. (An interesting exception, of course, is this year's Oscar winner The Artist, which was notable because of how it played with modern v. early movie acting). However, despite how we might view it today, there was always an emphasis in acting theories and reviews of famous actors on "naturalism" and being as "natural" as possible. We look for portrayals to be true to life- even when the situations portrayed practically never (or could never) happen in the real world.

The apocryphal story of the origin of acting is that in ancient Greece, theatre was danced and sung, with chorus of men doing the story telling as one unit. Then, Thespis (whose name is the origin of the word "thespian") stepped out of the chorus to not just tell a story as a narrator, but to actually act out a character. And thus, acting was born! Of course, we have no way of knowing what actually happened. But, we would be unlikely today to nominate Thespis for a Tony or Oscar. From what we can tell, Greek acting would today be considered performance art. (Which makes sense when you look at other cultures' "traditional theatre"- such as Noh in Japan). The realism we demand and enjoy from our actors simply didn't exist: instead, there was symbolism, such as a turned ankle representing disease, or a hand gesture meaning the character was pure.

So what does this have to do with psychology? It's an interesting fact that we talk about fiction, and films, and television, and theatre as means of escapism, of getting away from reality and taking a mental break. Yet, what we crave is a realistic depiction of humanness. Even in our talking animals- even in deep space- if the psychology of the character isn't real, if the portrayal does not seem authentic, then we don't like it. This leads shows like Mad Men, praised for its realistic portrayal of the tumult of the 60s and the relationships therein, to hire clinical psychologists to ensure the humans of the show are portrayed as true to real humans as possible (see http://www.themorningnews.org/article/humans-playing-humans). This creates an inherent dualism in acting- that we are watching others act our false scenarios while being as emotionally truthful as possible.

So the next time you're not enjoying a movie, think about whether the characters are being portrayed as realistically as possible — is the acting wooden? Do the line readings sound like no one you've ever heard talking? Even with a silly story or an unrealistic setting, it all comes back to the realism of the portrayal. The question remains, what has changed from that early melodramatic silent film acting? The talent of the actors? The expectations of the audience? Or, perhaps, the closer in and more high definition the camera, the more we expect our fictional creations to look and act as close as possible like the most interesting people we might know in real life.