Also, I think the moment was self-deprecating-as he was asked about the magic of his own process.
I've got not problem with this, since he is referring to his own work. What works for him works for him. And it has. But I don't see why we need to extend it to be the standard of how others in the same profession should approach their work. It's almost like different artists aim for different things and might go about them differently
What matters, in terms of product, is what appears on the screen. What is on the screen is a flickering image accompanied by sound, nothing more. It is the illusion of a living moment.
Sure. That's
all it is, at least if you want to get way too technical about it. But does this mean artists have to approach it as if everyone must agree that acting is the kind of flippant irrelevancy you're trying to portray it as? You are on a movie forum acting like something being an illusion makes it dismissable in some way. Kinda weird.
And back to that 'different people think different things' thing I mentioned above. Even if they are just illusions at the end of the day, some people like to approach and portray these illusions in different ways for different purposes. Some believe there is some kind of emotional of spiritual or cultural currency to their work. Unlike Russell, some might view what they do as more important than 'remembering lines and hitting marks'. And thank god for that. It's nice to have a world where people can believe in things. Not everything is 'product'. And if that's how you view things (not saying you do) but if that's the spiel you're selling, I'm not buying.
Frankly, a sophisticated animatronic robot or CGI invention could, in principle, do anything that the most emotional, immersed, committed actor could. There is no need for actual substance to create an illusion.
In theory, I guess it's true that maybe this is something robots or CGI could one day do. But even if so, it's almost like you are willfully overlooking the fact that someone who creates that CGI would also have to be deep observers of and particpants in human behavior to program it into their animation. They too would have to find a way to get a special angle on this. Giving something that is just an illusion the depth of reality required to bring insight into the human condition, evoke empathy, and convince us what we are watching matters even if it isn't real, takes considerably more talent than you seem willing to give credit for. It doesn't matter if you're an actor or animator. You still have to learn it from somewhere. Like (one tried and tested option) The Method.
If an actor can create a character by simply "acting" rather than suffering in the skin of their character, their performance is just as good
Sure. Never said differently. I'm only arguing that others have different processes that get them to the point where they can find their best performance. And method acting, pretty much without any question, has ultimately broadened the palette of behaviors that actors can use on screen. Even non-method actors are free to crib the fruits of their labors if they like. Fair game.
When actors threaten to....act provocatively weird on set, it's a deserved corrective. Nothing in excess.
Aha! We have found the root of our issue here. Excess is nothing to be ashamed of. It should be as rightfully celebrated as much as those who find success through moderation. Why limit the scope of human expression in either our art or the manner in which our art is created? Seems a rather oppressive thing to do, in the name of just not being 'weird'.
And, hey, what's wrong with being weird?
Do your job. Put it on the screen. Use what works,
They do. They do. They do.
The new cult of flagellants deserves to be deflated every so often with the sound of a little flatulence.
I've got zero issue with deflating everything. There isn't a sacred cow in art that doesn't deserve the occassional slap down to earth. I don't want to treat them like Gods. But I also don't want to police the process which those who create create with. If The Method is what brought us the age of all those iconic performances in the 70's, regardless of what we may think of it from a distance, who cares when those are the results. You know, those results (product) that have ended up on screen time and time again. Let's do as you say, and judge it by that