The Art of Deception
If someone were to compare acting to lying would they see two sides of the same coin, or would they see two separate yet similar coins? One could argue that they are closely related, being as similar to each other as they are. Despite the similarities that acting and lying share, it could be argued that they are distinctly different. Both acting and lying are performances of fallacies. Are all deceptions received in the same manner? Acting and lying can both be performed for entertainment. Who is intended to benefit from the entertainment of a lie or from acting? One can act or lie specifically for personal gain. Does an actor and a liar care about the audience of their performances? Would one see any real difference in a method actor and a pathological liar? Both will spread their deceit even when there is no reason for doing so.
Fallacies are the building blocks for all lies as well as all acting. Would it be considered acting if every movie and play were nothing more than an accurate retelling of the actors own lives? Of course lies are built with deceptions; you cannot tell a good lie by telling only the truth. A lie can also have a bit of truth in it, but only to make it more believable. While a movie can be based on the truth, the actor still has to tell the audience fallacies. Pretending to be someone else is a lie. Con artists recognize the similarities in acting and lying. They impersonate others all the time, the same thing an actor does for every role. Despite the similarities in the illusions created by acting and lying, there is a different quality to the deceit employed by both. With a lie there is typically a quality of malevolence to it, maybe not perceived by the audience, but nonetheless it is there. Anyone who is the targeted audience of such a malevolent illusion will of course not be happy to be so. Acting has a quality of fun to its deception. The audiences of acting are there by choice for the fun and entertainment...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document