Four Emoting Chakras
The Unfounded Theory of Acting
When I was a young student filmmaker in Yugoslavia, my attitude towards filmmaking began to change. During the first year of study, I was fascinated with editing. It’s incredible what connecting two shots can do. Editing can hide, expose, or change the story, invent a new one, collapse space and time or expand it. Even the smallest tweak, such as cutting out a few frames can make a significant difference or create a totally new meaning.
A year later, my fascination with the Cinematic Language moved to visual and kinesthetic values, such as the beauty of the frame, composition, light, lenses, and camera movements. While at first, I wanted to make as many cuts as possible to honor the power of editing, later I felt guilty whenever I ‘destroyed’ a beautiful shot by cutting it.
Finally, in my third year, I was convinced: ‘It’s all about the story’. The cinematic language is only the artistic tool used to tell stories and reveal a message. I also realized this is not about choice. It is about bringing it all together to create a story. So, this leaves me with a question: what are the stories about?
Our stories are always about people. Mickey Mouse is human, not a mouse. The same goes for Robin Hood, Superman, Bugs Bunny, bicycle thieves, shoe cleaners, samurais, or gladiators. Shrek is a human, like his donkey is human. Each of these characters embodies human characteristics and evoke human empathy regardless of their not-so-human attributes. Even in documentaries, where there are no people to be seen, it’s still about them. There is a beautiful documentary about our planet the ‘Home’ that tells a story about humans in which no person is ever shown. Still, its message is about people destroying nature.
Understanding the importance of human characters brought me to my new passion — directing actors. It is only through acting that our human empathy is evoked. In truth, it doesn’t matter how good the story or the cinematic language is. Everything is in vain if the audience doesn’t connect to the actors portraying those characters. In watching my fellow students acting, I had an urge to evaluate their performances, but I didn’t know how. There are so many styles, genres, and approaches: from Ancient Greek drama to Shakespeare, and Chekhov to present-day themes. There are also many different ways to get into character, from the techniques of Bertolt Brecht, Stanislavsky, and Lee Strasberg or improvisation like that of John Cassavetes. Acting on a stage, for a camera, or just giving voice to animated characters can all be amazing. How was I supposed to put it all together and judge someone’s acting, considering all the richness of the performing art? I realized I was complicating it too much. The answer was hiding in plain sight. Maybe I am trying something impossible: to count the uncountable and measure the unmeasurable. By tuning out my thoughts, I came up with a simple truth: “Trust.” I either believed them, or I didn’t. That’s all there is.
All the theories I’d learned and knowledge that I had come to trust suddenly became useless and disappeared instantly. The audience doesn’t know about Lee Strasberg’s techniques, nor do they care. But they love to watch Paul Newman, Robert De Niro, Marilyn Monroe, or James Dean because of the stories they are able to convey. I felt I had lost so much time attending ‘directing actors’ classes, even though they were my favorite ones. I was desperately trying to find a way to evaluate what makes me trust someone’s emotions on the stage or in front of the camera. But what measure do you use to judge trust and honesty? I remember watching the final exam of my fellow students of acting. My friend had a very good performance once. It was straight from the heart, I thought to myself. Acting ‘from the heart’ must be the way to judge them. But was the ‘heart’ the only place where this passion could originate from?
I wanted to find where the actors’ emotions come from. This idea was so unorthodox that I was afraid to share it with my dear professor, soon to be colleague, and friend, Goran Markovic. After more than thirty years, the same crazy idea came to my mind after a table read with my friends, writers guided by an extraordinary guy David Paul Kirkpatrick. Inspired by his open mind, I decided to throw my thoughts onto paper, about how actors bring their emotions into the world, no matter how unusual they may be. And this is how the ‘Theory of Acting’ was born. I don’t know if I am braver or crazier now, but here it is. What do I have to lose? I’ve even found a new, more suitable name for this phenomenon that I like to call: ‘Emoting Chakras’.
Emoting Chakras
In the same way, I was able to trace my friend’s acting back to his heart, I needed to identify the ‘source’ of acting across the entire spectrum of performing techniques. I sought out to discover a new sweet spot of energy and emotions. The Heart was the first emoting ‘chakra’ giving actors direct access to the emotional material they use to shape their characters. But, what about other acting ‘ingredients’? Acting is also about movement, speech, and action. Actors must use techniques to control their body, voice, facial expressions, and even their mind on a certain level. These techniques are controlled by reason and consciousness. Therefore, they must come from the head, I thought. At first, I hesitated to call it ‘acting from the head’ since both conscious and unconscious come from the same brain. However, in the same way that the ‘heart’ stands for more than a body part, the ‘head’ in this context refers to our capacity to consciously control our actions. So, ‘The Head’ was the second ‘emoting chakra’ that I discovered.
I was excited about my theory and couldn’t wait to try it in the upcoming performances. It was an ugly afternoon in Belgrade. Something between rain and snow was falling, and strong wind was blowing. I was completely wet and frozen when I entered the actor’s studio (not Strasberg’s one) at the Faculty of Dramatic Arts in Belgrade. My favorite scenes were from Chekhov’s plays, comedies of Serbian playwrights, and free-style imitations. At my age, Antic Drama was not something I found very amusing. How young and stupid I was. As the last person who came into the actors’ studio, I found a seat in the back row. I couldn’t even see below the actor’s waist. Actors seemed to be focused on practicing their techniques more than emotions. I thought to myself this wasn’t worth catching a cold over. While I was thinking of leaving, I heard the voice of Orestes, but I couldn’t see him. The young actor was kneeling in the corner of the stage, speaking the lines from the Aeschylus’ play. It was a rumble of thunder, not loud, but so powerful. It was a volcano and an ocean. I forgot that I was cold, wet, and tired. I forgot where I was. His voice took me to ancient Greece. I stood up spontaneously to see him. He was kneeling with his face down on the floor and speaking to the ground, to the soil, to the Earth. It was an unusual way to play Greek tragedy. This can’t be done ‘from the head’, I thought. He seemed totally disconnected from his mind, but it wasn’t from ‘the heart’ either. Where was it coming from? It’s deeper than the heart and stronger than the mind. It’s both uncontrolled and powerful. This must be another emoting chakra, I thought. His power was coming from his abdomen, from his core, and it filled the room with ecstasy. I called it the ‘Gut Chakra’. So, are there any more chakras in actors’ beautiful bodies and minds?
At that time, I went back to the movies I had previously seen but didn’t fully understand. I discovered the full power of Bernardo Bertolucci’s art. While discovering new layers of ‘Last Tango in Paris’, I was enchanted by Marlon Brando’s performance (see the movie clip). I tried to classify his acting somewhere between head, heart, and the gut. It was closest to the gut, but it was something else I couldn’t box into these three emoting chakras.
If every lower chakra is more powerful, Brando’s emotions were coming from somewhere lower than his gut, maybe even from his genitals! Perhaps this was inherent in the story of a middle-aged man with a newly discovered sense of passion, but I felt it must have come from Brando himself. It seemed as he channeled his emotions through the ‘erogenous chakra’. After finding this new source of emoting, I tried to recognize it in other actors and actresses. It’s rare, but it happens.
Even though ‘emoting chakras’ by nature, defy any definition, I thought it would be fair to illustrate my theory with a couple of examples. Having said that, I need to remind you, dear reader, that this is my very own — unfounded and unproven theory — so for what it’s worth, this is my personal point of view only.
I would also like to underline that the level of a chakra does not directly correspond to the quality of acting. It is easy to jump to a conclusion that if the chakra is lower, the acting is better. However, that is not necessarily the truth. Most likely, a lower chakra gives more power and depth, but that’s not all there is to the acting. A skillful driver can arrive at the finish line first, even if he or she doesn’t have the best car. Sometimes talented actors can provide more ‘from the head’ than others ‘from the gut’.
So, let’s go.
Classification Of 4 Emoting Chakras:
1. The Head Chakra
Acting is coming from the faculties of reason. The process is defined and controlled consciously by the actor/actress. They can do everything with their voice and body. Skillful ones can bring emotions back from the memory, evoke them again, or imitate them, successfully hiding the fact they are not actually happening in the moment of performance. Lee Strasberg who inherited, developed, and improved Konstantin Stanislavski’s system, calls it ‘emotional memory’. That’s very valuable for theatre acting, where performances are repeated for a longer period of time. Acting ‘from the head’ doesn’t mean there is no ‘heart’. However, it means that at the moment of performance, everything, including emotions, is controlled consciously. If someone thinks that I am undermining this kind of acting, I will say in their defense that you can’t emote feelings that you don’t have. Those actors/actresses were emoting ‘from the heart’ during rehearsals until they came up with the best expression they will repeat in the actual performance. When done well, it’s hard, almost impossible, to notice the difference between ‘head’ and ‘heart’ acting, especially when old emotions are relived again in the moment of performance.
Any ‘head’ performance disconnected from the real-life experience or emotional memory is too insignificant to merit further consideration.
But if it is, as described previously, recreating unique emotions that actors have (or had), then it could be brilliant. I would like to mention two masters of acting I would classify into the ‘head chakra’ acting. These are Laurence Olivier and Tom Hanks.
Nothing happens there by accident. No mistakes, no errors, no questions, or misunderstandings. Everything is totally prepared and flawlessly executed. It wouldn’t be possible to do it in such a way if the ‘heart’ didn’t play a role in the process.
2. The Heart Chakra
The reason I didn’t put Laurence Olivier and Tom Hanks in the ‘Heart Chakra’ category is that even though their emotions emanate from the heart, they are able to masterfully control them during the performance. To put some actor/actress in the ‘Heart Chakra’ group, I need to see little ‘errors’ or signs of imperfection, something unrepeatable and unpredictable. Acting is controlled, but not 100%. There are some inexplicable mental or physical actions that the actor is not aware of. Once they appear, he or she can reenact them in the following performances, but there is always something surprising coming out ‘from the heart’. While this is unconscious at first, it is consciously replicated in later performances.
Most of the good actors belong here. I would mention Erland Josephson, Jean-Paul Belmondo, Nino Manfredi, Antonio Banderas, Jane Fonda (see the movie clip from the Coming Home), Sophia Loren, Harrison Ford (see the movie clip from Witness), and Octavia Spenser to name a few.
3. The Gut Chakra
If the emotions from the ‘Heart Chakra’ are uncontrolled, yet possible to utilize by the actor, the ‘Gut Chakra’ is based on instincts instead of emotions, and as such, is harder to control. To control something, we should be aware of it. It doesn’t mean that actors are lost or hypnotized in their performances, however, at times they are so deeply engrossed in their characters that the unconscious starts controlling the conscious, releasing a huge power of life as a result.
We have gotten too far from the acting ‘from the head’ and left Tom Hanks and Laurence Olivier behind. As they have ‘heart’, they also have ‘gut’. They can memorize such moments and recall the same emotions. They simply don’t do it during the performance. If I need to choose one person to illustrate ‘The Gut’, it would be John Cassavetes, especially acting in movies that he directed. Acting in ‘Husbands’ is based on improvisation. Even well prepared, improvisation always brings something raw and messy because it comes from the vulnerability of the gut. ‘Love Streams’ has less improvisation, but still enough, coming from unexpected instincts of the “gut” and emotions from the ‘heart’ (see the movie clip).
I would add to this section Toshiro Mifune (see the movie clip from the Rashomon), Al Pacino, Denzel Washington, Jennifer Lawrence, Robin Williams, Lee Marvin, Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman…
4. The Erogenous Chakra
This chakra is based on instincts too, but with added passion and higher cause. It is connected to our reproductive organs and the strongest instinct we possess for the continuation of our kind. Eros makes the world goes around. This is about transcending self and extending life through others. It brings a higher cause to this instinct. It’s not about ourselves, but others that we care more about, even if they don’t exist yet. Passion and purpose give enormous strength to the acting from the ‘erogenous chakra’. As I was thinking about how to name it, a few options came to my mind: ‘genesis’, ‘desirous’, ‘corporeal’, ‘procreation’, ‘somatic’, ‘feral’… I am sure all of them could work.
My example here is Meryl Streep. The movie where it is visible both from the actor’s point of view and the character’s point of view is ‘Sophie’s Choice’. Sophie needs to decide who of her two children will live and who will die. She can’t make a decision by using her reason. She can’t use emotions either because she loves them both. Her instinct wants to save both too. When the Nazi officer pushes her to say one name, she says: “Take my little girl”. Where does it come from? Where it comes from in Sophie and where it comes from in Meryl Streep? They become one body and soul, somewhere deep in Meryl’s/Sophie’s womb (see the movie clip). This is a good example because both actions, from the character and from the actress, are coming from the same place.
I would add Liv Ullman in ‘Persona’ or ‘Face to Face’, Monica Vitti in Antonioni’s Masterpieces, Susan Sarandon in ‘Lorenzo’s Oil’, Jeanne Moreau, Robert De Niro (see the movie clip from The Deer Hunter), Sean Penn in ‘I Am Sam’ or ’21 Grams’...
Four In One
I don’t imply that the whole careers of actors/actresses are coming from one emoting chakra only. There are many different paths, and not all is about acting. Some actors will open their chakras during their careers as they evolve their artistic performances. Others may disconnect from chakras and use their experience and the name they’ve created instead. I didn’t like Michael Douglas’ acting when he was young. Later, he became a very good actor. Years did to him what they do to wine. On the other hand, one of my favorite actors ever, Al Pacino, never reached the heights from ‘The Godfather’ later in his career.
Some actors will be able to connect to their lower chakras when triggered by the story, project, director, or their life stage. At the beginning of his career, Jim Carrey was acting ‘from the head’ in comedies like ‘Ace Ventura’. I found his acting annoying. This is why I hesitated to watch ‘The Truman Show’.
I would have probably missed it if I wasn’t a huge fan of Peter Weir. In ‘The Truman Show’, I discovered a great actor Jim Carrey, acting ‘from the heart’. In Milos Forman’s the ‘Man on the Moon’, he opened his ‘gut chakra’ and in Michel Gondry’s ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’, Jim Carrey dives into his ‘erogenous chakra’.
In the end, there is a man who has it all and is able to combine ‘chakras’ in impressive ways — Jack Nicholson. He shows them in films like ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’ (see the movie clip), ‘Five Easy Pieces’ and many others. But even if he is trying to hide them, those powerful chakras are always there shining from within, like in Antonioni’s ‘The Passenger’ or Sean Penn’s ‘The Pledge’.
At the very end, I would like to simplify my thinking about the ‘Four Emoting Chakras’. ‘The Head’ is connected to reason and control, ‘The Heart’ to emotions, ‘The Gut’ to instincts, and ‘The Erogenous’ to passion with purpose. Actors and actresses can use more of them, opening and closing them or discovering and forgetting. They also can recall them from the emotional memory while acting ‘from the head’ to a certain point.
Thank you, reader, for coming so far with me. Of course, I didn’t read all the books about acting. Maybe someone, somewhere wrote something similar that I am not aware of. If so, please, let me know. This essay is based on my feelings, not the facts. I don’t know how Laurence Olivier was working or anyone else. Capturing art into boxes is not something I do. I am not the school principal from the ‘Dead Poet Society’ ( see the movie clip) who explains poetry through diagrams. This is only a game that leaves us with the last question:
Are there any more chakras there waiting to be discovered?
