The post he made and the explanation he gave
Position on the destruction that has been done lately with the Marko Seferlis got Silas Seraphim with a long post on his personal facebook account.
On the occasion of his post, today he appeared on the air of the “Breakfast” show, where he also explained what he wrote on social media.
The post made by Silas Seraphim:
What it says in detail:
SEFERLIS AND ITHO-POIIA
One last (from me) but basic comment, because I got tired of Seferliada.
Seferlis is a workaholic AS an actor
but he is lazy AS an actor.
Explain.
People think that the difficult thing for an actor is to learn the words.
It’s like thinking that to be a writer, it’s enough to know how to read and write.
A poem everyone can learn.
The point is how you will render it in a reading.
The job of the Actor is (by now I hope it is known) to compose the moral of the role, that is to embody and not to shape Morality, as perhaps only Velopoulos still thinks.
In other words, the Actor serves a role, a work, an author.
An Actor “sells” as a product, any ability he has to perform correctly and aesthetically beautifully, without false impressions and cheesy phantasmagorias,
the man-role, conceived and captured by the Author in his work.
Unlike the Actor, the Star sells himself.
Seferlis considers (and rightly so) that he is a Star and therefore does not “fit” in a project. He does not want to serve this role but this role.
He wants the work, the role, the Author to serve him.
-That’s why whenever he played other people’s works like Ilias the 16th, he did “his own thing” so he might have laughed, but not in the middle of the role. In other words, he was “selling” Seferlis and not Ilias.
(Hence the conflict with Tina Sakellariou who had given him the rights then).
At some point he realized that since he “sells” Seferlis and the world buys Seferlis, why not write the play himself, so that whatever he does, he can rule out being out of the role?
He will simply work AS an actor and not AS AN ACTOR.
No harm.
Reasonable and honest.
After all, this is not easy either, that is, to “sell” your natural (and not put) comedic self with such success.
In this way, he became a leader and a producer and has an audience and money and jobs on television.
No problem – if they could, others would too.
– And basically they did it and others do it too.
From Vougiouklaki to Denisis, more or less, they “sold” and are still “selling” the Star themselves, except through the alibi of a show and serving roles, works and authors.
This is the reason why the “Seferli” Spectator does not talk about which work he saw with Seferlis, but says that he saw “Seferlis” last year, this year and will see it next year.
He likes Seferlis, Seferlis will see.
A completely honest relationship.
It simply contrasts with the actor who works AS an actor, of whom the Spectator says I saw him in such and such a play, by such and such a writer, directed by such and did not like him (or liked him), more or less than when I saw him I had seen in such and such a play, by such and such an author, directed by such and such.
After all, what is said by actors’ circles that “Seferlis is doing other work”, that’s what they mean.
Consequently, Seferlis has its audience, who love to see Seferlis and who sell them Seferlis pure, dry and unadulterated and everybody in pill form.
This audience sees the same play every year and likes it the same.
The rest of the public who don’t like Seferlis, no matter how inconceivable this seems to Seferlis, whatever Seferlis does, they will find it Kitsch.
An easy-to-digest Ersatz of art according to Walther Killy or as defined by Hermann Broch as “the predicate according to petty-bourgeois taste”.
That is, an aesthetic event, analogous to that of the petty bourgeois, in the class sense.
Obviously, it concerns both the proletarian and the bourgeois, who has the same aesthetic as the petty bourgeois.
Whether the theater of Seferlis is genuinely popular or derails towards the populist, it is not my purpose here to judge it, as well as which of the two, the popular or the “cultural” is superior or better, because the answer lies in to the aesthetic effect.
There is apparently a great crop of folk diamonds as well,
as well as from “cultured” potatoes.
Now and according to Umberto Eco, if Kitsch is defined as communication that tends to impress,
the way in which it was spontaneously identified with mass culture is also understandable.
PS1. Seferlis is not immune.
Nobody is.
PS2. It is not surprising that the morning-afternoon panels did not find ironic the “Apology” of Loukias Pistiola that she “asked” from Seferlis, when she was informed about who he is.
It is surprising, however, that Seferlis accepted her humbly and humbly.
PS3. Note the difference between “the audience loves me” and “my audience loves me”,
unless Seferlis considers that the audience of the late Vogiatzis in the Cyclades, for example, is related to his audience in Delfinario.
I am not judging any audience but still we cannot overlook its difference.
PS4. What Georgousopoulos wrote about Seferlis in no way contradicts what I point out.
On the contrary, he has said that Seferlis developed his own code, so that he could play the roles he invented with precision and perfection.
This is precisely the basic function of the Review and also of Stand-up Comedy. They are the quintessential spectacles that do away with the theatrical convention of the fourth wall,
along with the Epic theater of Piscator and Brecht, where the actor “closes” his eye to the viewer, addressing him.
Only one failure. In a televised intervention, he compared him to (nobelist) Dario Fo
who himself wrote his works.
They may seemingly do the same, yet Dario Fo’s works prove their dramaturgy because they have a timeless raison d’être and are staged worldwide by many other artists.
I don’t know if anyone else will ever be asked to upload Seferlis’ work.
PS5. Stathis Psaltis was a very great Actor. He stood out from small roles, magnetizing with his acting and presence.
When he was discovered by the commercial Producer of “mass culture” and the films of the “very ass Kyriakos”, Psaltis was comfortable.
He played the Psalmist, he sold the Psalmist, he became a star and with good money and recognition.
But the urge to once again serve a role and a great writer in a great work was eating at him.
In 1992, he staged Gogol’s “Diary of a Madman” at the Diana theater, directed by Giorgos Kimoulis.
He is no longer the Psalmist but a brilliant and shocking Axendi Ivanovich Propytsin.
She didn’t touch a soul, and in the summer she was forced to go back to the Dolphinarium and play the old woman with the handkerchief again.
His “audience” was not interested in seeing Propichin but Psaltis.
The rest of the theater-loving public who would have liked to see Propichin, did not want to see Psaltis.
She snubbed him.
Georgousopoulos had written about Psaltis:
“I received a very great talent, Stathis Psaltis. And I never stop believing that its potential is endless. From then on, everyone chooses their own path.”
Replacing the name of Psaltis with that of Seferlis, we could easily say the same thing.
