So, last nite was ladies church night at El Tarasco and I had an epiphany. Unitarians are an odd bunch. The attendees were an actress, a teacher, an environmental consultant, and a law student (me). I 've always thought actors and acting was a trifle silly, but after long discussion, I realized that the practice of law and the process of acting are exactly the same. They are the same thing.
First off, there is no real law, its made up. Surely what we think the law is is enforced, but only because people believe it exists. At its core, there is no Platonic real Law. Let me put it this way. If I type "a". You see an "a". But its not really an a, its a circle with a serif on top that represents semiotically, the concept of a sound for a. We then use that in the process of writing to represent and place-hold that sound. When it is placed on the page, or webpage, the writer intends it as part of a word representing a concept. When I say "banana", I mean the yellow fruit, but also my sum totality of experiences color my perception of the word banana. In fact, there is a slightly rotted banana in front of me on the table right now. When you read "banana" you see a yellow fruit. But you also understand banana as some totallity of your experience with banana. The law is the same way. It is written down by people, to place hold social obligations and restraints on a society's actors. But what is written down is not the law. It exists in its understanding by people, if it exists anywhere. A play is written down to place hold that writer's representation of the play. But it does not exist until it is translated into understanding in the audience.
Okay, so here's why law and drama are the same in general.
The law does not really exist and the play does not really exist. They are place holders for experience. The practice of law is a process whereby the lawyer steps in to synthesize the law and the individual actor he or she represents. There are necessarily two sides in conflict, and the eventually result is a synthesis that is reflected in the minds and experiences of the jury. The judge presides to ensure that both sides are heard, but the lawyers are the ones who practice the law, but they are place holders for the rights and obligations of their clients. And that is all they are. The exist in function, not form.
An actor steps in to synthesize the play and the character he or she represents. There is an antagonist and they either face a protagonist or their own hubris, at the minimum there is a conflict between two issues. The play ends with a synthesis of the conflict, but the synthesis exists in the mind of the audience. Without an audience, there is no play. It is the plays transfer into understanding in the audience that creates it. The director exists to ensure that the characters create the synthesis. The actors are place holders for the characters, existing only in function not form.
This is my new theory. All I can say is this, actors and lawyers stereotypically are the same type people High strung. Bright. But because their very nature exists without form, they are prone to two categories:
Those with empathy and those who lack empathy. A lawyer with empathy sees their client as the form and stives to provide function for that client as a person. The lawyer is merely the vehicle to present the law, and the lawyer steps back from the practice to provide the jury a glimpse of their client as a person. The lawyer without empathy does not see the client as a person, but instead believes the process they are taking to practice law is paramount. Actors are the same, apparently according to my friend, either they believe the character is paramount that they represent, or that their acting is so great that the character must conform to it. I believe the lawyers and actors who don't have empathy eventually see the world as either a trial or an enormous play, where only their function exists. I hope this never happens to me.
Either way, I thought this theory was so insane that I wanted to post it. My friend confirmed that the earliest plays were actually to teach the law. I said "I bet those are some boring ass plays".
Moral of the story, never trust lawyers or actors, because we are whores without form. :)