Ridley Scott on Method Acting

Blaine said:
Quite honestly, I don't really care WHAT the actor claims to use or not use as long as he can act and not look like he's acting...if you know what I mean...:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

very true. it ultimately lies with the actor to find their way. although I think it's equally important to know what language they are speaking, in order to know what kind of prompting they are likely to respond to, you know?
 
Zak Forsman said:
very true. it ultimately lies with the actor to find their way. although I think it's equally important to know what language they are speaking, in order to know what kind of prompting they are likely to respond to, you know?
Click to expand...
Of course, you're right.

That's the real job of the director...to elicit the performance from his actor. Of course there's something about a silk purse....
 
NOWADAYS they want the person to be that character or close to it as themselves...as the small roles that i audition for....for me it's not what you learn, what you read, what style or what 'METHOD" it's what you do naturally...look at some of these actors they play the same personality same voice same look but different character hmmmmm. where have all the actors gone....where are all the young girls gone.....oops lost track...hmmmm line give me a line...no not that kind of line...well if it's there...then just leave it!!! uh snort sniff uh what was i saying ah yes YES!!!! uh meth uh METHOD!!! hey anybody have a script on drug addicts i know some people who are great actors....myself included.....NATURALLY..........well anyways i like some of these actors but they seem to be pidgeon holed to play the same part over and over again or maybe They just play it that way; freeman, eastwood, pacino, well you know the rest....
 
kimko said:
...for me it's not what you learn, what you read, what style or what 'METHOD" it's what you do naturally...look at some of these actors they play the same personality same voice same look but different character...
Click to expand...


I once saw an interview with Harrison Ford where he was asked what school of acting he subscribed to.
He answered with a straight face, "I'm from the 'Let's Pretend' school of acting."
 
i saw that too was that actors studio...oh that reminds me i was watching Charlie Rose and he had James Lipton on and he's got a book out i've got to get that!!!!
 
Zak Forsman said:
it's equally important to know what language they are speaking, in order to know what kind of prompting they are likely to respond to, you know?
Click to expand...

When I was directing infomercials, I found the cattle prod an effective tool for "Prompting". Highly recommended.
 
"Try acting...it's so much easier."

Lawrence Olivier's blunt advice to Dustin Hoffman still rings true,
and sums up my thoughts on method as well
 
Legendary director Vittorio De Sica worked many times with non-actors and got great performances out of them. Of course, in an age when 1 minute can mean A LOT of money not having to teach an "actor" how to act can be "helpful". I'm actually a big fan of method acting (even though I agree with Blaine) and "methods of acting" in general. I have read everything written by Stanislavsky and it is unbelievable how intense the process can be. I've studied acting with a student of Bertolt Brecht and it changed me forever.
 
PaPa said:
There are various methods, in method acting. I am currently studying the Meisner technique, and according to it's teachings, ill be done in 19 years, and can then call myself an actor lol. :P
Click to expand...
Don't kid yourself, If you really want to be good you'll never be "done". It's an ongoing process.


PaPa said:
The only type of method acting i am against, is, i believe, strasberg,. I could be mistaken, i would have to double check myself with google, but its the one where the actor uses sense memory to evoke emotion in a given context. Absolutely wrong :P
Click to expand...
Don't be too quick to dismiss "affective memory" or "sense memory" as you call it. It can work wonders as long as you don't wallow in your emotions. Think of it as a deeper extension of Meisner's "particularization". The big knock on Strasberg's use of it was his emphasis on it.

I've studied both Meisner's and Strasberg's technique. I don't worry about whether I'm a method actor or not. I worry about creating truthful, believable behavior under imaginary circumstances.

What I find mind boggling is people who cavalierly dismiss something that works for a whole lot of very talented actors. Something they've "heard" about but haven't put any time in to investigate. It's really very simple. If it works for you, use it. If it doesn't, don't. But don't knock what you don't know. (And to be clear, I'm not talking about PaPa here.)
 
Great post rsbush

I believe when studying any artform, that the more techniques one gets a grasp on on, the wider the pallette becomes.
 
but sometimes too much in the head makes that character dead; like in martial arts too many fancy techniques and not enough BASICS you can get by on the basics.
 
There are always going to be actors and directors that think that there is nothing to acting but being yourself but before you can say Freeman and Pacino and the such just play the same characters, you have to remember that they have a whole body of work that spans many decades...I have watched these guys play roles that range from God to a race car driver, from drug addict to Cuban gangster...It may seem to some that they are playing the same character and perhaps they have repeated elements of a character here and there, but if you are just being yourself, you won't being doing what they do...you will just be you...Playing all those characters requires skill and training and practice...being yourself is just about being comfortable in front of others or a camera. But hey...there's work enough for trained and untrained actors if they hustle enough...a lot is what you really want out of it.

stan the man
 
Last edited:
kimko said:
but sometimes too much in the head makes that character dead; like in martial arts too many fancy techniques and not enough BASICS you can get by on the basics.
Click to expand...

the point of method acting is to get rid of the head. This is what the technique teaches you and is exactly what i am studying under the Meisner Technique.

Lack of technique can sometimes = too much head. Thats when you know.
 
You're right Papa...A properly trained actor is reacting and living in the moment as the character...Proper training teaches you that...Good Luck with your study...Sandy has a lot of great things to offer. It will definitely make you better and more prepared. You got my respect.

Cheers,
Stan The Man
www.xristosproductions.com
 
Last edited:
stan harrington said:
You're right Papa...A properly trained actor is reacting and living in the moment as the character...Proper training teaches you that...Good Luck with your study...Sandy has a lot of great things to offer. It will definitely make you better and more prepared. You got my respect.

Cheers,
Stan The Man
Click to expand...

according to Sandy, it takes 20 years to become an actor.. so even with my 6 years of workshopping, acting school, blah blah blah, this is my first year studying meisner,.,. 19 more to go lol.
 
brianluce said:
Personally I don't think there is such a thing as "Too much head". It's like "Too much money". Never enough.
Click to expand...

when i use the term too much head, it basically means that an actor is acting, instead of working off of impulses. I.e. not being in the moment, and acting alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top