Stage acting in the Victorian period would seem bizarrely and hilariously stylized to us today. The technique was based on a gestural vocabulary that included drawing back, with both hands open and raised up, eyes wide open, and mouth agape, to indicate surprise, and that sort of thing. Actors would adopt stances that were familiar to their audiences to show the various emotions they wished to convey.
Some of the gestures survived today in the language of mime, but otherwise they’ve been forgotten, except perhaps as jokey, exaggerated reactions in slapstick routines, or in charades.
What’s happened is that succeeding generations of actors strove to make acting more and more natural – that is, more closely mimicking real human behavior. The evolution of first stage, and then movie acting, has proceeded to such a point that even a great actor of a couple of generations ago, like Sir Laurence Olivier, appears to us stiff and overly mannered now. Try watching his version of Hamlet and you’ll see what I mean.
Public speaking has undergone the same evolution at the top echelons, but the word hasn’t trickled down to many public speakers yet, even professional ones. The result is that speaking habits that were acceptable in the last quarter of the 20th Century now seem overly formal and stagey to us today.
What audiences crave is a conversation – and a conversational style – from their speakers. Television is partly to blame, but mostly it’s the parallel evolution of speaker formality to a more natural style.
Speakers today need to forget the rules they learned in public speaking classes of the last century, or in debate classes, and focus instead on having a conversation with their audiences. Keep it natural, as natural as you can be, while still delivering a speech that’s better organized than an actual conversation. Natural is still a style, but it’s an evolving one, and speakers have to keep up with the times just like actors.
Nick, interesting post. I can’t help making an observation, I think it’s related. I’m an American but I live in Paris, France. One of the ways to tell, just by looking, that someone is American (particularly in females, I’m afraid) is by observing facial expressions. Americans make these exaggerated, sort of cartoon/caricature faces when they talk. I’ve observed French moms, telling their children (particularly girls), not to “make faces; it’s not pretty,” and such like. French people do not make such expressions, they use words to convey meaning, not facial gestures. Your post suggests that, in order for a speaker to be taken seriously, he/she must convey meaning using controlled expressions, and use the words to convey the actual point being made. Is that what you mean?
So then, why would our personal expressions be so different from our public ones?
Or, should they?
Hi, Elizabeth, and thanks for your fascinating comment. It’s not quite as simple as the either/or dichotomy you suggest. Rather, it’s one of degree. The French are a little “cooler” than Americans, on average. But French people are still decoding each other’s intent and emotion from body language, they’re just reading subtler clues than the “exaggerated facial expressions” you refer to. Indeed, the face is the one place that average people (French or American) are able to conceal their real emotions with relative success. Faux enthusiasm, energy, and so on. Most of the clues we receive as to the intent or emotion of other people come from the way we hold our bodies, the way we gesture, the tension in our backs and torsos, and so on. That’s why we’re able to tell the enthusiasm is faux, in fact. The way to think about it is that different cultures overlay some superficial differences in tone and degree over some very basic human attitudes and gestures that the research shows us is indeed universal.
[…] an excellent recent post on the evolution of public speaking, Nick Morgan described how the styles of delivery that were common and normal a few years ago are […]
[…] https://publicwords.com/2013/04/02/how-public-speaking-has-evolved/ […]