Inside Out
The myth of process
The two great traditions of the acting process:
working from the inside out
working from the outside in
But this is a myth. Or rather, this is lore. It’s not based on what really occurs in the process of impulse to behavior, but is a short-hand (and short-sighted) way to describe what “appears” to be an actor’s process of creating and performing a role.
There are proponents on both sides and apocryphal stories about the value (or lack) of each.
Olivier to Hoffman during the filming of Marathon Man. “My dear boy, acting is much easier.”
Daniel Day Lewis never leaving character and being carted around during the filming of My Left Foot.
More recently, the statements made by Brian Cox about Jeremy Strong in Succession.
I’m currently reading Streisand’s autobiography, Call Me Barbra, and she makes similar arguments, which are equally uniformed, imho. It wouldn’t be an issue were it not that there is a not-so-subtle judgment (on both sides) about which approach is better, and the susceptibility of young and learning actors who subscribe to one or the other. So, let’s dispel the myth right away. They’re both right. They’re both wrong. In fact, it’s the wrong statement altogether!
First, all behavior begins on the “inside”—that is, as an impulse that instantiates at a pre-conscious level. There may be a stimuli (a slap in the face, for example), but whether you turn the other cheek or return the favor, the behavior is built on biological processes that originate with the sensors in your face, sending a signal to the brain from which you experience it as pain, to the action you take in response to the stimuli. There is literally no outside when it comes to behavior. So, just stop saying that you or anyone works from the outside in!
As for the inside-out approach, this is also based on an erroneous idea that a certain emotion will inevitably lead to a certain behavior. While there is some general agreement about kinds of emotions (six to 10, depending on who you’re talking to), the fact is that every emotion felt is slightly different from any other time you felt it. Emotions are infinitely varietal; or at least they exist on a continuum that for all practical purposes renders them infinite. Behavioral responses are equally variable. Even on a treadmill, no two steps are exactly alike. So, the idea that if I feel X I shall do Y is just not true or possible. It may feel the same, but one’s consciousness of feeling is generalized. It’s not necessary that you consciously feel the subtle differences in feeling. Someone slaps you, you feel hurt or angry or confused depending on the situation. In the same situation at some other time, you may feel something similar—but it won’t be, it can’t be, the same. So, just stop saying you need to feel X to do Y!
What people really mean (and I’m sure they’d admit this, too, if you cornered them at a party) is that they have a preference about how they go about acting. Some like to feel an emotion that leads to behavior, some like to behave—and either feel an emotion or not. As I say in earlier posts about the pathways of the actor, it really doesn’t matter as long as it leads to action—action that supports the imaginary world of the play or movie or TV show, etc.
Paul, I enjoy your perspective. Damasio's somatic marker hypothesis is about emotions occuring in a repeatable pattern (oversimplified) so that we can identify what emotions we are having to ascribe meaning to situations. We can't separate our sensations from our emotions. Nevertheless, I find starting with physical motion to help investigate a scene more reliable because it's repeatable. As actors, we have to be able to repeat what we're doing to tell the story in mostly the same way. What we can't do is preconceive exactly how emotionally full we will be at each performance.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts!