On the question of actors, there have always been two completely opposite views.
One is called "Experiencing School", which thinks that an actor should completely integrate himself with the "self" of the characters in the play, that is, he (she) should "get too deeply involved in the play". When he (she) comes to power, she (he) is already that person, and my feelings should be completely unified with him. This theory requires an actor to have a high degree of empathy for the characters in the play-my whole life belongs to the plot. The popular expression of this theory is: "forgetting that you are performing is the best performance" (for example, if I play Zhou Ping, then I am Zhou Ping, with his helplessness and weakness, my role is his role, he is me, I am him, he is suffering, I am suffering, he is suffering).
The other is "expressionism", which holds that actors should always pull themselves out of the plot and "express" another person with an independent self, that is, never immerse their feelings in the characters in the play. The actor on the stage is still himself, calm and completely rational. He uses his own behavior to interpret another virtual person he knows well, instead of being overly empathetic to the characters in the play. According to this theory, the former makes the actors drown in too many emotions in the play, but it is not conducive to the actors to concentrate on the performance. For example, if I play Zhou Ping, then I am still me, with my independent personality and values. I am a bystander to reflect another helpless and weak person, and I can also express my views and emotional tendencies on this character with the feeling that I am still independent from Zhou Ping.
There is no difference between the two different performances in the eyes of the audience, but the psychological state of the actors is quite different. The former thinks that "it is a good actor to get into the play too deeply", so it is easy for an actor to move his true feelings, and even after the performance, he will be immersed in the plot for a long time, and even the drama itself may change the actor's own personality (because the actor keeps hinting at himself: my personality is the character of the characters in the play, which is equivalent to self-hypnosis, and long-term "self-deception" is easy to cheat things and really turn himself into that); The latter thinks that "it is not a good actor to get into the play too deeply", which requires the actor to always maintain the integrity of the rational self, so the actor is not easy to be too emotional and will not be influenced by the plot. However, this theory encourages actors to interpret the characters in the play with their own values, so this kind of performance may lead to the change of the actors' values, and the performance itself will be influenced by the actors' personal likes and dislikes.
Here is a digression: in fact, it has always been controversial whether it is better to "get into the play" or "play". Not only actors, but also audiences. There has always been a school headed by Aristotle that drama should be imitated, give the audience a real illusion, and arouse the audience's high empathy for the characters in the play; The other school, led by Brecht, thinks that drama should make people feel strange, should always make people look at a thing calmly from the perspective of a bystander, and should always make people realize that they are "watching a play". And this debate has never stopped. . . . . .
In fact, I personally think that the essence of these two opposing theories is: "Should we be emotional or rational about drama?"