Would it be considered acting if every movie and play were nothing more than an accurate retelling of the actors own lives? Of course lies are built with deceptions; you cannot tell a good lie by telling only the truth. A lie can also have a bit of truth in it, but only to make it more believable. While a movie can be based on the truth, the actor still has to tell the audience fallacies. Pretending to be someone else is a lie. Con artists recognize the similarities in acting and lying. They impersonate others all the time, the same thing an actor does for every role. Despite the similarities in the illusions created by acting and lying, there is a different quality to the deceit employed by both. With a lie there is typically a quality of malevolence to it, maybe not perceived by the audience, but nonetheless it is there. Anyone who is the targeted audience of such a malevolent illusion will of course not be happy to be so. Acting has a quality of fun to its deception. The audiences of acting are there by choice for the fun and entertainment brought about by an …show more content…
An actor may do so in order to become famous. A liar can lie to people to get them to think they are more important or special than they truly are. An actor can perform a role so they can make money. A liar will sometimes convince a target to give them money through lies. Do actors and liars care about their audiences in the same way? When an actor gains fame through their acts they usually appreciate their fans and they know that it’s the fans that make them special. When a liar gains a sort of fame through their lies, they bask in the limelight and know that it is all fake. When actors are paid for the acts they put on, they know it is for performing a service. An actor does not try to trick people into giving them money for their act. A liar trying to gain money for a lie is only pulling a trick. A liar who succeeds is getting the money will usually consider their “mark” a