Role of a lifetime

It's an obvious take for a PlayJournal, but I found this piece from two acting coaches about the thespian qualities required to win a Presidency pretty compelling.

In "Emotions Revealed," a recent book summarizing his studies of the physiology of emotion, Paul Ekman notes that most people, most of the time, have no control over when they become emotional. But public life requires the ability to use "managed expressions" and to summon emotion at the right times while hiding other emotional responses.

The political roadside, of course, is littered with candidates who showed the wrong kind of emotion at the wrong time -- Edmund Muskie in tears, Michael Dukakis' coolly rational answer to a debate question about how a sexual assault on his wife might affect his views of capital punishment, Al Gore's contemptuous sighs during debates with Bush, Howard Dean's infamous scream.

The public associates "acting" in politics with phoniness, and reacts against it. But perhaps what people are really objecting to is *bad acting -- unconvincing portrayals of a leader or emotional displays that seem inappropriate. If Americans tend to see the presidency as a heroic role, people still want someone who seems human as well, even flawed in ways they can understand. "We love actors because they remind us of our humanity," says Moss. "A political figure has to do this, also."

Batson believes one of the things that seemed "jammed" in the emotional life of Al Gore was his apparent need to be right about everything. Kerry risks alienating voters in the same way.

Professional acting coaches insist on the need to summon authentic emotion to express emotion. As Batson puts it, "The great actor digs down and really works to bring a reality to the work. The great politician has to connect in a real way to the people."

Note: I'm finding myself in the company of actors a lot these days - see tonight's event at the Lyceum.