How to Act Human: Advice for Mitt Romney From Inside the Actors Studio

A few months ago, Brian McFadden’s weekly comic strip in the Sunday Times offered ways for Mitt Romney to improve his image. One panel showed him with me on the set of Inside the Actors Studio, under the heading “Take Acting Lessons to Appear More Relatable.”

Initially amused by this unsolicited enlistment, I’ve found myself returning spontaneously and with increasing frequency to the task, sometimes starting awake in the middle of the night with acting advice for the candidate. Convinced that the only way to exorcise this possession is to confront it, I offer the following counsel.

In this media-saturated era, the line between politics and performance has virtually vanished, and the public is having a hard time believing Mr. Romney’s persona (as in dramatis personae) — a potentially fatal flaw for any actor, but especially for a presidential candidate. Why doesn’t Mr. Romney’s audience believe him?

Perhaps it starts with his laugh, a device he employs at odd moments and in a most peculiar way. (The public thinks that crying is the acid test of the actor, but in fact “laughing” is much harder — and Mr. Romney hasn’t mastered it.)

Listen to his laugh. It resembles the flat “Ha! Ha! Ha!” that appears in comic-strip dialogue balloons. But worse – far worse – it is mirthless. Mr. Romney expects us to be amused, although he himself is not amused. Freeze the frame, cover the bottom of his face with your hand, and study his eyes. There’s no pleasure there, no amusement.

Genuine laughter is triggered only by, and is completely dependent on, shared perception. That’s why we say we “get” a joke.

Another of Mr. Romney’s acting sins is sartorial. Calling Wardrobe! The combination of neatly creased blue jeans below and crisp white dress shirt or bespoke jacket above is a failed mash-up of bowling alley and country club. Inauthenticity is, after all, today’s topic, and I suspect that if Mr. Romney weren’t running for president, he wouldn’t be caught dead in that mismatch.

When challenged on the illegal immigrants caring for his lawn, Mr. Romney responded: “We went to the company and we said, look, you can’t have any illegals working on our property. I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake.” While a few illegal immigrants on the lawn might not faze private citizen Romney, “running for office” requires a separate set of rules and, more important, a separate persona.
It’s that “other” Romney that seems to be confusing the public, and that launched my assignment in the Times. As worthy as the real Romney may be, he is not, has never been, and never will be the common man, and when he assumes the role in a crowd, his evident discomfort tells us that this guy doesn’t fly coach, much less go Greyhound, and, without the demands of “running for office,” wouldn’t be spending much time with these people who do.

The lesson of Reagan is that, whatever his politics and legacy, there was always only one of him. Even with all his theatrical experience, he never essayed a dual role. So, for what it’s worth, my advice to Mr. Romney is this: Since the evidence indicates that you lack the skills to simulate what you're not, you should stick to typecasting and go with what you’ve got and who you are. It’s not just your best option, sir, it’s your only one.

Well right now, he won’t even tell us how he got rich for the simple reason he doesn’t want us to know the answers

Anyone...with half a brain can figure out his success.

I don't like Romney the politician...but I also don't like when people...throw around the "How he got rich" stuff. Apparently he became wealthy...legally.

I don't have a problem with that. And frankly...it comes across like a Liberal point...and apparently something some here on FR agree with.

I don't.

I'm not going to sit here...and bash his wealth. I'm real tired of people bashing success here in America. I've been successful....by hard work. I know people that are successful....and it's because they went to school, worked hard...and did well.

FWIW-

Did you read this?

""Well, this is how Mitt won the primaries. He spent tens of millions of dollars destroying his rivals with negative TV ads hoping that people would vote for him out of desperation. They certainly weren’t going to vote for Santorum or Gingrich when Mitt and his moneyed friends were through keelhauling them in one nasty ad after the other.

So this is what we’re getting this November: a candidate we know, and one waiting in the shadows hoping things get so hopeless that we elect that guy with the nice wife and kids, that one who won’t answer questions.

I'm sorry you picked one little sentence out of that comment when the rest of it was right on the mark.

I commented on what I commented on.........

Period.

I didn't comment on how he spends his money, nor his apparent brutal tactics.....

I commented on what I commented on...

Period.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.