| Question Home |
Position:Home>Theater & Acting> What are the *best* Methods for Acting.......?Question:Fellow actors, Which acting technique do you use for a good performance? How do you prepare for a role? Which methods are there? And how are they used? eg/method, stanislavski,chekov??..... Thankyee!! (ps- i know i always ask these questions, but i like them-better than questions on how to be famous!!) details are greatly appriciated! :) 12points for your thoughts! Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: Fellow actors, Which acting technique do you use for a good performance? How do you prepare for a role? Which methods are there? And how are they used? eg/method, stanislavski,chekov??..... Thankyee!! (ps- i know i always ask these questions, but i like them-better than questions on how to be famous!!) details are greatly appriciated! :) 12points for your thoughts! I think the Stanislavsky method used by Stella Adler is tremendous, as is what Uta Hagen and her husband developed at HB Studios. Uta's book is "Respect for Acting." There is a book of Stella's lectures edited by Barry Paris, and eventually, there will be another one out on the American playwrights (I'm helping with the editing). Also there is Stella's book, The Technique of Acting. All of these techniques - Strasberg, Hagen and Adler - are derived from the Stanislavsky method but are used in different ways. I studied privately and also took a class with Steven Strimpell at HB Studios. The teacher I studied privately with and Steven both used Uta's technique. I find Stella and Uta's teaching far superior to the Strasberg method. Uta's technique relies on subtext - meaning, you relate the character and circumstances to something in your own life in order to find the emotion - this is what Anthony Hopkins uses; and Stella believes that a total delving into the times the character was living, the social structure, the class structure, what was going on in the culture, gives you an insight into the character so that you can play it, but her technique also taps into the inner life of the individual playing that part. The Method used by Strasberg is different in that it deals with conflicting, opposing emotions within a person, often using some past private emotion and a key word that will set you off. The fundamental difference between Strasberg and Adler is in how each approaches the problem of accessing emotion. Strasberg was always a strong advocate of emotional memory, i.e. using the five senses to evoke a past private emotion, whereas Adler thought, as Stanivslaski, with whom she studied did, that if you studied the text and truly believed in the imaginary circumstances all the emotions in the script would surface organically. I much prefer (myself) the acting of Marlon Brando, Paul Newman, Harvey Keitel and Benicio del Toro, who studied with Stella, or the work of Jack Lemmon, Geraldine Page and Jason Robards, who studied with Uta. I find many method actors give very self-absorbed, over the top performances. I think gifted is gifted, though, and a true talent will shine no matter what. When Strasberg died, Stella had her students stand and have a moment of silence. (After all, they were in the Group Theater together.) Then she said, "now sit down, because it's going to take 100 years to undo the damage he did to the American theater." As with anything, I think all three techniques have something to offer. There are other ways to approach acting, of course - one is Michael Moriarity's way, which is through breathing to get the correct phrasology - having seen his students perform, I find his method totally worthless; Sanford Meisner's method, which relies on improvisation to teach the actor to be in the moment and is more derived from Michael Chekov than are the other techniques. He also uses something called repetition, where two actors face each other and repeat a phrase. I was rehearsed in a play where the director utilized those exercises, and I found them very effective. And there are variations on all these themes. Olivier developed his characters from the outside in - how they would dress and look, which would help give him an insight into the character. Others work from the inside out. Both have their merits - certainly Olivier was a very powerful and effective actor. Don't tell yourself you are acting, take it you are alone I don't subscribe to any one particular method. I found that when I tried to, I just ended up bogging myself down. One day, I just told myself to keep it simple, stupid - and just let myself go. Instead of trying to do something I was taught or thinking through things too much or following method - I asked myself why act - just BE the character. Just do it. And it has freed me up. This could be similar to one of the prescribed acting methods - and maybe I just didn't "get" it when it was taught to me - but I always felt like studying those methods over-complicated matters. As soon as I decided to just "Be" the character, I have been a lot more successful and have landed a lot more roles. I truly don't think I could say it any better than Lorraine. I whole heartedly agree. I would add that a lot of new teachers are interpretting these techniques now in their own way but they still all stem from the same place. One new teacher I'm hearing really good things about is Ivana Chubback. Some good friends of mine go to her and are trying to get me to her class. They are really singing her praises though I couldn't tell you first hand just yet. Personally I have used a combination of techniques to prepare for any role. I think like Lorraine said and I have said in the past they each have merit and I believe as an actor you have to decide what will work best for you in any given situation. Don't let this go to a vote. Give Lorraine the best answer, she deserves it. Then go to class. That's where you'll learn best about what technique works best for you. Try them out! Marianne |