Method Acting

Winny_Pooh

PolarityMan said:

Both pale into insignificance when compared to the quality of the CGI and who's on the soundtrack.

LOL, or fighting. Think of all the best movies and people were fighting. Trainspotting = massive bar brawl, Cuckoos nest = losts of shouty conflict, thats why war movies win oscars because they dont piss about, loads of people fucked off with each other all the way through.

Sambostar

EricTheWeary

Right, let's try this shitting link again - third time lucky. Quite a bad quality clip ( filmed off the tv?). Anyway, this is what crosses my mind when people say method acting:

EricTheWeary

Chalky said:

Olivier's point was that method acting calls on the actor's similar prior personal experience whereas traditional acting calls on the actor's imagination.  He thought it unnecessary to be constrained by personal experience.

Both are viable foundations, but both additionally need the actor to convince the audience.  A personal history of wide and deep emotional experience doesn't automatically make that person an actor.

I can't remember if that was said in the R4 documentary or not but it was certainly one of the points I took from it: if you don't have a relevant personal experience ( an emotionally relevant one rather than situationally) then how do you apply method acting? 

PolarityMan

Winny_Pooh said:

PolarityMan said:

Both pale into insignificance when compared to the quality of the CGI and who's on the soundtrack.

LOL, or fighting. Think of all the best movies and people were fighting. Trainspotting = massive bar brawl, Cuckoos nest = losts of shouty conflict, thats why war movies win oscars because they dont piss about, loads of people fucked off with each other all the way through.

I think the importance of second gripping is massively under-rated too. I always wait for the 4th minute of the credits so I can find out who's work it was. 

BintyTwanger77

I'm an actor, and there has been so much bullshit written about method acting in the film press, it's boring. The film industry has been plagued by actors engaged in bad "method" acting, which I think reached its nadir with Jared Leto's exploits on Suicide Squad "preparing" (pfffff) to play the Joker.

What Hollywood calls "method acting" is a distortion of Ute Hagen's teachings and the Actors Studio "method" (both of which took their inspiration from Stanislavski). This school gave us Brando, Newman, Pacino, and there is a lot to it and it works if carefully applied, but the new breed of "Method actor" (like Leto) do not apply these teachings carefully and thoughtfully: they use it as an extension of their ego, which takes them out of the part. 

The original Method has been co-opted by so many actors who think they can delude themselves into the role, "become the character" (puke). This more often than not allows for the most self-indulgent, boring acting imaginable. It doesn't serve the story, it takes you out of the narrative, and doesn't allow you to relate to the situation and the other characters. There is the argument of "if it works on screen, then go for it", and I understand that to a degree, but when you see how Leto was plaguing the rest of cast with his "preparation", it grinds my gears, frankly. I'm just sick of stories of big-name actors living in their own filth for 3 months to get "into a part": that's not acting, that's a vanity exercise. It's pretentious. 

Your job as an actor is to serve the play, not invent your own stories beyond it. Everything you need, you get from the script and the other actors. End of story.

PolarityMan

BintyTwanger77 said:

I'm an actor, and there has been so much bullshit written about method acting in the film press, it's boring. The film industry has been plagued by actors engaged in bad "method" acting, which I think reached its nadir with Jared Leto's exploits on Suicide Squad "preparing" (pfffff) to play the Joker.

What Hollywood calls "method acting" is a distortion of Ute Hagen's teachings and the Actors Studio "method" (both of which took their inspiration from Stanislavski). This school gave us Brando, Newman, Pacino, and there is a lot to it and it works if carefully applied, but the new breed of "Method actor" (like Leto) do not apply these teachings carefully and thoughtfully: they use it as an extension of their ego, which takes them out of the part. 

The original Method has been co-opted by so many actors who think they can delude themselves into the role, "become the character" (puke). This more often than not allows for the most self-indulgent, boring acting imaginable. It doesn't serve the story, it takes you out of the narrative, and doesn't allow you to relate to the situation and the other characters. There is the argument of "if it works on screen, then go for it", and I understand that to a degree, but when you see how Leto was plaguing the rest of cast with his "preparation", it grinds my gears, frankly. I'm just sick of stories of big-name actors living in their own filth for 3 months to get "into a part": that's not acting, that's a vanity exercise. It's pretentious. 

Your job as an actor is to serve the play, not invent your own stories beyond it. Everything you need, you get from the script and the other actors. End of story.

I'd have taken that more seriously if you were a second grip.

BintyTwanger77

PolarityMan said:

BintyTwanger77 said:

I'm an actor, and there has been so much bullshit written about method acting in the film press, it's boring. The film industry has been plagued by actors engaged in bad "method" acting, which I think reached its nadir with Jared Leto's exploits on Suicide Squad "preparing" (pfffff) to play the Joker.

What Hollywood calls "method acting" is a distortion of Ute Hagen's teachings and the Actors Studio "method" (both of which took their inspiration from Stanislavski). This school gave us Brando, Newman, Pacino, and there is a lot to it and it works if carefully applied, but the new breed of "Method actor" (like Leto) do not apply these teachings carefully and thoughtfully: they use it as an extension of their ego, which takes them out of the part. 

The original Method has been co-opted by so many actors who think they can delude themselves into the role, "become the character" (puke). This more often than not allows for the most self-indulgent, boring acting imaginable. It doesn't serve the story, it takes you out of the narrative, and doesn't allow you to relate to the situation and the other characters. There is the argument of "if it works on screen, then go for it", and I understand that to a degree, but when you see how Leto was plaguing the rest of cast with his "preparation", it grinds my gears, frankly. I'm just sick of stories of big-name actors living in their own filth for 3 months to get "into a part": that's not acting, that's a vanity exercise. It's pretentious. 

Your job as an actor is to serve the play, not invent your own stories beyond it. Everything you need, you get from the script and the other actors. End of story.

I'd have taken that more seriously if you were a second grip.

??

EDIT: Ah! I've just seen your "second-gripping" post above...

PolarityMan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grip_(job)

BintyTwanger77

PolarityMan said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grip_(job)

It's cool, I know what a grip does. Without them, actors would look terrible... in Nicolas Cage's case it wouldn't matter, he's f*ckawful in everything

PolarityMan

I was jsut trolling you!