Ridley Scott on Method Acting

Hey Stan, good to see you around. :)

As far as "Method" acting is concerned, it has been summed up quite well. There really is a very hazy line that is "Method" acting. Strasberg is known as Method in theatre circles. I've read many books on acting theory and that's more or less what people point to. The Actor's Studio is sort of where Method acting tends to lean to as well. That's why many of the breakthrough actors in the 50's / 60's were deemed as Method actors. Brando sort of started the whole movement towards Stanislavski-based acting techniques. Many claimed he was a Method actor, but he completely dismisses that in this autobiography as was mentioned. Stella Adler absolutely HATES method acting, if you've had the good fortune to study with her or have read read her books. She blames Lee Strasberg for setting back the modern theatre 50 years (or something to that effect). Most of the best actors these days, such as Johnny Depp and others, actually pick and choose from different techcniques to arrive at a method that works for them.

Method acting is somewhat dead, in my opinion. I was in a play not too long ago and was talking with some of the other actors about the great teachers, such as Stanislavski, Meisner, Adler, to the other actors and all I got back was a blank stare... go figure.

Theatre acting is also quite different than film acting. What works for the theatre doesn't work well for film and vice-versa. It's been said that affective memory is well suited in certain situations in film, but I tend to disagree. If you force an actor to cry, it's always obvious. As an example, one of my favorite movies - Good Will Hunting. Beautiful film. In the scene where Will finally breaks down to Robin's character, you can tell that Matt Damon is building up to tears. That's affective memory and it detracts from the performance. Maybe not for a lot of people, but for an actor, you can tell. It doesn't flow from him natrually from the character. It's him drawn out of the scene to produce the results that Van Sant is looking for (tears).
 
tommyinla said:
Most of the best actors these days, such as Johnny Depp and others, actually pick and choose from different techcniques to arrive at a method that works for them.
Click to expand...
That's the key right there. Working with actors who have the dedication, experience and command of their craft to be able (and willing) to do that is a gift. Otherwise it's like arguing over which camera to use. It becomes a moot point in the face of getting the substance of what the project demands.


.
tommyinla said:
It's him drawn out of the scene to produce the results that Van Sant is looking for (tears).
Click to expand...

While process is secondary to results, you never want to project the specifics of the result. I agree with you aboout that scene. It made me feel confused about the character. The scene needed a breakthrough, but that one didn't work. I'm not saying that the crying was wrong, but it did seem like he was trying to get there. And honestly, it seemed too obvious. There are other ways to show that sort of emotional peak without water works. But maybe that was the best they had that day. Sometimes that's how it works. But it took me out of the scene instead of bringing me in.
 
Hi Tommy...good to see you to...Merry Christmas...and yes, you are right about what Adler thought of Strassberg...one of the reasons it isn't a good idea to use a term that, to many, puts them all in the same bag.

Strassberg taught many greats like Pacino et al...but I will say that Adler was the only one to meet and study with Stanislavski... and he did state at that time that he no longer was a proponent of the teachings that Lee had adopted and was now working strictly from the imagination only. The beginnings of the rift that so many talk about. Despite all that, I respect all actors that take their study seriously and treat it as a craft, regardless of who they take classes from.

Cheers,
Stan The Man
 
it's basically moving away from sense memory and living in the actual moment. I.e. moving away from Strassberg's "Method".

And exactly, you pick and chose what works best for you, no doubt about that. But its funny how these are indeed methods that were introduced for stage, however the ones like addler and meisner work brilliantly for film. As you said, you can tell if someone is using sense memory and building it up. But working off of the impulses of a scene and your gut tends to lend itself quite well on film. Neat stuff me thinks.
 
hmmmm why is it dramatic actors have a hard time with comedy and comedians do fairly well in drama............................ok let's hear the theory..........while you guys talk, i'm going to work.....acting
 
because dramatic actors are in their head :P lol, once again, the infamous head.

comedians learn how ot let themselves go, and work with their impulses, because its how audiences laugh and its how they learn to control their public. Which is why when it comes to doing drama stuff, comedians already have that advantage.
 
Affective memory is not about forcing emotions out of an actor. If you're pushing, straining or letting your technique show, you're just not acting very well at that moment no matter what technique you're using. Affective memory becomes a problem when you make the emotions you're experiencing the center of the scene rather than using them to serve the scene. And this usually shows up in rehearsal. I don't know of anybody who actively uses affective memory while they're actually working. There's simply not enough time if you're living moment to moment. It is more a preparatory tool than a performance tool. When an actor's technique is working for them you don't see it, to blame an actor's pushing an emotion on affective memory is a misunderstanding of what it is and how it's intended to be employed.
 
exactly, which is why im confused as to how sense memory is still used. Although, as stated, all of these methods were brought about for Stage.. However some of them just apply very well to on screen, while others, like sense memory, one can get away with on stage ( perhaps, not my bag of jelly beans though )
 
All it is is using a recalled sense, say the scent of oranges, to remember things you've experienced. You can use it as a general exercise to increase your facility at getting in touch with yourself or specifically to find a touchstone within yourself that is analogous to what the role you are playing is demanding. In performance if you're not quite "there" you might try to touch upon that sense but you don't have time to dwell on it. It either gets you there or it doesn't. And, as it's a technique designed to get you in touch with yourself rather than with the audience, I don't see how whether you're playing for the camera or a theater audience figures in the equation at all.
 
Different strokes for different folks. I just don't believe in it for camera work.
 
PaPa said:
Different strokes for different folks.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree. I'm not trying to talk anybody into anything. In fact, if you're just starting with Meisner I'd say stick to that technique faithfully until you feel you have it down.
 
Last edited:
ya, it is quite amazing to have done training and work for over half a decade, only to come to this technique now. I wish i had learned this at the very beginning. so much truth and amazing stuff comes out of this Meisner dude :)

what have you studied?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top