Comments by "Morgan King" (@MorganKing95) on "Top 10 Method Actors" video.
-
18
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@icegloves7777
Oh yeah, because Montgomery Clift, James Dean, Karl Malden, Paul Newman, Burgess Meredith, Harvey Keitel, and Al Pacino are/were DEFINITELY known for constantly changing their weights, and if you look up the first page of "The Lee Strasberg Notes" you will ABSOLUTELY see that it says "Step 1: change your weight".
Seriously! Method acting is as much of a personal and psychological approach as you can get, without anything in its core having to do with your physique. The only physical aspect of Strasberg's method acting is to base a character's attitude, movements, and posture on animals, and even that's very subtle compared to Commedia Dell'Arte and Grotowski's physical work.
Also also, incorporating your voice, emotions, gestures, and movements to your character, as well as finding out your character's motivations, has been an convention since David Garrick's acting days in the 18th century. It's not anything unique to method acting.
Next time, try to do a bit more research on the topic
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I will try to give my best explanation:
With Stanislavski's system (the traditional acting style), you act through storytelling, the magic if ("What would I have done if I were in the same situation), physical action, and the given circumstances (the information that you are given). With method acting however, you draw your emotions through your own memories and experiences; you start feeling and reminiscing the senses you felt in a specific memory (how it looked, how it smelled, how you felt etc.), then you bring it to the story and get affected by it
Another important aspect of method acting is substitution; instead of simply reacting to your partner, you react as if he/she was a person from your own life that you have a relationship with (for example a parent or a girlfriend/boyfriend). It can also be that you're using your prop like it was a personal object that has a sentimental value to you
Method Acting needs practice to fully understand, and Watchmojo has clearly confused it with character work and dedication. Many other people in my generation do it as well, and conservative acting teachers love to use those misconceptions and false rumors to argument against method acting (which has annoyed me and provoked me for a long time). Sure, method acting talks about thinking what your character would have done and thought in the situation, but that's only a small part of it.
Many people also believe that you have to live like your character to gain the same experiences, but that's also a misconception. As long as your memories and experiences will bring the same emotions and reactions and you understand your character's mindset, it doesn't matter if you have the exact same experiences.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dan Grant I'm not joking. If you read Lee Strasberg's notes (the founder of Method Acting), you will notice that he talks about the following (in a very simplied presentation here):
- Sense memory: you focus on a place you have been, and all the senses from that place (how it looked, how it smelled etc.). It can also just be how you are using daily objects like a coffee cup or drinking glass.
- Emotional memory: you think of a memory that affects you a lot emotionally, and then draw your emotions in the play/film from it.
- Personal object: you react to the props as if it was an object from your own life that has a sentimental value to you
- Animal work: you compare your character with an animal and study its behavior and movements, and then bring it to your character
- Substitution: instead of acting based on the given circumstances, you react to the setting as if it was a place from your own life that you have strong memories from, and you react to your partner as if he/she was someone from your own life (like a lover, sibling, or parent).
In general, you cannot see what acting techniques an actor is using unless you talk with him with about it or is the one teaching him. Method Acting is a lot of internal and mental work, and about sharpening your senses and emotions based on personal memories and experiences, as well as substituting the given circumstances; it's not about changing your physiques and staying in character the whole time.
Yes, Daniel Day-Lewis did all that research to probably gain the experiences, but in most cases, it wouldn't be necessary because your emotions and the experiences you already have should make you capable of playing any character. Lee Strasberg himself played Hyman Roth in "The Godfather part II", and he did it as simple as possible: he knew that he was not a Mafia figure, but he was as smart as him, he ran an organization like Hyman, and he was as confident in his actions as he was. He also put some personal experiences into his character like his love for football.
1
-
1
-
Dan Grant I’m aware that the definition has basically changed, and that your impression of method acting will fit that new definition, but I find it so provocative that things have become like this: almost nobody knows about the core or foundation of method acting anymore, and those who do mostly misunderstand it. Everything nowadays is about gaining or losing weight, doing research, being in character the whole time, learning a new accent, and transform physically. I am not completely sure, but I cannot imagine that this was what Lee Strasberg had intended. It’s like an entirely new acting style has been invented that people just happen to call method acting, and the definition of method acting that existed while Lee Strasberg was alive has basically been ignored by the general audience. Stanislavski’s system, even though it was developed between 1890 and 1938 or something, has still been able to preserve its original core and definition today, and is part of the curriculum on most Western acting schools. When it comes to the two method acting definitions, method acting schools would not have taught their students the things that people now consider method acting, because that would have been risky for the health or generally unnecessary. Because of that, I don’t know where the general audience gets their information from. It seems like the logic is this: “Since some actors that are considered method actors do these exercises, it has to be a part of method acting”
What’s even worse and provokes me a lot is that conservative acting teachers love to criticize method acting based on this new definition, or they completely misunderstand emotional- and sense memory. The time between October, 2013 and October, 2014 was painful and made my drama year suck because I always had to hear these stupid statements from my acting teachers:
- “We cannot ask our students to gain or lose weight”
- “The character work will only make you lose control over yourself and become mentally ill”
- “I cannot live a life like a rapist just to act a rape scene very good”
- “Method acting is just schizophrenic”
- “What? Emotions and character work? Back in my day, acting was about storytelling”
- “You shouldn’t do method acting because it’s not part of the curriculum. You should stick to Stanislavski, he is very good” (Little did they know that only knowledge about Stanislavski was part of the curriculum. The other parts, which has to with acting abilities in general, can be accomplished with any acting style)
I usually don’t bring my personal life into discussions, but I felt for it. I also choose to not believe in WatchMojo (whom has screwed up definitions before, for example with their “Top 10 Movie Anti-Heroes” list) or articles on the internet written by the general audience, because I find them unreliable compared to the notes of the man who basically invented method acting (Lee Strasberg) and method acting schools that teach the techniques and exercises I’ve been mentioning in my first comment; it all has to do with ethos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anshulmadavi8854
1. Lee Strasberg is the one who coined the term "method acting" and developed it based on Stanislavskij's theories, and this happened when your precious Kumar (fortunately dead) was just a toddler, and guess what? There was a collective in the US called "The Group Theatre" in the 30's dedicated to new acting merhods, and Strasberg was one of the most prominent members there.
2. No, I haven't heard about the actor you mentioned, because guess what? He's irrelevant to any major filmgoer who isn't from India. And if your Indian movies are so famous and amazing, why aren't any of the highest-grossing movies from India, and why have no Indian movie apart from "Slumdog Millionaire" been a favorite at the Oscars? It's easy for you nationalists to praise Indian movies, but if we're looking at the bigger picture, then India is just an ant compared to the US and Europe. I'm not even from the US, so I notice which movies get highlighted and not.
It's a good thing that India is a developing country and has so many nationalists, because then I can smile and celebrate every time someone dies there. They also deserve it when they're responsible for the Delta-variant
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anshulmadavi8854
The opposite of "small" is "big" or "great", and thus "smaller" is the opposite of "greater", so you think Indian cinema is greater (superior to) than Hollywood. And of course you're a Hollywood hater; you haven't spoken anything favorable about it and instead have tried to make the point that Hollywood is for people who don't know anything about world cinema, while one-sidedly praising Indian cinema.
You were intentionally travelling to other countries and spreading the virus as a result. Also, HIV originated in Congo and were found on chimps, so that's their fault.
No, I'm not saying Indians are on par with Hitler and Stalin; I'm just saying that it's possible to be happy about someone's death, and that whether it's toxic or not depends on ethics and morals.
And no, I'm not from England. However, them gaining power because of your country's resources just proves how powerful the UK is and how weak and inferior the latter are, and conquering a land has been common practice since Ancient Times.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1