Finding Balance
I enjoyed reading your discussion on the last post about method acting vs physicalization. You guys brought up several interesting questions.
To point out a few:
Re: Method Acting
- Could an actor become so overwhelmed with the role he/she's playing that psychological damage takes place?
- If you're playing a serial killer, do you really want to live with that character's thoughts inside your head if you're a Method actor?
- If you aren't trying to really become a character, can you actually be convincing to an audience? How do you make the character different enough from your "normal" self?
- Don't you have to feel an emotion to portray it honestly? If you don't feel angry, is it possible to convince an audience that you're angry?
Method acting can produce amazing results. But so can physicalization: I've always been impressed by British actors, who often blow away their American counterparts with their acting skill. The Method isn't quite as popular over there.
And the envelope please . . .
Kudos to those of you who figure I'll teach a combination of both.
The two acting methods are different at their core, but you don't have to be an all-out Method Actor to borrow good stuff from it. And Method Actors work hard to physicalize what they're thinking and feeling ...
More on that in another post soon . . .
posted by lorojoro @ 10/09/2005 08:37:00 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
ok coo'
:-D
i will contemplate what u just said and comment later :-D
yeah, i think i said you'd teach both...:]
British actors rock!!! Rebekah and I saw Taming of the Shrew in England...and it was excellent. One thing I liked about the actors in Stratford was that they put on diffrent plays every week and different people play different parts depending on who is avaliable. Basically, they don't have time to do anything but memorize the lines before they have a performance. They are such good actors that they memorize rapidly and can figure out quickly what kind of character they are going to present. They don't have time to "be" the person. But they are such excellent actors that they can appear totally in charater and know their lines all in a few days. That is a good actor to me!
oops, nevermind, i was wrong, i said the first one...sad day, it'll be muy divertido (fun...i think) to learn both ways, but as is the norm for me, it'll prbly be hard.
Drama was much fun today, even though i had to miss the first part of it (i'm really sry about that).
I've seen Othello performed by British actors, and it was one of the best performances I've ever seen. I don't know which method they used, but whatever it was, it was effective! Maybe which method you should use depends on which character you're playing (i.e. you would not use method acting when playing a serial killer). It's a really thought provoking issue. I'm not quite sure what I think.
not only are they both good but is it possible to only use one with out the other?
if you cant imagine that you are homless then how would you know how to act, you cant get everything from the lines.
In all honesty I think method acting is the stronger of the two...I don;'t think someone can really pull off the physical aspects of a part without being able to have the correct mindset to go with it. Yes, it can also apply in the reverse somewhat, but I am a solid fan of the method approach.
I agree with Bethany...British actors are amazing! (I saw the Taming of the Shrew in Stratford and another Shakespeare play in the Globe Theatre in London; both plays had incredable actors.) I'm glad you're teaching both acting methods; that will be great!
Post a Comment
<< Home