karapetkov
Well-known member
Thanks guys.
Ridley Scott on Method Acting
- Thread starter brianluce
- Start date
kimko
Veteran
NAW....armchair warriors.....everybody talking and nobody listening......like some actors and directors i know.
Tom Judd
Member
Ever since I came across the term not long ago, I've been fascinated about it.
I'm not an actor. I'm still young and inexperienced. I want to become a director, so it will be difficult for me to understand the techniques behind acting let alone method acting - without becoming an actor myself... but I try to understand none the less!
My understanding of method acting is that the actor becomes the role he/she is playing through recreating the mentality of that character, often by reliving personal experiences and emotions to help their performance. This seems to be the most prominant level with great method actors.
Some of these great method actors (as mentioned in this thread) seem to become the character. The others seem to become less immersed in that role, I guess.
Having said that. How is a method actor better than a non-method actor? Whose to say a great actor does not consider him/herself as a method actor simply because in the end they are acting and all actors (in order to deliver a good performance) must recreate the role they are playing by expressing emotions, feelings and become that character anyway?
I chose to use wordings like "it seems" because I'm just throwing this opinion out there, rather than declaring it to be true... I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this.
I'm not an actor. I'm still young and inexperienced. I want to become a director, so it will be difficult for me to understand the techniques behind acting let alone method acting - without becoming an actor myself... but I try to understand none the less!
My understanding of method acting is that the actor becomes the role he/she is playing through recreating the mentality of that character, often by reliving personal experiences and emotions to help their performance. This seems to be the most prominant level with great method actors.
Some of these great method actors (as mentioned in this thread) seem to become the character. The others seem to become less immersed in that role, I guess.
Having said that. How is a method actor better than a non-method actor? Whose to say a great actor does not consider him/herself as a method actor simply because in the end they are acting and all actors (in order to deliver a good performance) must recreate the role they are playing by expressing emotions, feelings and become that character anyway?
I chose to use wordings like "it seems" because I'm just throwing this opinion out there, rather than declaring it to be true... I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this.
emotepix
Well-known member
There are good actors, and not so good actors.
Method, system and the rest have nothing to do with good or bad.
Like 8mm, .S8mm, 16mm, S16mm, 35mm, S35mm and 65mm, these are different ways to capture an image onto film. Some are better in certain aspects than others.
You can certainly shoot a terrible film with any of the above, of course, but the very best of camera people usually have at least a nodding acquaintance with most, if not all of them.
So the System, the Method, Meisner, No Method, Strasberg, the Studio, and all the rest are just ways of working to get a performance out of an actor.
So most good to great actors have spent a lot of time in at least two or three of the above.
Ultimately, director, actor, producer, DP, whoever you are, it simplifies to the same deal: you check out what's available to you, you make your choice, you gather your tools and you go to work.
Method, system and the rest have nothing to do with good or bad.
Like 8mm, .S8mm, 16mm, S16mm, 35mm, S35mm and 65mm, these are different ways to capture an image onto film. Some are better in certain aspects than others.
You can certainly shoot a terrible film with any of the above, of course, but the very best of camera people usually have at least a nodding acquaintance with most, if not all of them.
So the System, the Method, Meisner, No Method, Strasberg, the Studio, and all the rest are just ways of working to get a performance out of an actor.
So most good to great actors have spent a lot of time in at least two or three of the above.
Ultimately, director, actor, producer, DP, whoever you are, it simplifies to the same deal: you check out what's available to you, you make your choice, you gather your tools and you go to work.
Tom Judd
Member
That's a good point, and one that was discussed with a friend of mine.
You're probably correct, but having said that...
You can do a panning shot with a handheld camera... although you'd probably get a better result using a tripod... As long as the shot is smooth, the audience won't care.
Perhaps, the camera operator is good at tai chi?
You're probably correct, but having said that...
You can do a panning shot with a handheld camera... although you'd probably get a better result using a tripod... As long as the shot is smooth, the audience won't care.
Perhaps, the camera operator is good at tai chi?
karapetkov
Well-known member
Offtopic:
You can also stabilize it in post with great effect.
You can also stabilize it in post with great effect.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
On point to mention if it hasn't been already in this long thread: the term "the method" is pretty outdated at this point. Most acting schools and studios don't even mention it as such.
Modern acting training typically draws from one or the other of many latter-day practitioners of something that in some was traces back to the early 20th century: Stanislavsky - the Russian originator of the modern, reality-based school of acting, as opposed to the previous "formal" style, where everything - every gesture, every way of indicating emotion or intention - was taught in specific detail.
Many great actors today have created their own personal "methods" of acting in the modern style. When asked what technique he used, in a "60 Minutes" interview, Morgan Freeman (one of our very finest current actors IMHO) said, without a moment's hesitation: "intuitive".
So there you have it. The bottom line is the formal style is dead, but there are many different successful ways to approach acting in the modern era. Call it what you wil...Stanislavky, the method, intuitive, Meisner, Uta Hagen...all more or less have the same goal: make the performance look *real*, not *actorish*...
Modern acting training typically draws from one or the other of many latter-day practitioners of something that in some was traces back to the early 20th century: Stanislavsky - the Russian originator of the modern, reality-based school of acting, as opposed to the previous "formal" style, where everything - every gesture, every way of indicating emotion or intention - was taught in specific detail.
Many great actors today have created their own personal "methods" of acting in the modern style. When asked what technique he used, in a "60 Minutes" interview, Morgan Freeman (one of our very finest current actors IMHO) said, without a moment's hesitation: "intuitive".
So there you have it. The bottom line is the formal style is dead, but there are many different successful ways to approach acting in the modern era. Call it what you wil...Stanislavky, the method, intuitive, Meisner, Uta Hagen...all more or less have the same goal: make the performance look *real*, not *actorish*...
Tom Judd
Member
Thankyou, Ted.
It is good to hear similar thoughts on the matter - I was having a discussion with an actor friend and it was turning into an argument because we had different opinions on the matter, and because I'm not an actor my opinion is automatically less valid than his! :cheesy:
It is good to hear similar thoughts on the matter - I was having a discussion with an actor friend and it was turning into an argument because we had different opinions on the matter, and because I'm not an actor my opinion is automatically less valid than his! :cheesy:
stan harrington
Well-known member
No...everyone will have an opinion and that's what discussion is...but if you track back to my early statements I said that the term "Method" has been used and abused and very few people know specifically what it is or what they are discussing or dismissing even...saying that "THE METHOD" , or "METHOD" is dead because you heard one actor say something on 60 minutes is fine if one person convinces you, but make sure you know exactly what it is that you are forming an opinion on...I am not suggesting that you personally don't know, I am suggesting that the larger portion of readers here don't know specifically what , "METHON" or "THE METHOD" is. I think if you take the time to read everyone's comments on this long thread you will get a better picture of what I am saying...the answer actually is in there somewhere too!
STAN THE MAN
STAN THE MAN
Tom Judd
Member
Having re-read the thread, I still feel I haven't gotten very far with the term.
I think this is, as a number of you have said, because the original term itself is pretty much non-existent and in its place are variations that all basically branch of the common idea that an actor (through deep analysis of the role) will either become the character he/she is playing or a less extreme case - where they try to relate to the character through getting in touch with personal experiences and emotions to represent the character.
Just re-running this all through my head, don't mind me
I think this is, as a number of you have said, because the original term itself is pretty much non-existent and in its place are variations that all basically branch of the common idea that an actor (through deep analysis of the role) will either become the character he/she is playing or a less extreme case - where they try to relate to the character through getting in touch with personal experiences and emotions to represent the character.
Just re-running this all through my head, don't mind me
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Just to be clear...I didn't mean to imply that Morgan Freeman (on 60 Minutes) stated or implied that The Method is dead. The term is pretty much outdated, but the *idea* most assuredly isn't. It's widely used by many, many fine teachers, schools and actors. It's mostly called something else, that's all. Uta Hagen/HB Studios call it "Substitution" when it's about using a real memory to emotionally inform a scene (like remembering an actual loved one's death to "get there" emotionally in a death scene).
It's interesting to note, parenthetically, that some acting teachers recommend avoiding heavy substitutions because tapping into real, sometimes deeply painful personal experiences can have serious unintended consequences. Like actors completely falling apart because they opened themselves up to something too emotionally powerful for them to handle.
"Sense Memory" is another method-oriented term used by many acting professionals where it's used to inform a scene where, for example, an actor "burns their fingers" on a hot stove. Same idea...pretty much "Method", just not generally using that name for it.
In Morgan Freeman's case, he might appear to be using what Stanislavsky (and HB studios, among others) called "The Magic If". You just place yourself, in your imagination, in the situation of the scene as though it's real and let yourself naturally respond accordingly, or "intuitively" as Mr. Freeman puts it.
For myself, I also use that approach, and never use substitutions, which are pretty much the centerpiece of "The Method". Nonetheless, as distinct from the now-defunct "Formal" acting techniques/training of (mostly) the 19th century, this could certainly also be regarded as a subset of "method-oriented" acting.
Lee Strasberg, who coined the term, was after all (at least in spirit, if not in person - not sure there) a student of Stanislavsky's, and most of "The Method" is derivative of Stanislavsky's groundbreaking ideas, as is HB Studios/Uta Hagen's and most others'.
Last edited:
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Having re-read the thread, I still feel I haven't gotten very far with the term.
I think this is, as a number of you have said, because the original term itself is pretty much non-existent and in its place are variations that all basically branch of the common idea that an actor (through deep analysis of the role) will either become the character he/she is playing or a less extreme case - where they try to relate to the character through getting in touch with personal experiences and emotions to represent the character.
Just re-running this all through my head, don't mind me
Conceptually it's actualy pretty simple. Like Mel Gibson observed, it's very much like lying : )
When you lie (let's assume it's for a good reason, like to avoid pointlessly hurting someone's feelings), the unbreakable imperative is to speak and behave in such a way as to convince the other person that what you're saying is actually true - so you need to "act" well enough that you don't reveal the lie. The interesting thing is that virtually *everyone* can do this, and does - often and successfully...
That, in a nutshell, is all acting is.
However, it's made far more difficult than that by all the extenuating circumstances - playing a specific character (usually quite different from yourself), written and memorized dialog, repeatabilty (lying is usually a "one-take" proposition!), the "pretended circumstances", sets, props, lights, blocking, directors, costumes, other actors, audiences...and so on...
That's where it gets tough!
moonlitnite
Well-known member
Rehi all,
It's been awhile since I've weighed in here and reading some of the recent posts reminded me of the variance in two actor's "methods". In the director's commentary of "Catch Me If You Can", after each scene Leonardo DiCaprio would check out the digital camera monitor, evaluate his performance, and occasionally ask for a reshoot. On the other hand, his antagonist, Tom Hanks said he could never look at footage after shooting - that it would completely destroy his illusion of the role in his mind.
So there you have two top actors in the same movie with completely different styles/methods - one carefully attuned to matters of subtle details of form, the other concentrating on substance (and yes, becoming the subject in his mind). Obviously, when dealing with leading actors the astute DP allows the actor freedom to perform at their best. But interestingly, some actors find too much freedom is a bit unsettling when given too much freedom. The Cohen Brothers are a good example, empowering their actors to participate in decisions typically reserved for the Director.
Back to Elvis Mitchell's interview with Ridley on Blade Runner. I had to laugh hearing how over the years Harrison Ford proclaimed he was not a replicant in the movie, while Ridley said that indeed Harrison's character was a replicant! Some actors may give a better performance psyching themself to not only get in the mind of their character, but more importantly, being able to understand and rationalize the character's motivational behavior (patterns, gestures, etc). And going back to Cohen Brothers latest "No Country For Old Men", arch-vilain Javier Bardem's interview in the latest Fall MovieMaker magazine, Javier discusses his personal challenge to act a role where his character had no redeeming values at all! (and very words, gestures, etc)
Bottom line, while our generalizations work in some scenarios, as always there are many "it depends..." situations. Obviously, flexibility is a prime differentiator for top DPs.
Warm Regards, Michael
It's been awhile since I've weighed in here and reading some of the recent posts reminded me of the variance in two actor's "methods". In the director's commentary of "Catch Me If You Can", after each scene Leonardo DiCaprio would check out the digital camera monitor, evaluate his performance, and occasionally ask for a reshoot. On the other hand, his antagonist, Tom Hanks said he could never look at footage after shooting - that it would completely destroy his illusion of the role in his mind.
So there you have two top actors in the same movie with completely different styles/methods - one carefully attuned to matters of subtle details of form, the other concentrating on substance (and yes, becoming the subject in his mind). Obviously, when dealing with leading actors the astute DP allows the actor freedom to perform at their best. But interestingly, some actors find too much freedom is a bit unsettling when given too much freedom. The Cohen Brothers are a good example, empowering their actors to participate in decisions typically reserved for the Director.
Back to Elvis Mitchell's interview with Ridley on Blade Runner. I had to laugh hearing how over the years Harrison Ford proclaimed he was not a replicant in the movie, while Ridley said that indeed Harrison's character was a replicant! Some actors may give a better performance psyching themself to not only get in the mind of their character, but more importantly, being able to understand and rationalize the character's motivational behavior (patterns, gestures, etc). And going back to Cohen Brothers latest "No Country For Old Men", arch-vilain Javier Bardem's interview in the latest Fall MovieMaker magazine, Javier discusses his personal challenge to act a role where his character had no redeeming values at all! (and very words, gestures, etc)
Bottom line, while our generalizations work in some scenarios, as always there are many "it depends..." situations. Obviously, flexibility is a prime differentiator for top DPs.
Warm Regards, Michael
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Is this commentary on the main movie DVD or the second "Special Features" disc? I want to look at it again with Leonardo's workflow in mind, and Netflix rents each disc separately so I need to know which one to get (I've already seen the movie itself enough times for now!).
Thanks
moonlitnite
Well-known member
Hi Ted,
Correct, it's on the Special Features disc - great info and after I share the main movie with a friend, they're so impressed by the movie they can't wait to "see a bit of special features of making the movie." Of course, once they turn it on, they become mezmorized and watch the whole disc!
Warm Regards, Michael
Tom Judd
Member
Ted, that's really interesting because, I was sitting around a table of stage actors a few weeks ago. You had the teacher who is a Shakespearean actor and very good at his work... then the students who were in the beginning stages of acting but show a lot of talent.
They were discussing different classic actors, method acting and movies with good acting in them and analysing why this was so... I was the odd one out, I was just friends with a couple of them and was there to film their rehearsal (this was at the pub afterwards).
I said very little as I was thinking of what to say - I hadn't thought about acting too much, just everything else - until someone told me to read Judith Weston's Directing Actors!... So I then decided to open my mouth and propose that acting is just like lying - and the teacher responded really well to that, not sure if the others had thought about it too much.
It makes sense, though, that some liers do it so often and so well... that after a while they start to believe they are telling the truth.
stan harrington
Well-known member
Sorry Tom...I have said kind of plenty on this but I will chime in a bit and say that describing it as just lying well is just too over simplified for me...I don't think a craftsman or artist will appreciate their craft being brought down to such a simplistic description...not to say that there isn't an element of that there, but when you lie, it is you lying...not a character that has been resaerched and studied that might be nothing like you...perhaps from a different era with different values and beliefs and social standing...I could go on but I hope you get the picture...using a basic word (with negative connotations) to describe someone's craft is just a little too much...
My opinion...
Stan The Man (an actor)
My opinion...
Stan The Man (an actor)
Ted Spencer
Veteran
And more innocently, but even creepier, some actors, especially after they've played a particular role for a very long time, become so immersed in it that they begin to lose track of who they are and become the fictional character in their real lives.
Larry Hagman, the actor who played "JR" on the long running TV series "Dallas" eventually did this. He started using the Texas accent, wearing the cowboy hat, sporting JR's swaggering personality (none of which he did prior to the show)...all the time. Apparently he just *became* JR in his personal life, 24/7. Pretty spooky stuff if you ask me...
Tom Judd
Member
Please Stan, don't take offense to what I'm saying about actors. I have great respect for their profession as it is one of the most interesting art forms out there!
As I've said, I'm not an actor and therefore what I'm saying are just my thoughts about the acting process coming from what I've picked up as being a viewer of actors' performances and more recent researching into their process...
If I come across as arguing here, it is not the case - I'm merely figuring things out for myself, like a debate except I can sway my opinion.
Back onto the idea of lying=acting... I was just using this as a point, I should've made it clear that I don't think all acting is lying, just that in some cases it could be considered being lying... and in these cases, it isn't a negative thing, but perhaps a white lie!
Lying is bad when it has a damaging impact on those being lied to. But people go to watch performances to be absorbed into an often fictional story... so they don't see the lying as a negative thing, but as an actor being misleading about who they are, by representing a character out of a script.
Please understand I'm not calling actors liers! I was just using this as an example of how this could be associated with actors' performances.