The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1890-08-16
BRAINS on THE STAGE.
Can tbs Man or Woman Who
Thinks Well Also Act
Well7
Various Views on the Subject by
Persons Who Differ
Widely.
Samuel Jolnson's Case in Point to Prove
the Negative-NTr. Cots Surprising
, Declaration.

I'm one of his many TRADES against
actors" observes the London Spectator,
"Dr. johnson very ungallantly declared
that the famous Mrs. Pritcdard was in COM
mon life "a vulgar IDIOT but that when she
appeared upon the stage she seemed to be
inspired by gentility and understanding
Johnson's expressions show the application
to particular case of theory which he
held very strongly and which since his time
has often been repeated by those who have
desired to break a lance with the players.
Expressed in general terms, it is to the effect
that to act we'll does not require high in
tellectual gifts, and that man may
easily be both a great actor and great
fool. The holders of this theory would not
of course deny that person possessed of
remarkable brain power might also be q
good actor; but they refuse to admit that
there is any necessary or essential connec-
ton between acting and intellect.
The power to act we'll and to think we'll
may, they declare, be found in the same
man; but this is merely due to Ii co1nci-
dence, and the former faculty ia IN no sense
a derivative from the latter. This theory,
though it has never been quite given up,
has, however, of late years gone very much
out of fashion, and it is now far more COM
mon to hear acting spoken of as an art re-
curing in its higher walks the exertion Of ,
as much mental activity as the composition
of great poem or the writing of scien-
tito treatise. The supreme actor is reck-
oned as much man of genius as the poet
or the philosopher, and IS considered to
move III the same intellectual plane as
those for whom in former times the name |
of creator was religiously reserved. Yet |
oddly enough, at the moment when the |
lonl, AL,NI
acting, if it reaches or nears perfection, can
claim the consideration belonging of right
to those who exhibit intellectual supremacy, |
it is an actor who arises to point out that
the present generation is in error and that
the older and less respectful theory is the
true one.
ut is not some carping man of letters
who can be suspected of regarding with
jealousy the favor shown to histgionic art
at the present day, but the inimtable. Nj.
Got, of the Theatre Francois, who comes
forward to lower the intellectual estimation
in which his profession is now held. No
one who has ever seen the Oldest member of
the Coincide Franchise will fail to admit
that he is really great actor, or will refuse
to agree that his fifty years. experience
places him in position peculiarly favora-
BILE for forming an opinion as to the con-
yet M. Cots opinion is wholly unfavorable
to the proposition that when an actor acts
we'll he proves himself a man of genius. SO
curiously unexpected are his words that
we must quote them verbatim: you ask
me- lie replied to an interviewer, if an
actor requires intellect in order to succeed
None whatever. would go even further,
and say that the less intellect he has tho
better he will get on. Speaking broadly,
it is best that the actor should not be pos
sessed of great intellect.
IF we were to accept these expressions
y,nl,, x,e fUD Ak,HA
be a truly great actor without necessarily
having any more brains than prima
donna. it might be possible to construct a
very pretty theory which would explain how
man may give perfect impersonation of
Hamlet and yet be all the time, to use John
explanation, for instance, seem to be dis
coverable in the following hypothesis? TO
act we'll surely requires certain semi-physi-
cal qualities. or rather a certain physical
susceptibility. with which, however, very
fow men are completely endowed. The for
itself belonging half to the soul and half to
the body, and, it may be argued. analogous
to that by which violinist gets feeling out
of his fiddie-is instinctively Influenced by
the thoughts of the poet, whose words he
speaks and whose characters he represents
Like the pythoness, he has acquired the
power of yielding himself up to an external
she by the god. The effects of genius he
exhibits are, then, not his own, but are de-
rived from the dramatist who created the
character he is acting.
1.-The best actor is in fact. the actor who
can most entirely give himself up to the
working of the spirit of another man: that
is, who can put his body most completely
under the control of ideas and motives
which he does not originate, but imports
from outside. Naturally anongh, the pep-
ok Sv,lS 4
will, and SO least brain, will most success.
fully put his own ego aside, and allow in
stead the fancy of the poet to possess his
physical entity. In other words the actor
submits to process analogous to that of
hypnotism. He let's himself be mesmerized
by Shakespeare, and, while on the stage, fol
lows out oil the suggestions of the poet
But it is people of weak not strong brain
capacity, who are easily mesmerized; and
therefore, this line of argument leads ut
again to NJ. Cots conclusion, that the
greater the fool the greater the actor.
but ingenious though this theory is, il
will not. we believe, bear close examina-
ton. 1t is all very we'll to talk of the actor
abandoning himself to the poet who created
the character he is acting; but if he were in
fact, to do any such thing he would make a
sad mess of his part. 1t Is the bad actors
invariably aware all the time that they are
only acting, and make their performance a
perslstently conscious mental effort. DR..
Johnson's common sense enabled him to
realize that this must be the case, and
when at the end of his life he was visited
by Mr.. hemble, he at once pounced upon
the young actor with the query: Are YOU,
Sir, one of those enthusiasts who believe
yourself transformed into the very charac-
ter you representa- On Kemble answering
that ne had never experienced any such
feeling DR.. johnson replied: TO be sure
not, SIT; the thing is impossible, and if Gar
rick really believed himself to be that mon
ster Richard Ill. he deserved to be hanged
every time he performed it, Actors, nat
urally enough, grow excited over theil
acting, and to a certain extern
experience the emotions they are repre-
senting, but that is very different thinl
from imagining themselves actually tn
characters they impersonate. If an acto
were to let himself go SO completely b
would be certain to exaggerate his part at
surdiy. The PLAYER does not merely cop
realistically the emotions of grief or 10,
Rather, he endeavors to interpret til
thought of the poet by means Of actor
Instead of the great actor allowing himse
to be hypnotized by his part, he is all IL
time using his intellectual faculties to pr,
vent anything like this process takin
place.
''In this particular, ut any rate, it is be
ter for the actor to have brains than not
have them. In our opinion, indeed. Il
whole theory of the stupider the man Il
better the actor rests upon mlsapprehel
sion Of the difference which exists betwes
the several manifestations of the humi