quote:

Originally posted by ActorinLA:
Which, in your oppinion is the best acting method?

quote:

Originally posted by ActorinLA:
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?

quote:

Originally posted by ActorinLA:
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?

quote:

Originally posted by TRUTHTELLER59:
Strasberg, Meisner, and Adler all come from Stanislavsky.

quote:

Originally posted by FA-88:

quote:

Originally posted by ActorinLA:
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?

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.