Embodying Desire, Vulnerability, and Rage:
A REFLEXIVE STUDY OF MY ACTING PRACTICE
ACADEMIC ESSAY
LENAY ROSSOUW 231134
31 OCTOBER 2026
List of Figures
INTRODUCTION
The 20th century saw a radical shift in acting techniques, from the external representational style of earlier theatre to methods emphasising psychological truth and emotional authenticity (Krasner, 2011, p. i). Konstantin Stanislavski’s system, Lee Strasberg’s development of Method Acting, and Sanford Meisner’s technique form the backbone of contemporary Western performance training (Meisner Technique | Definition, Stanislavsky System, Components, Development, & Facts, n.d.). “These techniques prioritise the actor’s inner life, emotional memory, and responsiveness in the moment (Stanislavski, 1989, p. 44-80).”)
Parallel to these developments, feminist theory has redefined how women are represented on stage and screen. Judith Butler challenges the notion of gender as natural, instead as performative (Butler, 1990, p. 7-15). Laura Mulvey critiques the “male gaze,” in which women are positioned as objects of desire rather than complex subjects (Mulvey, 1975, p. 6-7). More recently, Sara Ahmed has explored how women’s emotions disrupt cultural expectations of femininity (Ahmed, 2017, p.1-3).
My acting portfolio lies at the intersection of these discourses. In this essay, I reflect on three roles: Heather, a woman consumed by vanity and the pursuit of validation; Imogean, a romantic lead torn between conflicting desires; and Kara, a naïve lover trapped in an abusive relationship. Drawing on both acting and feminist theory, I argue that my practice reveals the tension between emotional authenticity and cultural performativity, between living truthfully and performing femininity.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS
Sanford Meisner’s technique emphasises “living truthfully under imaginary circumstances” (Meisner & Longwell, 1987, p. 15). Through repetition, improvisation, and intense listening,
Meisner trains actors to prioritise responsiveness over intellectual control (Meisner & Longwell, 1987, p. 20-23). For me, Meisner resonates deeply because it cultivates emotional availability and requires the actor to remain fully present. This technique has been crucial in all three of my roles, allowing emotion to emerge spontaneously rather than being imposed.
Constantin Stanislavski’s system remains foundational in actor training, with concepts such as objectives, what they want in the scene (Stanislavski, 1989, p. 78-80), the magic if (Stanislavski, 1989, p. 48-49), and given circumstances which are the facts and details of the world, (Stanislavski, 1989, p. 50-51) which guides actors to justify every choice. Method Acting, developed by Lee Strasberg, built on these ideas by emphasising emotional memory, where actors draw upon their own past experiences to evoke authentic feelings (Strasberg, 1987, p. 13-15). While Meisner focuses on the present moment, The Method allows me to connect deeply with characters whose emotional needs parallel my own. Together, these approaches give me both spontaneity and depth.
My feminist perspective is central to how I approach acting. Judith Butler’s notion of gender performativity frames femininity as a repeated performance, not a natural state (Butler, 1990, p. 3-33). It provides a lens that reveals Heather’s dependency on external validation. Laura Mulvey’s theory of the male gaze highlights how female characters are often reduced to objects of desire (Mulvey, 1975, p. 6-7), which I resisted in portraying Imogean. Sara Ahmed explores the political power of women’s emotions (Ahmed, 2017, p.188), a discourse directly relevant to Kara’s role. Together, these theories contextualise my acting as not only personal but also political, participating in cultural conversations about women’s representation.
PERSONAL PORTFOLIO
Figure 1 showcases my role as Heather (Rossouw, 2025) in Creatures of Convenience (Gomba, 2025), the performance lies in femininity. She is a woman whose sense of worth is
built upon beauty and male validation. To avoid cliché, I grounded her vanity as an authentic emotional need. Meisner’s emphasis on truth in the moment (Meisner & Longwell, 1987, p. 19-26) enabled me to react honestly to shifting attention within the scene, revealing Heather’s fragility when she loses the spotlight. Emotional memory (Strasberg, 1987, p. 13-15) also played a role: I drew on my own experiences of craving recognition to fuel her desperation.
Butler’s theory of gender performativity contextualises Heather as a character who performs femininity as survival, sustaining her identity through external affirmation. Heather epitomises the fragility of a self built upon repeated gendered performances (Butler, 1990, p. 3-33). Playing her revealed to me that my task as an actor is not to judge characters but to expose the humanity beneath even seemingly shallow behaviours.
The role of Imogean (Rossouw, 2025) in Sparks (Tordiffe, 2025) was built around vulnerability and romantic conflict. Imogean, shown in figure 2, a married woman conflicted by feelings for another man, required emotional depth and vulnerability. Meisner’s principle of emotional availability (Meisner & Longwell, 1987, p. 19-26) allowed me to cry, hesitate, and confront truthfully without forcing emotion. Stanislavski’s concept of objectives guided me. Imogen’s super-objective, the overall goal that guides actions (Stanislavski, 1989, p. 78-80), was to find love and stability, yet each scene forced her to navigate conflicting desires.
Mulvey’s critique of the male gaze contextualises Imogen’s role within broader feminist debates. Romantic leads are often framed as passive objects (Mulvey, 1975, p. 6-7), however, I resisted this by focusing my objective not on the male co-star’s reaction, but on the internal conflict of Stanislavski’s super-objective to find love and stability. My use of Meisner’s ‘intense listening’ ensured my reactions were to the scene partner’s words, not their look, thereby shifting her from an object of desire to an active subject negotiating her future. This role
FIGURE
The author’s own work of Heather, realising she is not the centre of attention after her friend got engaged
Note: Lenay Rossouw, 2025
FIGURE 02
The author’s work of Imogen telling her husband that she wants to move on and get a divorce
Note: Lenay Rossouw, 2025
reaffirmed my love for drama, where my emotional truth feels most at home, and highlighted vulnerability as one of my strongest assets as an actor.
Kara (Rossouw, 2024), in Daydreamer (Goulden, 2024), shown in figure 3, is a hopeless romantic who remains in a relationship marked by betrayal and emotional abuse. This role challenged me to inhabit the quiet devastation of denial. She is naïve, desperate to believe in love, and unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality, to the point where her mind begins to fragment. Meisner’s technique was essential here; by reacting truthfully to my scene partner’s behaviour, I allowed Kara’s pain to surface naturally rather than performing it as a conventional “beautiful” sadness (Meisner & Longwell, 1987, p. 15). Similarly, Strasberg’s emphasis on emotional memory (1987, p. 13–15) helped me connect Kara’s heartbreak to personal experiences of longing and self-doubt, grounding her breakdown in lived emotion rather than melodrama.
Butler’s theory of performativity (1999, p. 33) helped me frame Kara’s behaviour as a learned performance, the cultural expectation that women must suffer silently for love. Her repeated forgiveness becomes a ritual of submission, sustained by social conditioning. Mulvey’s notion of the romantic gaze also applies: Kara’s self-image is shaped by patriarchal ideals of redemption through love (Mulvey, 1975, p. 6). Portraying her breakdown became an act of resistance, exposing how internalised narratives of female suffering distort reality. This role marked the height of my typecasting as the “sad romantic” and ultimately motivated my shift toward playing and writing characters who reclaim agency.
Across these performances, I see a trajectory from superficiality to depth, from external validation to self-awareness. Heather revealed femininity as a performance, Imogean taught me to find strength in vulnerability, and Kara made me confront the painful allure of submission. Collectively, they represent my evolution as both an actor and a feminist creative with emotions that are often silenced, stereotyped, or dismissed in screen culture. As an
FIGURE 03
Authors’ work of Kara pleading to work through their relationship troubles
Note: Lenay Rossouw, 2024
Afrikaans actor, I also bring linguistic and cultural specificity to these roles, situating my work within both personal authenticity and broader feminist discourse.
Acting theories provided the emotional tools, Meisner’s presence, Stanislavski’s structure, and Strasberg’s memory, while feminist theory provided the ethical framework. Through Butler, I understand how my characters perform gender; through Mulvey, how they are seen and through Ahmed, how their emotions can resist oppression. These ideas have transformed how I approach scripts. I now read them critically, questioning whose gaze is being served and whose truth is being told.
CONCLUSION
My acting practice is both a technical and political pursuit, a balancing act between truth and performance. The integration of Meisner’s responsiveness (Meisner & Longwell, 1987, p. 23), Stavinslavskis’s introspection (Stanislavski, 1989,p. 78-80), and feminist theory’s critical lens has allowed me to craft performances that are emotionally honest and socially aware. Heather, Imogean, and Kara each represent different expressions of femininity, vanity, vulnerability, and endurance, but all are linked by the search for authenticity in a world of performance. By embodying these women, I have learned that acting is not only about portraying emotion but about interrogating the systems that define which emotions women are allowed to express. In future work, whether performing or directing, I aim to continue merging these practices, using feminist frameworks to tell stories that expose, disrupt, and humanise the female experience.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a Feminist Life. Duke University Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge.
Gomba, Z. (Director). (2025). Creatures of Convenience [Short Film]. The Open Window Institute.
Goulden, Y. (Director). (2024). Daydreamer [Short Film]. The Open Window Institute.
Krasner, D. (2011). The Art of the Actor: The Essential History of Acting from Classical Times to the Present Day, and: Stanislavski in Practice: Exercises for Students (review) (Vol. 21). Theatre Topics. 10.1353/tt.2011.0020
Meisner, S., & Longwell, D. (1987). Stanford Meisner on Acting (First ed.). Vintage Books.
Meisner technique | Definition, Stanislavsky System, Components, Development, & Facts. (n.d.). Britannica. Retrieved October 24, 2025, from https://www.britannica.com/art/Meisnertechnique
Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1093/ screen/16.3.6
Rossouw, L. (2025). Creatures of Convenience [Acting Performance]. The Open Window Institute.
Rossouw, L. (2024). Daydreamer [Acting Performance]. The Open Window Institute.
Rossouw, L. (2025). Sparks [Acting Performance]. The Open Window Institute.
Stanislavski, C. (1989). An Actor Prepares (First ed.). Routledge.
Strasberg, L. (1987). A Dream of Passion: The Development of the Method. Plume.
Tordiffe, K. (Director). (2025). Sparks [Short Film]. The Open Window Institute.
© 2024 The Open Window