I’ve been on a bit of a Pinter1 jag lately, somewhat by way of Stoppard and Beckett. I stumbled across the following comment by him about silence that’s been resonating with me for weeks:

There are two silences. One when no word is spoken. The other when perhaps a torrent of language is employed. This speech is speaking a language locked beneath it. That is its continual reference. The speech we hear is an indication of what we don’t hear. It is a necessary avoidance, a violent, sly, anguished, or mocking smokescreen which keeps the other in its place. When true silence falls, we are still left with echo but are nearer nakedness. One way of looking at speech is to say it is a constant strategem to cover nakedness.

As astute an observation this is about human communication, it’s truly profound and essential2 for acting. Our job as actors is not to say the words on the page3 but to realize the character in the situations of the play. The words aren’t how you express the emotions, they’re how you hide them.

Or, as Miles Davis put it, “don’t play what’s there, play what’s not there.”

  1. Shout out to our local Pinter expert, Leta ;-) [↩]
  2. Of, relating to, or constituting essence. [↩]
  3. Yes, I think Mamet is wrong. On this point, anyway. [↩]