Actress Mia Wasikowska's Acting Style: The Public Divide of Histrionics Over Subtlety

You might not know it, but you and everybody else have been conditioned to accept a certain type of acting in movies. Case in point: The world of movies was born with actors who came straight from the stage where histrionics of the face and body were the only way to express emotions from the screen and straight into the balcony. That particular style of acting persisted long into the talkie era, though it was gradually toned down out of necessity. Most of that toning down came in the eyes where exaggerated facial reactions and eyes popping from sockets became relegated to strictly the silent era once the 1930's and 40's began.

Outward emotion, however, was still paramount to woo voting members of the Academy Awards.

By the era of Brando and James Dean in the 1950's, a different approach to acting from the Strasberg school--projecting what's within one's self--became revered and copied. Yet it didn't give an actor's face a blank slate. It still required a rebellious yell or fit of bawling to show hidden or created emotions manifesting to the audience. This was more important over displaying a complex soul through the pools of a character's eyes.

If you could find any actor or actress working then in Hollywood who managed to portray profound emotion without emoting broadly, it arguably could have been Ingrid Bergman. Yet she was of the European school where the art of subtlety in acting was being taught in the smallest of circles. If there were any other graduates from such a school in 1940's and 50's, they would have handily failed every screen test in Hollywood. Every casting agent and producer expected emoting (and lots of it if you've seen old screen tests for roles such as Scarlett O'Hara in "Gone with the Wind") to prove one's worth as an actor.

Even in Europe, there were few to no famous actors or actresses who projected the true soul of a character through the eyes and a calm face. Only France managed to produce one actress similar in the 1970's who became quite well known there and relatively unknown in America: Isabelle Huppert.

To date, there hasn't been one actress in the world compared to what Huppert has done (and is still doing) until 22-year-old Mia Wasikowska began acting in Hollywood in 2007.

When Wasikowska took her breakthrough role of Jane Eyre in the same titled movie earlier this year, Time Magazine's review of the film said her ability to show Eyre's soul without histrionics was comparable to Huppert's acting style. (See Resources) Time also implored Hollywood to write scripts that accommodate Wasikowska's unique and untaught acting approach.

Thus far, mainstream Hollywood has responded under its breath: "Fat chance."

"Jane Eyre" certainly wasn't the first time Mia Wasikowska displayed the skill of projecting a sea of emotion through a passive face. Evidence was already seen in "Alice in Wonderland" and "The Kids Are All Right" in 2010, plus excellent smaller roles before that in America (think HBO's "In Treatment") and her native Australia. Her ability to project a troubled soul in all through the use of barely noticeable facial tics, a certain look in the eyes or a slight lip quiver gave critics a chance to laud an emerging new acting talent.

But high-minded critics aren't always the final word on warmly welcoming an actor or actress bringing a new type of acting style. If you've spent time on IMDb.com's boards or other online forums of public opinion, Mia Wasikowska's acting style has divided many expert moviegoers. The divide is about as even as politics and religion have been of late. One part thinks her lack of outward emoting is complete nihilism to acting, and the other part note it as nascent genius.

With that opposing side, we see the longstanding problem of having a certain type of acting style condition the opposing public to a certain attention deficit disorder.

Nevertheless, Wasikowska could potentially change the entire spectrum of how we pay attention to an actor in a movie.

______

The most contentious issue over Wasikowska's acting came in her big break of "Alice in Wonderland" with accusations of her being bland and unable to emote. Unfortunately, those who quibbled didn't understand that her performance was done this way by design to give an indifference to the revisited nightmare unfolding before Alice. It's only one piece of how Wasikowska reportedly uses a deep sense of research in every part she takes on.

A major part of that research comes in how her characters physically present themselves. This becomes a part of her exacting acting approach as a way to see complexity without doing nothing more than walking or standing a certain way. All that's necessary is watching her physical mannerisms as gymnast Sophie in "In Treatment" up to her more formal positions in "Jane Eyre" to make you wonder if it's the same actress in each one. Each character's way of presentation represents a complex history.

It's her ability to emanate troubled souls strictly through the eyes where Wasikowska's acting becomes near mystical and even more challenging to analyze. From the outset, it looks like it could be an off-branch of the old Strasberg school where an actor projects from within. On that aspect, it looks like it can be teachable to other actors who might want to follow Wasikowska's lead.

Any way you analyze it, though, a challenge awaits other (and even our greatest) actors who want to be in her shoes. The only way toward giving a definitive analysis of her ability is via way of going inward. Her subtle projection of something compelling from deep inside her appears to be the process of spending time thinking and analyzing.

For so many actors today, going inward to construct a character is too taxing. It's too easy to emote or scream broadly as a method of excitement toward gaining an Oscar nomination.

Likewise for avid moviegoers used to seeing the same acting style for decades, watching a new process in acting involves more time to get adjusted. It's time and patience that not many are willing to put in to be entertained or moved by a movie. Without explicitly telling us to in interviews, she's asking moviegoers to make room for study and patience to find the complexity of character in her performances.

As with all things that set a new paradigm in the arts, that won't happen overnight. There may even be an undeserved, temporary backlash from the Academy Awards due to their penchant for ignoring those doing brilliant work for decades. You can count on it (in the immediate term) that the category of Best Actress will instead go to the actress who demonstrates how much emotion they openly emit. This includes some of the most loved and established actresses in existence.

Meanwhile, Wasikowska seems to be content working in indie movies where her type of acting can comfortably thrive, whether the script calls for it or not. If Hollywood won't write scripts that ask for her type of acting, she seems to be able to create her own, deeper version of those characters while utilizing her acting approach. It's an approach that's already flummoxed and surprised some of the directors she's worked with in the last several years.

Critics and her fans will keep her and this new, challenging acting style she's nurturing in the forefront. Those who shun it will either never get it or finally get it if those who do get it set a precedent of understanding.

In most cases, divides such as this eventually branch off into separate factions. For moviegoers, this is already known as spending time in either mainstream multiplexes or independent movie houses.

Mia Wasikowska's penchant for indie films may have to stay right where it is.

Resources:

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,2058367,00.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/movies/a-jane-eyre-like-no-other/article1945948/