The Method Acting Thread

[Poya]

Look, I’m bored, so I decided to create a thread about my favorite acting style: method acting. Whether it’s Stanislavsky, Adler, Strasberg, etc, I feel method actors are much better than the acting of the old age. Granted, this is just my opinion and what matters is how good the performance is, no matter how you go with it, but I feel this type of acting really brings truth to these performances, and whether it’s being in character in or out of filming or going through a massive weight change, these techniques create a level of immersion for the audience. The majority of the best actors of all time happen to be method actors, so it’s not exactly a style to take lightly.

So, that being said, let’s discuss method acting. Is it your preferred style? What do you like or dislike
about it? And if you want to, list any actor(s) (male or female, of course) you believe to be of the Method, be it Stanislavsky, Adler, Strasberg, etc. Then list an example(s) of what makes them a method actor. Now keep in mind: just because an actor may have used any of these techniques only once in their lives, it doesn’t make them a method actor, nor does simply doing research for a role.

i.e. Al Pacino - Studied under Strasberg. During Serpico, Pacino would sometimes go in character to different neighborhoods, some of them dangerous. One story has it that Pacino was so in character that he pulled over a truck driver and threatened to arrest him for exhaust pollution.

[crude]

Christian Bale on The Machinist. He lost and gained several pounds in months and he still alive and rocking. One of the best currently.

[Trace Buster Buster]

Sometimes I think method acting is a bit of a fraud. I understand physical transformations but this, "I'm playing a drug dealer so I'm going to hang out with drug dealers for a month to capture the character," is a little over the top. You do what you gotta do to get into character I guess I don't know. I'm not an actor though so maybe I'm wrong.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Trace Buster Buster

Sometimes I think method acting is a bit of a fraud. I understand physical transformations but this, "I'm playing a drug dealer so I'm going to hang out with drug dealers for a month to capture the character," is a little over the top. You do what you gotta do to get into character I guess I don't know. I'm not an actor though so maybe I'm wrong.

I’m glad you brought this up because that means I have an excuse to bring up this recent Daniel Day Lewis anecdote:

Perhaps the most touching anecdote I’ve ever read about Daniel Day-Lewis comes from his Boxer (1997) co-star Emily Watson, who revealed in a 2012 Time magazine profile that she once dared to question the celebrated actor about his notorious process. You know about the process, of course. We’ve all heard about Day-Lewis regularly submerging himself so deeply into his roles that he makes Method stalwarts like Marlon Brando look like community theater amateurs. For The Boxer, Day-Lewis had really learned to box, wound up with a broken nose and a bad back, and had made sure to keep his distance from Watson, who played his long-separated girlfriend. Years earlier, for The Last of the Mohicans (1992), he had lived in the wilderness and built canoes and captured, skinned, and ate wild animals. Before that, on My Left Foot (1989), about the life of a writer with severe cerebral palsy, he had remained in a wheelchair throughout production, with crew members having to feed and carry him.

“Why do you work like that?” Watson says she asked him.

“Well,” Day-Lewis replied, “I don’t think I’m a good enough actor to be able to not do it this way.”

[Trace Buster Buster]

I love that quote. I wonder if he was being sarcastic when he said that.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Trace Buster Buster

I love that quote. I wonder if he was being sarcastic when said that.

Judging from the people who know him and his few interviews, I have no doubt he’s genuine. He’s not as pompous about it as Jared Leto is.

[Trace Buster Buster]

Originally Posted by Poya

Judging from the people who know him and his few interviews, I have no doubt he’s genuine. He’s not as pompous about it as Jared Leto is.

Yeah didn't he walk around blind when he filmed Blade Runner 2049? I like Leto but stuff like that makes me roll my eyes a little.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Trace Buster Buster

Yeah didn't he walk around blind when he filmed Blade Runner 2049? I like Leto but stuff like that makes me roll my eyes a little.

But why does it make you roll your eyes?

Makes perfect sense to me.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

But why does it make you roll your eyes?

Makes perfect sense to me.

Something like that doesn’t bother me, but the whole “dead rats as a gift” thing, it’s like you people never showed him Tropic Thunder.

[cynatnite]

I get needing to go to certain lengths to get into a role. Whatever helps an actor do a better job, I understand.

But some things seem a bridge too far. Billy Bob Thornton put crushed glass in his shoes for his role on Sling Blade.

[dancerslegs]

As usual, nobody understands what Method acting actually is.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

As usual, nobody understands what Method acting actually is.

You mean “me”, right? I’ve only stated two examples of the style but it’s a lot more complex than that. Heck, doing several techniques at once can be possible but not every actor does it.

But hey, maybe I’m misinformed, so thanks to your absolutely condescending post, I would like you to tell me why I’m wrong.

[Tommy0807]

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

As usual, nobody understands what Method acting actually is.

You're right, though it's understandable since there has been a lot of blurring in actor methods over the years and things get called Method that really aren't. I do NOT claim to be an expert in delineating all of the differences, but I am an actor, so I've used different methods (lower case "M") in the work I've done. I have also done mostly stage work (vs. film) so there are some differences there as well.

With some of my actor friends we joke--good-naturedly--about the Method, but I have to say some of my favorite actors or performances were from people who considered themselves to be "Method."

The Method focuses on "inside-out" development of a character (vs. outside-in) where the actor finds the emotional truth from within and that truth will manifest itself physically. The outside-in method focuses more on the physicality coming first and the emotion follows. I tend to be more "inside-out," but in grad school I learned about the benefits of utilizing outside-in as well.

There are different approaches to inside-out work in that some teachers stress using your own personal experiences to create emotional truth in acting. Other teachers tell you to be "in the moment" and to use the given circumstances of the scene you're working on. I guess the best method is the one that works the most truthfully for you. I have used personal sense memory before, but I find I have the most honest (and consistent) responses to being in the moment of a particular scene.

One of the things that bugs me about actors, and which is often called "Method," but it is not, is the actor who stays in character both onscreen/onstage and off. To me that's a little ridiculous. It's called acting. You don't become the character. If that works for an actor, well, okay, but again, it's a little nuts. When you have to call them by their character's name and things like that, it's kind of silly. I have heard stories that Jim Carrey did that during Man in the Moon. And, in my opinion, his performance in that film was more of an impersonation than a fully realized, three-dimensional character, so I don't know how successful his method was.

When I'm acting, I'm always aware that I'm acting and that I'm not really that character. If I'm doing a heavy scene and we cut, I can joke around and then be ready for the next scene without losing anything. Okay, with a particularly heavy scene an actor needs to stay focused even in down time, but still.

And I understand doing research for a character, but I remember hearing that Nicolas Cage had some teeth pulled to get into character for Vampire's Kiss. That isn't acting; that's self-mutilation.

[imsounoriginal]

Don't really care what techniques various actors use, as long as the end result is strong. I can't imagine ever getting lost in a role to the extent someone like Jim Carrey (Man on the Moon) or others have, but if it works for them, who are we to complain?

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Tommy0807

You're right, though it's understandable since there has been a lot of blurring in actor methods over the years and things get called Method that really aren't. I do NOT claim to be an expert in delineating all of the differences, but I am an actor, so I've used different methods (lower case "M") in the work I've done. I have also done mostly stage work (vs. film) so there are some differences there as well.

With some of my actor friends we joke--good-naturedly--about the Method, but I have to say some of my favorite actors or performances were from people who considered themselves to be "Method."

The Method focuses on "inside-out" development of a character (vs. outside-in) where the actor finds the emotional truth from within and that truth will manifest itself physically. The outside-in method focuses more on the physicality coming first and the emotion follows. I tend to be more "inside-out," but in grad school I learned about the benefits of utilizing outside-in as well.

There are different approaches to inside-out work in that some teachers stress using your own personal experiences to create emotional truth in acting. Other teachers tell you to be "in the moment" and to use the given circumstances of the scene you're working on. I guess the best method is the one that works the most truthfully for you. I have used personal sense memory before, but I find I have the most honest (and consistent) responses to being in the moment of a particular scene.

One of the things that bugs me about actors, and which is often called "Method," but it is not, is the actor who stays in character both onscreen/onstage and off. To me that's a little ridiculous. It's called acting. You don't become the character. If that works for an actor, well, okay, but again, it's a little nuts. When you have to call them by their character's name and things like that, it's kind of silly. I have heard stories that Jim Carrey did that during Man in the Moon. And, in my opinion, his performance in that film was more of an impersonation than a fully realized, three-dimensional character, so I don't know how successful his method was.

When I'm acting, I'm always aware that I'm acting and that I'm not really that character. If I'm doing a heavy scene and we cut, I can joke around and then be ready for the next scene without losing anything. Okay, with a particularly heavy scene an actor needs to stay focused even in down time, but still.

And I understand doing research for a character, but I remember hearing that Nicolas Cage had some teeth pulled to get into character for Vampire's Kiss. That isn't acting; that's self-mutilation.

That’s what I basically stated!

I feel this type of acting really brings truth to these performances... create a level of immersion for the audience.

The emotional truth is what ultimately counts. The Method isn’t just “staying in character” but it is a technique to help certain actors get to that truth. That doesn’t mean every actor who does that is automatically one and yeah, it can get blurred, but it’s clear that the teachers of that era had a massive amount of influence on actors, regardless of how they learned to act.

But talking about the “inside-out” work, I do prefer that myself, but I feel using personal experiences for your role only makes it about you and not the character. But again, what ever works for you.

[Tommy0807]

Originally Posted by Poya

That’s what I basically stated!



The emotional truth is what ultimately counts. The Method isn’t just “staying in character” but it is a technique to help certain actors get to that truth. That doesn’t mean every actor who does that is automatically one and yeah, it can get blurred, but it’s clear that the teachers of that era had a massive amount of influence on actors, regardless of how they learned to act.

But talking about the “inside-out” work, I do prefer that myself, but I feel using personal experiences for your role only makes it about you and not the character. But again, what ever works for you.

Agreed. Generally when I watch a movie, I have no idea how an actor achieved his/her performance, but I respond to a performance that feels genuine and honest. I don't like to watch an actor "act." If I can see what they're doing, it's like their strings are showing. I like to be lost in the character and the moment and not be aware of acting (technique) at all.

[Talleyrand]

As the final consumer, I don't really care what was used to make the acting work; I'll judge the work on how it is, not on how it was done. In particular, I don't think style of acting used to achieve a performance is a factor for "best acting" categories.

That being said, I am more personally impressed if an actor can achieve the same performance without using method acting. Like, I am glad DDL did what he needed to for My Left Foot, but, if he had made the same performance without using method acting, I would be more impressed. Again, this would not make the performance itself better or worse, or more or less deserving of the awards it garnered, it would just impress me more personally.

[civiclx]

Oh sweet. I had never seen this thread before but I had figured it's been around for awhile. Nice to see it's pretty new. Haven't read all the posts but I look forward to catching up

[Talleyrand]

I know that Olivier's advice to Hoffman on Marathon Man about giving a convincing performance [in this case, staying awake for 72 hours in order to portray a character who had been awake for 72 hours] is probably apocryphal, but I hope it's not, because it's a damn good quote: "Why not just try acting, dear boy?"

[imsounoriginal]

Yeah, I've always thought a little higher of those who actually "act," as in they perform between the calling of "action" and "cut," than those who choose to live like the character for extended periods of time. But ultimately all that matters is the performance we see on-screen; however the actor gets there is immaterial as long as the final product is strong.