In reference to the joke in the thumbnail…I’m not an actor, but was a cameraman. The first time I heard about method acting was from an actor telling an anecdote about Dustin Hoffman and Lawrence Olivier on “Marathon Man”, during which Hoffman had to appear exhausted. He physically exhausted himself by sleep deprivation and exercising, at which Olivier commented, “why don’t you just ACT tired.” I don’t know if it is true, but I found it humorous.

I'm all for an actor using whatever method or process they need to help them get into character. So long as it's not an excuse to act like an ass, or comes at the detriment of others then do what you gotta do.

I think respect is the keyword here. Method acting is fine as long as it doesn't cross the boundaries of respect for other people involved. I.e. the R scene in Last Tango in Paris where Marlon Brando and the director did not informed the actress of what they were gonna do to her body. Consent is essential to form trust on both actors.

My guess is that the recent backlash against Method Acting (or that what is perceived as Method Acting) is not so much directed at its techniques and means themselves, but at the fetishising of it. Nothing is more likely to get an actor awards consideration then a carefully planned media campaign about how much effort and preparation he put into the role. Also Method Acting is often identified with playing eccentric, bombastic, larger than life characters and extreme physical challenging roles, the kind of acting that is easy to point at and say: wow, that’s good. Consequently, the fascination with how much actors suffer for their art, almost always comes at the expense of the more nuanced, low-key performances and more commonplace characters, the kind of acting that is so good and natural that you forget that you are watching a performance. Perhaps that’s why Donald Sutherland never won an Oscar

One of the most sickening cases of actors taking "method acting" too seriously is when Jim Carrey pretended he was the literal embodiment of a dead comedian and pretended to channel that comedian's spirit to that comedian's estranged daughter.

I forgot who, but a famous actor recently commented that he wasn't a fan of method acting. He said (paraphrasing here) that an actor's *job* is pretending to be someone else, so he couldn't understand why some actors insisted on wanting things to be as "real" as possible. In recent times, the term "method acting" is severely misused. The original idea was to relate events in the narrative of the film to real experiences from your life to portray your emotions and reactions realistically. So if you were in an accident onscreen, think back to how you felt when you fell off a bike as a kid and emote that. But people like Jared Leto and Val Kilmer twist it around to "living" the experience of the character on set. It is one thing to research a character on your own, whether that be by reading up on them or whatever. It's another thing to cause issues for others when you're shooting. Jared Leto insisted on using crutches on the set of Morbius because his character is disabled. It took ages for him to get to the bathroom, and eventually he was carted around in a wheelchair. What for? He still gave an awful performance in an atrocious film. Leto also pulled similar BS on the set of Suicide Squad, sending opened condoms to cast members, an act that was confirmed by the director. Surprise, he also sucked in that movie too. Strong's request to be actually tear gassed is not just stupid, but outright dangerous. I'm guessing he didn't realise that being gassed would probably violate insurance clauses, not to mention cause him to be out of action for the better part of a day. What about the lost day on the schedule? Did he think of that? Nah, he just needed the experience to be as "real" as possible. There's scores of great actors who give excellent performances without needing to stay in character all the time, or inconvenience the crew. If you want to immerse yourself in a character, that's ok, as long as you keep in mind that there's plenty of other people on the set whose jobs depend on you doing your job efficiently.

Method acting seems to be one of those things that make sense for certain things like, practicing an accent so it sounds natural, but it really feels like it turned into a weird clout thing where an actor takes a role as someone evil or dickhead-esque and does obnoxious things for publicity.

I remember Liam Neeson being frustrated with Daniel Day-Lewis when shooting in Gangs of New York because of the latter's refusal to get out of character. Because sometimes actors want talk to each other about their roles to give better understandings of their roles, play off with each other or rehearse off-camera.And not only that, Day-Lewis caught pneumonia during the shoot and refused to seek treatment because there wasn't any treatment for it during the time period the movie took place, until it got really bad. Which meant he slowed down production and he could've infected the cast and crew too if it wasn't for his insistence to stay in character.

I really think accent work needs to be considered separately from so-called Method or similar immersive processes. On a real nuts and bolts level, accents need to be constantly worked on and maintained in order to be delivered accurately and naturally.

Jeremy Strong is an incredible actor. Whatever he does, works. People shouldn't bag that.

I've acted/directed in over 60 theater productions and I can say Method acting is not for anyone who doesn't have a good grip on their own personality. I find Method often flops over into a parody of melodrama. Audiences seem mainly fascinated by method actors when they are portraying evil, tortured, or violent personality types (probably because we can vicariously experience what we would run away from in real life). But my own personal opinion is that if someone has to starve themselves to fill the director's vision of a role, then the director needs to cast someone who fits the physical type for that role instead of putting someone through that kind of pain. Brando in "The Island of Doctor Moreau" is an example of Method gone beyond serious into parody. And it seems Hollywood and some actors enjoy inflicting this pain on themselves to justify the ridiculous money, egos, and hunger for celebrity involved. Method acting, in my opinion, is not a test of your talent but of your willingness to throw away your own personality for a shot at public adulation and success. I hope these actors are happy with that Faustian bargain.

I just wanted to compliment you on how often you let people speak for themselves, through clips and snippets. It’s so refreshing to watch something akin to a stream of consciousness. Just a flowing, dreamy masterpiece. Keep up the superb work.

As an actress I found this video extremely enjoyable. I'm currently writing my master dissertation in philosophy on "the paradox of the actor between being and nothing", connecting and comparing Diderot to Sartre. I also talk about the parallelism between actor/artist and philosopher/author and the concept of human comedy (the world as a theater). I love this stuff.

"Why don't you try acting my boy?" Lazy acting is having to live it first.

I heard an interview from a British actor working on a multi national set say that the American actors were all saying "what's my characters motivation?" The Indian actors were all saying "what is my character feeling?" And the British actors were saying "these are my lines, those are my marks. I'm good." 🤣 It might be an exaggeration or a joke, but it is illustrative of how different schools of thought approach acting.

I think main issue with method in the terms of public perseption is that its only ever brought up in those extreme cases of an actor being in character at all times, only responding as the character, going home and living it 24/7. That I would argue is largely unhealthy for the actor, toxic for the other members of the team on set and from an audience perspective less magical to watch. The magic of an actor I think is to see them calm collected and polite then action is called and they turn in to a raging monster or an emotional wreck. The technique of using past experiences in life to relate to the character or using research like learning a language or training in a job is not "method" in the eyes of the public and I dont think anyone would criticise it but Jared Leto refusing the walk while filming morbius because his character is paralysed so he wastes time on set causes delays and eventually the production had to go in to negotiations with him so he would use a wheel chair instead of crutches, bare in mind this is for a film where maybe 30 minutes in he turns into a fucking vampire and can walk again.

This is a great explanation of what method acting is supposed to be - as a private technique and process for character creation - in a way which doesn’t necessarily translate to what is happening when we hear about actors misbehaving on set today. I liked the inclusion of the controversy of emotional memory being used as an abusive rehearsal experience from an overbearing acting teacher. There’s plenty of that with acting teaching too. With “method” it’s mostly an American male thing. A ego thing. You just don’t hear about actresses getting away with poor behaviour with the excuse of “method acting” - there’s no tolerance for woman being “difficult”. Jeremy Strong is a real actor, but there’s others who aren’t trained and who absolutely use “method acting” as a free pass to be a total arse. Robert Pattinson mentioned it in an interview once…

I totally disagree with the last statement of "respect what they are doing cuz it's what they need to do to get where they need to go"... the whole controversy with method acting came mostly about stories of how toxic the behind the scenes would become when working with special "method acting " actors and that's the problem. If you need this "method" where you disrespect the other cast and members crew to be in character you are not a great actor, first of all, and also you don't deserve respect when you are not respecting your coworkers and their work environment! This respect what their doing statement comes from someone who thinks that the actor is the most Important part in the fucking movie and that everything else is superfluous and unimportant!

Some of the things you mention in the video (like learning Polish to understand how Polish sounds and shapes your mouth) is not only not exclusive of method acting, but a basic technique of every acting method. Research and documentation are basic tools for every actor, every method and every role. Although I respect every actor's process I do think there are unethical and irresponsible approaches to the work of acting. Even if a roofer thinks they would do a better job tiling a roof without any security measure there are regulations in place to prevent that from happening. In art, all art, there is a romantization of suffering. Method acting is the result of fusing Stanislavsky's techniques from one specific point of his life and the initial results of his laboratory and a very American philosophy of work: individualistic, christian (suffering and calvary) and extremely capitalistic. Everybody's understanding of Method Acting is different, it's true, but that's very much by design. It's a departure from Stanislavsky based on a profound misunderstanding of Stanislavsky's techniques themselves. It's a catch all term now to describe a process that starts from inside the actor themselves deeply rooted in psychoanalist notions (which themselves have grabbed hold of Americans' understanding of psychology more generally). The actor feels and goes through the emotional process of the character and the audience is a witness to that process. On the other side of the spectrum you would have Gorotowsky's methods which to grossly simplify it would say: "The actor has two instruments: Voice and Body, which is all the audience sees. Much like a guitarist has a guitar. With those two instruments he has to play them to transmit the most amount (and right amount) of emotion they want their audience to feel" Gorotowsky is much more centered on what the audience receives than what the actor puts out. The whole idea of Method Acting suits cinema much better than theater because as a director once told me it is a misunderstanding to think of cinema as an evolution of theater, it isn't. It evolved from photography. It is bound by the shackles of naturalism and audiences are trained not to suspend their disbelief or work their imagination as much as an empty theater with a sole chair would have them do. If cinema starts breaking itself free from its own constraints, method acting would start losing its relevance.

I started out as an actor. A very accomplished director once told me that you have to completely immerse yourself in the character, but, at the same time, NEVER FORGET THAT YOU'RE ACTING !!!

My own experience studying Method Acting in the early 1980s, I concluded it was a waste of my time. There was such an elitist attitude with the instructors. The pros I respected most had no patience for it. "Learn your lines and hit your mark" was their advice. But whatever works for you.

If you're asking to get tear gassed can you still call it acting? At that point it's more like re-acting. Pretty sure I could make being tear gassed look real if someone threw a can of tear gas at my feet. Now I just wait for the award nominations to roll in.

I was fortunate enough to work with Sandra Seacat on a short film a few years ago. I was sad to hear about her passing.

I’d add something to what you said at the end, to the effect of the actor’s job being making us believe on screen and it shouldn’t matter what the method to achieve that was. I agree, except that the actor has two jobs. One is to deliver a performance. The second is to be a coworker. If they can’t do the former without making the set toxic or making the crew uncomfortable, they’re not doing their job. Nobody would tolerate an abusive gaffer on set, and somehow every gaffer finds a way to express their art without affecting others. We only tolerate asshole actors and directors, and we shouldn’t.

That final point was such a beautifully succinct way of encapsulating not just the acting experience, but human one also.

really great piece of work, and highly recommend Broey Deschanel's video on method acting for anyone that's interested in the topic. whatever works imo in regards to an actors process, so long as their adhering to workplace law and accomodating for the many colleagues around them, especially outside of the space between "action" and "cut". the film set--whilst an artistic venture--is still at the end of the day, just another place of work, and no one should be put at risk of injury or personal harm, whether physical or emotional

Something just came to mind. I think what worries people isn't so much the method but they see somebody really beating themselves up or denying lunch with castmates and crew and they get concerned about that. Something to be said about training being for being able to set the character down as much as picking them up. Some actors have a natural instinct for muscle memory and "method" acting but the training can help them resurface better, making it an easier and more long-lasting career.

This is pretty much my new favorite YT channel. Keep up the awesome work. Here at 1.6k subs

What an inspiring video essay! Keep up the good work. I'm reminded of the documentary "Jim & Andy" which depicts Jim Carrey's over-the-top method acting on the set of "Man on the Moon". Brilliant, yet ridiculous.

Quite Insightful video on the background of acting. Especially liked wrt highlighting the forefathers who defined the philosophy/methodology of acting from the last century. Will definitely look them up later.

Excellent video! Really interesting to make this conversation go to different places other than just staying in a simply judgmental way.

As a performing artist (not an actor) and something of a pedagogy geek, I find this to be a fascinating and surprisingly thorough breakdown of some of the prominent lineages in "Method" teaching and coaching. Got a lot packed in to a relatively short segment!

Oh man, that quote by Craig Mazin at the end just kind of covered everything...

Cox is well seasoned as an actor and will have met and worked with hundreds of other performers so for him to speak about Strong is significant. What the heck was he doing on set to upset everyone so much?!

The “method” actor antics are almost exclusively male actors who go too far and make life miserable or eye rolling for the rest of the cast and crew.

OK, but for real how does this video have less than 500 views? 👀This was awesome

Having to jump out of character and then going through that ritual to get yourself back in that mindset sounds like it can be exhausting when you're having to stop and start a frequently as film sets have to.

Excellent channel. Looking forward to your next content

As a former actor and theater kid I was a huge fan of the method and even employed it at some points but what opened my eyes was the man on the moon documentary. I have nothing but love and respect for Jim Carrey but watching him be a complete tool to all of the crew and all these wide eyed starsuckers fawning over him completely turned me against it. Like, are you serious? Then watching him be an actual jerk to Jerry Lawler when in real life Kaufman and Lawler were great friends who worked together just turned me completely against it. The nail in the coffin came years later when Leto sent a used condom to his co star. That was purely self indulgent BS that would be sexual harassment anywhere else and I think a lot of people started waking up that fact then. I totally understand diving into and covering yourself in a role but when you start impacting other peoples lives with your self important bs you need to check yourself.

Oh wow this is a new channel! I stumbled upon this video, loved it and went to watch more... There's only one more (which I also enjoyed btw)!

I prefer actors like Leo DiCaprio. Can just switch in and out of characters when they stop filming, and is nice to everyone on set. It's more impressive IMO

Really great video! I’ve been taking acting classes recently and reading a lot about these techniques since I had to relearn what Method Acting was when registering for a class on Strasberg’s Method. Hard to believe this is coming from such a small creator. Keep it up!

Thank you so much for this. I have often been in the position of feeling like Andrew Garfield in his first quote here. Most criticism I hear of method acting seems to come from people with very limited understanding of what it actually is. David Mamet, for example, has written very negatively about method acting in ways that made it obvious to me when I was reading that he didn't know nearly enough about it to do so credibly. Mamet has been an excellent writer for the stage and screen, but I will stick to valuing just that from him. What is most important to know (as the video expresses) is that method acting is not just one thing or one approach and it hasn't been for a LONG time. My acting training was in the tradition of Sanford Meisner, which gets lumped in alongside Strasberg but is different in some key ways. Based on what Amy Adams says here, she may be doing similar work. Not every actor uses any sort of formal or organized method or technique, and no one approach is consistently useful for everyone. Of course I also would probably resist sharing anything about my approach to a role beyond surface stuff. Doing so doesn't seem valuable for my work. I will do my work. You do yours and let's both try our best to be available to one another during that work.

A very thoughtful and informative video. Thank you for making this!

Superb compression of history and acting concepts. Thanks 👍

This video had some nice introductory information about The Method and its history. Thank you. But like most things having to do with high art today, the video attempts to explain a complex system of inexhaustible interactive tools which offer the artist the opportunity for a lifetime of study, and can never be mastered, with a couple talking points. For example, Sense Memory, or Emotional Memory, is just one tool. It is not what defines the Method. As Stanislavski himself said, it's great for when you need it, but that is not always the case. One of the main reasons the Method has the reputation it does in Hollywood today, is because there are very few people left here who understand it or have actually been trained in it, and yet far too many who are quick to give you their opinion on it, (many of the "famous actors" in the video fall into this category). The second reason is that no one in the media has any formal Method training at all. So the reporting on it is always sophomoric at best. I have taught the Method for more than 25 years. it was taught to me by teachers who go directly back down the line you laid out in the intro, right to the Moscow Arts Theatre. When the Method came to America, all the great teachers you mentioned, (with the exception of Meisner who does not teach the Method at all) took Stanislavski's work and made it their own by using the tools that worked for them, building on those tools with additions and interpretations, and leaving behind the tools they didn't like. So, there is no one approach left being taught today that is pure Stanislavski. One thing that is true, is that "the Method" is now a dying art form, because if there is one constant in all the interpretations of it floating around today, (from Uta, Stella, Strasberg, Clurman...) it is REALISM. And Realism is nearly a thing of the past in Hollywood.

Oh intersting, i heard about the dream work thing from Melanie lynskey as well, i hadnt realised it was so popular...ultimately its such an individual process and there are people able to snap in and out and people who cant which i find fascinating

11:50 thats not Jeremy Strong thats Marc Maron

Jeremy Strong is an extraordinary actor. He can play so many different types of characters, and it's so deeply embedded that you never *see* the acting, only the character existing. Whatever method an actor uses to find their performance is completely valid, provided that they're not hurting themselves or anyone else. What has been disheartening is the way that a couple of his "Succession" co-stars have been dismissive of it. Granted, I'm not onset with these people and it may very well be difficult to be around Kendall when the camera's aren't rolling. But, the work speaks for itself. And I love that Jeremy has acknowledged the backlash and has said it won't deter him one bit. That is a true artist.

Great video, one can see you put a lot of effort in it. On the method acting subject, this was the one that spent the more time revisiting History - and btw amazing for you to show us all those old pictures and searching for the former student and actors interviews, great touch - but still providing meaningful and we'll thought of commentary on the subject contemporarily. BUT I have to say this some unrelated opinion: there's a character in Gilmore Girls called Paris and you, the narrator, sound SO much like her! Seriously I was thinking the whole time "Imma Google that actress and see what's she's up to today" because it could totally be that she has a UKposts channel on acting nowaday why not??? You seriously sound like a adult version of her (she's a teen in the show) and if you seen the show and dislikes her please don't think this to be an insult of any kind. Paris has her own, well, particular way of saying stuff, and in the show her altoritarian, nerdy, extra detailed yet unenthusiastic, witty but anxious, fast pacing but weirdly polite way of speaking, it was all very clear that the shows demanded Paris to talk like that and the actress certainly didn't cared these traits in her natural speech, that's not what I'm talking about. There's just something about you tone, and particular enunciation that reminded me so, so much of that young actress voice, just you know, more mature, like 20 years later.

If you can't simply act, if you need to "become" to act, I honestly would be questioning your acting skills.

Thank you for sharing great thoughts from both perspectives.

Well made video, looking forward for more videos. Subscribed.

Yours is the most informational one that i've found!

Subscribed! Excited to see this channel grow

I have studied The Method (yes the original method acting technique taught by Lee Strasberg) at the Lee Strasberg Institute itself by the son of Lee Strasberg. And I will tell you Now, that all our teachers said what the people do „being in character and living in character“ IS NOT METHOD! Method is creating sensorial stimuli for you to respond to… But what all Actors do with „I lived on the street“ etc is not Method. That’s a huge misunderstanding with people. It’s when actors do their own thing and call it method. I remember all our teachers and especially David Lee Strasberg saying that Jared Leto is doing his own thing and that it should not be called Method Acting. Thanks for my TED talk

Great video, loved your conclusion. Keep it up

Excellent video. Method has become such a dirty word used by people who don't actually understand what method acting is.

"For me it's mask-on / mask-off, I don't get mixed up with me and the character, I think that's sort of silly." - Matthew MacFadyen

no mention of Bobby Lewis who imo was best teacher of Method Acting. . he wrote book “Method or Madness”.. Bobby Lewis was in the Group Theater .. founded The Actors Studio w Elia Kazan ( both working directors) and gave it over to unemployed Lee Strasberg .. taught Meryl Steep at Yale where he created their Drama Department …he never sought spotlight .. he really knew The Method & taught but best ..♥️🎭⭐️no blah blah blaaa ,)

The people who mock actors for their techniques are the same people who confidently declare they could do De Niro or Brando does easily.

I think its interesting that so many actors share their process when Meisner said to keep it private...

I don't agree that all we should judge is the result of the work process. The process itself should be ethical. Obviously we don't do whatever to make acting feel real. We don't murder people to have realistic crime shows. That is unquestionably above the line - so there IS a line. Question is were exactly is it. Murder is self evident but what about endangering others? Above the line? Harming oneself physically? Above the line? Harming oneself psychologically? Above the line? Making others on set feel worried and unkomfortable, because they have reason to believe, that you might be harming yourself? Above the line? Behaving plain unprofessionally, without actually hurting someone, but making everybodys day harder? Above the line? Having a process that is silly from the outside - no harm done, do whatever silly thing you consider helpful. But method has gain notoriety because people that proclaim the loudest to follow it, go way beyond behaving a bit silly and arguably cross that line.

I think what matters most is whether or not you can step out of another character’s shoes at the end of the day. Of course you want to make a role believable, but the fact an actor has to do that in the first place just goes to show that said character isn’t a real person. I feel many acting methods don’t take that into account; If the characters you see on screen aren’t realistic it’s because they weren’t in the first place and therefore have experiences that the average human being never will experience or are able to come out the other end unscathed.

Wonderful video essay.

I had a good friend who landed a 30 second dog food commercial and pretended to be happy and excited about finally discovering food her dog really enjoyed. 2 weeks of preparation hell for Alpo.

Say what you want about it in theory, but I don't think I've seen a performance in a TV show as organic and nuanced and real feeling as Kendall Roy

15:44 This has made me think because I film with my friends. I tend to make a lot of creative decisions and I typically advocate for subtlety. We aren’t super serious about it, the first few videos we made all included NERF guns, but I feel like we could be making something more y’know? Anyway, we’ve just recently started adding scripts to our videos (everything else before was basically improv) but before that, my friend who created the group almost always suggests that the actor says something that explains what’s going on to the audience. I try to counter this with the rule of show-don’t-tell for things that don’t really need explaining. However, maybe I should let up. Maybe I should take a second glance at what they’re doing and consider their feelings. Because if I don’t, our group could fall apart over creative differences. It’s happened time and time again in the past and that’s the one thing I don’t want. Thanks for enlightening me!

One tecnique is not going to be the best for everyone and relying on one technique is not going to produce a master actor. I think studying "The Method" is something that would benefit every actor, but you should pull what's useful to you and not become a slave to it. The problem with that technique is being able to shake off the character and it's effects on the actor. I also found use from all the teachers mentioned as well as others but Meisner's technique was the most beneficial for me because one of the major points is being able to turn on and off at will, and that became my rule to govern every other technique I employed. It's obviously more healthy to be in control of yourself as the actor and as a person, rather than allowing a character to take over to the point of control, which ceases to be acting and resembles something more akin to scizophrenia or posession.

great video!

Great video. ❤

I'm very interested in this topic - and this is the best video I've ever seen explaining it - the specific pedigree re Strasberg and Emotional Memory - a separate question is why the subject is derided this way - see American Splendor re how our tabloid culture turns everything into a freak show, for click-bait - esp processes involving privacy and vulnerability, like blood for the sharks - nobody asks why Tom Cruise risks his life doing stunts, and nobody asked why Olivier threw himself down the stairs every night for Coriolanus, but if it's personal feelings, REAL "deep" feelings, then our voyeurism kicks in, and the industry feeds off this - like the paparazzi - also, the Stanislavski ethos of Truth is something that suggests some sense of higher purpose (like a love of poetry, etc), something else for the vultures to pick at - yes, there's a genuine public fascination w the magic of acting, as one might expect, but media folks covering this could easily inform themselves about this, but they don't, shockingly, not even on a basic level, so IMO that shows it's more about media stoking a circus show, intentionally keeping the talk crude and sensationalistic (their bread and butter) and playing to underlying strains of sadism and voyeurism in their audiences - but there's also something about how the mainstream now attacks the humanities, etc - something smells like a kind of pervasive bullying - like the popular clique asking the bookworm about her favorite books, and she thinks it's a real conversation, but in fact it's so they can jeer at her more, like she's a zoo specimen - are they threatened by her unapologetic sensitivity? We don't pontificate about other professions this way, because we don't claim to know how they work, but we're quick to assume knee-jerk reactions to acting (to the process of acting, as opposed to reacting to this or that performance) Are we maybe building up our idols so we can tear them down? So many of these famous Method performances are precisely the ones most beloved by the public, the same public that is tempted to mock these people for giving them exactly what they want so much - is it jealousy, a flip side to the glamor of acting? Or is it something unresolved in the public's own deep responses to the work onscreen? IMO this ties to some important questions about how aware we are of ourselves as spectators, and how our media industry taps into this Re Stanislavski and Truth - yes, there's also something almost religious here, that Strasberg cultivated and played up for PR as a kind of guru figure - and internally, among practitioners in the field, I can see the reaction to this, among Stanislavski vets like Adler and Kazan (I'm so sorry to hear that rift made the Group Theatre collapse - IMO we really need a high profile institution like that, like an American RSC, a kind of national symbol - the Actor's Studio stepped into that gap, and Strasberg deserves credit for that, but IMO a repertory company like the Group would have been better), the debates within the Stanislavski-sphere - there is some bad blood there and also on another level between American Stanislavski and the Shakespearean British tradition, that old rivalry (like jazz vs classical, Dionysus vs Apollo) - the Method and its legend as part of a uniquely American-grown aesthetic, that the US promoted during the Cold War as part of its distinct national identity, like NASA or Abstract Expressionism - yes, there are legitimate debates to be had here, and concerns to be raised, re our relationship to representation and artifice - how actors use Method immersion to set up a kind of autopilot framework to support their performance, so consciously they can focus on other things - like Miles Davis preparing himself mentally so he can stay in the groove - again, in jazz this is something respected and admired Anyway, great video - IMO, for anyone interested in this topic, this is the video they should see FIRST, to get a basic sense of clarity about this conversation

The whole point of Method criticism is that it’s specifically NOT “what they need to do to get where they need to go”. That is, they could act just as well without being a pretentious pain in the ass, and the Method has a placebo effect at best. It’s about their ego more than their actual acting performance. These are coddled narcissists who become insecure about having a cushy profession that they might not feel fully engaged with, so they gravitate toward an extreme approach and then advertise how hardcore and serious they are to anyone who will listen. This is totally transparent in almost all cases.

Excellent video

I did some acting as a student. One time I tried to “get into character “ and got so emotional that I forgot my lines. Fortunately it was only rehearsal.

I don’t know, guess I don’t care how an actor gets to the place they need to go for a performance but I do care if they create a hostile work environment. I work in the film and TV industry and I’ll just say when one actor goes “method” but the others don’t have to it can sometimes cause a little bit of resentment because the method actor does cause additional stress, and when you are working 12hr days six days a week extra stress can be… well bad. Ultimately actors are at the top of the food chain so their needs will take precedent over the rest of the crew but I’d just ask that actors be mindful of how their behaviour affects others over a long shoot. I think there’s this implication that the backlash against method acting is part of gossip culture, but I honestly do think part of it is from that there have been several instances where there is tension on sets. Perhaps these stories can help keep actors more mindful of their behaviour. I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

Fantastic video!

If every actor went method, would any show or film actually get made? It seems very indulgent.

Doing research is always cool. But I feel sometimes ppl do stuff like drive taxis for fun.

I find it weird that you didn't mention Brando. Method in America is so tied to him and his perceived star person. He brought together an ideal of masculinity and Method that deeply affected the work of future actors. This partially explains certain "eccentricities" that are so fashionable in his disciples. excellent video otherwise.

nah. in the words of laurence olivier "have you tried acting?" method is just hokum, so it sparks puff pieces on why they deserve some award later in the season.

how about a piece entirely on requiem for a dream ? that would be great.

personally I don't consider talking full time with an accent to be method acting It does make it a lot easier

Look, I get that certain actors achieve better results down the method route. And more power to them. But if you can walk in off the street, flip seamlessly into character and then out at the end of the day - that's talent.

NEEDED THIS VIDEO! SHOUT OUT TO YOU.

I heard that when Meryl Streep played the role of Margaret Thatcher she would continue to use the Margaret Thatcher voice even during breaks. That makes perfect sense, because even a great actress like Meryl Streep would’ve had to work long and hard to get not only the accent, but the actual speech patterns of a real person who only died a few years before the making of the movie. However, if Daniel Day-Lewis actually thought he was Abraham Lincoln during the filming of that movie,… At the very least, he needs a long holiday.

Why don’t you ever hear about any method actors behaving like awesome chill people🤔

If you need to be tear gassed to act tear gassed, you are not an actor, even if you call it "method acting".

It helps if you look at it as different tools to achieve a goal. One tool doesn't have to be the answer to all things, some tools work better for some people while other people may prefer different tools. That's why neither Strasberg, Adler, or Meisner were wrong. They were all right in their different ways, because they are using different aspects of the same tool. It doesn't matter if Stanslawski changed his mind, he invented that tool and Strasberg fine tuned it. It doesn't matter that Stanislawski went other ways, because other people picked up that tool and achieved great success with it. In the end, it doesn't matter if "The Method" worked or not, are true or not, is the best method or not. It worked perfectly for those actors who picked up that particular tool. While other actors achieved similar success with other tools. The method of acting doesn't really matter, what matters is if it works to get you places better than other methods. It's just one way of many to define and describe a way of working with acting.

Gian Maria Volonté spent months in factories, working along with factory workers in order to act in Elio Petri's "The working class goes to Heaven".

Awesome video

Fascinating explanation of the origins of Method Acting, and what a wonderful way to end the video, exhorting the viewer to accept whatever preparation is required for the actors art. Because acting is an artform. It's making something out of nothing. And at times that something is soul piercing. I still haven't gotten over Brendan Fraser's performance in The Whale. I don't struggle with eating at all, but something in his gentle self destruction opened an old wound in me that's healing still. Acting isn't just entertainment. It's so much more than that.

I think journalists and studio PR's make more of it than what the actors do.

It's a hard way too go. It works but emotionally it's devastating.

As an actor myself. I try to employ both technique acting with method. Technique can carry you through when you're having an off night, but I've never felt I've done my best unless I've employed some method.

I was in a film where I was to be murdered (dowsed in gasoline and set on fire.) The actress threw real gas on me and then lit a match and tosses it towards me. Thank goodness it was windy and the match went out before it hit me. I screamed CUT! The actress who was also the director got very angry. I said, "You tried to kill me!" and she said, "Of course. I'm a method actress!" And I then said "I'm out of here" and I left.

I think learning an accent, or researching their role by doing jobs or training is them preparing for the role. Method, to me at least, means the actor becomes the character both mentally and physically.

These actors are truly great. Thanks to them I actually almost believe that acting is a really complex thing to do.

I'm of the opinion that different schools of acting are like tools in a toolbox. A good actor will use the tools necessary for the job and keep the others in the box. I think the best acting doesn't rely on one specific school. It's instead a mixture of them. With that said, I think focusing on method acting is used as kind of a cheat code for getting recognition for a role that otherwise wouldn't. People see the commitment instead of focusing on the performance. I think this has been a detriment to the medium and to many actors, some of whom it's cost their lives.

Method acting is an example of Fluid Learning. Traditional acting is an example of Crystalline Learning. Fluid Learning becomes much harder as you get older, while Crystalline Learning builds an aggregate as you get older. Basically, method acting requires learning new tricks - synthesizing new neuronal connections that were not there, while traditional acting is about building up a growing repertoire of skills that can used again and again. Traditional actors become better with age - method actors either get worse, have to learn to act or retire early. Method acting is fine for a role or two when you are young, but bad policy for a whole career.