Friday, November 11, 2011

A "Bad Faith" Industry?

Is bad faith considered bad faith only when one is not aware of lying to one’s self or is it still bad faith even when one is conscious of this lie?

To better understand this question, let’s discuss the film industry. We all watch movies, in which the actors play various characters. Obviously, the actor is not actually that character but the actor is being that character ( by playing that character).

I think that acting is a profession that requires a lot of talent because a career in acting necessitates one to “lie” on screen about who they are, by playing the character that they should play. Also, actors may be so versatile that they will play varying roles throughout their careers. Either way, they have to be lying to themselves in order to truly convince us that they are the character that they are playing.

Take Julia Roberts for example. When we hear her name, there are various characters that come to mind that she has played. The character that each person thinks of might be different but usually we think of the character she played before we think of her as “ just herself”.

All actors/ actresses seem to be identified and defined through the roles that they have played in their career. In that, they are involved in a profession that demands them to give into bad faith all the time. They are aware that they are being in the mode of not being it ( not that they sit down and literally say those words to themselves before every scene) but I mean that they do know that the role that they are about to play is only a role and not who they are as people outside of the movie.

Technically, bad faith is telling a lie to oneself so in that way the film industry demands “lies to be told” in order to play a role well. However, the actors and actresses are aware of this but we identify them by their role so the role they play ends up being part of their essence. The fact that they know that it is just a role in a movie, does that still qualify as bad faith as we do identify them with the role? Thus, I am trying to ask whether the role they play, as it becomes a true identifier of the actors and actresses, is still bad faith even if they know that they are acting? If so, could the film industry be viewed as an industry of “bad faith”?

6 comments:

  1. No I do not think so.
    and I think your blog is the perfect response to Matt's Blog below.
    From my understanding of bad faith only occurs when the individual is lying to himself. taking the example of the waiter, being the waiter itself is not the problem, because I am sure that Sartre is aware of the fact that individuals in this society need jobs to survive. The problem surface when the individual begins to identify himself as a waiter. For example he might say "hello my name is john smith and I AM a waiter." not only that be he BELIEVES it too. Here, John smith has completely disregarded the fact that he CHOSE to be this just like he could hace chosen to not be it, and just like he could choose to stop being it.
    Being a waiter in bad faith is describing yourself as a waiter as is you had no choice in the matter, as if it were you essence.

    However, if John Smith were to be a waiter while fully realizing the choices that were involved in him becoming a waiter, then no bad faith would have taken place here. That is to say he would say something like " Hi I AM John Smith and I CHOSE to be a waiter." (Now i realize no one actually says that, this is just to make my point).

    So to come back to your question, I don't think that actors are playing their characters in bad faith. I mean the name of the profession even tells you that they are not "ACT-ors" they are acting and fully realize. When the lines between acting and real life become blurry you end up with a case like Heath Ledger (haha ... small joke. Hope it's not of bad taste.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would also have to say no. Actors choose what roles they want to play and what roles they don't want to. This means that they are aware that they aren't the character they are choosing to play and that they don't forget who they truly are. I also don't think that the film industry is viewed as an industry of “bad faith” because when directors choose the actors they want for their movie they choose actors based on their personality and which would fit their character the best. So although an actor is essentially "acting" as someone else they are also putting their own personality into the role. In comparison to the waiter Nellie was talking about, the actor would say, "I chose to play this role and act as this character." So they aren't lying to themselves and saying that they are the character they are playing. Plus, when a movie is being shown the actors name is always shown, not the characters, so that also proves that film industry is not of "bad faith."

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm going to have to disagree with Nellie here. Obviously, Sartre knew people had to be employed, but occupation is a choice, which we are ultimately responsible for. Are actors living, or working, within a constant frame of bad faith? I think so. Think of some of the cliche actors and this becomes apparent. The world-renowed movie star who is identified more by characters than their own person. These are the actors who "become" a role, who submerge themselves into a character, in very much the same way the waiter acts like a waiter. The "celebrities" are playing at being actors - living the celebrity lifestyle instead of being all-too-eager to take your order. I think they're comparable situations.

    Another example is the person who wants to become a famous actor. We've all heard the cliche "I'm not really a waiter/whatever, I'm an actor. I'm just waiting for my big break." That is the same denial of the facticity of one's situation.

    I hope that made sense....I'm a bit afraid it might not have. But I do think that you could argue actors are very much similar to the Bad Faith expressed by the waiter, just on a much larger and more public scale.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What if someone was habituated into becoming an actor? Their essence would be that of an actor and they would be able to recreate many states of being but they would still be acting in essence with what they are. A person whose essence is acting would not be acting in bad faith when they act as a certain character because acting is a part of who they are. Then they would be acting out of their own essence.

    It's an interesting theory but could someone necessarily have it in their essence to act as other people, who have their own unique essence? Would that person then be acting out of facticity?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nellie,

    Thanks for the comment. I was interested to see what everyone thought about this aspect of choice that goes into being an actor. Also, the comparison with the waiter example that Sartre gives us is very applicable to this situation. I think the actors would be analogous to the waiter example except for this aspect of choice. You make this point in your comment too and I think it is an important to note that if the waiter consciously turns on being that image of waiter then the waiter is no longer in bad faith because he is choosing to act as a waiter and knows that who he is and a waiter are very distinct.

    I also agree that when it is comes to actors who mix the line between acting and real life the effects are dangerous because then the actors thinks of his essence as being that character. ( This also speaks to Jane and Bryan’s comments.)

    Allycia, I like your point that because the actor is mentioned in the credits at the end of the movie, the film industry is not an industry of bad faith. My thinking was the same as yours in that, the actor is not acting in bad faith because he or she is choosing to act and therefore, knows that he or she is not that character. I think my concern continued wondering about how the audience plays in and may view the actor as being that character and therein, making it bad faith. However, the point you make about credits is definitely important, because actors are not in bad faith as the actor's real name and identity is credited at the end of the movie, which splits him or her from the character he or she was playing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jane,
    I agreed with you about the bad faith until I read Allycia’s comment and the component of credits. Actors would be acting in bad faith if there were no credits at the end of movies that distinguished them from their roles. Because of the necessity for crediting the individual who acted shows that they are not in bad faith but are simply acting as another character.

    Now, when it comes to actors like Jack Nicholson who is known to take the role that he plays so seriously that he cannot disconnect from the character's mental state, this is dangerous. Nicholson’s character becomes a part of his essence when he acting as that character. This problem is a valid concern but it is slightly outside of the scope of my post because I was not addressing the psychological influences that might lead to bad faith. However, I think it is a very strong and necessary scenario to be dealt with because deciding on whether the film industry is in bad faith or not in a different light.

    Bryan,

    You ask a strong question but I think I am confused so I am not sure if I will answer it in the following comment. I do not see how someone’s essence could be grounded in acting. Acting as a profession could be a part of someone’s essence in that that person’s passion for acting influences his or her thinking. Your point that a person could be habituated to act or his or her essence is acting seems confusing. If a person’s essence is acting then that person is still in bad faith. I do not think one’s essence can be to act. Also, I think that an actor’s own unique essence is demonstrated through the credits in movie, as Allycia said. The credits bring the actor’s identity to life and separate the actor from the character. So , the essence to act as other people does not seem possible. Essence is a very strong term; acting as other people as a part of one’s profession is part of the person’s essence but it does not compose an entire essence. I may have misunderstood your point though. I am confused about how you are defining acting in relation to essence. Are you claiming that acting composes a component of one’s essence or one's total essence?

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.