18-Aug / 0 COMMENTS

A few years ago I was listening and watching an online lecture along with my husband. I don’t remember the title of the lecture or the lecturer’s name, but I do remember that he came from the British isle (in the Middle West #nawal_el_saadawi). The lecture was about the expression of the passions, what the definition of word “passions” meant and included in the past.

At a very early stage of the lecture the lecturer showed the famous (to me and my husband) illustration of Le Brun indicating the passion of Anger on the face. An illustration which accompanied his lecture to the Academie in 1668 for painters as part of a larger project to standardize the arts and sciences in France towards the end of the 17^th century. While he showed Le Brun illustration he found it important to stress, that even though Le Brun’s illustrations were very influential at the time and for centuries to come- for painters, actors, and public speakers, (according to him) one cannot actually create this illustration with a real face. It is simply not possible, therefor not done, and therefore not a real expression of anger. And there, right there and then, the lecturer has lost me.

This lecturer has presented as fact that making an angry face according to Le Brun’s illustration of anger is for some reason not a real thing possible to humans. He wasn’t aware (and of course I cannot fault him for it) that two of the people watching him have spent a lot of time attempting and succeeding doing just that. That someone watching him found it important enough to try and train and develop their muscles and gain the skills to move their face enough to mimic the illustration. First my husband and then myself have worked on Le Brun’s illustration and incorporated them into our acting and then into our teaching. I wasn’t expecting to hear from a specialist on the history of emotions that a facial expression wasn’t possible. I can’t remember the rest of the lecture- maybe interesting points were made later on. I just couldn’t get past this specialist telling so many people in the lecture room and on the internet that basically- he couldn’t make that face, and because of it no one could. Maybe he did try, but couldn’t do it himself (for whatever reason- not trying long enough, not training his face enough?), and because of it assumed it was impossible. Or maybe he took the illustration to someone else that he thought would do a make a better job of it, and they couldn’t move their facial muscles to replicate Le Brun’s Anger as well. Maybe he even brought the illustration to a group of facial expression experts (such as modern actors), and they also couldn’t do it. And thus he gave up, and has arrived to the conclusion that this expression of Anger is impossible.

I think all these things could have happened, but I also believe this lecturer was convinced that face to be impossible to replicate before his possible experiment even began. I imagine he started the experimentation with a prior belief- a prejudice if you will. Only he didn’t think himself prejudiced, just a logical person thinking that if I cannot do something, and the people around me cannot do something- than surely it must mean that it was never done in the past, nor can anyone else manage it currently or in the future. Not being able to tap into the intensity of the illustration and moving the facial muscles to to such extent does mean the illustration of Anger was inaccessible to this person. Not being able to access an expression means one cannot of course teach it to others as possible. However it does not mean another person cannot access it on their own. After all Le Brun’s illustration is open source, available to anyone to look at (via the internet, or a physical library). Anyone can have a go at it. So from my perspective of a person who has the ability to mimic that illustration after hard work, this lecturer’s statement sounds like: I cannot access this with my face, therefore no one possibly can.

A few months ago I saw pictures from a demonstration on social media. In one of them a woman was holding a sign saying: “We’re not angry enough!”. I was thinking to myself that some of us are pretty angry as it is. It’s not how we feel inside that is the problem, it’s that we are not expressing the anger and fear that we feel that is hurting us. That anger is not manifested outwardly or grows into enough action. It is deeply connected to the fact that many of us are not taught how to show “the difficult emotions” like sadness, fear and also anger, for different reasons. Many of us are afraid to even make contact with these emotions, because of the negative connotations that they carry. Just to mention a few of these negative connotations: a person that shows anger can be thought of as difficult, as contrary, and eventually be tagged as unlikable. People don’t want to show anger, so much so that many women choose to Botox their forehead to minimize their natural frown lines- that are connected with them perceived as angry. People would pay to have a procedure that will prevent them of the option of looking angry- manifesting anger outwardly. But what happens if we are angry inside and cannot show it, because of lacking the skills, the habit, or even the muscle mobility? Does it not stop us from being able to express an emotion that is there to protect us from being hurt?

I go back to that lecturer, and his early statement. Is it that no one can show anger- in the meaning that no one has the muscle skills to portray Le Brun’s Anger, or is it in the meaning that no one should attempt showing Anger? Are the two meanings connected? Are we lacking the skill set because showing anger is not a desirable trait? What does seeing anger in others make us feel? Is the inability to show anger connected to a fear of the feeling that it brings in us?

Anger Charles le Brun Historical Acting La Colere