Which, in your oppinion is the best acting method?
Do you use more than one? Have you made your own method after experimenting with all of them?
Do they all give the same result?
If you take away the figure heads and politics, they all come down to ways of getting you present in the scene.
Of the big three, Strasberg, Adler, or Meisner, I can't use Strasberg to save my life.
I like Meisner because it teaches you to listen and better react. This is most effective on set or at CD workshops where you're partnered with an actor (hopefully a well trained one).
I also use Adler to help me better harness my imagination which I find useful in creating the environment and the other person when in an audition room where the reader is looking down, reading monotonously, and not giving me anything. I also use Adler when I have a really bad scene partner as well.
Improv is another way of being present in a scene. It teaches you to listen, to react, and to not give a shit. With regards to scripted material, I find it useful in auditions where after doing my choices, I'm told to do it differently. Improv helps me in letting go of my old choices and coming up with new ones.
What about the Alexander method? It's very popular with some of my actor friends.
Alexander technique is a great tool but it's more about movement and posture than how to approach a script.
In addition to Alexander I also like Fitzmaurice.
Fitzmaurice is mainly about the voice but it's working the whole body so you can produce a great voice. I do some of it before I drive to an audition so I come relaxed. If I could do it before an audition after getting out of the car, I would but people would be looking at me funny as I'm doing semi yoga postures on the floor.
Fitzmaurice? Never heard of him. So you use a little of every method? Did you sort of develop something that works for you? Is that the right way or is it beter to pick one and stick to it?
Fitzmaurice comes from Katherine Fitzmaurice.
I studied almost every kind of known Method and took what does work for me.
Maybe you might find Strasberg useful. I studied with with Strasberg disciples to find out it wasn't for me.
The one that gets you cast.
There are also things that every good actor does - like listening. Affecting your scene partner. Using your imagination. Finding behavior.
Find out what works for you. There is no one set path. In a way it's like a laboratory. Tinker and experiment with different techniques and find out what's most effective for you.
I believe TRUTHTELLER wrote about Strasberg, Adler, and Meisner. That should give you a great start. Three different techniques (but at the end of the day they're all after the same thing - truthful acting).
I'm probably not experienced enough, but I STILL don't get this thing of how to USE one technique or the other when acting.
I'm familiar with all of them, and I love Meisner technique, and specifically how Esper puts it. But as I see it, all of those are mostly for training purposes - to expand your imagination, train to become present in the scene as soon as you start, whatever.
I can't come on a set, say "Alright, I'm using Meisner today" and then "SWITCH" to this technique and start acting, then for another scene "SWITCH" to Adler, or any other, and continue acting. I don't get it. What I do, is just come in and, I don't know, act. Be present. Get involved. I'm not thinking "This is Meisner" at the time that I am acting.
I really need this explained to me, I'm too green.
Exactly, you DON'T go "I'm going to use Meisner here, then in this section, I'll use Strasberg to dig deep into my past to come up with this emotion, and then because this part in the script never happened to me, I'll use Adler to create."
But when you study different methods, you might notice, "oh this recent Meisner training has made me look more believable and conversational on camera and I'm getting called in from workshops more" or "I'm getting more callbacks and bookings after studying Adler" etc.
I've have studied almost every known method and don't think there is "ONE ULTIMATE METHOD." I just personally find some better for some things and some totally unnecessary.
Stanislavsky is what I prefer, i noticed Strasberg is not perfect, I tend to look like Im speaking to air, unreal. I dont know much of Stanislavsky and Meisner which scares me and am about to experiment with the Alexander technique.
Do you think acting is immitation or should it be real? James dean sometimes, he has been critiqued that he talked too low, as many other Strasberg trained actors. However, he is a legend. What's in fashion right now?
ActorinLA, I think you got some things mixed up a little. You should probably read a little on the craft and/or research this forum, there's plenty of help here as I assume you might have noticed.
Strasberg, Meisner, and Adler all come from Stanislavsky.
In my opinion acting should be real. The Strasberg technique has nothing to do with the way James Dean spoke, his speech may be due to the way he naturally spoke or maybe due to the fact that at the time he idolized Marlon Brando who tended to mumble a bit. Marlon Brando was primarily taught by Stella Adler. Regardless, all that is irrelevant to your original question of "all the different methods". Don't worry about what's in fashion right now, we are all unique in many ways, a technique that works for someone might not work for you and vice versa.
There is Adler who's primary focus is on imagination and creating characters bigger than ourselves via imagination. According to her you can't play an urban cocaine drug addict or a Denmark prince and assume that you're going to emotionally recall parts of your simple suburban life to play those roles. She focuses on imagination, research, social classes, deep investigation, and other technical terms to give shape to the overall play or script/scene (Objectives, given circumstance, justifications).
Meisner also leans towards imagination but he spends more time developing our ability to truly listen when playing a scene. To be focused and present in the moment truly listening and allowing what you hear to affect you. That's key, you must allow what you just heard to affect you, within those given circumstances. If they say, "your mom just died", it should affect you, sometimes not in the most obvious ways, what if the character your playing hated his mother, but has to pretend like he loved her to the person who just gave him the news (given circumstances), well then when they say "your mom just died", one (audience) should see a natural range of emotions go through your face, natural and not indicative.
Strasberg focused more on drawing from your past to play a scene. I'm not as familiar with this method but still believe it to be an important tool. I might use this technique as a bridge, to connect with a scene. I'm currently reading some books on this technique so I won't speak too much on it.
There is also Chekhov, who has interesting ideas as well.
The point is that there are many techniques and I think one should be familiar with them but in the end it's your craft. I'm still learning, but even at this stage I understand the value of the techniques and the fact that what I read and what I do in class should work for me. Basically from them I should be able to form a way of working that works for me and that is fun. I became an actor because I want to see the world through someone else's eyes, and because it's just fun to play. And that for me equals imagination. Nevertheless, the priority should always be to deliver the best performance possible and if I feel that some part of my past works better then that's what I'll use. But yes! a technique should be developed, just make it your own.
Oh and the Alexander Technique from what I understand is not an acting technique, it focuses on body movement and speech, both key elements in acting, often overlooked. I also forgot to mention improvisation, it's also very important to acting.
Yes, but each developed their own view of the technique. Why not just use Stanislavsky, instead of these three?
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2|