- Published on
The Kavanaugh Hearing: An Actor Despairs
- Author
-
-
- Name
- Posts
- Posts
-
This week there are lots of folks weighing in on the hearings about the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court… political pundits, women’s rights advocates, lawyers, and so on. So I thought I would throw in my two cents as a professional actor. Because it was quite a performance.
So, one of the first principles of acting is “Don’t play the problem. Play the adjustment to the problem.” In other words, don’t worry about impressing the audience with what your character is feeling. Focus instead on solving the character’s problem. That’s what makes a performance believable, because that is what people do in real life… and audiences recognize that.
Let’s say you want to portray an innocent person who is being accused by a powerful group of people of something they did not do. That’s a serious problem. It’s a dangerous situation. The innocent party needs to tread carefully, be thoughtful, weigh her words. Because she is innocent, she has the truth on her side, and her best defense is a straightforward presentation that allows the facts of the situation to come through, untainted by emotions or editorializing.
So, one of the first principles of acting is “Don’t play the problem. Play the adjustment to the problem.” In other words, don’t worry about impressing the audience with what your character is feeling. Focus instead on solving the character’s problem. That’s what makes a performance believable, because that is what people do in real life… and audiences recognize that.
Let’s say you want to portray an innocent person who is being accused by a powerful group of people of something they did not do. That’s a serious problem. It’s a dangerous situation. The innocent party needs to tread carefully, be thoughtful, weigh her words. Because she is innocent, she has the truth on her side, and her best defense is a straightforward presentation that allows the facts of the situation to come through, untainted by emotions or editorializing.
And we have a perfect real-life example of this: Anita Hill in the 1991 Senate hearings to confirm the Supreme Court nomination of Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill, testifying to his egregious campaign of sexual harassment against her, was being accused of being either a political tool or a crazy person. Thomas’s supporters were attempting to frame her as someone paid by the opposition to lie, or else a nymphomaniac and sexual fantasist. Her reputation and career were on the line.
What did she do? She became very still, very grounded. It was excruciating to watch. Hour after hour, she barely shifted her physical position, hands under the table. No extraneous motion, nothing that could distract. She was scrupulously accurate and unemotional. Her entire being was focused like a laser on solving the problem of presenting the truth and countering the false accusations.
What did she do? She became very still, very grounded. It was excruciating to watch. Hour after hour, she barely shifted her physical position, hands under the table. No extraneous motion, nothing that could distract. She was scrupulously accurate and unemotional. Her entire being was focused like a laser on solving the problem of presenting the truth and countering the false accusations.
This week, Brett Kavanaugh sat in a Senate hearing about his nomination to the Supreme Court, and he was confronted with testimony from a woman charging him with perpetrating a life-threatening sexual assault. His response? A wall of deflection and denial, repeated refusals to answer basic yes-and-no questions, filibusters, pity parties, and a kind of hostile high-school repartee:
AMY KLOBUCHAR (MN Senator): …Was there ever a time when you drank so much that you couldn’t remember what happened, or part of what happened the night before?
BRETT KAVANAUGH: No, I — no. I remember what happened, and I think you’ve probably had beers, Senator, and — and so I…
AMY KLOBUCHAR: So you’re saying there’s never been a case where you drank so much that you didn’t remember what happened the night before, or part of what happened.
BRETT KAVANAUGH: It’s — you’re asking about, you know, blackout. I don’t know. Have you?
AMY KLOBUCHAR: Could you answer the question, Judge? I just — so you — that’s not happened. Is that your answer?
BRETT KAVANAUGH: Yeah, and I’m curious if you have.
AMY KLOBUCHAR: I have no drinking problem, Judge.
BRETT KAVANAUGH: Yeah, nor do I.
AMY KLOBUCHAR (MN Senator): …Was there ever a time when you drank so much that you couldn’t remember what happened, or part of what happened the night before?
BRETT KAVANAUGH: No, I — no. I remember what happened, and I think you’ve probably had beers, Senator, and — and so I…
AMY KLOBUCHAR: So you’re saying there’s never been a case where you drank so much that you didn’t remember what happened the night before, or part of what happened.
BRETT KAVANAUGH: It’s — you’re asking about, you know, blackout. I don’t know. Have you?
AMY KLOBUCHAR: Could you answer the question, Judge? I just — so you — that’s not happened. Is that your answer?
BRETT KAVANAUGH: Yeah, and I’m curious if you have.
AMY KLOBUCHAR: I have no drinking problem, Judge.
BRETT KAVANAUGH: Yeah, nor do I.
Tommy Wiseau, another bad actor
Seriously? This is just plain bad acting. Kavanaugh is showing us indignation, attitude, and outrage, instead of taking the actions to solve the problem. Why? Because, unlike Anita Hill, he is actually guilty. He imagines what an innocent person in his shoes might do. In his mind, that person would be feeling angry and oppressed, and so he is showing us that. Again… the difference between a trained professional and an amateur. I have no doubt that Anita Hill felt angry, facing that brotherhood of wealthy, arrogant, white men… men who had passed specific legislation to grant themselves, as Senators, indemnity from sexual harassment charges. But, as I said, she was focused on solving the problem. Displaying her outrage was only going to taint the presentation of her facts and be seen as evidence that she was unstable. It would have been counter-productive. Displaying outrage is a function of privilege, and a luxury that few falsely accused folks can afford.
But Kavanaugh chose to perform indignation, attitude, and outrage, because the truth was not on his side and also because he was vulnerable to fear, guilt, and shame.
But Kavanaugh chose to perform indignation, attitude, and outrage, because the truth was not on his side and also because he was vulnerable to fear, guilt, and shame.
And here let me interject a word about outrage. It can be very, very useful in overriding and masking less flamboyant emotions. Outrage pretty much trumps them all. I learned this hitchhiking. If I was in a car with a driver who began to behave in a threatening manner, I would erupt into an emotionally violent tirade against a fictional boss, and I would keep this rant going until I was able to get away. It kept those icy fingers of fear from making inroads into my psyche. It gave me the floor. It shut down whatever scenario he was attempting to initiate. Let me be clear: a performance of outrage would not work on a Ted-Bundy-type predator, but, at least in my experience with more garden-variety potential perps, I found it effective.
So Kavanaugh played outrage. And so did Lindsey Graham. In fact, Graham’s performance was even more transparent, as he used the display of anger to derail a specific line of questioning that was not going well for Kavanaugh. Because outrage carries the overtones of emotional violence, it disrupts discourse. People confronted with outrage have a visceral response. Their choices become “escalate” or “appease.”
Kavanaugh’s display of outrage worked to solve his problem: that of a guilty man attempting to defend himself when the facts do not support his case, when he is under oath and afraid to lie, and when he is fending off tell-tale emotions of guilt, shame, and fear. To a trained actor, Kavanaugh's performance of outrage was an admission of guilt, pure and simple.
So Kavanaugh played outrage. And so did Lindsey Graham. In fact, Graham’s performance was even more transparent, as he used the display of anger to derail a specific line of questioning that was not going well for Kavanaugh. Because outrage carries the overtones of emotional violence, it disrupts discourse. People confronted with outrage have a visceral response. Their choices become “escalate” or “appease.”
Kavanaugh’s display of outrage worked to solve his problem: that of a guilty man attempting to defend himself when the facts do not support his case, when he is under oath and afraid to lie, and when he is fending off tell-tale emotions of guilt, shame, and fear. To a trained actor, Kavanaugh's performance of outrage was an admission of guilt, pure and simple.
This poster was created for Women’s Day, a South African national holiday commemorating a 1956 demonstration in Pretoria.
Being a survivor of incest as well as 3 sexual assaults, I've learned a thing or two about men and their not accepting and OBEYING the word "NO".
My brother was sexually assaulted while he slept by his Demolay ( Masons) coach. He threatened to tell, the coach nearly strangled him with his canteens strap. It went to court, he had to testify and his abuser was sentenced to jail. However, my brother began the same predatory behavior once he hit puberty. He molested me in my sleep while he masturbated. ( Grrrrooosss!!!) He and his best friend basically raped me like Kavanaugh and his buddy did. They threatened to tell my mother I was playing with matches ( A lie to keep me quiet) My brother continued to sexually assault me until I was 14 yrs old.
I never talked about it until therapy 2001.
Anyway, my point being is I saw a similar response from my brother after I told my folks. He was outraged, threatening and smug.
I think the FBI needs to go deep on this guy. He's no doubt a raging untreated alcoholic. But is he a lifelong sexual predator/assailant?? Are his little girls safe?
Just my 2 cents.
I responded to your privately after you drew my attention to this. Most intelligent, thinking people in the UK (there are some) are astounded not only by what has happened here, but by the appalling way in which it now sees to be becoming acceptable for public figures (at the highest level) to devalue and ridicule the testimony of those who, even in small ways, appear to threaten their view of the world. Do they have no shame? Do they have no humility? The false theatricality of these situations serves to illustrate one of the most shameful trends of our modern life. It is up to writers (like you) and editors (like me) to expose the corruption of this trend at every possible chance we get.