An error in reasoning is called a logical or rhetorical fallacy. When one’s conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise, we are right to say that the logic is flawed. An actor once told me his teacher was amazing, and when I asked why he said, “He charges $200 per hour!” Do you see how conflating the two points tells us nothing about the teacher’s skill?
If you believe any one of the statements below to be true, take a step back and rethink logically.
Premise: “My teacher taught Cate Blanchett and she’s a great actor.”
Conclusion: “My teacher is the best!”
Fallacy: Appeal to celebrity
It is entirely possible that Blanchett is a great actor and that your teacher is the best, but the two statements aren’t causally linked. A celebrity’s use or endorsement of a service does not make the service great. Many years ago Blanchett performed in a TVC for Tim Tams, and although Tim Tams are delicious chocolate biscuits, they are not delicious chocolate because Blanchett says so.
Premise: “I can’t learn my lines perfectly.”
Conclusion: “I might as well not learn my lines at all!”
Fallacy: Reductio ad absurdum
It is a common trait in humans to argue to an absurd degree in order to avoid accepting what they cannot master. “I’ll never be as thin as a supermodel so I might as well eat until I become obese.” The two conjoined statements have no logical link other than the artificially applied defeatism. To link them without logic is to commit a rhetorical fallacy, and that’s what’s keeping one from becoming fit, not the fact that supermodels are skinnier.
Premise: “Anna Paquin won an Oscar at 8 years old.”
Conclusion: “My niece is 8. She could win an Oscar!”
Fallacy: Appeal to probability
It is entirely possible for your niece to win an Academy Award, but it’s not probable just because Paquin did. In fact, if Paquin hadn’t won back then, the odds would be exactly the same for your niece today. This skewed reasoning in no way increases your niece’s chance of success, and therefore simply uses up energy better spent in helping her become a great actor, which actually would increase her chances of success.
Premise: “I didn’t prepare and I still got the role.”
Conclusion: “I won’t prepare for auditions anymore!”
Fallacy: Appeal to ignorance
It is said that Mel Gibson got into a pub brawl the night before his audition for the original “Mad Max” film. Many have therefore concluded that he landed the role because he went to a pub and got in a fight. Beware of making unfounded assumptions as to why you were or were not cast. Though your height, weight, terrible joke, or shoe size may have played a part, each is only one potential component of your success (or lack thereof) in an audition.
Premise: “I upset that casting director.”
Conclusion: “I’ll never work in this industry again!”
Fallacy: Appeal to fear
Actors have so many fears with which to grapple that it seems odd to me they would want to add more. No casting director is going to reject a great actor for the right role. Though your mistakes, lack of preparation, and even poor punctuality may irk them, no casting director has the time to remember and maintain a “black list.” Further, it would be more embarrassing for them to find that the person they blacklisted was just cast in a Jane Campion film by one of their peers than for them to put up with the actor for 15 minutes every blue moon.
Premise: “Nobody knows what they want in real life.”
Conclusion: “Objectives don’t work!”
Fallacy: Appeal to nature
Objectives as defined by Stanislavsky may not work and people may not know what they want in real life. These are both possibilities. To say though that one logically follows the other will, nine times out of 10, lead you to an erroneous conclusion. A sentence may include two correct statements and still be wrong. Each statement is well worth exploring, but the exercise is only fruitful if logic is employed to test the result.
Logic is certainly not the only tool at an actor’s disposal, but since our conclusions dictate our future behavior, it’s an important one. If this behavior is the result of fallacious reasoning then we may be following entirely interesting and valid assumptions to completely incorrect and damaging conclusions. Why make your job more difficult than it already is?
Like this advice? Check out more from our Backstage Experts!
The views expressed in this article are solely that of the individual(s) providing them,
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Backstage or its staff.
