Comments by "Morgan King" (@MorganKing95) on "Top 10 Method Actors" video.

  1. 18
  2. 6
  3. 6
  4. 5
  5. 4
  6. 4
  7. 4
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 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
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 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
  118. 1
  119. 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
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186.  @w0bbl3r  Yup, I stand by my word that you haven't done any real research on the topic, and there's no way that you've read "The Lee Strasberg Notes" or taken any method acting classes, because you've completely missed the point and just talk about all the misconceptions that was adressed in David Krasner's "Method Acting re-considered". I've even done a 20-page bachelor thesis on the topic. Method acting is not about completely becoming your character in the sense that you're completely unrecognizeable and have no traces of your own identity left; the core is actually to substitute the given circumstances with your own personal memories and experiences and develop a personal consciousness of the context and the character motivations so that the impulses you're giving the character can produce a reaction that's viewed as completely genuine and spontaneous. You're basically living through the character and the context as if they were you and your real life, though with enough creativity so that your performance captures the essence of your character and carries the aesthetics of an acting performance. That's what made Al Pacino so acclaimed in the 70's: he perfectly captured the essence of Michael Corleone, Serpico, and Sonny to convey the context and emotions and carry the movies, but he still highlighted his own personal essence that's unique to him and him alone. And again, do some more research before claiming that Al Pacino isn't a method actor: https://newyork.methodactingstrasberg.com/portfolio_page/strasbergtalks-al-pacino/ https://www.toledoblade.com/a-e/tv-radio/2006/10/02/Al-Pacino-talks-about-his-life-and-career-on-Actors-Studio/stories/200610020022 https://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=132062 Ignorant people like you on this topic makes me sick!
    1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1