Open Forum

I am writing an online 20th Century theatre history course and am
defining Method Acting. This is what I have written.

"Method Acting: An acting technique, based on the Stanislavski System,
that focuses on the emotional core of the role rather than a physical
characterization. The “method” actor tends to immerse themselves in
the role, often using emotions from personal experiences (emotional
memory) to make the performance dynamic. From the beginning this
emotion-centered approach was challenged. Stanislavski shifted away
from emotional memory as unreliable. Acting teachers Bobbie Lewis and
Stella Adler considered it emotionally and psychologically unhealthy.
Other critics have called it the “School of Mumblers and Grumblers”
for the lack of diction and articulation in the method actor’s pursuit
of realism."

Is there anything that I have left out, or put something in that
should be left out.

Thanks for the help.

James


--
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." —
Shakespeare

Hi James - I don't consider myself an expert on this, though what you've written generally syncs with my understanding. The thing that has to be brought up in a discussion of method acting for me is that the term has morphed to mean something completely different. We generally call Daniel Day Lewis a Method Actor, because he stays in character throughout the filming of a movie. So Method has come to mean the total immersion into the life of the character - and THAT is completely opposite from "focuses on the emotional core of the role rather than a physical characterization". Well maybe not completely opposite, but very much relies on physical characterization in order to separate the character from the person playing the role. And the original "method" as I understand it is what you write - focusing on your own history to get to the emotional truth of what the character is doing. It doesn't feel like that is what DDL does in, say, Lincoln.  SO... any discussion of Method gets you into this weird worm hole because each person defines it completely differently. What does a word mean - what it originally meant or what it means now?

------------------------------
Nick Hoffa
Drama Director
South Pasadena Unified
South Pasadena CA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-18-2020 15:43
From: James Van Leishout
Subject: Method acting

I am writing an online 20th Century theatre history course and am
defining Method Acting. This is what I have written.

"Method Acting: An acting technique, based on the Stanislavski System,
that focuses on the emotional core of the role rather than a physical
characterization. The "method" actor tends to immerse themselves in
the role, often using emotions from personal experiences (emotional
memory) to make the performance dynamic. From the beginning this
emotion-centered approach was challenged. Stanislavski shifted away
from emotional memory as unreliable. Acting teachers Bobbie Lewis and
Stella Adler considered it emotionally and psychologically unhealthy.
Other critics have called it the "School of Mumblers and Grumblers"
for the lack of diction and articulation in the method actor's pursuit
of realism."

Is there anything that I have left out, or put something in that
should be left out.

Thanks for the help.

James


--
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." -
Shakespeare

Original Message:
Sent: 6/19/2020 9:09:00 AM
From: Nick Hoffa
Subject: RE: Method acting

Hi James - I don't consider myself an expert on this, though what you've written generally syncs with my understanding. The thing that has to be brought up in a discussion of method acting for me is that the term has morphed to mean something completely different. We generally call Daniel Day Lewis a Method Actor, because he stays in character throughout the filming of a movie. So Method has come to mean the total immersion into the life of the character - and THAT is completely opposite from "focuses on the emotional core of the role rather than a physical characterization". Well maybe not completely opposite, but very much relies on physical characterization in order to separate the character from the person playing the role. And the original "method" as I understand it is what you write - focusing on your own history to get to the emotional truth of what the character is doing. It doesn't feel like that is what DDL does in, say, Lincoln.  SO... any discussion of Method gets you into this weird worm hole because each person defines it completely differently. What does a word mean - what it originally meant or what it means now?

------------------------------
Nick Hoffa
Drama Director
South Pasadena Unified
South Pasadena CA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-18-2020 15:43
From: James Van Leishout
Subject: Method acting

I am writing an online 20th Century theatre history course and am
defining Method Acting. This is what I have written.

"Method Acting: An acting technique, based on the Stanislavski System,
that focuses on the emotional core of the role rather than a physical
characterization. The "method" actor tends to immerse themselves in
the role, often using emotions from personal experiences (emotional
memory) to make the performance dynamic. From the beginning this
emotion-centered approach was challenged. Stanislavski shifted away
from emotional memory as unreliable. Acting teachers Bobbie Lewis and
Stella Adler considered it emotionally and psychologically unhealthy.
Other critics have called it the "School of Mumblers and Grumblers"
for the lack of diction and articulation in the method actor's pursuit
of realism."

Is there anything that I have left out, or put something in that
should be left out.

Thanks for the help.

James


--
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." -
Shakespeare

Hi Nick (and others in this thread),   Just a note on Daniel Day Lewis...  In 1971 I started my training as an actor at The Bristol Old Vic Theatre School in England. This is the same acting school that Daniel Day Lewis attended for three years in the late '70s.  We both had the same acting teacher at BOVTS, his name was Rudi Shelly and Rudi was a true master craftsman in teaching acting. Studying with Rudi was magical, extremely challenging, and almost 50 years later leaves a profound mark on my life. Every time I watch Daniel Day Lewis act, it makes me smile as I am very aware of Rudi and his physical approach to acting. Of course, DDL is brilliant and has made his acting training his own and definitely is not a "second-hand actor" simply repeating something he learned when he was young. At the same time, we all have mentors from our youth that live in us today and this is what I see in DDL.  


------------------------------
Michael Frederick
Alexander Technique Teacher
Los Angeles, Ojai, & Santa Barbara
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-19-2020 09:08
From: Nick Hoffa
Subject: Method acting

Hi James - I don't consider myself an expert on this, though what you've written generally syncs with my understanding. The thing that has to be brought up in a discussion of method acting for me is that the term has morphed to mean something completely different. We generally call Daniel Day Lewis a Method Actor, because he stays in character throughout the filming of a movie. So Method has come to mean the total immersion into the life of the character - and THAT is completely opposite from "focuses on the emotional core of the role rather than a physical characterization". Well maybe not completely opposite, but very much relies on physical characterization in order to separate the character from the person playing the role. And the original "method" as I understand it is what you write - focusing on your own history to get to the emotional truth of what the character is doing. It doesn't feel like that is what DDL does in, say, Lincoln.  SO... any discussion of Method gets you into this weird worm hole because each person defines it completely differently. What does a word mean - what it originally meant or what it means now?

------------------------------
Nick Hoffa
Drama Director
South Pasadena Unified
South Pasadena CA

Original Message:
Sent: 06-18-2020 15:43
From: James Van Leishout
Subject: Method acting

I am writing an online 20th Century theatre history course and am
defining Method Acting. This is what I have written.

"Method Acting: An acting technique, based on the Stanislavski System,
that focuses on the emotional core of the role rather than a physical
characterization. The "method" actor tends to immerse themselves in
the role, often using emotions from personal experiences (emotional
memory) to make the performance dynamic. From the beginning this
emotion-centered approach was challenged. Stanislavski shifted away
from emotional memory as unreliable. Acting teachers Bobbie Lewis and
Stella Adler considered it emotionally and psychologically unhealthy.
Other critics have called it the "School of Mumblers and Grumblers"
for the lack of diction and articulation in the method actor's pursuit
of realism."

Is there anything that I have left out, or put something in that
should be left out.

Thanks for the help.

James


--
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." -
Shakespeare

Is it your intent to suggest that the whole thing was a bad idea and bad for acting and actors? Because that's how it comes off.

You probably ought to include Lee Straberg, the Actors Studio, and Elia Kazan as well.

People trained in this acting discipline dominated serious acting in New York and Hollywood for several decades, and there was some very good work being done by Method actors.


------------------------------
Nathan Rosen
Baltimore MD
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-18-2020 15:43
From: James Van Leishout
Subject: Method acting

I am writing an online 20th Century theatre history course and am
defining Method Acting. This is what I have written.

"Method Acting: An acting technique, based on the Stanislavski System,
that focuses on the emotional core of the role rather than a physical
characterization. The "method" actor tends to immerse themselves in
the role, often using emotions from personal experiences (emotional
memory) to make the performance dynamic. From the beginning this
emotion-centered approach was challenged. Stanislavski shifted away
from emotional memory as unreliable. Acting teachers Bobbie Lewis and
Stella Adler considered it emotionally and psychologically unhealthy.
Other critics have called it the "School of Mumblers and Grumblers"
for the lack of diction and articulation in the method actor's pursuit
of realism."

Is there anything that I have left out, or put something in that
should be left out.

Thanks for the help.

James


--
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." -
Shakespeare

A minor edit might be helpful.  Rather than simply "based on the Stanislavski System", it might be better, "based on the portion of the Stanislavski System."

While this psychological and emotional core of the character is discussed in his best known work "An Actor Prepares", it is only one of the three volumes that were written.  A second volume, "Building a Character" focuses on physical characterization.  As E. Teresa Choate put it in one of her lectures, method acting is a bastardization of the Stanislavski System.

I like the statement about using personal experiences and emotional memory for "method" acting as this is certainly a trademark of this approach.  This contrasts with Stanislavski who based his ideas of character analysis using the rapidly growing field of psychology.  This was designed so an actor would understand the internal struggle of the character allowing emotions to manifest.  With my actors I contrast these with phrases like "putting on a costume" and "letting the character out".

------------------------------
Jym Kinney
Tacoma, Washington
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-18-2020 15:43
From: James Van Leishout
Subject: Method acting

I am writing an online 20th Century theatre history course and am
defining Method Acting. This is what I have written.

"Method Acting: An acting technique, based on the Stanislavski System,
that focuses on the emotional core of the role rather than a physical
characterization. The "method" actor tends to immerse themselves in
the role, often using emotions from personal experiences (emotional
memory) to make the performance dynamic. From the beginning this
emotion-centered approach was challenged. Stanislavski shifted away
from emotional memory as unreliable. Acting teachers Bobbie Lewis and
Stella Adler considered it emotionally and psychologically unhealthy.
Other critics have called it the "School of Mumblers and Grumblers"
for the lack of diction and articulation in the method actor's pursuit
of realism."

Is there anything that I have left out, or put something in that
should be left out.

Thanks for the help.

James


--
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." -
Shakespeare

Original Message:
Sent: 6/18/2020 3:44:00 PM
From: James Van Leishout
Subject: Method acting

I am writing an online 20th Century theatre history course and am
defining Method Acting. This is what I have written.

"Method Acting: An acting technique, based on the Stanislavski System,
that focuses on the emotional core of the role rather than a physical
characterization. The “method” actor tends to immerse themselves in
the role, often using emotions from personal experiences (emotional
memory) to make the performance dynamic. From the beginning this
emotion-centered approach was challenged. Stanislavski shifted away
from emotional memory as unreliable. Acting teachers Bobbie Lewis and
Stella Adler considered it emotionally and psychologically unhealthy.
Other critics have called it the “School of Mumblers and Grumblers”
for the lack of diction and articulation in the method actor’s pursuit
of realism."

Is there anything that I have left out, or put something in that
should be left out.

Thanks for the help.

James


--
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." —
Shakespeare

Hi, James! I am going to throw my two cents in here, too!
    I agree with most of the comments posted already by the other gentlemen.

   I'd like to give an analogy that I use in class:
   
     Stanislavsky called what he was doing "A System." By doing so, he wrote, taught, and practiced that there are many means to get at a result: the development of a character. Think of the pipes in your house. The water from the 2nd floor drain travels through a different series of pipes than the water in your kitchen drain, yet both reach the street eventually. Actors are the same: some need a strong "as if" to create a character, while another needs an emotional memory to reach the core of it. Stanislavsky proposed different means for actors to use.

    On interpretation, however, it was translated as "The Method." A method usually indicates a singular way to achieve a result, i.e. righty-tighty, lefty-loosey for opening an item, or "toes go in first" for putting on socks. I know that this is a gross oversimplification, but Strasberg and many American teachers used elements of Stanislavsky's System and they have worked for many actors. Are they "mumblers and grumblers"? They were those that forgot that Stanislavsky did write that speech was still an important element, because they focused on the emotional and psychological elements of his work. Are they wrong? No, they are engaging in elements of the system.

    I tell my students that if there was a true "method" that everyone could apply, every actor would be excellent, since they could apply the "method," and voila! And then I ask them to name a few that are excellent, and a few that need improvement. System at work every time, no matter where or with whom they have studied. 

    Thanks for the food for thought!

------------------------------
Marlene Goebig
Theater Teacher
The School District of Philadelphia
]The School District of Philadelphia
PhiladelphiaPA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-18-2020 15:43
From: James Van Leishout
Subject: Method acting

I am writing an online 20th Century theatre history course and am
defining Method Acting. This is what I have written.

"Method Acting: An acting technique, based on the Stanislavski System,
that focuses on the emotional core of the role rather than a physical
characterization. The "method" actor tends to immerse themselves in
the role, often using emotions from personal experiences (emotional
memory) to make the performance dynamic. From the beginning this
emotion-centered approach was challenged. Stanislavski shifted away
from emotional memory as unreliable. Acting teachers Bobbie Lewis and
Stella Adler considered it emotionally and psychologically unhealthy.
Other critics have called it the "School of Mumblers and Grumblers"
for the lack of diction and articulation in the method actor's pursuit
of realism."

Is there anything that I have left out, or put something in that
should be left out.

Thanks for the help.

James


--
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." -
Shakespeare

The Method originates in the fascination New York actors had for the Moscow Art Theatre, which visited the city in the early 1920s, leaving behind former MAT members Richard Boleslavsky and Maria Ouspenskyaya.  Those two opened the American Laboratory Theatre to teach Stanislavski's system and continue the experimentation the MAT had begun. 

Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, and Harold Clurman were all students there.  A year into a two-year course of study, they left to form the Group Theatre.  Look at the members of the Group Theatre, and you'll find the remainder of our American cast of early master teachers of modern acting. 

The Great Depression finished off the American Laboratory Theatre, and Boleslavsky and Ouspenskyaya took off for Hollywood, where both found success.  Boleslavsky wrote a series of articles for Vanity Fair magazine, which were gathered into a slim volume, Acting: The First Six Lessons, in 1933.  It presents the major points of the Stanislavski system pretty succinctly.

Boleslavsky also disavowed the American Method, saying they concentrated on the affective memory portions and ignored the critical importance of dramatic action. 

And I think it is important to remember that the members of the Moscow Art Theatre did a tremendous amount of physical training that somehow didn't get passed along to the students of the American Laboratory Theatre: voice, gymnastics, fencing, dance, etc.

Lee Strasberg is generally considered to be the father of the American Method, but each of the members of the American Lab and Group Theatres took their acting teaching in a different direction. 


------------------------------
C. J. Breland
Retired Theatre Arts Educator
Asheville NC
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-21-2020 12:17
From: Marlene Goebig
Subject: Method acting

Hi, James! I am going to throw my two cents in here, too!
    I agree with most of the comments posted already by the other gentlemen.

   I'd like to give an analogy that I use in class:

     Stanislavsky called what he was doing "A System." By doing so, he wrote, taught, and practiced that there are many means to get at a result: the development of a character. Think of the pipes in your house. The water from the 2nd floor drain travels through a different series of pipes than the water in your kitchen drain, yet both reach the street eventually. Actors are the same: some need a strong "as if" to create a character, while another needs an emotional memory to reach the core of it. Stanislavsky proposed different means for actors to use.

    On interpretation, however, it was translated as "The Method." A method usually indicates a singular way to achieve a result, i.e. righty-tighty, lefty-loosey for opening an item, or "toes go in first" for putting on socks. I know that this is a gross oversimplification, but Strasberg and many American teachers used elements of Stanislavsky's System and they have worked for many actors. Are they "mumblers and grumblers"? They were those that forgot that Stanislavsky did write that speech was still an important element, because they focused on the emotional and psychological elements of his work. Are they wrong? No, they are engaging in elements of the system.

    I tell my students that if there was a true "method" that everyone could apply, every actor would be excellent, since they could apply the "method," and voila! And then I ask them to name a few that are excellent, and a few that need improvement. System at work every time, no matter where or with whom they have studied.

    Thanks for the food for thought!

------------------------------
Marlene Goebig
Theater Teacher
The School District of Philadelphia
]The School District of Philadelphia
PhiladelphiaPA

Original Message:
Sent: 06-18-2020 15:43
From: James Van Leishout
Subject: Method acting

I am writing an online 20th Century theatre history course and am
defining Method Acting. This is what I have written.

"Method Acting: An acting technique, based on the Stanislavski System,
that focuses on the emotional core of the role rather than a physical
characterization. The "method" actor tends to immerse themselves in
the role, often using emotions from personal experiences (emotional
memory) to make the performance dynamic. From the beginning this
emotion-centered approach was challenged. Stanislavski shifted away
from emotional memory as unreliable. Acting teachers Bobbie Lewis and
Stella Adler considered it emotionally and psychologically unhealthy.
Other critics have called it the "School of Mumblers and Grumblers"
for the lack of diction and articulation in the method actor's pursuit
of realism."

Is there anything that I have left out, or put something in that
should be left out.

Thanks for the help.

James


--
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." -
Shakespeare

Totally as a sidebar, but I couldn't resist:

For many years, I've heard techies and stagehands refer to actors "going method" when they start breaking stuff that's not supposed to be broken.

------------------------------
George F. Ledo
Set designer
www.setdesignandtech.wordpress.com
www.georgefledo.net
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-21-2020 23:31
From: C. J. Breland
Subject: Method acting

The Method originates in the fascination New York actors had for the Moscow Art Theatre, which visited the city in the early 1920s, leaving behind former MAT members Richard Boleslavsky and Maria Ouspenskyaya.  Those two opened the American Laboratory Theatre to teach Stanislavski's system and continue the experimentation the MAT had begun.

Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, and Harold Clurman were all students there.  A year into a two-year course of study, they left to form the Group Theatre.  Look at the members of the Group Theatre, and you'll find the remainder of our American cast of early master teachers of modern acting.

The Great Depression finished off the American Laboratory Theatre, and Boleslavsky and Ouspenskyaya took off for Hollywood, where both found success.  Boleslavsky wrote a series of articles for Vanity Fair magazine, which were gathered into a slim volume, Acting: The First Six Lessons, in 1933.  It presents the major points of the Stanislavski system pretty succinctly.

Boleslavsky also disavowed the American Method, saying they concentrated on the affective memory portions and ignored the critical importance of dramatic action.

And I think it is important to remember that the members of the Moscow Art Theatre did a tremendous amount of physical training that somehow didn't get passed along to the students of the American Laboratory Theatre: voice, gymnastics, fencing, dance, etc.

Lee Strasberg is generally considered to be the father of the American Method, but each of the members of the American Lab and Group Theatres took their acting teaching in a different direction.


------------------------------
C. J. Breland
Retired Theatre Arts Educator
Asheville NC

Original Message:
Sent: 06-21-2020 12:17
From: Marlene Goebig
Subject: Method acting

Hi, James! I am going to throw my two cents in here, too!
    I agree with most of the comments posted already by the other gentlemen.

   I'd like to give an analogy that I use in class:

     Stanislavsky called what he was doing "A System." By doing so, he wrote, taught, and practiced that there are many means to get at a result: the development of a character. Think of the pipes in your house. The water from the 2nd floor drain travels through a different series of pipes than the water in your kitchen drain, yet both reach the street eventually. Actors are the same: some need a strong "as if" to create a character, while another needs an emotional memory to reach the core of it. Stanislavsky proposed different means for actors to use.

    On interpretation, however, it was translated as "The Method." A method usually indicates a singular way to achieve a result, i.e. righty-tighty, lefty-loosey for opening an item, or "toes go in first" for putting on socks. I know that this is a gross oversimplification, but Strasberg and many American teachers used elements of Stanislavsky's System and they have worked for many actors. Are they "mumblers and grumblers"? They were those that forgot that Stanislavsky did write that speech was still an important element, because they focused on the emotional and psychological elements of his work. Are they wrong? No, they are engaging in elements of the system.

    I tell my students that if there was a true "method" that everyone could apply, every actor would be excellent, since they could apply the "method," and voila! And then I ask them to name a few that are excellent, and a few that need improvement. System at work every time, no matter where or with whom they have studied.

    Thanks for the food for thought!

------------------------------
Marlene Goebig
Theater Teacher
The School District of Philadelphia
]The School District of Philadelphia
PhiladelphiaPA

Original Message:
Sent: 06-18-2020 15:43
From: James Van Leishout
Subject: Method acting

I am writing an online 20th Century theatre history course and am
defining Method Acting. This is what I have written.

"Method Acting: An acting technique, based on the Stanislavski System,
that focuses on the emotional core of the role rather than a physical
characterization. The "method" actor tends to immerse themselves in
the role, often using emotions from personal experiences (emotional
memory) to make the performance dynamic. From the beginning this
emotion-centered approach was challenged. Stanislavski shifted away
from emotional memory as unreliable. Acting teachers Bobbie Lewis and
Stella Adler considered it emotionally and psychologically unhealthy.
Other critics have called it the "School of Mumblers and Grumblers"
for the lack of diction and articulation in the method actor's pursuit
of realism."

Is there anything that I have left out, or put something in that
should be left out.

Thanks for the help.

James


--
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." -
Shakespeare