This is a discussion I've had with actor friends I don't know how many times. You know, they always say you have to cast someone smart to play someone dumb, or someone nice to play someone mean. But do you think it is a help or a hindrance to be intelligent as an actor? I don't mean just intelligent about acting, either; I mean traditional "smarts"... high IQs and all that jazz.

I'm inclined to think it's a good thing to be at least fairly smart as an actor, but I know a lot of people that aren't "traditionally" intelligent who succeed as actors because they can easily get out of their heads. I also come from the world of improv where I see both very smart and not-so-very smart people do amazing work.

Of course, certain people who are succeeding in Hollywood nowadays would suggest that a brain is not a required tool for an actor.

Anyway, just curious what everyone else thought about this.

No, one does not need to be smart to be a good actor. In fact, it can be a liability. If an actor thinks too much, it can make his performance stilted. One's brain can get in the way.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying smart people are bad actors; I'd like to think I am both smart and a good actor.

And yes, there are a lot of very good actors in Hollywood that are not smart.

I'd say that smartness is very different in different fields.

A mathematician has a different smartness than a smart painter.

IQ is not a means to express intelligence anyway. It was developed to measure the "intelligence level" of very underdeveloped people (IQ 45 to 70). Intelligence is too complex to be measured by a few multiple choice questions.

So, and actor's smartness thinks in ways that have to do with character and human expression. It can go in any field a portrayed human works in. So, I'd say a smart actor is definitely at an advantage.

Sometimes a person gets a mix of talents, that just put him in a great position, no smarts required. In any field. But I'd see that as an exception.

I think it is great to be an intelligent actor in many senses. I agree with Iceman in that it can cause one to overanalyze, but at the same time, I think having "smarts" can be a big plus.

I think it's more important for an actor to be "socially" smart. By this, I don't mean being able to talk to people (though this is important, too), but the ability to observe people and apply that to their acting. A socially smart actor knows things like when a person is in distress, they don't always cry. They know that someone can be ecstatic and hold it inside- but how to show that.

I had to chuckle when I read this thread... it's thought-provoking.

I used to think that high intelligence was a "plus" in all things, but now I'm not so sure. Jerry Lewis was reputed to have a 165 I.Q., well into the "genius" category. He possessed equal talent. Yet when I saw Alicia Silverstone give an interview on David Letterman and her answers were on a par with Paris Hilton on a bad day, I wondered, is intelligence that important a factor? In retrospect, perhaps that's precisely why she was selected to portray the lead in "Clueless"!

I liked the reference to "street smarts" as opposed to pure intellect, it made a lot of sense. Perhaps like so many things in life, the answer to "kinnniggets" question lies somewhere inbetween.

Ultimately, if an actor is able to access enough reality to make us believe, he's succeeded at the craft. As the old saying goes:

"Whatever works."

www.robertkim.com

Hello,

The problem with the question is that a) it doesn't define intelligence and b) doesn't recognize that there are many kinds of intelligences which have little to do with each other.

Great actors with long and varied careers are almost always geniusly intelligent, at least in these areas:

- Emotional Intelligence
- Interpersonal Intelligence
- Intrapersonal Intelligence
- Persuasion
- Social Influence
- Imaginative Intelligence
- Physical and Vocal Intelligence

A person can have a genius "IQ" (which is a measure of very limited kinds of western and generally causcasian knowledge -- it's kind of a ridiculous concept), and still be a great actor.

Some acting teachers do not know about the fact that multiple intelligences exist. These teachers falsely believe that rational intelligence can be a hindrance to great acting. That is only true if the actor is unable to to switch which part of the brain they are "acting from." Rational intelligence is an archetype, a specific area of the brain. Actors can be taught, by an archetypally sensitive teacher, to "bring in other energies" while they are preparing to be actors -- as opposed to getting locked into the rational mind archetype (commonly referred to as "being in your head" -- a phrase I never use when I teach).

Many rationally intelligent actors are ridiculed and abused by teachers who do not understand multiple intelligences and archetypes.

I was told I was too smart to be an actor by some of my early teachers, because I was "in my head." There was a time I really believed this. It was very traumatizing and frightening, because I loved performing so much, and a part of me always knew the idea that I was too smart to perform was nonsense. I felt so deeply and imagined so wildly, but those teachers couldn't help me RELEASE IT. Thankfully, I kept studying and finding new teachers.

I found teachers who said that it was utter nonsense that I was too smart to be an actor, and that I could learn to bring other energies in while I act -- like vulnerability, intuition, sexuality, killer energy, spiritual energy and more. And it worked. I developed an awareness of all the different energies in me, including ones you need to be a great actor. And I developed CHOICE about "where" I was acting from -- the rational mind, the vulnerable child, the killer, sexual energy, etc.

And again, it worked. I haven't been told I'm "in my head" in many years. And I never have this problem with my students, which is one reason I never use that phrase, a phrase I think is very destructive for many actors. It creates what psychologists call a double bind -- the more you try to get "out of your head" (a nonsense goal, really), the more you are not "in the moment." The more constructive focus is to develop access to a whole range of archetypal colors, and bring them in, rather than blocking anything out! And the actor must learn to create specifically with their imaginations, rational energy doesn't have to block this if you have an aware teacher.

Rational intelligence is a part of many characters! Acting teachers who ridicule rational energy are misleading students. What would Hannibal Lechter be without rationality? Many, many of the greatest characters in dramatic literature are highly rationally intelligent. How about "Who Is Afraid Of Virgina Woolf?" -- the characters are highly rational. But what makes the story dramatic in all these cases is that the actors ALSO bring in OTHER energies -- the killer, sexuality, vulnerability and so much more.

In our work, we do not disown ANYTHING. The more colors an actor has to choose from, the better their acting. The key is CONSCIOUSNESS AND CHOICE about any particular energy - rational, magical, masculine, feminine, whatever. We disown and repress or ridicule NOTHING. There is no need to.

Actors only get locked in rational energy when they aren't able to bring in OTHER energies or don't know how to use their imagination.

Assuming we accept there are many kinds of intelligence, then I would say this -- Unintelligent and unconscious, shallow human beings will never be truly great actors. And frankly, all the brilliant actors I can think of are some of the most evolved, conscious and intelligent human beings on the planet...

They are emotionally aware, politically aware, psychologically aware, spiritually aware and more. And rationality doesn't get in my way, or in their way, because the issue is about CHOOSING what energies to manifest. That is what actor training is all about.

The issue is not whether one "overanalyzes" a script (I don't think that's possible, frankly.). The issue is whether one can then "let it go" and act from their imaginations and a whole range of archetypes when they step into rehearsal/performance. This can be taught by a great acting teacher (someare not). So I don't focus on repressing or stopping anything! I focus, with my students, on EXPANDING who they are, EXPANDING their range, EXPANDING their consciousness and choice about these very real and deep, universal energies -- rationality is included.

It's what audiences pay for -- entertainment -- which is basically experiencing a whole range of energies...unpredictably, specifically, dimensionally, theatrically and urgently!

- Jason

quote:

Unintelligent and unconscious, shallow human beings will never be truly great actors. And frankly, all the brilliant actors I can think of are some of the most evolved, conscious and intelligent human beings on the planet...

Incredibly true, and I think you've really hit on something with the term "unconscious" (at least for me). Maybe that's an even better question to consider.

Great thoughts, everyone...