articular effect in one's own social circle. The art of the actor and the "acting" of the ordinary man or woman are both artistically intertwined in a form of social messaging that is derived, consciously or unconsciously, from the same art employed by the professional actor. In that sense, many of us are unconsciously projecting aspects of selected prototypes.
This should not be confused with people who in the psychiatric sense are "acting out" by simply being "who they are" and trying to relay aspects of their personalities to others. The techniques employed in this mimicry are almost always unconscious; but because they utilize gesture, body language, and embellished consciousness to make their points, they fall into the purview of acting.
We tend to mimic traits in people we admire. It is a way of assimilating qualities we would like to possess ourselves. When Ronald Reagan quoted Clint Eastwood's warning "make my day," he was assuming a toughness that has been appropriated from a character for whom toughness is an indigenous trait. In quoting the actor he was reproducing a cinematic quality that he personally lacked but admired and therefore "borrowed." It was an imitation that in some way supplemented a deficit in Reagan himself. We do this all the time in regard to actors or actresses we admire for qualities that we lack.
It could be argued that all of us possess alter egos influenced by fictional characters with whom we tacitly correspond; characters who have come down to us from books, plays, movies, legends, fairy tales, even paintings and illustrations. When men try to seduce women, there may be a template in their subconscious of Valentino, Errol Flynn, Marlon Brando, Sean Connery, George Clooney -- just as women may consciously or unconsciously pattern themselves on public personae such as Marilyn Monroe, Katherine Hepburn, Meryl Streep, Angelina Jolie, etc. -- performers whose films have lodged certain character traits in our minds and whose personae we preserve in our dream life.
We use the tactics of acting in social interactions when we want to convey attributes we do not naturally possess -- viz. a robust style of delivery to mask uncertainty, an outward show of calm that often conceals an inner turbulence, a mask of great concern when we are in fact totally disinterested. We project those traits that we believe are expected of us in social situations -- for instance, in genial exchanges with people we actually dislike, or by exaggerating our skills in a job interview where we have few or none. Instinctively, we know how to mask antisocial characteristics by portraying traits that are deliberately chosen. We do not have to rehearse these actions; we borrow them, usually unconsciously, from gestures, expressions and behavior that we have derived from books, films, plays, or television. We could simply attribute these traits to "human nature," but the specific selection of posture, diction, and attitude are often derived from "performances" we have assimilated from an exposure to a bevy of social artifacts. Professional actors employ fakery to project their characters. "Real people," beyond the range of esthetics, do exactly the same thing -- their behavior being just as "put on" as that of professional actors. We all poach attitudes, characteristics, even language from professional players, just as the players poach insight, attitudes and language from the performing arts.
But what happens when all or most of one's behavior is purloined from outside sources? Is that still "acting"? Is it theft? Is it homage to make believe? Is it encroachment from the media and simply an extension of "entertainment"? Or is it a kind of dishonesty -- the kind of behavior that labels one as being insincere, a faker, a phony?
As you can see, I am trying to define differences and similarities rather than projecting a thesis. Rather than determine some penetrating truth based on fiction, I am simply pointing out similarities and wondering if, as the Bard would have it, "All the world is a stage and all the men and women merel