Helsinki\Tampere - Tory, Ua, Hetta

Word: “It”.

"[T]here are certain actors who have only to step on the stage and the public is already enthralled by them. Why?"

Stanislavski, Constantin. Building a Character. Trans.

Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. New York:
Theatre Arts Books. 1979.

“Self-confidence and indifference whether you are pleasing or not – and something in you that gives the impression you are not at all cold. That’s IT.”

Elinor Glyn, Author of “It” – the novella.

Provisional definition adapted from theory of Joseph Roach:

It: (in this case of usage, a noun, and capitalized).
The “precondition of celebrity.” (pp 555) Not necessarily an innate essence, nor reducible to talent, It is the “easily perceived but hard-to-define quality possessed by abnormally interesting people.” (pp 555). Broadly: the intangible, un-self-conscious charm of a person or performer’s “whole being…that attracts both sexes.” (pp 558) A person with It gives the illusion of “absolute presence” (pp 557) and exerts endless fascination over audiences and society at large, seeming to simultaneously and yet effortlessly, embody various antipodes, or contradictory qualities. (Ex: “innocence and experience; strength and vulnerability; modernity and timelessness; stigmatized and revered”; etc). While having It is not a guarantee of fame and success, “no one stars without it.” (pp 555)

Often alternatively referred to as: charisma, charm, presence, stuff, spunk, moxie, etc. (pp 556)


Roach, Joseph. “It.” Theatre Journal. Volume 56. Number 4. December
2004. pp 555-568.

Dictionary Definition:

it: (pronoun) 1) used to refer to an animal or thing that has already been mentioned or that is being talked about now.

charisma: (noun) 1) The powerful personal quality that some people have to attract or impress other people.

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 7th Edition. Ed. Sally Wehmeier. Oxford
University Press. 2005.



Challenges:

1) As the “pre-condition of celebrity”, is it relatable to Barba’s “pre-expressivity”? Does It cut across cultural and ethnic boundaries? While It appears to operate on a very subtle level of recognition, it must also work in tandem with numerous and intricate culturally specific codes. Would I, as a Westerner and a Caucasian, be able to recognize It in, for example, an Eastern performer of Khon (traditional Thai dance theatre)?
2) Where does It reside, if not in the person or performer them self? Is It a product of the inter-relationship (the “public intimacy”, as Roach describes it?) between the performer, the part they play, and the spectators? If so, does the selection of role alter/affect a performer’s It-ness, or can they transcend/slip past the role regardless? How much of a role does the spectator play in It?
3) Is It a performance? What is the difference between the consciousness of doubleness that gives actions the quality of performance, and the “self-consciousness” that Roach posits as the killer of It?
4) Does the person/performer and spectator relationship require the visual to access It? Can It be perceived through radio transmission?
5) To what extent do media and economic filters between person/performer and spectator alter and/or enhance the quality of It?