Okay, I have thought about the topic of this post for a long time. I didn't know how to start it, but I've gotten confirmation from many of people and I feel this needs to be brought out into the open now!

I hear from all the time, "Oh, I don't train or believe in Stanislavski. He's too old fashioned. We don't use him anymore. Things have changed."

Well, what exactly has changed? Even my teachers say this. I think frankly it's a lazy way of acting. The people that say this obviously can not be actors. They are making excuses. Acting is the study of psychology (human behavior); it's just applied. That's the only difference.

How has even studying the Method (50's acting) changed so much now that we are in 2009? It hasn't been that long? What discoveries have we made in psychology that would discredit what Stanislavski, Meisner, Adler, Strasberg, and of course Hagen said?

I don't understand. People talk about things changing, but WHAT has changed?

Did people in the 1700s not have objectives, childhood needs that needed to be solved for themselves and other people? (Example: the need to be loved, the need to respected, appreciated, to get you to like me, to get back the power I lost, etc.)

Those needs didn't just come up in 2009. They have been occurring in people of all ages, no matter what year on the calendar. BC or AD.

So, I ask. What is the difference between acting now and even acting 50 years ago? What has changed and how does knowing this SPECIFIC change help us as actors?

Anyone please feel free to enlighten me as well as the board! Thanks!

I'm certainly no "expert" but with the "younger" acting coaches (those in their 40s and under) there seems to be a more integrative approach to acting.

In other words, amongst the younger teachers, there are less purists out there when it comes to the different "sects" - Stanislavsky (or whatever interpretation of him), Stella Adler, Strasberg, Meisner, Michael Chekhov, Uta Hagen, etc.

Or to put it another way, it seems like the younger teachers are less dogmatic about being 100% faithful to what Strasberg taught, or what Meisner taught, etc.

Here's my personal view.

All these so-called "techniques" are simply tools. The problem in the past is that each "sect" would feel that their technique was the last word on acting - that their approach is all you need.

In my view, each one has their place - they are part of a toolbox. Sometimes, you need a screwdriver. Other times, a wrench. Sometimes, a saw. Other times, a hammer.

But some of the more dogmatic schools will teach you how to use a hammer, and tell you that you only need to use a hammer and nothing else.

Think about it from your own experiences on different kinds of projects or auditions.

Certain schools of thought (Meisner, Adler, etc.) may totally shun the use of "personal experience" or even "sense memory", but frankly it can be practical in some cases, and self-indulgent in others. You don't think that Mickey Rourke used his personal experiences when portraying that burnt out wrestler in "The Wrestler?" In fact, the director had cast him in it precisely because of the parallels between the character's journey and that of Rourke's. It would be self-indulgent if Rourke simply "played out all his personal sh*t" on screen, but it would be stupid to go out of his way to ignore the parallels to his own life, and to use it as a doorway into the character.

Same with Meisner. It has it's place, but it's not the be-all, end-all of acting technique. It's incomplete. It's probably the best approach in getting you to be real in the moment, to trust your impulses, listen, etc, but limiting yourself to Meisner's approach will also make it harder to prepare for stuff that isn't as modern or "real" - even comedy (yes, you need to listen and react in comedy, but it's a different kind of listening, reacting and behaving). Or prepping for characters that are very different than yourself (i.e. character work, analysis, etc isn't what Meisner is about). Meisner is a great foundation, but on its own it's incomplete.

Same with Adler. Yes, script analysis is important. Yes, doing all the prep work in understanding the given circumstances, character arc, etc. is essential as a storyteller (whether you're an actor, writer, director, etc.) but it's also incomplete - because this is great for helping you understand your sides, script, scene, etc. but if you make this "analysis" conscious the moment you step on stage or the moment the director yells "action" you won't be in the moment, and you will be in your head. Again, Adler's approach is incredibly useful, but on its own it's incomplete.

And then there's improv - which historically tends to be associated with comedy, which is yet another sensibility altogether that requires a slightly to drastically different approach - depending on the kind of material. Again, the improv you learn at Groundlings, Second City, UCB, etc. can be the one "technique" you rely on in certain kinds of projects/auditions - but again, it's not something you'd use as your primary reference for every single project.

I think Larry Moss is the quintessential modern teacher - rather than pit one "sect" vs another, he embraces all them as useful.

They all have their place, just like your wrench, screwdriver, hammer, drill, handsaw, etc. in a toolbox. You use the combination of tools that suit the particular situation you're in.

What has changed though is the nature of the projects, which can dictate the kinds of acting techniques that may be used more often than others.

For example, for a lot of TV commercial work, auditions, TV series, etc. Meisner and improv are likely to be your best friends because oftentimes you don't have a lot of time to prepare, so you will have to rely on keeping it simple, connecting and being in the moment and trust the casting process (i.e. you were cast for a reason because you don't have to do much "acting" for the audience to believe you so long as you don't get in your own way).

But if you are prepping for a lead role in a play or the lead role in a feature film where you have weeks or even months to prepare (rehearse, research, etc), then living in a cave to feel what Batman feels like, emotional recall of your Vietnam war past, sense memory or running through rose bushes, etc. may be helpful because you have the time to dig deep and inhabit that role. Plus, you also have the time to do all the research you want, discuss the script at length with your director, etc so that's where Adler can be incredibly useful.

This doesn't mean that script analysis and sense memory are useless in prepping for TV, comedy or auditions, or that Meisner and improv are useless in prepping for feature films and plays, but that certain approaches will predominate depending on the project.

Or, a short way of saying how "things have changed" in the last 50 years is that now, it's about "whatever works".