Justification for phrase "[actor] is [character]" [closed]

Why is an actor's role commonly stated as

Jim Carrey is Truman!

Why isn't it one of the following?

Jim Carrey acts as Truman!

Jim Carrey portrays Truman!

Why is the is of identity used when it clearly isn't the case.

Solution 1:

With the most common acting method taught today (Sanford Meisner’s method,) the emphasis is on authenticity of action and reaction. In this school of thought, there is no character, just simply lines of dialogue on a page, and the “character” (if acted “authentically”) is nothing more than the actor’s genuine reactions to the words and actions in the scene and the world of the [screen]play. This “method acting” theory is somewhat different from the older school of character-acting thought from Konstantin Stanislavsky; that the actor inhabits and portrays a character which is other than himself, by imagining the set of “given circumstances” in which that character exists, and play-pretending to be under those circumstances, himself.

Within that acting industry context, it is often considered somewhat pejorative —or even downright insulting of their work— to say that an actor’s work is a “portrayal” or that he or she is “playing” a role, rather than being “authentic” and “present” in the role.

You’ll also commonly hear acting teachers and coaches use the highly critical feedback on an actor’s work, “stop acting.” (Meaning: “you’re being inauthentic and presentational, rather than naturally, authentically yourself.”)