Do You Like Movies That Explore Things You Wouldn't, But Think About?

I think we may be overestimating the damage an acting method really does, if we have to go to the most extreme examples of actor ego's that have ballooned out of control. And my argument has never been that there aren't ******** who use it to either harm themselves or harrass others. I've no doubt Jared Leto is an unbearable jackass. And watching the Jim Carey film where he channels Andy Kaufman's spirit for his Man in the Moon performance, is the kind of unbearable artistic indulgence that maybe should carry prison sentences.



My major point of disagreement was that you were just seemingly being dismissive towards what an actor actually does on screen. There seemed to be little registering that there actually might be more to offer out there other than Kurt Russell's 'talk and stand' assessment of the profession. Sure, you weren't calling for The Method to be banned. But you adopted an attitude that it is a pointless exercise that should be abandoned by anyone who isn't silly. Why? As far as I can see, because you have inflated its sense of danger, and taken issue with those who dare to take this kind of work so seriously. Personally, I think acting is an important job. And if they find ways that they believe is maximizing their on screen potential, who cares if they behave 'weird' off screen to get there. As long as they aren't cannibalizing their costars to stay in character, let them have at it.



Sounds fine by me. I'll take a sense of mystery any day over the pragmatist fumes you've presumably been huffing. Art generally requires a suspension of some kind of disbelief. A faith in what the artist is doing. A faith that their art is more than just the residue their indulgences leave behind Otherwise, as you mentioned before, a film is nothing but a bunch of flickering light on a screen. And a book is a string of hieroglyphs on dog-eared pages. And a painting is a collection of pigment globs hanging on a wall. And music is a just a bit of noise we might dare to move around pointlessly to.



Yeah, I'll embrace the mystery every time, thank you very much.




It's great to believe in something, and belief doesn't have to end the moment we lose the myth of Santa Claus. Art is a wonderful place to safely put these romantic beliefs. I'm not here on this earth just to contemplate the dirt under my feet and the fact that one day I'll return there. I am here to instill life with meaning, even if that meaning has the audacity to be built upon the shaky ground that is called faith. Much of the poetry in art is based on instilling what we watch or read or listen to with greater value than we can measure in a cup. If you ever try it sometime, get back to me on how wonderful it is (and you're welcome )


Also, it's just not in service of a 'story'. To limit the medium of film to just telling stories is just too depressing to consider.



A film is neither good nor bad. It only allows us to discuss whether it might have been good, or might have been bad, opening all sorts of discussion of what constitutes what is good and bad in each individual. It's a teachable moment, where we learn to appreciate what others can see in things, even if we can't. And then, once we get that out of the way, we can get back to ridiculing eachother for what horrible taste everyone else but us has. The best of both worlds!


And I don't evaluate the product on the process. While I might be interested in some amount of the backstory of a production, it doesn't determine how I feel about what's on screen. Not sure why you think this would be anyone's argument.



I agree with the notion that its probably the better avenue to blend both methods. As for your worries that one of these methods might be 'inconsistent' and 'excessive', yeah, probably. But sometimes its a worthwhile to allow the possibility of failure, to open the pathways towards something different, or particularly special to happen. To use a glib example, Kenny G probably hits his marks pretty well while on stage, being that he is a highly trained and adept musician. But I'm going to risk my time listening to John Coltrane, who might have some off nights, and who might from time to time get lost, but also might be better than anything I've ever seen before. I've got no real use for guarantee's in my art. The possibility of failure isn't some terror, as long as there is the possiblity they push through that failure towards something better eventually.


Most great artists are. Why would anyone even bother with the arts if they didn't want to be a sucker from time to time?



Well, I guess, maybe. But just like I'll give credit to the training an athelete does to get in shape for aiding his performances on the field, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to whatever training an actor commits to before getting on stage.


And maybe the whole Method thing is a big fat con. Who can tell for sure, if we need definite data to prove it's clear worth. But I don't even really see the relevance in worrying over this too much. Would Mulholland Drive have existed without Lynch going to catch some fish in his subconscious while practicing TCM. Would Mean Streets have swelled up with Catholic guilt if Scorsese wasn't raised in the church? Would the cinema of Pasolini have been as impassioned towards the outsider if he hadn't felt cast aside because of his homosexuality. Would Timothy Carey have farted on set as much if not afforded the freedom to do so from The Method? The personalities, beliefs and backgrounds of these fillmakers are the soil their movies are born from, and whatever methods they ultimately embrace to get there, even if we are dubious towards them, are just as inextricably linked to the 'product' they produce as their raw 'talent'.

Isn't that what Big Brother is for?

__________________
My Favorite Films

The show, or the term for the spying government?

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

The show!!! Its one pile of garbage! I only watched a few episodes and got fed up with the antics!

Fair enough. My beef is really going all the way with it.


Fair enough, but there is still the question of whether this is a superior method, or necessary for greatness, etc. Is this "the way"? Is this "the best way"? How far should it be mythologized and normalized?

We shouldn't confuse the user's side with the maker's side. The audience wants the illusion. The magician, however, should never imagine that s/he is doing "real" magic. A good magician is a good liar and manipulator, and so is a good writer, and so is a good actor.

And the stuff they sell you about the magic of the method is just marketing to get you to invest in the reality of a lie. If you need that to invest, you might have more or a realist/pragmatist lean than you suspect (e.g., most people don't need to believe that a magic trick is really magic to enjoy it -- although there are some who seem to need to believe that Chris Blaine is vaguely magical - with his bull**** camera editing -- to really enjoy his shtick).

Meh. It depends on how broadly or narrowly you can conceive of the term "story."

Poppycock.

Well, it has to do with your need to believe in magic and romance and transcendence and all that. You are invested in a sort of supernatural aura that surrounds the product, which gets us into territory having to do with its production (Was the acting authentic? Was she crying REAL tears?).

Musical artistry is a deep romantic swamp. We put virtuosity on a pedestal, imaging sometimes that pain or madness is crucial to the process. Stevie Ray Vaughn, for example, had a chemical dependency issue, however, he was much better as a musician when he kicked it. Also, SRV was so good, the mechanical side of his playing was so solid, that he could wake up from a nap and just start shredding.



Coltrane had technical proficiencies that Kenny's smooth jazz just isn't comparable too.

Jazz is an interesting art form because of its openness and reliance on virtuosity (although even great players have stock tricks that they use, like licks, stabs, chord changes, etc. that are "go to" things one finds in their improvisations). Coltrane's worst days exhibited technical proficiencies most only dream of.

Does method acting have unique advantages over other approaches for finding nuance or adding surprising touches? In some cases, probably. But as a general rule? This is a vaguely empirical question. It could be put to the test. There are mundane variations of just rationally thinking of how to run a scene a different way "What it we did this...?" as opposed waiting for inspiration from the inner voice of the character you have summoned.

Again, the best performers I have observed in preparation and performance have an almost terrifying ability to turn it "on" and "off" at will. They are emotionally "there" in the performance, but they can hit the same mark every time with precision, not depending on luck and adrenaline. It's a rather awe-inspiring thing to observe.

As for those who rely exclusively on the muse, they're a bit more annoying, flighty, and inconsistent. My hearing, for example, has permanently been damaged by a performer who felt the need to offer shrieking screams of childbirth in a practice performance in a small room. No technical regulation or modulation, no consideration of how to appropriately produce the artistic effect, just the riding of the moment and "being the person!" and remembering what it was like to have given birth (this performer had a few children and was drawing on her memory of that experience), and all of this did give birth to something -- my tinnitus. So, I've rather paid the price for extravagant methody bull**** and I don't really respect the cult of the method or people who use it as a crutch to cover technical proficiency (and the high pitched tone of my tinnitus is with me as I type these words).

I am not absolutely "anti-method." I think the best method is to use anything that works (without becoming dangerous or obnoxious).

I am just against making a fetish out of it.