Studio8790 for Actors

To method or not to method. Part. 3

Am I still talking about the ‘method?” Yep.

I’ve already suggested that the so-called ‘method’ errors in a couple of big ways. It tends to elevate the actor to a greater importance than the character and the playwright’s script, and it actually leads to a subtle—and sometimes not so subtle—form of over-acting and distorting the character the playwright had in mind. It diminishes the discipline that is such an important part of the actor’s craft.

One of the key disciplines of an actor’s performance is a rather simple one in three parts. Make sure the audience hears you; make sure they understand you; Give them some understanding about what you are saying (and doing), and why you saying (and doing) it. The key is this: Giving them understanding is dependent on making sure they hear and understand you.

A number of years ago, I heard a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company say that across the pond they considered John Wayne one of America’s greatest actors. He added it was because in England they still consider the dialogue to be everything, and John Wayne always nailed dialogue. And he was right.

Don Richardson rants about actors who are so busy methodizing their character that they can barely be heard, even with the assistance of state-of-the-art microphone pickups, and they can hardly be understood at all. They are the mumblers. There is no excuse for them. You can find them all over prime-time television, and in films. Their “street talk” is so obscured that just deciphering what they are saying is near-impossible. And no, it’s not because of my advanced age. I have no problem with shows like “Blue Bloods,” “NCIS,” or any of the David Wolf “Law and Order” franchises. “Chicago PD,” and “SWAT” on the other hand are at times almost unintelligible.

Go back and watch some Brando films, also the Rocky (and Rambo) series. Brando’s and Stallone’s ‘mumbling’ characters are always easily understood. For that matter, for all of his fame as a ‘method’ actor, watch Brando both very carefully and you will see that he always know exactly what he was doing. He was great not because he was ‘method.’ He was great because he was disciplined, and a master of his craft.

It is not hard to speak clearly. You just make sure to pronounce your consonants clearly, especially those at the beginning and end of words. However, you choose to build a character—and I have always maintained that the best actors are a hybrid of “method” and craft— do that, and oh yeah, speak up a little.

Never ever forget. The dialogue tells the story. And the story, not the actor, is everything.

To method or not to method. Part 2

Now where was I? Oh yes, to method or not to method. Let’s consider that now that we have a little background. So the supposed “method”—Remember, Stanislavski said he never intend to start one—developed in an effort to make acting more natural, less staged and more ‘real.’ And that’s the first reason I don’t care much for it. It doesn’t accomplish that.

It doesn’t accomplish that because by placing the importance on the actor instead of on the character, it invites excess, tortured, self-aware and in a sense arrogant work by actors who are focused in making the character into their own idea of what they want to make him or her instead of on the character him or herself, as developed by the playwright’s of screenwriter’s description and direction along with such minor bits of evidence as the character’s own dialogue, actions, reactions to other characters, and theirs to him/her.

People within the ‘method’ school like to refer to “the actor’s truth,’ a clear indication that the actor comes before the character, who shall be bent to the actor’s will, instead of the other way around.

The other reason I don’t care for method acting is simpler. It’s unnecessary. It might have been necessary back in 1878 or 1910, but in today’s theatre, every good director and actor already does exactly what Constantin Stanislavski sought. They analyze the script, strive to understand what it tells them about the character, and through study and rehearsal, realize believably the characters presence, actions and reactions. Instead of an “actor’s truth,” they intelligently find the character’s truth.

I would like to recommend the best book about acting I have ever read. The title is ACTING WITHOUT AGONY. The author is Don Richardson, who directed over 800 prime time television episodes, three Broadway plays; whose work won Emmys and Peabody Awards. The bad news is that it is no longer in print, and if you are able to find a copy, it will be costly. If you are truly dedicated to becoming an excellent actor, it will be cheap at the price.

You might also try finding it at your local or school/college library.