The Problem of Method Acting

I initially had a pretty negative reaction to where the video was going but then I just said, "despite her attitude, hear her out", and she made such a good case I ended up mostly agreeing. Although it is also true that I have long had issues with The Method. Some great actors came out of it in a very specific time but lots of great actors didn't. I often wonder if Leo would have been even 2% less effective in The Revenant if he hadn't slept in an animal carcass or whatever stupid shit he did but it was actually that (and whatever else he was doing) and not the performance that locked him up the Oscar.
I mean, do I think Brando was masterful at channeling nuanced pain? I do but I wonder if he actually wouldn't have been great anyway. Maybe he was just talented as hell. Did Marilyn Monroe really need the Method or did Strasberg just really like the shine he got off being her coach?
As far as men and women, I guess I would say that Teri Hatcher no longer has a career. Nor does Faye Dunaway nor Katherine Heigl, really. If you're a female star and you misbehave, you're not a star much longer. But if you're a male star you have to be pretty f*cking impossible to find yourself outta work. I mean, Brando, through his Vicodin haze, seriously told Donner that he wanted to play Jor-El as a briefcase or a carrot. And they gave him all the money. Go find me the female star who's been given that kind of privilege. Imagine if a female star had had the infamous Christian Bale moment. Could she even show her face in public anymore? Bale was holding an Oscar within 2 years.
I think you hit the nail on the head, it's privilege, and it's really not acknowledged yet. Getting away with that kind of behavior at work has generally always been reserved for white males (of which I am one) who, for some reason, feel entitled to behave that way if they're good at what they do (and sometimes when they're not). And I think it's been reinforced way too much.

I wanted to hit this separately (although briefly).
I wonder if the draw to The Method for a lot of actors is actually the desire to do good work or the pursuit of self-indulgence at a level that perhaps can't be achieved anywhere else. I mean, The Method is all about making acting about you and about over-dramatizing your own past experiences (ostensibly in order to produce a greater performance) and in a way drawing maximum attention to yourself.
I wonder if that, and screaming at people without repercussions, and getting away with sending them dead rats, and sleeping in a dead animal for attention, isn't especially intoxicating for people whose whole world is based on drama.

HAHAHAHA!!!
Man, they nailed it.

I couldn't make time to watch the whole video so far, but I'm an actor and I was told by others that I'm a method actor before, but I don't see what's so bad about it, if someone could break it down. If it helps the performance, it helps? But then again, this is just what I've been told by others and not sure if actually am one.

Everything in moderation. If you occasionally tap into a memory to help give you a "boost" in portraying an emotional state, then no harm no foul.

If, however,

you create a hostile or uncomfortable workplace environment in your process (e.g., Leto mailing dead mice to coworkers, grabbing butter in a moment of inspiration to simulate an act sodomy on Maria Schneider, terrorizing Shelly Duval on set so she seems "extra-scared" on camera), then there is a legitimate discussion as to whether the ends justifies your preferred means. I can imagine, for example, that a psychotic teacher like the one in Whiplash might occasionally produce a great drummer, but is it worth it?

you cause self-harm in pursuit of your muse (e.g, starving yourself nearly to death to be The Mechanic, making yourself mentally unwell to play the psycho-killer, refusing to wear a proper winter coat between takes, on Gangs of New York because you're in character), then again there is a legitimate discussion as to whether the ends justifies the means.You might protest that it is "your choice" as an actor, but this leads us to our next concern.

you create and sustain a culture in which a hostile workplace environment and self-harm are "normed" as an expectation (e.g., all those actors who are taught the method, the academy which lionizes the pain of method actors, the expectation that great suffering in pursuit of art is a hallmark of great art), then there is a conversation we should have (e.g., should this be taught, normed, valorized, expected?). Would Jared Leto have done the dippy stuff he did if we had not already worshiped De Niro and Brando for doing the same? And how many little Leto's are out there being obnoxious?

the mythology of method detracts the community from noting greatness in the work of others (e.g., "Well, so-and-so did a fine job of reading the lines, but Leonardo actually slept inside of a dead horse!"), then we have to ask if the method is not a gratuitous bribe, a bit mythologizing gossip to prop up the performance.

Don't be this guy

I'm not going to watch this because of the trigger warning, but there always needs to be a clear line between acting and not acting...but can people do that in its entirety? A lot of people have done it just fine, but then there's always the issues that get brought to the surface...like, for example, what if i'm instructed to have a sexual relationship with an actress, then it becomes an obsession for me? That seems to happen more often for the fans, but how do actors deal with their desires and impulses while working so many hours? Is Shakespeare's comment about life being a performance accurate? How so, or how not so?

It’s not accurate since Shakespeare never said this.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

Thanks for clarifying that, i feel like what i asked is one of those rhetorical questions that can't be answered.

No worries. Stirchely cannot abide a 41 minute video, so we cannot expect him to have read Shakespeare.

But you didn’t quote from what Shakespeare actually wrote. You decided to re-write Shakespeare.

I’m female & I have read Shakespeare.

I literally quoted As You like It, Act II, Scene VII by Shakespeare. I didn't rewrite anything.

This is what you wrote: “Is Shakespeare's comment about life being a performance accurate?”

How many times do I need to say that Shakespeare never made this “comment”.

I’m done with this discussion.

Did I write that, Stirchley? Is my name "KinkyFest"?



Were you ever in this discussion? Have you said anything in this thread that wasn't a gripe or an insult or a jab?

Really I think those are two quite different questions, whether method can be exploitative and whether it can be shifted into male egotism.

The second of those I would tend to agree with that a lot of method antics we were about seem like egotistical efforts at self importance, to play up the idea of the trouble artist suffering for his work which became such a big part of western culture in the mid 20th century, I don't think its any coincidence that the 70's was the most male dominated decade in cinema acting wise.

The second I do think is tied into the question of "how valuable is cinema?" and honestly my answer to that would be yes I do think its valuable, a lot moreso than its often talked about in mainstream culture which I think does still have some hangups of "high art vs low art" that honestly do come across a bit in this video the way it talks about stage acting vs cinema. Granted not all cinema is going to have lasting value BUT I do think it has been one of if not THE dominant form of art of the last century.

Just as the video does rightly point out the culture of male egotism I think you could argue though that the video itself exists as part of a culture today, the idea of the "celebrity victim". Basically that wide ranging social issues such as sexism, racism, etc should be focused onto the lives of celebrities, that dealing with this abuse with celebrities will help solve the issue as a whole by setting an example. I do think there are grounds to be quite strongly critical of that culture that basically it amounts of performative tokenism from the establishment that wants to look like it cares about these issues but doesn't want to make large scale changes to address them, celebrity culture becomes a low cost proxy battle ground. Also I think grounds that it can and often does shift into paternalism, the idea that women especially are enteral victims and need to be protected,

Playing into that as well I would also question really how helpful is this culture to alot of the victims. Exposing serious abuse definitely is something we should be in favor of BUT I think the idea that a celebrity shifts from being primarily an "artist" to a "victim" seems like it has potential to damage the careers of the people involved. Basically someone becomes a short term figurehead for a news story that lasts a few months but when its over they fade from significance. Indeed I think the idea that such a celebrity might end up black listed as a "troublemaker" doesn't really seem to be something thats focused on much either, perhaps because again it would entail looking to very large scale changes in the industry not tokenism.

Maybe not the most serious but I liked this Alan Parker interview about filming Angel Heart dealing with two very method guys in De Nero and Rouke....



You can see he isnt really over reverent about their method ways poking a little fun at them but ultimately I think the film is a very good example of how effective it can be. Really on the page Rouke and De Neros characters don't have masses of individually to them but its the little things that get added that I think give the film a lot of its character.

This thread popped back up now I'm depressed I didn't initially respond with:

"I though Method was great in the Wire."

But I saved that road for another day. And that has made all the difference.