Review- The Paradox of Acting

The Paradox of the actor (annotated): Le paradoxe sur le comédien by Denis Diderot

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


The paradox of the actor is a dialogue between two participants, discussing whether fine acting is the result of expressing sensibility, or else rational self-control, described by Diderot as observation. The paradox of the title is that one of the speakers believes that emotion is expressed more artistically by an actor who does not feel passion on a personal level whilst performing.

Although many of the actors referenced are now highly obscure, this is an interesting dialogue, with philosophical implications beyond the narrow topic at hand. The argument put forward by the main speaker acts as a critique of romanticism, and sets out a compelling vision of aesthetics.

The critique of romanticism is set out more fully in Richard Sennett's great work 'The Fall of Great Man'. Diderot may be setting up an opposition of acting based on genuine emotion vs acting based on simulating emotion, rather than insisting that emotional display constitutes poor form per se. This is set out wittily when Diderot remarks "The man of sensibility is too much at the mercy of his diaphragm to be a great king..." This quote points to the wider significance of the dialogue; 'The man of sensibility', who believes that his own feelings are the highest law, is less likely to be able to actively mold those feelings in a way that enables him to creatively improve himself, and to exercise control over his environment. This is the paradox writ large- the person who is the prisoner of their own sensibility is likely to be less creative, less expressive, and more fixed in their conception of themselves than the person who conceives of their personality as something to be actively molded.

Diderot considers what is true in the theatre and answers thus: "Is it showing things as they are in nature? Certainly not. Were it so the true would be commonplace." This sets out a wide vision of an art that aims for representation of ideal types, rather than being 'true to life'. In this way, Diderot gives to art a grand vision and a grand purpose, giving the dialogue a real energy. This is all to be praised.

One can make some criticism of the pacing and lack of drama in the dialogue. The second speaker gives little opposition, and the conversation has little context, making the dialogue less compelling as a dramatic work. Also, the argument becomes repetitive in places. However, despite these faults, the paradox of the actor is an intriguing and powerful piece of philosophy that remains both vital and challenging.



View all my reviews