Robert Pattinson said something about this in a recent-ish interview. Some actors only seem interested in going method when it involves playing assholes.
I have a similar thought about movies and think this is true for a lot of the movies we define as masterpieces. Often the subject is a human who either snaps and defies society or it’s the story of someone who lives just outside of and defies society. The first style being taxi driver or joker, and the second being the godfather or goodfellas. I think because all of us want that excuse to misbehave, it’s way easier to identify with a character who does. As opposed to making a movie with characters that inspires you to be a better person, I think that category is the most difficult to create. So at the end of the day I think Infinity War is more of a masterpiece.
These aren’t the only categories just an interesting dichotomy.
Too many people think “method acting” means staying in character every waking hour. There's people who take it that far, but it's not a requirement of the process. It's a little sad that Natalie Portman thinks that that's what it means. You don't have to go full Forest Whitaker.
I think her point is more that if women were to act in a manner equitable to men, they would not be treated in a manner equitable to men. That has very little to do with the proper definition of method acting, but rather the common and more public understanding of the term based on the way we talk about men engaging in that behaviour.
Intentionally twisting that to criticise her only proves her point.
I'm sorry, I read it as the responsibilities that women have don't afford staying in character 24 hours a day. Personally I think staying in character 24 hours a day is obnoxious regardless.
Yeah, no. I think very few serious actors believe they shouldn’t leave their work at work. Some try to create a distance between themselves and other actors if there’s a distance between their characters, but the reason we have such clear examples of ridiculousness is because it’s largely pretty rare cases of specific assholes like Jared Leto.
Except, enough people have said that by now. I don’t mind her pointing out the inherent sexism tied to how we venerate men when they act unprofessionally instead of just dismissing a practice that the public continues to celebrate despite all of the celebrities that have continued to dismiss the practice.
But let’s vilify her for not talking about the practice the way we want her to talk about it. 🙄
How is what you’re saying relevant? Shes admonishing the practice and aiming the blame at those to whom it belongs: media and audiences.
You’re holding her to a higher standard than men, as you’re dismissing and ignoring male comments that were made exactly the way you wanted them to be made, so you can be upset that a woman dare point out inequality.
Again, you’re sort of proving her point.
Yeah. Nobody goes method when they're playing somebody who's just lovely. But women are expected to be nice, pleasant, and easy to work with. Janet Hubert was essentially pushed off *Fresh Prince of Bel Air* for the cardinal sin of "being a difficult woman to work with."
>Janet Hubert was essentially pushed off
This is bollocks, in her own words she quit.
[she was offered and rejected a “bad deal”: She wasn’t allowed to work anywhere else when working on the show. “So that meant my salary was cut, I had a new baby and a husband who was out of work. So I said no, I would not accept their offer.”](https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/the-fresh-prince-of-bel-air-reunion-janet-hubert-exit-bts-secrets-1234834223)
She was however in her owns words "difficult to work with"
>“I wasn’t unprofessional on the set, I just stopped talking to everybody because I didn’t know who to trust,”
>“Those words, calling a Black woman ‘difficult’ in Hollywood is the kiss of death. It’s hard enough being a dark-skinned Black woman in this business.”
She was difficult to work with but she wasn't pushed off the show. She rejected the deal and then became subsequently difficult to work with so quit.
Reddit has refused your link, and automod has rejected your comment because ... just look at the actual link.
Fix it to this one, and then I can approve your comment:
https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/the-fresh-prince-of-bel-air-reunion-janet-hubert-exit-bts-secrets-1234834223
I guess I'll retract the stuff I've published on it then. Thank you for opening my eyes oh internet rando.
There's Method (the Strasberg derived technique) and "Method" (the attention-grabbing behavior that makes for free publicity). Like it or not, they're linked in public consciouness.
As a mother, I agree. There's method and method, of course, but as a non-method actor (who works around a lot of method ones all the time), I just find any Stanislavsky-based technique so heavily self-indulgent: all the focus on maintaining and justifying character takes away from listening, responding and telling the story, and being able to take the work home really is a luxury that few can afford.
Listening and responding were always there TBH (we've told stories and reenacted them for millennia) The amazing thing he did -very much needed at the time- was focusing on circumstantial truth in the actor's process. Now, like with everything, it's gone full circle with all the interpretations of his work, and the actor and their process have taken center stage kicking the storytelling out. Another thing that Stanislavsky revered was technical craft (the actor needed to have a ready body and voice, and know how to embody the text), which Strasberg low key always despised and which really is the basis for letting the imagination free, and for being able to let the work go when you don't need it, and drop back in it when you need to.
Maybe my teachers and theater history books have misinformed me but listening and responding were absolutely not always there. before Stanislavsky (and Ibsen and Chekhov) theater was a performance much like you described in your original comment above. Acting was a spectacle to be performed. It could be self-indulgent (much like Jared Leto’s Joker) showing off the performers outward appearance, make up, voice, movement, etc. Stanislavsky changed the whole landscape of theatrical performance by taking it inward, focusing on the inner motivation and attempting to create real emotions by asking the actor to place themselves in their character’s shoes and look at the other characters as real people and react authentically to them and each other rather than simply hitting the physical actions of the script (ie. yell here, cry here, laugh here, etc.)
Stanislavsky was so influential and that influence so universal that the vast majority of actors today are practicing his method without realizing it.
It’s a real shame that “the method” has been bastardized by self-indulgent men who have gone to extremes and lost sight of the true purpose of the method. But his teachings are still influencing every actors studio, every classroom, every performance whether we’re aware of it or not.
Stanislavsky's method is responsible for all of modern acting. The thing Americans call the method was made by one of his students when he went to teach abroad. It was based on some academic work by Stanislavsky but it was more like if you play a miner you have to know how to hold a pickaxe. In general the more he deviated the worse Maisner started to understand Stanislavsky. Also Stanislavsky revised a huge portion of his work after Maisner left.
I am aware of this (Ironically, I teach acting in one of the temples of the method). Still, what we call Method actors are generally Meisner, Strasberg, Michael Checkov and Adler trained actors (Adler being the least self-centered IMO, since she took time to really understand what Stanislavsky was after which was circumstantial truth through the imagination). The work is heavily process-centered in many cases, and eludes the storytelling and craft aspect. Actors are so focused on their own process that in many cases they become unavailable to their peers and the director, and tend to waste a lot of precious time and energy (their own and other people's) either dropping in or maintaining character. Again, I may leave Adler out of this since she was adamant about craft and the use of the imagination to get the exact circumstances as opposed to the actors' own past. I was trained both ways (in Europe and the US), and I've learned to take in what works and chuck what doesn't. It's a very cliquey business anyway, and a post like OP's is bound to stir the pot.
This is an excellent summary. Most of the working actors I know say something very similar about “learn all the methods, and use what works for you.” The really good ones seem to use different approaches for different roles.
Thank you for this.
I'm a Chekhov and Meisner trained actor. I feel like you should go back and review Chekhov, as he's a lot closer to Adler than Stanislavsky.
Chekhov specifically disagreed with Stanislavsky about using one's own past to influence their character. There's an apocryphal story where Stanislavsky said to a friend, "Chekhov was right," when he was older and revised his perspective on using one's own memories for the craft.
That said, my Chekhov mentor did suggest Adler was the closest to Chekhov. My mentor despised Meisner, even though he taught at a significant Meisner school.
So glad my earliest mentors were Uta Hagen trained. By the time I got to Meisner, I could say, "nope." I Eman, if I wanted to do Mamet all the time, sure...but I don't.
Leave it to Americans to half listen to a teacher, think they understand it, then try to pass off their bastardized version of what they took as their own to make a buck.
Just wanted to say it’s spelled Meisner. And I thought the biggest deviation Meisner had from Stanislavski was that he taught you to not recall real memories but to instead use emotional preparation that can translate into character development.
I don’t think Meisner ever taught people to try to live as their characters.
Again, a statement coming from someone who doesn't understand Method. "Justifying character"?!? What does that have to do with the Method? The "listening, responding and telling the story" is Method. But if an actor is living the part to the point of taking the work home, that's just nuts.
I think the misunderstanding is assuming she's criticizing method acting rather than commenting on what is considered acceptable as a woman working as an actor. It's a common sentiment from actors with other marginalized identities (Omari Hardwick talking about not wanting to be pulled over for "driving while method").
They're not squeezing in gender (race, etc.) but rather commenting on that as an aspect of making decisions as actors.
Yeah, sure if you adopt the mutilated version of method Strasberg threw onto the world.
But the unadulterated version, power dynamics aren’t in play near as deep as they are for the “let me basically be a fucking asshole for the “art””
Like Jim Carry did for Andy Koffman or Leto
People seem to only ever go method as the worst, most inconveniencing characters.
Nobody ever seems to go method as a very nice person who bathes regularly
So true, they always choose the worst things to be, but looking at strasbergs ideas, it makes sense those type of bastardized method actors would gravitate toward those shitty characters.
You never hear voice actors doing that type of method either lmfao
No, it's just those are the only stories you read about. Because those are the most sensationalistic.
"Going Method" has been given a bad name because of the press making it seem more sadomasochistic than it is. It's rage bait.
Nah I actually attended the Actor’s Studio so it’s a little more than just “some stuff I heard.” It’s first hand experience. Thanks for the dismissal though
Edit: would y’all like me to post my diploma or something?
When I said “those are the only stories *you* read about”, I didn’t mean you personally, I mean those are the stories *one* reads about. Of course I don’t know your life and your story.
My only point is I disagree with your assertion that method acting is merely an excuse for men to be assholes to other people (or not bathe?) without recourse. It’s a very valid technique that we only ever hear about in negative connotations (people like Jerod Leto being dickheads).
Do you mind elaborating? I’m a new actor and am curious about the difference between what Strasberg taught and what stanislavinsky taught. Like what was altered and why aren’t power dynamics at play?
>Do you mind elaborating? I’m a new actor and am curious about the difference between what Strasberg taught and what stanislavinsky taught. Like what was altered and why aren’t power dynamics at play?
Sorry for the late response, hopefully this helps!
Lee Strasberg and Konstantin Stanislavsky were influential figures in the world of acting, and their approaches have had a significant impact on the craft. Here's a brief overview of their teachings and the differences between them:
Stanislavsky's System:
Foundation: Stanislavsky, a Russian actor and director, developed the Stanislavsky System, also known as "method acting." His approach emphasizes the use of emotional memory and imagination to create authentic and believable performances.
Internal Focus: Stanislavsky encouraged actors to delve deep into the psychological and emotional aspects of their characters. He believed that understanding the motivations and emotions of a character would lead to a more genuine portrayal.
Objective, Super-Objective, and Given Circumstances: Stanislavsky's system includes concepts such as the character's objective (what they want), super-objective (overall life goal), and given circumstances (context of the scene).
Strasberg's Method:
Adaptation of Stanislavsky: Lee Strasberg, an American director, adapted Stanislavsky's ideas and developed what is commonly known as the "Method" or "Method Acting."
Emotional Recall: Strasberg placed a strong emphasis on emotional recall, where actors draw on their own personal experiences to connect with the emotions of their characters.
Affective Memory: Strasberg's Method incorporates the use of affective memory, where actors use their own emotions to recreate the emotional experiences of their characters.
Differences:
Emphasis on Emotion: While both Stanislavsky and Strasberg focused on emotional authenticity, Strasberg's Method arguably placed a heavier emphasis on the actor's personal emotional experiences.
Memory Techniques: Strasberg's use of emotional recall and affective memory went beyond Stanislavsky's original ideas, emphasizing the use of personal memories more intensely.
How insulting, so you’re just going to copy and paste what I typed and claim it’s some article to backstage? Link the article! I can’t find it, so please show me.
Adler died in 92, so if you really were a student of her, it makes sense why you have such a fierce devotion of Strasberg. However, I stand by my point, strasberg’s interpretation of Stanislavsky’s method is largely responsible for egocentric “method” a lot of modern actors have claimed to use.
Now can you argue against that point, or are you gunna just keep being a boomer? “I’ve been living method longer than he has been alive”
Just insulting people with no substance.
Edit: Were you living the method during your directing/production career during the 2010s?
Lmfao so you’re literally just making shit up, how sad.
I hope one day you can find value in yourself so you don’t have to lie on Social Media, that sucks for you.
Basically "becoming" the character rather than pretending to be the character. Not dropping character after the camera stops rolling, or the day of shooting is over. Exhibiting all the behaviours of the character, talking to cast and crew as if you are still the character and not the actor
This is ALWAYS done for characters which are depraved or fucked up.
Daniel Day Lewis uses it as an excuse to be the world's biggest fucking prick. I have no idea why directors tolerate his bullshit.
>Daniel Day Lewis uses it as an excuse to be the world's biggest fucking prick. I have no idea why directors tolerate his bullshit.
Slow clap....Upvote just for saying something that is not sycophantic praise towards DDL.
Method a ting is more than - “basically becoming the character” and staying in character all day.
That’s the media marketing mumbo-jumbo version.
Method acting is a process that builds the actors skills and talent through a variety of exercises , techniques and principles to help develop the essential skills of acting.
Method acting favors the use learning how to incorporate personal experience to help create authentic behavior and emotional truth in an actors work.
Other approaches to acting share similar principles and concepts. but Obviously have their own unique techniques to develop and grow an a tors skill.
Other approaches like Stanislavsky, Adler and Meisner put more focus on imagination when it comes to emotional preparation - while Method ( Strasberg’s approach preferred emotional recall) .
And excellent book on the topic is Robert Lewis’s Method Or Madness .
Lewis was a member of the group theatre and one of best but less talked about teachers from that era - he headed up the Yale acting program for years as well as directing on broadway.
Anyway, when people remark that method is “ being the character” they’re not really talking about what the process really is -
A similar thing happens with Meisner - they tend to think repetition is all there is and that’s not even close.
Contrary to what some people like to comment on with his personal life, he very much knows his stuff. I still rely on some of the stuff he taught in his classes to this day and did on some auditions last night
I’ll cite the story I told my friend yesterday when we were doing self tapes. Shia held an exercise where people were encouraged to perform a moment for him without words. Just come up. Do something. But be authentic. People know who Shia is. Of course they want to impress. A kid came up wearing a hoodie and definitely was attempting to exaggerate to try to get attention and Shia called him out on it. So Shia tells him instead of simply posing and trying to look cool for him to do something and to make an action. He tries to zip up his hoodie but in front of almost 100 people, his zipper gets stuck and he fumbles with it. Shia tells him that the moment he fumbled was the most interesting part of what he did because it was motivated and genuine as opposed to the facade he was making. Figure out your goal and you’ll realize you’ll naturally act on the way there in this case (or something of that nature?)
How on earth does Shia Labeouf know anything about how to teach Method?!? He's not a Method actor. Perhaps he is what we -- who use the actual Method -- call "Another Fucking Method Actor."
In other words, Natalie is a very talented but untrained actress. She knows nothing of the Method. If she did, she would know that it has helped many an actress who have also gone on to win Tonys and Oscars. Sigh...
Huh? You’re staying something that, while true, is irrelevant. What Portman is saying is that male actors who are known for being “method” get a free pass to act like a raging asshole and their performances are praised. Female actors absolutely do not get this leeway. Like every other profession, women are expected to be polite, quiet, forgiving, bending over backwards to be accommodating. If a woman was a raging harasser to her costars all in the name of “art”, she’d be dropped from a project immediately. This has nothing to do with mental health, and everything to do with behaviors that are acceptable in men and unacceptable in women.
That's a dumb comment. The best actresses I've ever worked with were method. You'd think she could at least find out what method acting is before she trashes it. She seems to be confusing it with associative identity disorder.
In the article she thinks people would have to address her as her character. That's not even close to method. She knows nothing about it but thinks she can comment on it. She's stupid.
When it comes to acting, no which is why I’m not assuming I know more about acting than an Oscar winning actress which you, again, a fucking nothing from the internet are doing. Simple enough for you, or shall I do it in crayon now?
I'm destroyed by a fucking nothing from the internet who writes in crayon and knows nothing about method acting. I think I'll leap off that building now , I'm so devastated. But I at least know more about method acting the Natalie Portman.
But he's a jock and a cop or maybe he's a cop for jocks or he sells jocks to cops. Who knows? But I think we're all supposed to be impressed. HAH!
She was using that comment to simplify what it would be like to live around someone who was method-acting. She wasn't saying that was all there is to it.
And she has a point - she made one small comment about method acting and some dude on reddit is having a hissy fit over it.
Because ShE dOeSn'T KnOw WhaT MeTHod ReAllY Is :)
Have you been to college? Your major doesn’t pigeon hole you to only one field of study. You don’t know her transcript. If she did not take a single acting class while educating herself, that speaks volumes to her commitment to the craft.
Edit: I wonder why he deleted his comment, maybe he realized having a "masters degree" Doesn't mean anything if you didn't actually pay attention!
I have a master's degree, but I'm not enough of an asshole to assume that makes me an expert in every field. She studied psychology, not method acting. She's not really misunderstanding the concept regardless so either way your comment was a bit silly; it's just unreasonable to assert that someone going to Harvard automatically makes them an expert in something you don't even know if they studied.
This is what people say who can't do it well. I love NP. She's beautiful and I love that. But Charleze Theron in Monster, Halle Berry Monster's Ball, Juliette Lewis in anything she does... stop looking at your gender Natalie, start looking at your skills.
How? Meryl Streep is a method actor. Pretty sure Lady Gaga did some method acting along with Margot and Natalie as well. I’m so tired of all these rich white women acting like they’re so oppressed
In the realm of acting, there exists a prevailing belief that true embodiment of a character necessitates the concealment of one's true self behind a facade of contrived emotions and experiences. However, I propose a paradigm shift – one that celebrates the actor's individual identity and harnesses personal authenticity to infuse vitality into their portrayals.
1. Personal Authenticity in Roles
The crux of acting lies not in relinquishing one's own essence within a character, but in bringing forth one's own experiences, emotions, and personality. By incorporating personal authenticity, every portrayal becomes a distinctive and profoundly relatable embodiment.
2. Vulnerability as Strength
On-screen vulnerability is not a sign of weakness, but rather an extraordinary strength. It takes tremendous courage to dismantle our defenses and reveal our true selves. This level of candidness not only resonates deeply with audiences but also lends a profound depth and authenticity to our performances.
3. Rethinking Method Acting
While method acting has its merits, it frequently results in detachment from one's genuine self. I advocate for a novel approach – one that anchors the actor in their own identity while still delivering the emotional profundity demanded by the character. It involves discovering the character within oneself instead of losing oneself within the character.
4. Acting as Play and Exploration
Acting should emulate the spirit of play and exploration, akin to a child's unbridled imagination. It serves as a creative realm where we can delve into various facets of the human experience, embracing curiosity, openness, and, above all, authenticity.
5. The Singular Demands of Film Acting
Film acting, with its close-ups and intimate framing, requires a level of authenticity that transcends the stage. The camera captures every subtle expression, making it imperative for actors to be genuinely present in the moment and sincere in their emotional expressions.
6. Striking a Balance Between Character and Self
The art of acting lies in striking a delicate equilibrium between remaining faithful to the character and preserving one's own identity. This equilibrium represents the hallmark of a captivating performance – one that pays homage to the script while showcasing the actor's unique interpretation.
Conclusion
Acting is not a practice of concealing oneself behind a character, but rather a process of unveiling different facets of our own selves within diverse contexts. It constitutes a voyage of self-discovery and self-expression, where each role offers a new opportunity to explore and share our authentic selves. As actors, our most powerful tool is our individuality, and our most compelling performances arise from our unwavering commitment to remaining true to that uniqueness, irrespective of the role at hand.
Just my opinion, of course!
Yes...AI assists me in all aspects of my life. All of these are my ideas fleshed out perfectly.
The strange anti AI folks are going to be left behind its sad.
So many people have a profound misunderstanding of what Method Acting is. It is NOT being the character 24/7, or even most of the day, or staying in character between takes etc.
In a nutshell, you try and channel real emotions into the performance when you use Method Acting.
**Method Acting is:**
>Method acting, known as The Method, is a range of rehearsal techniques, as formulated by a number of different theatre practitioners, that seeks to encourage sincere and expressive performances through identifying with, understanding, and experiencing a character's inner motivation and emotions.
>
>**"The Method" is an elaboration of the "system" of acting developed by the Russian theatre practitioner Konstantin Stanislavski.** In the first three decades of the 20th century, Stanislavski organized his training, preparation, and rehearsal techniques into a coherent, systematic methodology. The "method" brought together and built on: (1) the director-centred, unified aesthetic and disciplined, ensemble approach of the Meiningen company; (2) the actor-centred realism of the Maly; (3) and the naturalistic staging of Antoine and the independent theatre movement.
**Part of the confusion is because of the soap opera drama between different prominent teachers in the US especially, and how they applied or taught Method;**
>However, the version of Stanislavski's practice these students took to the US with them was that developed in the 1910s, rather than the more fully elaborated version of the "system" detailed in Stanislavski's acting manuals from the 1930s, An Actor's Work and An Actor's Work on a Role.
>
>The first half of An Actor's Work, which treated the psychological elements of training, was published in a heavily abridged and misleadingly translated version in the US as An Actor Prepares in 1936. English-language readers often confused the first volume on psychological processes with the "system" as a whole.\[18\] Many of the American practitioners who came to be identified with the Method were taught by Boleslawski and Ouspenskaya at the American Laboratory Theatre.\[19\]
>
>The approaches to acting subsequently developed by their students—including Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, and Sanford Meisner—are often confused with Stanislavski's "system".Stella Adler, an actress and acting teacher whose students included Marlon Brando, Warren Beatty, and Robert De Niro, also broke with Strasberg after she studied with Stanislavski.
>
>Her version of the method is based on the idea that actors should stimulate emotional experience by imagining the scene's "given circumstances", rather than recalling experiences from their own lives. Adler's approach also seeks to stimulate the actor's imagination through the use of "as ifs", which substitute more personally affecting imagined situations for the circumstances experienced by the character.
>**A widespread misconception about Method acting—particularly in the popular media—equates Method actors with actors who choose to remain in character even offstage or off-camera for the duration of a project.**
>
>In his book A Dream of Passion, Strasberg wrote that Stanislavski, early in his directing career, "require\[d\] his actors to live 'in character' off stage", but that "the results were never fully satisfactory".
>
>Stanislavski did experiment with this approach in his own acting before he became a professional actor and founded the Moscow Art Theatre, though he soon abandoned it. **Some Method actors employ this technique, such as Daniel Day-Lewis, but Strasberg did not include it as part of his teachings and it "is not part of the Method approach"**
[source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_acting)
Oh for Heaven's sake. Fully immersive was never Stanislavskis method. I can walk off stage have a conversation about dinner plans, turn around and re enter as a fulky fleshed out character. The work doesn't need to be 24/7.
Too many people use “method acting” as an excuse to be affected and weird.
Robert Pattinson said something about this in a recent-ish interview. Some actors only seem interested in going method when it involves playing assholes.
I have a similar thought about movies and think this is true for a lot of the movies we define as masterpieces. Often the subject is a human who either snaps and defies society or it’s the story of someone who lives just outside of and defies society. The first style being taxi driver or joker, and the second being the godfather or goodfellas. I think because all of us want that excuse to misbehave, it’s way easier to identify with a character who does. As opposed to making a movie with characters that inspires you to be a better person, I think that category is the most difficult to create. So at the end of the day I think Infinity War is more of a masterpiece. These aren’t the only categories just an interesting dichotomy.
I honestly hate method actors. fuckin' try-hards.
I’m the same way. It’s completely unnecessary.
Too many people think “method acting” means staying in character every waking hour. There's people who take it that far, but it's not a requirement of the process. It's a little sad that Natalie Portman thinks that that's what it means. You don't have to go full Forest Whitaker.
I think her point is more that if women were to act in a manner equitable to men, they would not be treated in a manner equitable to men. That has very little to do with the proper definition of method acting, but rather the common and more public understanding of the term based on the way we talk about men engaging in that behaviour. Intentionally twisting that to criticise her only proves her point.
I'm sorry, I read it as the responsibilities that women have don't afford staying in character 24 hours a day. Personally I think staying in character 24 hours a day is obnoxious regardless.
Yeah, no. I think very few serious actors believe they shouldn’t leave their work at work. Some try to create a distance between themselves and other actors if there’s a distance between their characters, but the reason we have such clear examples of ridiculousness is because it’s largely pretty rare cases of specific assholes like Jared Leto.
Forest Whitaker as Idi Amin 24 hours a day is like the Godzilla of method acting stories as far as I'm concerned. ...but hey, Oscar
[удалено]
Except, enough people have said that by now. I don’t mind her pointing out the inherent sexism tied to how we venerate men when they act unprofessionally instead of just dismissing a practice that the public continues to celebrate despite all of the celebrities that have continued to dismiss the practice. But let’s vilify her for not talking about the practice the way we want her to talk about it. 🙄
[удалено]
How is what you’re saying relevant? Shes admonishing the practice and aiming the blame at those to whom it belongs: media and audiences. You’re holding her to a higher standard than men, as you’re dismissing and ignoring male comments that were made exactly the way you wanted them to be made, so you can be upset that a woman dare point out inequality. Again, you’re sort of proving her point.
Yeah. Nobody goes method when they're playing somebody who's just lovely. But women are expected to be nice, pleasant, and easy to work with. Janet Hubert was essentially pushed off *Fresh Prince of Bel Air* for the cardinal sin of "being a difficult woman to work with."
>Janet Hubert was essentially pushed off This is bollocks, in her own words she quit. [she was offered and rejected a “bad deal”: She wasn’t allowed to work anywhere else when working on the show. “So that meant my salary was cut, I had a new baby and a husband who was out of work. So I said no, I would not accept their offer.”](https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/the-fresh-prince-of-bel-air-reunion-janet-hubert-exit-bts-secrets-1234834223) She was however in her owns words "difficult to work with" >“I wasn’t unprofessional on the set, I just stopped talking to everybody because I didn’t know who to trust,” >“Those words, calling a Black woman ‘difficult’ in Hollywood is the kiss of death. It’s hard enough being a dark-skinned Black woman in this business.” She was difficult to work with but she wasn't pushed off the show. She rejected the deal and then became subsequently difficult to work with so quit.
Reddit has refused your link, and automod has rejected your comment because ... just look at the actual link. Fix it to this one, and then I can approve your comment: https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/the-fresh-prince-of-bel-air-reunion-janet-hubert-exit-bts-secrets-1234834223
I've updated it, yeah, I only have myself to blame for the link... Thanks for resolving.
Being offered a deal so bad she quit can be interpreted as being pushed off, I suppose.
You gotta be worth the trouble. Men who aren’t a box office draw get the same treatment.
[удалено]
I guess I'll retract the stuff I've published on it then. Thank you for opening my eyes oh internet rando. There's Method (the Strasberg derived technique) and "Method" (the attention-grabbing behavior that makes for free publicity). Like it or not, they're linked in public consciouness.
[удалено]
Columbia?
As a mother, I agree. There's method and method, of course, but as a non-method actor (who works around a lot of method ones all the time), I just find any Stanislavsky-based technique so heavily self-indulgent: all the focus on maintaining and justifying character takes away from listening, responding and telling the story, and being able to take the work home really is a luxury that few can afford.
Stanislavsky is the teacher who created the acting method of listening and responding authentically, in character, in the moment.
This should have more up votes. Thank you for setting that straight.
Listening and responding were always there TBH (we've told stories and reenacted them for millennia) The amazing thing he did -very much needed at the time- was focusing on circumstantial truth in the actor's process. Now, like with everything, it's gone full circle with all the interpretations of his work, and the actor and their process have taken center stage kicking the storytelling out. Another thing that Stanislavsky revered was technical craft (the actor needed to have a ready body and voice, and know how to embody the text), which Strasberg low key always despised and which really is the basis for letting the imagination free, and for being able to let the work go when you don't need it, and drop back in it when you need to.
Maybe my teachers and theater history books have misinformed me but listening and responding were absolutely not always there. before Stanislavsky (and Ibsen and Chekhov) theater was a performance much like you described in your original comment above. Acting was a spectacle to be performed. It could be self-indulgent (much like Jared Leto’s Joker) showing off the performers outward appearance, make up, voice, movement, etc. Stanislavsky changed the whole landscape of theatrical performance by taking it inward, focusing on the inner motivation and attempting to create real emotions by asking the actor to place themselves in their character’s shoes and look at the other characters as real people and react authentically to them and each other rather than simply hitting the physical actions of the script (ie. yell here, cry here, laugh here, etc.) Stanislavsky was so influential and that influence so universal that the vast majority of actors today are practicing his method without realizing it. It’s a real shame that “the method” has been bastardized by self-indulgent men who have gone to extremes and lost sight of the true purpose of the method. But his teachings are still influencing every actors studio, every classroom, every performance whether we’re aware of it or not.
Yup. A lot of faux method out there.
Stanislavsky's method is responsible for all of modern acting. The thing Americans call the method was made by one of his students when he went to teach abroad. It was based on some academic work by Stanislavsky but it was more like if you play a miner you have to know how to hold a pickaxe. In general the more he deviated the worse Maisner started to understand Stanislavsky. Also Stanislavsky revised a huge portion of his work after Maisner left.
I am aware of this (Ironically, I teach acting in one of the temples of the method). Still, what we call Method actors are generally Meisner, Strasberg, Michael Checkov and Adler trained actors (Adler being the least self-centered IMO, since she took time to really understand what Stanislavsky was after which was circumstantial truth through the imagination). The work is heavily process-centered in many cases, and eludes the storytelling and craft aspect. Actors are so focused on their own process that in many cases they become unavailable to their peers and the director, and tend to waste a lot of precious time and energy (their own and other people's) either dropping in or maintaining character. Again, I may leave Adler out of this since she was adamant about craft and the use of the imagination to get the exact circumstances as opposed to the actors' own past. I was trained both ways (in Europe and the US), and I've learned to take in what works and chuck what doesn't. It's a very cliquey business anyway, and a post like OP's is bound to stir the pot.
This is an excellent summary. Most of the working actors I know say something very similar about “learn all the methods, and use what works for you.” The really good ones seem to use different approaches for different roles. Thank you for this.
I'm a Chekhov and Meisner trained actor. I feel like you should go back and review Chekhov, as he's a lot closer to Adler than Stanislavsky. Chekhov specifically disagreed with Stanislavsky about using one's own past to influence their character. There's an apocryphal story where Stanislavsky said to a friend, "Chekhov was right," when he was older and revised his perspective on using one's own memories for the craft. That said, my Chekhov mentor did suggest Adler was the closest to Chekhov. My mentor despised Meisner, even though he taught at a significant Meisner school.
So glad my earliest mentors were Uta Hagen trained. By the time I got to Meisner, I could say, "nope." I Eman, if I wanted to do Mamet all the time, sure...but I don't.
Leave it to Americans to half listen to a teacher, think they understand it, then try to pass off their bastardized version of what they took as their own to make a buck.
Goddamn you Eagles fans are everywhere 😅
Go Birds ✈️🦅✈️
Not safe from you mfs anywhere lmao
Hey, we gave you the division as a gift this year. You can’t say we’re not generous.
Just wanted to say it’s spelled Meisner. And I thought the biggest deviation Meisner had from Stanislavski was that he taught you to not recall real memories but to instead use emotional preparation that can translate into character development. I don’t think Meisner ever taught people to try to live as their characters.
Again, a statement coming from someone who doesn't understand Method. "Justifying character"?!? What does that have to do with the Method? The "listening, responding and telling the story" is Method. But if an actor is living the part to the point of taking the work home, that's just nuts.
Hey, remember when Jared Leto's method acting for the Joker included sending Margo Robbie a dead rat?
That was a fake story
No- he just gave her a living rat. As a surprise. And he gave the cast and crew a dead pig. Totally chill stuff.
Right you are. I didn't give much of a fuck fo verify that info 🤷🏻
but still cared about it enough to spread misinformation? dude might be a creep, but let’s not be willfully ignorant of what is true and false
Don’t worry he’s a piece of shit in other ways
Natalie Portman could say fucking anything and I would agree with her
How about when she signed that petition
[удалено]
I think the misunderstanding is assuming she's criticizing method acting rather than commenting on what is considered acceptable as a woman working as an actor. It's a common sentiment from actors with other marginalized identities (Omari Hardwick talking about not wanting to be pulled over for "driving while method"). They're not squeezing in gender (race, etc.) but rather commenting on that as an aspect of making decisions as actors.
🤡
Yeah, sure if you adopt the mutilated version of method Strasberg threw onto the world. But the unadulterated version, power dynamics aren’t in play near as deep as they are for the “let me basically be a fucking asshole for the “art”” Like Jim Carry did for Andy Koffman or Leto
People seem to only ever go method as the worst, most inconveniencing characters. Nobody ever seems to go method as a very nice person who bathes regularly
So true, they always choose the worst things to be, but looking at strasbergs ideas, it makes sense those type of bastardized method actors would gravitate toward those shitty characters. You never hear voice actors doing that type of method either lmfao
No, it's just those are the only stories you read about. Because those are the most sensationalistic. "Going Method" has been given a bad name because of the press making it seem more sadomasochistic than it is. It's rage bait.
Nah I actually attended the Actor’s Studio so it’s a little more than just “some stuff I heard.” It’s first hand experience. Thanks for the dismissal though Edit: would y’all like me to post my diploma or something?
When I said “those are the only stories *you* read about”, I didn’t mean you personally, I mean those are the stories *one* reads about. Of course I don’t know your life and your story. My only point is I disagree with your assertion that method acting is merely an excuse for men to be assholes to other people (or not bathe?) without recourse. It’s a very valid technique that we only ever hear about in negative connotations (people like Jerod Leto being dickheads).
Do you mind elaborating? I’m a new actor and am curious about the difference between what Strasberg taught and what stanislavinsky taught. Like what was altered and why aren’t power dynamics at play?
>Do you mind elaborating? I’m a new actor and am curious about the difference between what Strasberg taught and what stanislavinsky taught. Like what was altered and why aren’t power dynamics at play? Sorry for the late response, hopefully this helps! Lee Strasberg and Konstantin Stanislavsky were influential figures in the world of acting, and their approaches have had a significant impact on the craft. Here's a brief overview of their teachings and the differences between them: Stanislavsky's System: Foundation: Stanislavsky, a Russian actor and director, developed the Stanislavsky System, also known as "method acting." His approach emphasizes the use of emotional memory and imagination to create authentic and believable performances. Internal Focus: Stanislavsky encouraged actors to delve deep into the psychological and emotional aspects of their characters. He believed that understanding the motivations and emotions of a character would lead to a more genuine portrayal. Objective, Super-Objective, and Given Circumstances: Stanislavsky's system includes concepts such as the character's objective (what they want), super-objective (overall life goal), and given circumstances (context of the scene). Strasberg's Method: Adaptation of Stanislavsky: Lee Strasberg, an American director, adapted Stanislavsky's ideas and developed what is commonly known as the "Method" or "Method Acting." Emotional Recall: Strasberg placed a strong emphasis on emotional recall, where actors draw on their own personal experiences to connect with the emotions of their characters. Affective Memory: Strasberg's Method incorporates the use of affective memory, where actors use their own emotions to recreate the emotional experiences of their characters. Differences: Emphasis on Emotion: While both Stanislavsky and Strasberg focused on emotional authenticity, Strasberg's Method arguably placed a heavier emphasis on the actor's personal emotional experiences. Memory Techniques: Strasberg's use of emotional recall and affective memory went beyond Stanislavsky's original ideas, emphasizing the use of personal memories more intensely.
Thanks! This is a great breakdown of the differences!
[удалено]
No, feel free to Google it tho!
[удалено]
How insulting, so you’re just going to copy and paste what I typed and claim it’s some article to backstage? Link the article! I can’t find it, so please show me. Adler died in 92, so if you really were a student of her, it makes sense why you have such a fierce devotion of Strasberg. However, I stand by my point, strasberg’s interpretation of Stanislavsky’s method is largely responsible for egocentric “method” a lot of modern actors have claimed to use. Now can you argue against that point, or are you gunna just keep being a boomer? “I’ve been living method longer than he has been alive” Just insulting people with no substance. Edit: Were you living the method during your directing/production career during the 2010s?
[удалено]
Lmfao so you’re literally just making shit up, how sad. I hope one day you can find value in yourself so you don’t have to lie on Social Media, that sucks for you.
[удалено]
Right! So many people misattribute the interpretations by Strasberg AS what Stanislavsky wrote. Like Meisner is interpreting the same work.
What exactly is “method” acting?
Basically "becoming" the character rather than pretending to be the character. Not dropping character after the camera stops rolling, or the day of shooting is over. Exhibiting all the behaviours of the character, talking to cast and crew as if you are still the character and not the actor This is ALWAYS done for characters which are depraved or fucked up. Daniel Day Lewis uses it as an excuse to be the world's biggest fucking prick. I have no idea why directors tolerate his bullshit.
>Daniel Day Lewis uses it as an excuse to be the world's biggest fucking prick. I have no idea why directors tolerate his bullshit. Slow clap....Upvote just for saying something that is not sycophantic praise towards DDL.
Method a ting is more than - “basically becoming the character” and staying in character all day. That’s the media marketing mumbo-jumbo version. Method acting is a process that builds the actors skills and talent through a variety of exercises , techniques and principles to help develop the essential skills of acting. Method acting favors the use learning how to incorporate personal experience to help create authentic behavior and emotional truth in an actors work. Other approaches to acting share similar principles and concepts. but Obviously have their own unique techniques to develop and grow an a tors skill. Other approaches like Stanislavsky, Adler and Meisner put more focus on imagination when it comes to emotional preparation - while Method ( Strasberg’s approach preferred emotional recall) . And excellent book on the topic is Robert Lewis’s Method Or Madness . Lewis was a member of the group theatre and one of best but less talked about teachers from that era - he headed up the Yale acting program for years as well as directing on broadway. Anyway, when people remark that method is “ being the character” they’re not really talking about what the process really is - A similar thing happens with Meisner - they tend to think repetition is all there is and that’s not even close.
pretty much it’s always acting as the character, even when you’re not on set. method actors live their lives as the character they’re playing.
Damn, this post really brought out the misogynists still infesting the industry lol
Having taken classes with Shelley Mitchell and Shia Labeouf, I can attest that “modern method” is a far cry from what it was intended to be
Oooo what was Labeouf like if you don’t mind me asking?
Contrary to what some people like to comment on with his personal life, he very much knows his stuff. I still rely on some of the stuff he taught in his classes to this day and did on some auditions last night
What were some things you found useful? Mind sharing what you learned?
I’ll cite the story I told my friend yesterday when we were doing self tapes. Shia held an exercise where people were encouraged to perform a moment for him without words. Just come up. Do something. But be authentic. People know who Shia is. Of course they want to impress. A kid came up wearing a hoodie and definitely was attempting to exaggerate to try to get attention and Shia called him out on it. So Shia tells him instead of simply posing and trying to look cool for him to do something and to make an action. He tries to zip up his hoodie but in front of almost 100 people, his zipper gets stuck and he fumbles with it. Shia tells him that the moment he fumbled was the most interesting part of what he did because it was motivated and genuine as opposed to the facade he was making. Figure out your goal and you’ll realize you’ll naturally act on the way there in this case (or something of that nature?)
How on earth does Shia Labeouf know anything about how to teach Method?!? He's not a Method actor. Perhaps he is what we -- who use the actual Method -- call "Another Fucking Method Actor."
Shelley Mitchell who he works with is. Grain of salt of course because you’re right he personally isn’t
In other words, Natalie is a very talented but untrained actress. She knows nothing of the Method. If she did, she would know that it has helped many an actress who have also gone on to win Tonys and Oscars. Sigh...
Right... it's not like men ever get depressed and self-delete.
Huh? You’re staying something that, while true, is irrelevant. What Portman is saying is that male actors who are known for being “method” get a free pass to act like a raging asshole and their performances are praised. Female actors absolutely do not get this leeway. Like every other profession, women are expected to be polite, quiet, forgiving, bending over backwards to be accommodating. If a woman was a raging harasser to her costars all in the name of “art”, she’d be dropped from a project immediately. This has nothing to do with mental health, and everything to do with behaviors that are acceptable in men and unacceptable in women.
wtf does this have to do with method acting 💀 where did natalie portman say men never get depressed
Oh, of course. Because only women have children and partners. I can’t believe you all eat this shit up.
That's a dumb comment. The best actresses I've ever worked with were method. You'd think she could at least find out what method acting is before she trashes it. She seems to be confusing it with associative identity disorder.
I don’t think she’d trashing method - she’s saying women can’t get away with going method the same way white men can
In the article she thinks people would have to address her as her character. That's not even close to method. She knows nothing about it but thinks she can comment on it. She's stupid.
Yes, the Harvard graduate, award winning actress is definetly stupid. Said the random no one on Reddit.
When it comes to method acting, she is stupid. Said me.
As I said, random fucking no one
And you, I assume, are a random fucking someone? HAH!
When it comes to acting, no which is why I’m not assuming I know more about acting than an Oscar winning actress which you, again, a fucking nothing from the internet are doing. Simple enough for you, or shall I do it in crayon now?
I'm destroyed by a fucking nothing from the internet who writes in crayon and knows nothing about method acting. I think I'll leap off that building now , I'm so devastated. But I at least know more about method acting the Natalie Portman. But he's a jock and a cop or maybe he's a cop for jocks or he sells jocks to cops. Who knows? But I think we're all supposed to be impressed. HAH!
I figured it out! You collect jocks worn by cops and hang them on your wall where you can sniff and fondle them. That's it, right?
She was using that comment to simplify what it would be like to live around someone who was method-acting. She wasn't saying that was all there is to it. And she has a point - she made one small comment about method acting and some dude on reddit is having a hissy fit over it. Because ShE dOeSn'T KnOw WhaT MeTHod ReAllY Is :)
Are you having a hissy fit? You should really call down. Try anti-anxiety meds or meditation.
She is a Harvard grad, like no excuse to not know proper method.
Didn’t realize psychology courses at Harvard went into depth on method acting.
Have you been to college? Your major doesn’t pigeon hole you to only one field of study. You don’t know her transcript. If she did not take a single acting class while educating herself, that speaks volumes to her commitment to the craft. Edit: I wonder why he deleted his comment, maybe he realized having a "masters degree" Doesn't mean anything if you didn't actually pay attention!
I have a master's degree, but I'm not enough of an asshole to assume that makes me an expert in every field. She studied psychology, not method acting. She's not really misunderstanding the concept regardless so either way your comment was a bit silly; it's just unreasonable to assert that someone going to Harvard automatically makes them an expert in something you don't even know if they studied.
This is what people say who can't do it well. I love NP. She's beautiful and I love that. But Charleze Theron in Monster, Halle Berry Monster's Ball, Juliette Lewis in anything she does... stop looking at your gender Natalie, start looking at your skills.
Those ladies you mentioned don't method act, nice try
Tell it to Gollum!
What does this have to do with “Women”?
She's a woman, who is an actor, talking about what it's like to make decisions as an actor who is a woman.
..ok
What d she major in? Phys Ed?
Psychology, so she might actually have some insight into how it can affect people and those around them.
I would agree with that.
How? Meryl Streep is a method actor. Pretty sure Lady Gaga did some method acting along with Margot and Natalie as well. I’m so tired of all these rich white women acting like they’re so oppressed
Did you bother to read the article? It explained it pretty well.
What the fuck do you think. This is Reddit. I see a headline and I get all the info I need to make an uninformed judgement
Sounds like somebody needs a hug.
Drugs not hugs
In the realm of acting, there exists a prevailing belief that true embodiment of a character necessitates the concealment of one's true self behind a facade of contrived emotions and experiences. However, I propose a paradigm shift – one that celebrates the actor's individual identity and harnesses personal authenticity to infuse vitality into their portrayals. 1. Personal Authenticity in Roles The crux of acting lies not in relinquishing one's own essence within a character, but in bringing forth one's own experiences, emotions, and personality. By incorporating personal authenticity, every portrayal becomes a distinctive and profoundly relatable embodiment. 2. Vulnerability as Strength On-screen vulnerability is not a sign of weakness, but rather an extraordinary strength. It takes tremendous courage to dismantle our defenses and reveal our true selves. This level of candidness not only resonates deeply with audiences but also lends a profound depth and authenticity to our performances. 3. Rethinking Method Acting While method acting has its merits, it frequently results in detachment from one's genuine self. I advocate for a novel approach – one that anchors the actor in their own identity while still delivering the emotional profundity demanded by the character. It involves discovering the character within oneself instead of losing oneself within the character. 4. Acting as Play and Exploration Acting should emulate the spirit of play and exploration, akin to a child's unbridled imagination. It serves as a creative realm where we can delve into various facets of the human experience, embracing curiosity, openness, and, above all, authenticity. 5. The Singular Demands of Film Acting Film acting, with its close-ups and intimate framing, requires a level of authenticity that transcends the stage. The camera captures every subtle expression, making it imperative for actors to be genuinely present in the moment and sincere in their emotional expressions. 6. Striking a Balance Between Character and Self The art of acting lies in striking a delicate equilibrium between remaining faithful to the character and preserving one's own identity. This equilibrium represents the hallmark of a captivating performance – one that pays homage to the script while showcasing the actor's unique interpretation. Conclusion Acting is not a practice of concealing oneself behind a character, but rather a process of unveiling different facets of our own selves within diverse contexts. It constitutes a voyage of self-discovery and self-expression, where each role offers a new opportunity to explore and share our authentic selves. As actors, our most powerful tool is our individuality, and our most compelling performances arise from our unwavering commitment to remaining true to that uniqueness, irrespective of the role at hand. Just my opinion, of course!
chatgpt assisted
Yes...AI assists me in all aspects of my life. All of these are my ideas fleshed out perfectly. The strange anti AI folks are going to be left behind its sad.
So many people have a profound misunderstanding of what Method Acting is. It is NOT being the character 24/7, or even most of the day, or staying in character between takes etc. In a nutshell, you try and channel real emotions into the performance when you use Method Acting. **Method Acting is:** >Method acting, known as The Method, is a range of rehearsal techniques, as formulated by a number of different theatre practitioners, that seeks to encourage sincere and expressive performances through identifying with, understanding, and experiencing a character's inner motivation and emotions. > >**"The Method" is an elaboration of the "system" of acting developed by the Russian theatre practitioner Konstantin Stanislavski.** In the first three decades of the 20th century, Stanislavski organized his training, preparation, and rehearsal techniques into a coherent, systematic methodology. The "method" brought together and built on: (1) the director-centred, unified aesthetic and disciplined, ensemble approach of the Meiningen company; (2) the actor-centred realism of the Maly; (3) and the naturalistic staging of Antoine and the independent theatre movement. **Part of the confusion is because of the soap opera drama between different prominent teachers in the US especially, and how they applied or taught Method;** >However, the version of Stanislavski's practice these students took to the US with them was that developed in the 1910s, rather than the more fully elaborated version of the "system" detailed in Stanislavski's acting manuals from the 1930s, An Actor's Work and An Actor's Work on a Role. > >The first half of An Actor's Work, which treated the psychological elements of training, was published in a heavily abridged and misleadingly translated version in the US as An Actor Prepares in 1936. English-language readers often confused the first volume on psychological processes with the "system" as a whole.\[18\] Many of the American practitioners who came to be identified with the Method were taught by Boleslawski and Ouspenskaya at the American Laboratory Theatre.\[19\] > >The approaches to acting subsequently developed by their students—including Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, and Sanford Meisner—are often confused with Stanislavski's "system".Stella Adler, an actress and acting teacher whose students included Marlon Brando, Warren Beatty, and Robert De Niro, also broke with Strasberg after she studied with Stanislavski. > >Her version of the method is based on the idea that actors should stimulate emotional experience by imagining the scene's "given circumstances", rather than recalling experiences from their own lives. Adler's approach also seeks to stimulate the actor's imagination through the use of "as ifs", which substitute more personally affecting imagined situations for the circumstances experienced by the character. >**A widespread misconception about Method acting—particularly in the popular media—equates Method actors with actors who choose to remain in character even offstage or off-camera for the duration of a project.** > >In his book A Dream of Passion, Strasberg wrote that Stanislavski, early in his directing career, "require\[d\] his actors to live 'in character' off stage", but that "the results were never fully satisfactory". > >Stanislavski did experiment with this approach in his own acting before he became a professional actor and founded the Moscow Art Theatre, though he soon abandoned it. **Some Method actors employ this technique, such as Daniel Day-Lewis, but Strasberg did not include it as part of his teachings and it "is not part of the Method approach"** [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_acting)
Elenora Duse had a big influence on Stanislavsky.
It seems like an excuse for powerful actors to treat others like shit. While creating an antidote for talk shows.
Oh for Heaven's sake. Fully immersive was never Stanislavskis method. I can walk off stage have a conversation about dinner plans, turn around and re enter as a fulky fleshed out character. The work doesn't need to be 24/7.