Anyone who’s seen the musical “Six” (2017) and the film “The Other Boleyn Girl” (2008) knows that while both productions explore the love life (or perhaps more appropriately, lives) of Henry VIII, they do so in vastly different ways.
“Six” has the vibe of a fabulous contemporary concert that invites your participation and feels like an inside joke. Alternatively, “The Other Boleyn Girl” is more restrained, like you’re a fly on the wall watching the unraveling of the actual Anne Boleyn, Mary Boleyn, and Henry VIII. If you’re wondering how two retellings of the same historical events can feel so drastically different, a lot of it comes down to presentational versus representational acting and theater. Here’s a rundown of the styles.
Presentational and representational approaches differ, depending on if you’re speaking in terms of actor-audience or actor-character relationships. For actor-audience, presentational tends to be more in your face, while representational exudes understated nuance. But the two are essentially switched when it comes to the actor-character relationship.
Confused yet? What initially sounds like a straightforward concept can quickly become convoluted, but we’re here to clarify.
What are the differences for the actor-audience relationship?
Presentational theater breaks the fourth wall. Actors acknowledge the audience and speak directly to viewers. Consider the many asides that populate Shakespeare’s plays, such as the famous balcony scene from “Romeo and Juliet” (1597), when Romeo turns directly to the audience and says, “Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?”
Breaking the Fourth Wall as an Actor or FilmmakerRepresentational theater doesn’t break the fourth wall. Actors play characters who are unaware of the audience observing them. Think of how you might shout at your TV when horror film protagonists make the ill-advised decision to go down the creepiest of corridors. You feel as though you’re really watching the characters; you’re fully immersed in their world, not constantly reminded about the real-life scream queens portraying them.
Onstage acting is often presentational. Plays and musicals use the presentational approach a lot, especially following the rise of fourth-wall-breaking storytelling in musical theater in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Several of Harvey Schmidt and Tom Jones’ musicals, such as “Celebration” (1969) and “Philemon” (1975), as well as “Pippin” (1972; book by Roger O. Hirson and Bob Fosse, music and lyrics by Stephen Schwartz) begin with theater troupes putting on shows and continuously acknowledging the real-life audience throughout the show’s events. In fact, it could be argued that all musicals feature presentational elements, since solo songs are really just soliloquies (a character’s inner thoughts that are only spoken out loud for the benefit of the audience) set to music.
While it’s uncommon to see outside the stage, there are some presentational onscreen productions that break the fourth wall, such as “The Office” (2005–2013), “Modern Family” (2009–2020), “Parks and Recreation” (2009–2015), “Abbott Elementary” (2021–present), “Fleabag” (2016–2019), and the “Deadpool” (2016, 2018, 2024) franchise.
Onscreen acting is often representational. Most modern television shows and films—like “Breaking Bad” (2008–2013), “Shogun” (2024–present), “Past Lives” (2023), and “May December” (2023)—are representational. This approach is nuanced and subtle, with actors conveying emotions in a more restrained way (often through the use of microexpressions). Representational performances read more realistically than presentational ones, with the audience invited to observe as if they’re omniscient beings spying on characters’ lives.
What are the differences for the actor-character relationship?
Just when you finally think you’ve got a handle on it, we’ve got a wrench to throw into your understanding. Theater pioneer Uta Hagen took from concepts introduced by the father of modern acting Konstantin Stanislavsky to adapt secondary (somewhat contradictory) definitions for the approaches as applied to the ways actors create characters.
Presentational acting is internal. Hagen defines presentational acting as allowing a character’s inner feelings and motives to define them. The idea behind it is that if you try to understand all of your character’s inner workings, impulses, and motivations, you’ll help them take shape.
Representational acting is external. On the other hand, representational acting means approaching a character by allowing their physical appearance to inform everything else about them. Historically, this more traditional approach relied heavily on the use of stock characters, such as the lovers, the fool, or the hero, whose archetypal characteristics made them immediately recognizable to the audience.
Presentational acting is realistic. This approach lends itself to creating lifelike, three-dimensional characters and is ideal for more realistic, grounded productions—like those seen in representational theater (we said it would become confusing!). Presentational acting can be a lot of work, so it’s likely only worth it when you have the time to commit to discovering the character.
For instance, if you’re using a presentational acting approach to play Grandpa Joe in the musical “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” (2013; book by David Greig, music by Marc Shaiman, lyrics by Shaiman and Scott Wittman), you might let his words and actions inform his character: He loves his grandson, he’s excitable, he desperately wants to see Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory, and he’s not quite as lazy as his much-reviled counterpart in the original “Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory” film (1971). After time in rehearsal learning to understand Grandpa Joe, his character would emerge, well-rounded and nuanced.
Representational acting is archetypal. Though it’s a more antiquated approach, representational acting can work well in contemporary settings like broad comedies, musical theater, or other situations where it matters less that the characters are somewhat one-dimensional—as seen in presentational productions. Actors in more formulaic sitcoms might use the representational approach to inform their craft; think of “The Big Bang Theory” (2007–2019) and its use of stock characters, like the dumb blonde, geek, and absent-minded professor. Since representational acting is relatively quick and easy, it can be helpful to rely on an archetype as a quick way into a character, as long as it doesn’t become hammy or shallow.
To continue with the Grandpa Joe example, if you’re using a representational acting approach, you might rely on what you know about him physically—he’s very old, he’s frail, he might have a limp and a gruff voice—and broadly add those to your performance in the hopes that the rest will follow.