Updated: Oct 8
I have watched thousands of auditions in more than twenty-five years of casting, and actors have handed me just about every version of a crying scene imaginable.
Some produced lots of tears. And yet, I didn’t believe them.
That can be frustrating for an actor because we have somehow turned crying on cue into a moisture test. If your eyes fill, the tear falls, and you manage to keep saying the lines, it feels like success.
But the camera is watching much more than just your eyes. The camera is watching whether the emotion belongs in your body. And that is where many actors struggle.
You Can Produce a Tear and Still Look Like You Are Faking It!
Crying sticks, menthol products, eye irritation, and other tricks may help create moisture, but that does not automatically create a believable emotional event.
In fact, one of the biggest problems I see with crying scenes is incongruence. The actor’s eyes are saying, “I’m crying,” while the breath, gaze, face, body language and thought process are communicating something else entirely.
The observer may not consciously recognize the mismatch when they watch it.
They simply don’t believe it.
That matters enormously on camera because the camera magnifies small behaviors.
There isn’t much room to hide a manufactured response behind theatrical effort.
This is why I tell actors that crying on cue does not begin with the tear. The tear is the result.
Not All Tears Are the Same
One reason actors get confused about crying on cue is that we use the word tears as though every tear is doing the same job.
It isn’t.
There are three basic types discussed in Mentor Magazine™ #16: Tears on Take:
Basal tears help lubricate and protect the eye.
Reflex tears happen in response to irritation. Think onion fumes, dust or something that irritates the surface of the eye.
Emotional tears are associated with emotional activation.
That distinction is incredibly important for actors because a cry stick or irritant can stimulate a reflex response. Your eye waters because the body is protecting itself. But your character is not crying because someone put menthol near their eye. Your character is crying because something emotional is happening to them.
Stop Chasing the Tear
This is the shift I want actors to make.
Instead of asking:
How do I make myself cry?
Start asking:
What has to be happening in this person for the tears to make sense?
That may sound like a subtle change, but it completely changes where you put your attention.
Actors sometimes chase the visible result because it is measurable. Either the tear came out or it didn’t.
The problem is that acting is not a special-effects department. The audience is reading the entire emotional event.
In the Acting Science Method™, I am far more interested in the relationship between the brain, body, gaze and behavior than I am in whether you can manufacture moisture.
That is also why “just think of something sad” has always been an incomplete instruction to me. Your body is communicating before you ever say the line.
The Camera Is Reading More Than Your Eyes
Imagine an actor sitting quietly in a scene after receiving devastating news. Now imagine another actor screaming after witnessing something horrific. Now imagine someone crying because they are overwhelmed by relief or joy.
All three characters may produce tears. But would you expect their bodies to behave exactly the same way?
Of course not.
Their gaze might be different.
Their breathing might be different.
Their posture might be different.
Their relationship to the other person in the scene might be completely different.
And that is an important clue for actors: there is no single generic performance called “crying.”
After years of watching crying scenes in casting rooms and on film, I began categorizing different kinds of crying scenes because I kept seeing actors approach very different emotional circumstances with essentially the same performance.
Go Further With Mentor Magazine™ #16
Mentor Magazine™ #16: Tears on Take takes this idea beyond the general principle and turns it into something you can actually study and practice.
Inside the 12-page digital issue, you’ll explore the science lesson behind different tear responses, begin distinguishing different types of crying scenes, work with Acting Science Method™ Body Language Coding™, test your understanding, reflect on your own habits and apply the lesson to a practice script. The issue also includes a separate professional-branding lesson.
This is where I want you to go from:
“I understand why forcing a tear can look fake.”
to:
“I know what I am actually working on instead.”
Learn Crying on Cue Live
I invite you to work with me in my four-week live Crying on Cue class. It is designed for actors who want to develop believable emotional access without relying on tricks, irritants, or trauma-mining. (Space is limited to 10 people. If no space, ask for waitlist)
During the class, we will work with:
The three recognized types of tears and why the distinction matters on camera
Four different categories of crying scenes
Acting Science Method™ Body Language Codes for each type of crying scene
Personalized feedback and performance critiques including homework self-tapes
Structured materials and practice scripts
Emotional continuity from take to take
Performances are recorded for playback and review.
About the Author
Faith Hibbs-Clark is a casting director, educator, author, and internationally recognized body language expert. Drawing on nearly 30 years of professional casting experience, she created the Acting Science Method™ to help actors make specific, believable choices for film and television. Through her training and Mentor Magazine™, she translates science and industry experience into practical tools for auditions, performances, and career growth.
