Studio8790 for Actors

To method are not to method. Part 1

That is indeed the question. I started thinking about this again when I received a mass-mailing email from a young actor/instructor who headed one of his emails as “finding the actor’s truth.” That one sentence, to me, is a good thumbnail summary of everything I find questionable about “the method.”
First a very quick review of what got the whole idea of a method of acting started. In a nutshell, it came from two things: the legitimate need to develop a more natural form of acting to replace the stilted oratorical style that dominated the 19th century, and more notably, the work of the famous Russian director, Konstantin Stanislavski, in doing just that.
This was not something new. Edwin Booth, who was considered the greatest Shakespearean actor and greatest Hamlet of the 19th century, spent much of his career campaigning to develop a more natural style of acting here in America, specifically for Shakespeare and the classics. Contrary to a lot of popular belief, what Stanislavski did espouse a “method of acting.”
What he did do, was to approach this goal of more natural, and therefore more believable, acting from the standpoint of encouraging actors to study the script more closely, and endeavor to apply serious analysis to the character that they were playing, and that character’s relationship to other characters within the play. From this developed the concept of a character’s motivation in portraying more natural and powerful portrayals.
I said that I would be keeping these entries short, because it will enable me to post far more often, and also because no one wants to read a novella in a space like this. So, I will put an end to this particular post, as well as tease the next one, by saying that much of what was—and is— taught by American artists as a “method” of acting not only distorts Stanislavski’s work — the Russian master was later driven to proclaim that he never intended an “acting method” — but leads actors to a number of extremely bad habits in their work.
More next time

Okay, this one is over 300 words. I tried to make it shorter, but it didn't work out. I think they are good words. :)

Now where was I? Oh yes, to method or not to method. Let’s consider that now that we have a little background. So the supposed “method”—Remember, Stanislavski said he never intend to start one—developed in an effort to make acting more natural, less staged and more ‘real.’ And that’s the first reason I don’t care much for it. It doesn’t accomplish that.

It doesn’t accomplish that because by placing the importance on the actor instead of on the character, it invites excess, tortured, self-aware and in a sense arrogant work by actors who are focused in making the character into their own idea of what they want to make him or her instead of on the character him or herself, as developed by the playwright’s of screenwriter’s description and direction along with such minor bits of evidence as the character’s own dialogue, actions, reactions to other characters, and theirs to him/her.

People within the ‘method’ school like to refer to “the actor’s truth,’ a clear indication that the actor comes before the character, who shall be bent to the actor’s will, instead of the other way around.

The other reason I don’t care for method acting is simpler. It’s unnecessary. It might have been necessary back in 1878 or 1910, but in today’s theatre, every good director and actor already does exactly what Constantin Stanislavski sought. They analyze the script, strive to understand what it tells them about the character, and through study and rehearsal, realize believably the characters presence, actions and reactions. Instead of an “actor’s truth,” they intelligently find the character’s truth.

I would like to recommend the best book about acting I have ever read. The title is ACTING WITHOUT AGONY. The author is Don Richardson, who directed over 800 prime time television episodes, three Broadway plays; whose work won Emmys and Peabody Awards. The bad news is that it is no longer in print, and if you are able to find a copy, it will be costly. If you are truly dedicated to becoming an excellent actor, it will be cheap at the price.

Too method are not to method.
That is indeed the question. I started thinking about this again when I received a mass-mailing email from a young actor/instructor who headed one of his emails as “finding the actor’s truth.” That one sentence, to me, is a good thumbnail summary of everything I find questionable about “the method.”
First a very quick review of what got the whole idea of a method of acting started. In a nutshell, it came from two things: the legitimate need to develop a more natural form of acting to replace the stilted oratorical style that dominated the 19th century, and more notably, the work of the famous Russian director, Konstantin Stanislavski, in doing just that.
This was not something new. Edwin Booth, who was considered the greatest Shakespearean actor and greatest Hamlet of the 19th century, spent much of his career campaigning to develop a more natural style of acting here in America, specifically for Shakespeare and the classics. Contrary to a lot of popular belief, what Stanislavski did espouse a “method of acting.”
What he did do, was to approach this goal of more natural, and therefore more believable, acting from the standpoint of encouraging actors to study the script more closely, and endeavor to apply serious analysis to the character that they were playing, and that character’s relationship to other characters within the play. From this developed the concept of a character’s motivation in portraying more natural and powerful portrayals.
I said that I would be keeping these entries short, because it will enable me to post far more often, and also because no one wants to read a novella in a space like this. So, I will put an end to this particular post, as well as tease the next one, by saying that much of what was—and is— taught by American artists as a “method” of acting not only distorts Stanislavski’s work — the Russian master was later driven to proclaim that he never intended an “acting method” — but leads actors to a number of extremely bad habits in their work.
More next time.

I maintain both a page (Studio 8790 For Actors), and a group (Lose the Blonde, Print the B Roll) here on Facebook. I am woefully bad at making regular posts to both of these. I blame the time I spend on other writing, but I realize that it’s also because I get hung up trying to say too much, so that the process becomes daunting. This bothers me, because I really do love commenting on both film and acting & directing, the latter of which I taught for forty years and did a good deal of.
I have a fix. I’m going to have another go at contributing regularly to both of these and I will keep each entry under 200 words. This will make them easier to write, and I’m sure, more comfortable to read, as well.
Off we go. The next entry will be an actual, well, entry. You might also try your local public or collegiate library.