Spy House

Abstract

How does the performance of an actor differ from that of a spy? Is the successful spy transformed, not simply transported? Is playing a role no longer playing for the effective spy? These questions touch on the distinctions in performance theory articulated for decades by Richard Schechner as ‘transportation’ and ‘transformation’. First outlined in his 1981 essay ‘Performers and spectators transported and transformed’, Schechner’s theory of where performance can take a person makes the important distinction between that which is temporary and that which is permanent. Deceptive deep cover performances fundamentally rely on transportation being the only outcome and never transformation. If the spy transforms, the spy will no longer be deceiving the enemy; the spy will have joined the enemy, become the enemy, perhaps by default serve the enemy. On the other hand, the most successful undercover performance would be so complete that it would be not simply acting (transportation) but the real thing (transformation). This article interrogates the tension between transportation and transformation in actual and representations of deep cover.

Notes

1 Whether an actor ever permanently transforms into their character is debatable. Whether an actor can be permanently changed in some way from working on a character is pretty clear, from Bela Lugosi to Heath Ledger.

2 And, as if one would have to guess: ‘the individual who, early in his career […] was a Line N officer in the KGB supporting Russian illegal programs, globally, was Vladimir Putin’ (Jeremy Bash cited in Preet 2018).