1) There are only lines and no circumstances tied to these examples. If a story were added here then it would work better. (Ex: talking to a cheating spouse, quitting a job, etc.) But "using opposites" (1:15) for no reason leaves the character two dimensional and emotionally dry. "The how is determined by the why" (3:00) is actually what all acting is based off of--understanding the story/circumstances of the characters. That's not a technique, it's common practice for any actor. 2) (0:40) Uta Hagen's Substitution is trading something in the script for something in real life that affects you. Uta once had a role where her character was outraged for being called "bitch," but Uta was not moved by it. So she said, "What if he called me a ****?" (It's 4 letters, put it together.) That got a rise out of her like nothing else did. The substitution used in this video is nondescript and does not make sense without STORY. 3) The examples given are line readings. (3:36, sounding brainy is not a technique, it is a way to read the line.) No circumstances means these readings cannot hold true to a reality (of a play or film) which we, the audience, can understand. Techniques are crafted to help an actor fill a role with life throughout the entire film or play and most techniques consist of multiple different parts. 4) Why get closer to the camera for the Strasberg example? It does not bring any dramatic emphasis to your words or reading. It was not intense, it was awkward and invasive. That is good if it is written to be that way in the SCRIPT, but there is no story. 5) Strasberg did not use Memory/Emotional Recall, that was Stanislavksy and later Uta Hagen. Strasberg used Affective Memory exercises. Let it also be said that Stanislavsky who first taught these affective memory exercises later rejected them for "creating hysteria in the actors." 6) "Coming from the crotch" is not sexy, fun or sensual. It's creepy. The audience is uncomfortable watching the actor, instead of the character. 7) Meisner did not teach Method acting technique. (4:58) Meisner's technique thrives on the OTHER PERSON, of which there is none here. So this example in itself is not accurate. Also, "The Method" was coined by Lee Strasberg and no one else. The line readings are two dimensional and dry across the board. I am not insulting this actor, but criticism worse than mine is bound to come any actor's way. Take it and work with it. Remember that all acting techniques are trying to do one thing: train an actor to follow their emotional and behavioral truth. And of course to create a character for a story. Most great actors study numerous techniques to find which one works best for THEM, since all actors are different and one size does not fit all.
The Meisner approach perhaps should have been put forth in this manner: Actor 1: tell me how you really feel. Actor 2: tell you how I really feel. Actor 1: tell me how you really feel. Actor 2: I hate you and despise you. Actor 1: you hate me and despise me. Actor 2: I think that's all. Actor 1: you think that's all. Meisner's approach is great for acting in the moment. I have found that Strasberg's technique is great for when you're feeling angry and hurt.
I don't get the mystery. Essentially, the three different responses he showed to the same question was all about attitude and emotion. Any competent person can change or manage their response to any given situation. One can imagine for instance, if you were in a giddy mood, you may say "I hate you" with a smile on your face. An angry mood or silly mood or serious mood would all have an effect on the way you would react to a certain circumstance or situation. Acting is about believability. Some have the natural instinct, without any study to be a great actor. The extraneous skills of acting can be taught, but only someone with the true gift of "acting" will be a standout, imho.
You can be taught how to act like anything; there are people who are better and gifted, but that should not prevent you from learning like anything else. You can be really good at it from just practicing, better than a gifted person who does not practice, just like anything else. Also, acting is also a skill that can be applied to many things in life.
thanks ken, your tips have really helped me and ive really tried to use them as much as i can. i have an audition next week, its for quite a vulnerable character and the scene im auditioning is quite emotional. Do you have any tips on these kind of feelings? and perhaps a technique for crying?. thanks again for sharing your amazing skills.
Honestly when you talking to the camera felt more natural than the "acting". I am not a professional but noticed your head moves around a little when you are being you whereas when you are acting your head is almost stationary the only movement is in mouth. Also noticed when you are acting you often stare into the camera whereas you naturally look at the camera and away from it every so often. As a side note was interesting seeing the range of techniques used. Edit: Just noticed this was posted 2 years ago, would be interesting to see a similar video again to see the progression.
These are just different choices. If the technique is well done you can't see it, nor compare it, because it leads to the same result, which is playing the character.
I plan to master the techniques shown in this video by this actor and become the next Robert DeNiro. Keep your eyes peeled for extras in upcoming movies, one of them will be me .
It all depends on the personality of the character. But I felt no "hate" in the way you said it. Maybe if u start by looking down then right after saying " hate you" look up at the cam as if u were looking up to feed off the persons reaction.
I think one of the best acting ability is the losing of the useless stammering like 'um', 'ur' and 'er'....speaking clearly and without any hesitation shows confidence in your performance of any characters....listen to yourself and note how many times you say those pausing noises
Well, that’s Toastmasters too ... But you do need to get rid of any irritating ticks or repetitive phrases., not to mention stammering, which is a big problem for some people.
I didn't seem to notice the difference with his acting techniques.. I felt like he said the lines in the same way for each time ... he might have slowed down sometimes to create effects but to me they all sounded the same
From this video I’ve learned that just because u went to acting school or taken acting classes doesn’t mean u can act. Acting is different from math. It’s not for everyone. Definitely not for him.
I think that's unfair. People think acting is meant to make you have a huge revelation, sometimes subtlety works best. Ken would be perfect for Screen acting based on what he did. I could see the differences. Maybe you were searching for theatre acting?
He's not even listening to his partner. This Is just bad acting he's faking everything with no real feelings behind them. I'm sorry but it's true mate.
Real emotions are no more required for acting than a magician has to conjure real magic in order to perform a magic trick. It's an illusion enable by the audience's willingness to be tricked. But whatever keeps your head above water.
Definitely one of the most helpful videos Iv ever watched. A v good summary and example of each🙏🏼👌🏼 really helped. Thank you so much
1) There are only lines and no circumstances tied to these examples. If a story were added here then it would work better. (Ex: talking to a cheating spouse, quitting a job, etc.) But "using opposites" (1:15) for no reason leaves the character two dimensional and emotionally dry. "The how is determined by the why" (3:00) is actually what all acting is based off of--understanding the story/circumstances of the characters. That's not a technique, it's common practice for any actor.
2) (0:40) Uta Hagen's Substitution is trading something in the script for something in real life that affects you. Uta once had a role where her character was outraged for being called "bitch," but Uta was not moved by it. So she said, "What if he called me a ****?" (It's 4 letters, put it together.) That got a rise out of her like nothing else did. The substitution used in this video is nondescript and does not make sense without STORY.
3) The examples given are line readings. (3:36, sounding brainy is not a technique, it is a way to read the line.) No circumstances means these readings cannot hold true to a reality (of a play or film) which we, the audience, can understand. Techniques are crafted to help an actor fill a role with life throughout the entire film or play and most techniques consist of multiple different parts.
4) Why get closer to the camera for the Strasberg example? It does not bring any dramatic emphasis to your words or reading. It was not intense, it was awkward and invasive. That is good if it is written to be that way in the SCRIPT, but there is no story.
5) Strasberg did not use Memory/Emotional Recall, that was Stanislavksy and later Uta Hagen. Strasberg used Affective Memory exercises. Let it also be said that Stanislavsky who first taught these affective memory exercises later rejected them for "creating hysteria in the actors."
6) "Coming from the crotch" is not sexy, fun or sensual. It's creepy. The audience is uncomfortable watching the actor, instead of the character.
7) Meisner did not teach Method acting technique. (4:58) Meisner's technique thrives on the OTHER PERSON, of which there is none here. So this example in itself is not accurate. Also, "The Method" was coined by Lee Strasberg and no one else.
The line readings are two dimensional and dry across the board. I am not insulting this actor, but criticism worse than mine is bound to come any actor's way. Take it and work with it. Remember that all acting techniques are trying to do one thing: train an actor to follow their emotional and behavioral truth. And of course to create a character for a story. Most great actors study numerous techniques to find which one works best for THEM, since all actors are different and one size does not fit all.
Haha maybe that means you need to read more XD
The Meisner approach perhaps should have been put forth in this manner:
Actor 1: tell me how you really feel.
Actor 2: tell you how I really feel.
Actor 1: tell me how you really feel.
Actor 2: I hate you and despise you.
Actor 1: you hate me and despise me.
Actor 2: I think that's all.
Actor 1: you think that's all.
Meisner's approach is great for acting in the moment. I have found that Strasberg's technique is great for when you're feeling angry and hurt.
Interesting!
🤣 perfect
I don't get the mystery. Essentially, the three different responses he showed to the same question was all about attitude and emotion. Any competent person can change or manage their response to any given situation. One can imagine for instance, if you were in a giddy mood, you may say "I hate you" with a smile on your face. An angry mood or silly mood or serious mood would all have an effect on the way you would react to a certain circumstance or situation. Acting is about believability. Some have the natural instinct, without any study to be a great actor. The extraneous skills of acting can be taught, but only someone with the true gift of "acting" will be a standout, imho.
True.
StellarBlue1 true that brother *lifts up beer 🍻
YES.
How do u know ur true gifted Artist (Actor)?
You can be taught how to act like anything; there are people who are better and gifted, but that should not prevent you from learning like anything else. You can be really good at it from just practicing, better than a gifted person who does not practice, just like anything else. Also, acting is also a skill that can be applied to many things in life.
these aren't techniques , these are choices. Techniques show DIFFERENT results.
I also thought about this. Every actor is an individual, everyone would act differently, no matter what technique
That is not true sir. Techniques all show the same result which is truthful acting.
thanks ken, your tips have really helped me and ive really tried to use them as much as i can. i have an audition next week, its for quite a vulnerable character and the scene im auditioning is quite emotional. Do you have any tips on these kind of feelings? and perhaps a technique for crying?. thanks again for sharing your amazing skills.
Your stare is intense! 👌
5 Acting Techniques to Help You Act Naturally | Acting Classes For Beginners
Belgica Paola Rodriguez
so, am I to understand that the difference in the sentences is the tone of voice?
The tone of voice is automatically generated by feelings. It's subtle
Honestly when you talking to the camera felt more natural than the "acting". I am not a professional but noticed your head moves around a little when you are being you whereas when you are acting your head is almost stationary the only movement is in mouth. Also noticed when you are acting you often stare into the camera whereas you naturally look at the camera and away from it every so often. As a side note was interesting seeing the range of techniques used.
Edit: Just noticed this was posted 2 years ago, would be interesting to see a similar video again to see the progression.
These are just different choices. If the technique is well done you can't see it, nor compare it, because it leads to the same result, which is playing the character.
I plan to master the techniques shown in this video by this actor and become the next Robert DeNiro. Keep your eyes peeled for extras in upcoming movies, one of them will be me .
Hey Ken, just saw your video, I just love it.
Thank you, Ken.
You' ve gotta be kidding me.
I hope you' re feeling exceptionally smart today!
This was really good!!
The Lee stranberg one was deep emotional very nice.
It all depends on the personality of the character. But I felt no "hate" in the way you said it. Maybe if u start by looking down then right after saying " hate you" look up at the cam as if u were looking up to feed off the persons reaction.
Very nice video👍 but would be better if u post this concept videos with longer scripts so that I can learn and practice these technics in detail...
I don't believe you hate anyone in that first take, buddy. Who was your substitution?
Probably a teddy bear
I think one of the best acting ability is the losing of the useless stammering like 'um', 'ur' and 'er'....speaking clearly and without any hesitation shows confidence in your performance of any characters....listen to yourself and note how many times you say those pausing noises
That would depend on the script. If the stammers and the erms are in there, they are written for a reason.
Tell that to Jeff Goldblum
honestly i think "um" "uh" add to the realist factor of acting
TheYoungRider 24 exactly
Well, that’s Toastmasters too ... But you do need to get rid of any irritating ticks or repetitive phrases., not to mention stammering, which is a big problem for some people.
I didn't seem to notice the difference with his acting techniques.. I felt like he said the lines in the same way for each time ... he might have slowed down sometimes to create effects but to me they all sounded the same
Yeah!! He isn't too gr8. He tried to act which defeated the purpose since acting is not about doing, it's about feeling.
WHO IS THE JOKE ON? Is this Brecht, Beckett, or Hamilton on Robertson, because every take feels like 7 of 9 from My Living Doll.
extremely helpful! thanks!
The are great techniques! I hope to see more videos . Have great day!
Cool. Well explained
Dude his 'lustful rendition' is so unsettling
Thanks. That's great.
Need some pauses in between words
Very useful!!! Thankyou 😎👌
Awesome video! Thanks for making it, gave me a lot of clarity on the various techniques. ✌🏽
Looks like Lee Strasberg is still the best for authenticity.
I’m just gonna say it. This was bad, not a lot of difference between all them.
11heybob the premise of the video was good... but you’re right he hit the exact same note for every take.
Better than you can do I'm sure.
@@ASmith-jn7kf 😂😂😂😂
These pretzels are making me thirsty.
All I can say is, I'm so glad I don't have to make money doing this.
eqlzr2 no it’s just him. There are still good actors making lots of money. It’s just him. Lol
@@xunzhang9586 Are you one of them?
Xun Zhang njjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjuu
thank you so much for this video, it it helpful
No disrespect Ken,but that was the same technique, just different thoughts
From this video I’ve learned that just because u went to acting school or taken acting classes doesn’t mean u can act. Acting is different from math. It’s not for everyone. Definitely not for him.
I think that's unfair. People think acting is meant to make you have a huge revelation, sometimes subtlety works best. Ken would be perfect for Screen acting based on what he did. I could see the differences. Maybe you were searching for theatre acting?
soo good, excellent actor
In your video i missed a technique which makes your acting believable ;-) Sorry
You mean Stella Adler technique ?
Bless you
That's like some John Wick at the end.
👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾 lovely
He's not even listening to his partner. This Is just bad acting he's faking everything with no real feelings behind them. I'm sorry but it's true mate.
exactly!!!! I totally agree with you! this is terrible!
Real emotions are no more required for acting than a magician has to conjure real magic in order to perform a magic trick. It's an illusion enable by the audience's willingness to be tricked. But whatever keeps your head above water.
Realistic but not character acting. Character was the same but it was realistix
these are not techniques. techniques haven't been invented as short cuts to auditions.
It feells cold and plain from here.
If you feel contempt, discust and hate your mouth should be tense and the nose... You cant have a nice diction.
Is this a joke?
it is!
I hate you!
Up and coming, huh?
nice
Must b joking lol follow heller approach channel
Φίλε μέτριος..σορρυ
File, I doubt the guy reads Greek!
Clickbait.
I hate you and despise you