INTRODUCTION
Whenever you discuss theatre, film and television, many do not know the complexity that goes into producing a successful work. It is the combined efforts of hundreds of skilled and talented artist who come together to create any great performance. Many are behind-the-scenes editors, set painters, production assistants and prop masters, but most people focus on the top four contributors, producers, directors, writers and, of course, the actors. While all facets are important and necessary, it is the actors responsibility to be the faces and the voices for amazing characters that people will remember. There are many people out there, men and women, of all shapes, creeds, colors and ages, who want to be a successful, working actor. Unfortunately, the reality is that whether one pursues a career in theatre, film or television, only a small number will ever achieve that goal. In order to become the best actors they can be they enroll is costly acting classes, hire coaches and form mentorships. This has led to some differing approaches that actors can use to gain their best performances possible. One of these approaches that is often debated is “Method Acting.” Method Acting offers the actors the means to gain a deeper understanding of characters and developing well-rounded, ideally, fully-fleshed out characters. There are many actors who have and continue to ascribe to this approach. Like all arts, there is no singular universal definition or approach of art. While there are many who oppose and criticize the Method Acting approach, its lessons continue to inspire actors around the world and is an important part of the history of acting in all aspects of entertainment for decades.
BACKGROUND
Mankind as a society and as a species are innate and eager communicators. Long before human beings built cities, human beings were inferring and learning through physical communication. As they developed language they became storytelling, teaching folklore, culture and religion. Once humanity began to write, they put those words down for later generations to see and read aloud. The first origins of theatre is not known for certain, but many remark that Thespis, an ancient Grecian actor, remembered as the first actor to be given awards for his works is also where the word thespian got its root. Ancient Greek and Roman theatre was quite different from what we see today. The actors performed behind decorative masks. (Bradford 1). The theatre that we are most familiar with became popular during the reign of Elizabeth the First in the 14th and 15th centuries with the performances of the works of William Shakespeare. Actors had movement and characterization. Prior to the 20th century people who chose to be actors were not necessarily well-respected. Today actors in theatre, film and television have gained a great deal of wealth and fame, however, for many actors it is less about the money and attention and more about the art. Many actors who were introduced to different schools of performance thought. For many the path was into the realm of Method Acting.
DISCUSSION
The Method Acting approach was developed by man name Constantin Stanislavsky in the late 19th century and early 20oth century. Stanislavsky was born on January 17, 1863 in Moscow, Russia. He began working in a theatre group organized by his family at the age of 14. He would ultimately become a very famous actor, director and teacher of acting. At the time when Stanislavsky first entered the theatre he was underwhelmed with the over-the-top and exaggerated performances that would seem silly today. Bringing more realism into the presentation of character was paramount. It was through his life experiences that inspired him to develop the “Stanislavsky Method” (Bradford 1). The Stanislavsky Method is not simple, but a complex approach that cannot be learned in detail without dedicated study (Public Broadcasting Service 1). The major five foundational aspects within the concept of the Stanislavsky approach.
The Magic If: Stanislavsky wanted actors to ask themselves, what if you were in the situation that your character is in? What would you do? This gives actors an opportunity to bring genuine feeling to the character (Bradford 1).
Reeducation: Many actors were taught to speak, move and act in outrageous and melodramatic ways. The Stanislavsky approach argued that such exaggerations is not representative of real life. It would be necessary for those to adopt his method would need to be “re-taught” how to move and interact with sets and props (Bradford 1).
Observation: Stanislavsky encouraged students of his method to be “people watchers.” He wanted them to see how people move when they do not know they are being watched in order to discover how to bring natural, physical characterizations to the parts they will play (Bradford 1).
Motivation: In order to understand why a character would do what they do in the course of the story. It is absolutely necessary to understand why. Why would they do as they do? Why would they think a certain way (Bradford 1)?
Emotional Memory: Stanislavsky wanted actors to not just “pretend” to feel and emotion, but to really and truly feel that emotion, whether it is grief, joy or anger. In many dramatic scenes such emotions present organically. For actors who struggled with connecting with their characters he suggested they pull from their own life experiences that might be similar in order to transfer that feeling into their performance (Bradford 1).
The Stanislavsky approach to acting changed the way actors acted, literally. According to the classical acting style, which is most associated with the performances described as the “Shakespeare Style” of acting, the focus was more on delivering perfect dialogue and action (Caldwell 1). This is different from the Stanislavsky approach where the focus is on the emotions of the character and character development. Stanislavsky thought that a character would never be complete without true emotion for the characters; the work is so much more that just reciting dialogue and precise static blocking. Examining a character from the inside out is necessary in order to see through the character’s imaginary eyes to make them truly real. (Pieri 3). Stanislavsky created the concepts that founded method acting and changed the way actors looked at the characters they would play and to inject realism into that performance. However, there are a number of other acting teachers who perpetuated and readapted the Stanislavsky approach and its increasing popularity and much of the negative criticisms can be attributed to three specific teachers (Brody 1).
Lee Strasberg: Lee Strasberg is the teacher that coined the term “Method Acting” and he popularized the method within the general public. There are mixed reviews as to whether Strasberg’s contributions can be seen as “refinement or corruption,” depending on one’s point of view. He taught very specific techniques (Kohan and Friedrich 1). The first is relaxation. He believed that in order for the actor to truly go into a, almost meditative state, in order release all tension in the body. “Affective Memory” was a concept he suggested, where he asked students to reenact their own memories of experiences, like holding and drinking a beverage; they are not imagining so much as remembering. These kinds of exercises are beneficial to many actors, but many Stanislavsky supporters believe the Strasberg’s interpretation is not that similar in many ways to the original teachings of Stanislavsky (Caldwell 1).
Stella Adler: Stella Adler was another of the people influenced by the approaches established by Stanislavsky. In the early parts of the 20th century Adler traveled to across the world to meet with Stanislavsky. She brought his method back to the United States with her; she was one of the only Americans who studied directly with Stanislavsky (Stella Adler School of Acting 3). While she ascribes to his original teachings, she also believed that acting from memory alone is too limiting, when imagination can allow for an even greater range of motivation.
Sanford Meisner: Sanford Meisner, another student of the Stanislavsky approach, a contemporary of both Adler and Strasberg, developed his own interpretation called the “Meisner Technique” (Darvas 28). He, like Adler, believed that the imaginations of creative people are a well of possible resources to better the reality of their characters; memory is simply not enough (Kohan and Friedrich)
There are many talented and successful performers that the use of method techniques have been essential the gravity of their performance. There are others who entirely disagree. Whether one is a student of Stanislavsky, Strasberg, Adler or Meisner, many feel that the sense memories, the intention of using oneself as a source for character emotions and the “becoming” of the character may not be the best for the psyche or health of the actors involved (Brody 1). Sometimes they feel that these actors may become lost in the need to embrace and live the characters they will embody. Some method actors will stay in character throughout the entirety of the performance, whether its 2 month run of a play or the months invested into a film. There are some cases where, in order to understand a character, they want to physically experience the character; for example a method actor asked to portray a homeless person, they may stop eating and bathing in order to feel the characters situation (Goldstein 1).However, at the same time, modern method actors argue that people exaggerate the influence of this character development. People often think the when they hear the term “Method Acting” and embodying a character, they believe that in order to play a serial killer they would have to go out and start murdering people. This is simply not true.
For decades the term “Method Acting” became a paradigm in American culture and many argue that it became an American cultural phenomenon (Enelow 2). Method Acting is a much more complex approach to acting; the techniques and processes are intended to better their performances, but it does not appeal to everyone. It really is, however, up to the individual actor and how they find and develop the character. There are many today who claim that Method Acting approaches are fading into the past (Kohan and Friedrich 1). Others argue that in unlikely. We are living in an era where the masses demand more and more realism in their entertainment; they want realistic situations, realistic special effects and real people to relate to. Method Acting plays a large role in achieving that for many successful actors on stage and screen. The core concepts that Stanislavsky originally presented are incredibly wise and common sense. Any actor would benefit on researching their characters, their environments and how they can relate to the performance they will give. Unfortunately, many feel that men like Strasberg who have tainted those core values and changed into something negative to be mocked by people in and out of the industry (Thomson 1). However, the audience wants to care about the characters they watch, wants to see the humanity in the characters and what drives them. If an actor does this then they are successful at achieving their goal, but if Stanislavsky had not encouraged method approaches, then the performances might have remained unrealistic and overly exaggerated, with little or no depth (Theriault 1).
CONCLUSION
Actors are the face of most productions. The actors set the tones and gives the audience someone to care about. However, if no one relates and no one cares, then the production is doomed. That does not mean that there is only one way for actors to achieve such positive performances. Ultimately, there are many means by which an actor can delve into their characters and method approaches will, likely, remain a part of the process for many actors’ presently and well into the future. Stanislavsky wanted to take theatre and the art of performance to a new level. A level that could move passed performers playing caricatures of people and start playing realistic people. A reality that is strived for in all works in all genres. Like in any situation nothing is perfect, but with something as relative as personal acting choice, it is really is no more and no less than whatever works best for them; to each his or her own. More than anything that is what Stanislavsky taught form the beginning that the foundation of the performance can be found in making the characters real through the best internal means possible. While debates between those who support and those who criticize Method Acting will likely continue and Method Acting will remain an important teaching tool and a guide for many individual actors for many years to come.
WORK CITED
Bradford, Wads. “The Stanislavsky Method.” About Education. (2016): 1. Web.
<http://plays.about.com/od/actingessentials/a/The-Stanislavsky-Method.htm>.
Brody, Richard. “Is Method Acting Destroying Actors?” The New Yorker. (2014): 1. Web.
<http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/is-method-acting-destroying-actors>.
Caldwell, Jason. “The Difference Between Method Acting and Classical Acting.” The Lionheart
Theatre Group. (2015): 1. Web. <http://www.lionhearttheatre.org/blog/2015/9/10/the-difference-between-method-acting-and-classical-acting>.
Darvas, Ruthel Honey-Ellen. “A Comparative Study of Robert Lewis, Lewe Atrasberg, Stella
Adler and Sanford Meisner in the Context of Current Research About the Stanislavsky System.” Wayne State University. (2010): 1-158.
Enelow, Shoshana. “Method Acting and the limits of identity in the American mid-century.”
Scholarly Commons. (2012): 1-5. <http://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI3508997/>.
Goldstein, Thalia, R. “Mindfulness and Acting.” Psychology Today. (2015): 1. Web.
<https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-mind-stage/201502/mindfulness-and-acting>.
Kohan Zev and Friedrich Gabrielle. “Lee Strasberg and The Dying Art of The
Method.”Lexander Magazine. (2014): 1. <https://www.lexandermag.org/lee-strasberg-and-the-dying-art-of-the-method/>.
Pieri, Su. “Method Acting and Pacino's Looking for Richard.” CLCWeb: Comparative Literature
and Culture. 6.1 (2004): 1-9.
Theriault, Sawyer A. “The Development of Theatre: Peter Brook and the Human Connection.”
Thomson, David. “The Death of Method Acting.” Wall Street Journal. (2009): 1. Web
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704107104574571821619515590
Stella Adler Studio of Acting. “Stella Adler’s Art of Acting.” Stella Adler School of Acting.
(2016): 1-28. Web. <http://www.stellaadler.com/brochure.pdf>.
Public Broadcasting Service. “ American Masters: Constantin Stanislavsky.” PBS. (2014): 1. <
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/database/stanislavsky_c.html>.
