What actually is a character?

A thought exercise for actors

We often speak of character when discussing theatre, but it is seldom explained. Most often it is accepted as common knowledge, but it is not. We can describe a character as a role meant to be interpreted by an actor, that is a very literal explanation. “Role” is vague at best, and it implies a person with a specific task. Some schools of drama see acting exactly as such, but that means the actor is merely a performer.  They set out to embody the role, and that role binds them to a task they must follow as if acting is a loose set of rules and instructions to be followed. It is not. Well, at least good acting is not. Acting calls to people with a lust for self-expression, it is a creative art, and as such it seeks to do exactly that – create.

So I propose that a character is a creation, but that is not the crux of this argument, we will get to that later. The process by which a character comes to life is interesting. Sometimes it is a collaboration between the actor, playwright, and director. An example of this would be a young actor trying his hand at Hamlet in his professional debut at a small theatre.

Shakespeare himself hammered this character into existence a few centuries ago some would argue, but in all reality what he gives us is only text and context. Text – the words that the character speaks, and context – the circumstance in which the words are spoken.

The director could dip his creative fingers in character in a variety of ways. And different directors chose to vary their involvement in the creation of a character to various degrees. Most certainly the director gives an overarching interpretation and direction to the story, and the director gives the actor momentum.

The actor's job in this case is deceivingly complex. What they need to do is use all of the ingredients they have and create a character. This involves a few things. First, the actor imagines a being, completely different from themselves, but still at this point existing inside them. When that creature is conjured inside the mind of the artist its lifespan is predetermined, it lasts as long as the performance lasts, it is alive only in that short timeframe. When the acting stops, the character dies, it no longer exists, that at least is true for the art of theatre. The character does not know that it can be revived, that the almighty actor can breathe life into it hundreds of times if they so desire. Thus, the character does not want the performance to end, they are as all living creatures, somewhat avoidant of death. Therefore, the character does not rush their lines, they do not bother themselves if they stumble upon their words. They are merely concerned with the meaning of their existence which is contained in how they act and why, contained in the very words they speak. When the performance ends the character is gone, it is removed from the realm of the living and flung back to the imaginary, back to abstraction, back to non-living, to death.

It is interesting to note that the character clearly occupies what we call “the real world”, they are physical beings, more specifically they interact with the physical world through the body of the actor. In a sense the actor allows them to use their vehicle for a brief period. Actors do this willingly, of course, they are in control of the process, and thus through their craft, they create life. It is worth noting that good actors leave completely for their character to manifest, they allow themselves this non-clinical version of death. They stop observing as themselves, they stop concerning themselves with the details of their own lives, and they fade away to make room for the existence of their creation.

All of this is conceptual and is somewhat logical to a practicing actor, the very point of the argument here is a bit of a stretch of this very conceptualization. I argue that these characters are actually living beings. Not that they are separate entities from the actor, not that they are manifestations of creatures from other realms, no. Simply they are alive as we are. They are simulated by us, but they are very real, they feel surprise, they change depending on the mood in the room, they react, they know some things and are unaware of others. Blood pumps through their veins and they fear their inevitable plunge into the abyss. The actor is aware of them, but they are not aware of the actor.

Acting is a continuous flow of creativity, not a single burst. The actor focuses mind, body and willpower in order to keep the character alive. They take the wheel when necessary, but ideally, they are as removed from the process as possible.

I believe that this thought exercise can be very beneficial to an actor. It can help empathize with their character, help with timing, self-criticism, and a plethora of other problems that plague actors. 

Most importantly it can remind actors that they, as all artists are first and foremost creators.