There Is No Such Thing as Acting to Be “Good” At !!

There Is No Such Thing as Acting to Be “Good” At

As someone who facilitates acting classes, I’ve had a lot of realizations about the way we talk about—and teach—acting.

At this point, I no longer believe that Acting can be taught.

And I no longer believe that anyone has the authority to define what Acting is, let alone what “good” Acting is.

“Acting” is the name we give the job. But the job itself is surprisingly difficult to define.

The closest working definition I have is something like: being in-character.
But if that’s true—how can anyone teach you what a character you inhabit should look like, behave like, or sound like?

At best, what we can do is create a space where an actor can explore all the ways their creativity expresses itself as character.

I’ve been in many acting classes that focused on the “right” way to play a scene—either in general, or in the specific material being worked on.

There were always rules.
Sometimes subtle, sometimes explicit.
Rules about what “works” and what doesn’t.

Traps to avoid.

“Always play the love”

“Don’t play the emotion, play the intention”

Over time, I built up a mental Rolodex of these rules. As an actor, I was constantly navigating them—trying to make “good” acting happen.

(Ironically, that impulse—to be “good,” to get it right, to win approval—is actually a beautiful expression of my own character. This is the stuff of character to explore!)

But for years, I believed that becoming a “good actor” meant mastering these rules (technique)—and finding the teacher whose rules were the most elevated. I didn’t realize I was allowed to follow my own creative threads. I didn’t realize I didn’t have to defer to someone else’s idea of how things should be. (Collaboration is something different.)

Here’s a rule, if we need one:

When you approach acting from a place of planning and control—trying to get it just right—people will always have opinions about what didn’t work and how to do it better.

But when you are fully in-character, genuinely responding from that point of view, people will just feel: “That’s exactly how it’s supposed to be.”

And even this “rule” falls apart the moment I try to fix it in place.

That’s why I come back to this idea:

Tools, not rules™.

Not all teachers work this way. But in my experience, criticism, taste, and direction can sometimes become a way of setting goals that disconnect actors from their own creative process.

That was certainly true for me.

I felt cornered.
Disconnected from my own creative power.
Frustrated.
Desperate to get “better”.

The truth I’ve come to is this:

Acting isn’t something you can be “good” at.
It’s a process you engage with.

There’s a valid argument that strong technique leads to consistency and professional success. And that’s worth acknowledging.

But the soul of acting isn’t technique.

It’s presence.
It’s humanity.
It’s creativity.

Technique in acting is not the same as, something like concert violin. It matters—but it’s not the core of the work.

Acting—being in-character—is an exploration.

It lives at the intersection of:

Your own humanity.

The character’s experience of reality.

And the story being told.

You might begin with similar questions each time. But as Willem Dafoe has said, you often have to invent a new process for every character you take on.

And at a certain point, all of that exploration has to come alive in the body.

Not as an idea.
Not as a plan.
But as presence.

The body becomes responsive. Alive.
All the cells engaged in the experience of the character.

That process feels less like technique and more like alchemy.
More creativity than control.
More channeling than performing.

This is the foundation of how I approach my classes.

The goal is not to teach actors how to be “good.”
It’s to create a space where they can open this channel.

To work with the body—making it more available, more responsive, more expressive.

To take risks.
To explore.
To discover what they’re actually capable of.

And just as importantly, to avoid reinforcing the kinds of environments that cause actors to give their power away in the first place.

An acting class, at its best, is a place where actors:

Learn more about who they are.

Recognize the characters they already play in life.

Explore how their energy shifts across different roles.

Reconnect with their own creative authority.

There is no such thing as acting to be “good” at.

It’s just the name of a job you put on your credit card application.