Getting excited for the Oscars? Let us know in the comments who you think will take home Best Picture this year, and compare your thoughts with our expert analysis on vox.com: bit.ly/2F7xfyW
There are a numbr of factual errors; 1) Method Acting in the modern form was developed by Lee Strasberg in the Actors' Studio New York, inspired by Konstantin Stanislavki's System but there are many divergences between Strasberg and Stanislavski. 2) Stanislavski's System was developed in the late 19th Century for the legendary Moscow Production of Anton Chekhov's The Seagull. It wasn't developed in the Soviet Union. Stanislavski lived a long life and yes was a loyal citizen of USSR but by that time his system and ideas was updated and revolted by newer doctrines in the late 20s and 30s. And it was only then that it came into fashion in America especially in the Chicago Group Theater where Elia Kazan, Stella Adler, Lee Strasberg and others first apprenticed and trained. 3) Stella Adler is an equally important if far less famous acting teacher than Strasberg (who coined the phrase Method Acting). Two of her students were Marlon Brando and Robert DeNiro. So technically it's even debatable if the two most famous "method actors" are actually method actors since they weren't really taught by the guy who started it all. 4) Not all actors use method all the time, and each actor shifts and alters as per the role. And Stanislavki's system was more subtle and nuanced than what you have listed here.
I'm a bit more cynical. Yeah, method acting has produced some awesome stuff, but I think we're growing obsessed with it for the wrong reasons. Actors are doing it more and more not just to create good performances, but also to display how dedicated and demanding their works is. It's like the more intense they can make the behind the set story, the more we'll take them seriously as ARTISTS and not just movie stars. All well and good for them, but I think there's also value in acting styles that appear more seamless, like the actor just eases into it without much effort. Sometimes actors get stuck playing a certain type, but lots of others manage to inhabit a role without forcing us to constantly think about how scenes were filmed or how intensely they had to prepare. And I find that impressive as well. I couldn't do that, just slide into a role and read my lines convincingly but with enough charisma to make them stick. On the other hand, if I ate bison liver, I'd puke.
The Oscars are about narratives. Leo won his Oscar because the campaign behind his movie made it seem overdue and necessary after his previous losses. Matthew McConaughey won because his 'McConaissance' was *the* thing that year. Alicia Vikander was the season's shooting star and she won her award, etc. Studios pump millions into those campaigns and make sure everything is all set for the big night (safe for some Academy wackiness like Mark Rylance's win over Stallone and the likes)
Events like the Governor's Ball and special Luncheons are basically made to allow nominees to suck up to the Academy. As mentioned, Mark Rylance was sort of an outlier since he skipped all those events and kept working as a theater actor. But generally, you don't win unless your studio wants you to...
It's a little pointless to argue about singled out instances (sorry for doing so in my initial post, guess we're down that road now) since they are obviously debatable, as always in arts. Michael Fassbender could have been recognized for his turn as Steve Jobs the year DiCaprio won. That's not to say Leo didn't deserve to but he was the sole frontrunner, partly due to a strong campaign. In my personal opinion, Vikander was better in Ex Machina and Rooney Mara ought to have beat her anyway - then again, Mara shouldn't have been in Vikander's category anyway since she was more of a lead than Cate Blanchett in Carol, but that's a whole separate issue. Point is, I was overgeneralizing and of course no one wins an Oscar for a terrible performance. It's just not enough to be a good artist and a lot of money can sometimes go a long way...
Hendiatetris Alicia doesn't deserve the award- she was more of the lead in that movie but it comes to show that the roles picked up in awards season don't get categorized in the right place. Besides she could not compete w/the other actresses in Best category and honestly I think Mara or McAdams should have won that year for Best Supporting Actress. I never understood what is so interesting about Alicwhatever😝😝😝😝😪😪😪😪😪
The fact Leo didn't want in The Wolf of Wall Street tells you that the Oscars is rigged. His performance in The Revenant is nothing compared to the Wolf of Wall Street.
The issue with categorization again is due to the studio's efforts to land as many nominations and wins as possible. Jordan Peele lamented the fact that Get Out was competing as a comedy at the Globes because Universal saw more potential in that category. Mara was placed as a supporting actress because larger names (i.e. Cate Blanchett in the same movie) are perceived to have a better chance at winning. Vikander wasn't as high-profile prior to her win and so she competed as a supporting actress while Eddie Redmayne, fresh off his win the year before, got a lead nom. Some standards like minimum screen time could help improve this mess...
Whilst the performances may end up being incredible, I think it's incredibly detrimental for young actors to have this kind of method (whether or not it's the true definition of method acting is another question) celebrated so highly. Many characters undergo deep emotional, psychological or physical trauma over the course of their journey - thus making the conflict interesting. If you as an actor go to extreme lengths to put yourself in that exact place for authenticity's sake, rather than finding a parallel emotional circumstance, you run the risk of bringing your character home with you and taking on some of that trauma yourself. At the end of the day, each project is just that - a project, and I think that celebrating any kind of method that encourages bringing characters home with you will ultimately result in a public belief that actors are noble for sacrificing their personal health and safety (physical or mental) for a role. A talented actor with strong technique should be able to tell you their story without putting themself in harm's way. As consumers of art, we want longevity for our artists and safety for the human beings behind the art. While connecting to the character is cruical - staying safe is equally as important, and I think that as an artistic community, we need to recognize that.
You hit it: "A talented actor with strong technique should be able to tell you their story without putting themself in harm's way." The Germans have this attitude: if you're staying after work to work, that means you need 10 hours to do the work intended for 8 hours a day, then you're not working well (if you need more time to work). :D
"Method acting is what all actors have always done whenever they acted well." Lee Strasberg There you have it, I´ve saved you 4:06 minutes of your life
For me to see Leonardo DiCaprio going through the physical and mental challenges in The Revenant was the closest I had felt to a movie character. I think it's because of what he physically endurred. Staying in character in a sub zero environment with his clothes being entirely wet in several sequences was admirable. Plus Alejandro's choice of natural lighting and his unique method of directing added that extra touch of art.
The first time i saw the revenant i was like so scared and got chills all over my body. I saw the bts of the bear attack before i saw the film on tv but still the sound effects, angle, actors expressions etc were so good my breath hitched in several scenes😅
Safa Nadia It truly was a masterpiece. Sometimes when the weather gets cold here during the winter and starts to rain, I lay down in bed and watch The Revenant over and over, with a cup of hot English tea and my dog lying next to me. You should try it, it's soothing and cozy.
@Ali Farhadi Brando has done both method and sponatious / natural acting ..... .. In his carrier .....he is mostly called method actor because he is the one that made method acting popular
you obviously haven't seen Tom Cruise in Magnolia, Collateral, Rain Man, Born on The Fourth of July, or even Tropic Thunder. Dude can disappear into a character.
Interview With the Vampire, Rock of Ages (performance only) , Eyes Wide Shut. Everyone loves to attack Cruise. But the reality is he is a better actor and has a better filmography than most of the so-called greats.
OldSchool fun fact about that sex scene if you're talking about the movie that I think you are ( also 'I actually came across the sex scene first online' looool) but yh apparently that woman said in an int. that she was supposed to have a random nude scene and cruise who wasn't that powerful in Hollywood at the time convinced the director to drop it, and also in that scene he convinced the director to let her leave more covered and eventually said, I think the way she said it was not flippant sounding it was written idk, but TC said 'ok, that's fine but if she's naked then I'll be aswell' which apparently made her fell much more comfortable in front of a kid of crew she said it can sometimes feel uncomfortable. Anyway just one of many stories about how polite he is.
If you wanna see a contrast between method acting and classic acting take a look at A Streetcar Named Desire, it's almost a perfectly divided slate in help of observation of the two acting styles. Take a look at Vivien Leigh's acting and then at Marlon Brando's. You'll see two of the greatest acting moments on screen but see through that, you've heard your whole life about Brando being the greatest but look at Viv, she completely took the cake for me, I've yet to see Bette or Katherine do that kind of acting (I haven't seen all their pictures so that's why I say yet to see)
I agree with a lot of people here Tom Cruise is slept on as a great actor. He’s wonderful in Tropic Thunder and as Lestat (Lestat felt like a “Tom Cruise” role until you actually pay attention, not just look. He’s bafflingly a different person. An intoxicatingly perverse, selfish, pitiful being).
*All I ever wanted was to become an influential actor ( started when I watched Disney channel after school ) Any ideas on what kind of videos I should be making on my channel to help me promote my talent and still be entertaining to viewers? Thank you*
I realised Method Acting had become some kind of marketing tool and did not sound so 'respectable' and refined and sophisticated anymore was the moment when the media blew up how Jared Leto dove into method acting for his portrayal of The Joker on Suicide Squad. I like Leto's performance on Dallas Buyers Club. But bragging about Method Acting the way actors do nowadays is not cool. Just my thought.
As far as I could tell it was stunt casting. Hardly anyone in that movie were actors. They just found random people to be themselves. I even looked up the imdb info and it seemed to confirm it but then again they could have just not had a lot of parts before.
My God the Tom Cruise example is so on point! That is what I have always told people that I don’t find him a good actor because he is still Tom Cruise in all the character he plays.
I love how the people doing things for real on camera are awarded as the "best actors", rather than the people who act like they're doing something They Academy should just automatically give every contestant from Fear Factor an award
So how is Tom Cruise doing his own stunts not a form of method acting? Its one of the most extreme ways of getting into character by actually jumping of a building to get that same authenticity. This video felt like a wiki video of the superficial aspects of method acting, not on the same level of interesting as Vox's other videos.
B Thomson...By your logic even DDL shouldn’t have won the oscar for Lincoln.. And it doesn’t matter if his performance in Darkest hour was oscar worthy or not...Oldman has constantly given us Phenomenal performances in films such as True Romance, Immortal Beloved, Dracula, Leon, The Fifth Element, Sid and Nancy, Meantime etc.. Even leo’s performance in Revenant wasn’t as great as his other performances in films such as Django Unchained or What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?...yet he won his first oscar for revenant. Same thing should happen to Oldman...its only “fair”
I also think it was a great performance, but the heavy prosthetics ruined it for me. I'd rather see a thinner Churchill than whatever they did there. If it's mainly physical acting, it doesn't matter, it's all about body movement, but this case was different. The rubbery face was a distraction throughout the movie.
He's actually a really good actor. It's just he made his career on saying gibberish and making funny faces--it's the kind of thing that's funny for two seconds and then it's old. Except he's in his 40s now and still doing it, which is particularly off-putting, seeing a grown man act like a little child.
Jay Kay Adam is actually phenomenal actor. He's just chosen to delve into silly slapstick comedies, since I guess he found a schtick. You should watch Reign Over Me, Spanglish, and more recently The Meyeorwitz Stories.
ankit soni you always find a moron who makes a dumb joke about Donald Trump even when it has nothing to do with the subject. It never fails. Why don’t you find a job as a writer for Jimmy Kimmel show?
You're getting it all wrong: 1. Method acting is not about eating a raw liver. 2. You don't have to know what kind of preparations the actor went to appreciate real acting. 3. Leo is not a great method actor.
I like actors like Tom Cruise. He's got that vibe. As you said method works for some actors I'm sure but these days it is mostly a marketing thing. How an actor gets to a role is irrelevant, the performance is what matters. That said if the method is done in such a way that it causes stress and inconvenience for the crew and co stars then I don't think that's worth respect when other actors can achieve beautiful performance without mentality scaring everyone around him.
I think people didn't watch his works before Titanic. He was fabulous in movies like this boy's life, what's eating Gilbert Grape, The Basketball Dieries, Marvin's Room I also think he made a good job in Titanic too He was natural and spontaneous. Same characteristics he lost over the years to approach himself to the technical work
Akylas Strat Exactly! This channel knows batsh*t about the method. Leonardo is not a good example of method acting, most of his performances are way too over the top, while his acting in aviator is underrated. On the other hand, DDL's body of work showcases the efficacy of method. The guy has played a cerebral palsy patient, a butcher, an oilman, even Lincoln. Each of those performance is throughly believable.
Nick Dahlstrom well one could argue that a starving frontiersman would actually be less grossed by raw liver than DiCaprio was. If he ate it off camera would be another story, but now just feela like a gimmick
You are soul, awww you think it was made from gummy *bears* lmao, it was a gummy heart made from scratch, with ingredients like jam etc. It is not like they went out and bought a bunch of actual gummy bears and melted them and reformed them! Lmao.
Tom Cruise is a better actor than many give him credit. Many conflate the mock religion he belongs to and his zany ideas with his abilities as an actor. Do you believe you are better at your job than Tom Cruise is at acting?
Day-Lewis, Hanks, Streep, Fiennes, Denzel, Leguizamo, Pacino, Halle B, theee are perfect examples of true method actors because they have mastered their skill. It’s a rare thing to see and many still do not know the difference between the majority character acting versus the few method acting types
I think it helps that most great actors are at least a little crazy. As for Tom Cruise, his problem I'd that he's spent recent years doing very similar, action hero roles. He needs to shake things up with performances like what he did in Collateral and Tropic Thunder.
I think you forgot to include how many actors and actresses among those nominated used method acting. Imagine 80% did. Then winning less than half would actually lead to the conclusion that method acting reduces the chance of winning.
well my thing with this is that when it comes to method acting is that a lot of modern method actors is that it's no longer about the internal interpretation of what a character is, instead of just trying to physically become the character if that makes sense. Like why eat the raw bison, why send used condoms to costars, honestly like why? it was once a strong mental game, but this is just a thought, I'm still fixated on method acting a la the kinda Marlon Brando's era used instead of what we have today. I'm also kinda tipsy rn so this is just a stream of consciousness, cheers y'all.
+Vox @1:25 In order for your stats to be interpretable in the way you suggest, you also need to present the prevalence of method acting. E.g., if method acting is used by 80% of actors, but such actors receive only 40% of Oscars, then there doesn't seem to be a favorable bias for method acting. If you're going to present stats, please consult a decent statistician... or any statistician.
"Almost half of best actor awards have been won by method acters since 1951" So more than half of best actor awards have gone to people who do not method act. So if you want to improve your chances of winnig....don't method act?
seriously it doesn't matter. It would be a disregard to say method acting or classical acting is bad. Every person inventing those techniques is a genius and every technique is good in her own way. That's why good actors always use more than one acting technique
Perhaps the greatest actor of all, Sir Lawrence Olivier, once said, 'don't act, just be your natural self'. Maybe, but it's more exciting to see Al Pacino go over the top than to see someone walk thru the part...
You said Oscar judges seem to favor method acting but then you 'proved' your statement by showing that the majority of Oscar awards *don't* go to method actors... what?
Contrary to popular belief, his co stars in the Dark Night said Ledger would break Character when the director yells cut and would just be a normal guy. Stanislavksi is the father of Realism. His stundent Lee strasberg branched out and called it Method acting.
Really when it comes to every acting role, as an audience member, I just need to be convinced of the illusion the actor is creating. That they are that character. Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, all fantastic actors but their stardom is too in the way and I'm just watching them because they are a good actor in a film I am interested in seeing. The the latter two, earlier in their careers I saw them for the character they played but after a while it's.... just easy to watch. Leo DiCaprio amazingly, at least to me, transform into the character he is playing, and not using any prosthetic. Like he still looks like him but his acting is so intense and believable. And of course Gary Oldman, with prosthetics or without they guy is damn near unrecognizable in each role. You know it's him, but it's easy to forget it's him quickly into the movie.
I think its for 2 reasons: 1: because method actors do tend to put a lot of effort into their roles, so they tend to generate quality performances as a result of the effort, which shows. 2: Because method acting is easier to grade and therefore reward with awards because method acting shows levels of skill and degrees of difficulty that show. This is not always obvious with art, especially acting which is all about pretense... Its very hard to grade the effort someone puts into pretending - they could be pretending to put effort in... Method goes past this and shows real effort, so the people doing the awards are more comfortable giving awards to the method actors as a result.
Method acting is not acting. It is being. Being is not the same as acting. Acting is appearance of being a character, not actually being a character in reality.
Apart from acting a lot of other factors come into play as well. The hype, lobbying, marketing and politics. Movies about World War 2 for example are more likely to win awards, also Biographies, movies about homosexuality too. Lately, women and minorities are the focus so you can see how politics of the day effects which kind of movies and roles get appreciated by the academy at various points of time. 30-40 years ago it was different and will be different in future.
True that, Last year as trump become president,denying people from some countries from entering into US, Racism etc. , its hollywood's way of saying We don't support him. Moonlight won best film, the actor in that won best supporting actor ( not that it's not good and also the actor's performance) and Salesman won best foreign film (I was kinda happy that it won because the director was one my favs but this is my observation as Iran was in the list of countries that trump denied Visas).
There are good actors , like Leo and many others .. and there are great actors , like Brando, Streep , De Niro , Al pacino , Hanks , DW , Jack Nicholson , even Sean Penn .. and then .. there is Daniel Day Lewis .. this guy is just a whole different level !
Riuda ....for sure .When ever I watch great actors I know they're acting is great. With DDL....I never see DDL....ONLY ever the character he's playing. Just mind blowing.
The Moscow Art Theatre was created in 1898, 19 years before the October Revolution that established communist rule in Russia. Method acting was then developed in Imperial Russia, not the USSR.
The best example for method acting being used as a marketing tool was Jared Leto's Joker in Suicide Squad. His role was heavily marketed as a great method acting performance by Leto and as the main antagonist of the movie but he ended up only getting 10 minutes of screen time.
Only Daniel Day-Lewis is a method actor. The rest are just good actors who researched their character. The difference is is, when they yell cut, they're themselves again. Speaking of researching, you may want to do a little more next time.
Yeah, I wanted to see more of an in-depth look at how Oscars (Academy members) really look into an actors work instead of how method acting helps publicity.
@ 1:54 I believe his/others' characters were fighting the shogunate that was reformed into Imperial (Meji.) Japan; I'm a tad just unsure, but mostly sure at the same time... (I.E. I'm a history enthusiast.)
I'm split between 'The Darkest Hour' and 'The Shape of Water' for best picture. Von Hoytema for best cinematography. Gary Oldman for best actor. He's versatile : funny, serious, emotional.
Oldman this year epitomized how the best actors make you forget that they're acting because they just *are* their characters. Props to Darkest Hour's make-up team, too.
It is indeed a shame that actors get nominated or rewarded on the sole basis of their "behind the scene stories". There is so much that goes behind the craft of screen acting in particular anyways, from an editing, producing, directing point a view, that it can be hard to tell which actor did the "best work" unless they try to show how much they worked. However, the best performances are often the best casted, best directed ones, with of course actors who are strong enough to rise to the opportunity, but seeing great performances being dismissed because the actors "play who they are" is sad. It's not always harder to take on a new "persona", a new wig, dress, or accent. It's not always well done either, and rarely necessary. There is as much of a biais in this star system considering (and rewarding) the contrast between one performance and the actor in real life as there is in only casting a actor in a role that is close to who they are, and what they're famous for. Good acting often starts with good casting. And the raw presence of a human being willing to be vulnerable and show the audience something about all of us to serve a good story isn't less rare than a crazy over-the-top performance, however well portrayed. "Method acting" as described here and coming indeed from Stanislavsky's system and everytning that followed is VERY FAR from "just character work", and definitely opposed to "showing big emotions" only, like Lee Strasberg had everyone believe. However, thank you for this great video !
Dustin Hoffman famously asked Sir Laurence Olivier for advice during the filming of Marathon Man, to which he responded "Why don't you try acting my boy?" Or Jimmy Cagney used to say, "Know your lines, plant your feet, look the other guy in the eye, and just say your line!" Katharine Hepburn won 4 times, by just speaking the role. One doesn't have to go to extremes to make up for a lack of professional stage training, or just blowing off actually reading the script or book.
Method acting helps develop your acting skills OUT of your natural comfort zone and trains a professionals, people who are qualified, not just random people who succeeded in something else and are filming for ratings. And the problem with this video, acting like a psycho or someone before filming is a bad habit for people who learn method acting, it is considered toxic and harmful, because you don't use imagination, you just put yourself in the situation which brings us to the question, is it professional? Some directors shot real people who were matching with their role and it was believable, so these preparations make sense only to a person, who acts - to get a life experience and for people who are watching, because it makes things more impressive, but not their performances as a part of their talent and skill. In addition: Stanislavsky said that his method is not for geniuses, it's for regular people who want to be actors
There are many different methods for acting. The method that became known as “method acting” was the Strasberg method. Stanislavsky wrote a book of many different exercises for an actor to prepare for a role and then many teachers came after that creating there own rules or building off of certain aspects of the Stanislavsky method. The one where people become the character is really based around Lee Strasberg’s rules
Getting excited for the Oscars? Let us know in the comments who you think will take home Best Picture this year, and compare your thoughts with our expert analysis on vox.com: bit.ly/2F7xfyW
Vox no
best picture will go to shape of water. but i liked get out more..
There are a numbr of factual errors;
1) Method Acting in the modern form was developed by Lee Strasberg in the Actors' Studio New York, inspired by Konstantin Stanislavki's System but there are many divergences between Strasberg and Stanislavski.
2) Stanislavski's System was developed in the late 19th Century for the legendary Moscow Production of Anton Chekhov's The Seagull. It wasn't developed in the Soviet Union. Stanislavski lived a long life and yes was a loyal citizen of USSR but by that time his system and ideas was updated and revolted by newer doctrines in the late 20s and 30s. And it was only then that it came into fashion in America especially in the Chicago Group Theater where Elia Kazan, Stella Adler, Lee Strasberg and others first apprenticed and trained.
3) Stella Adler is an equally important if far less famous acting teacher than Strasberg (who coined the phrase Method Acting). Two of her students were Marlon Brando and Robert DeNiro. So technically it's even debatable if the two most famous "method actors" are actually method actors since they weren't really taught by the guy who started it all.
4) Not all actors use method all the time, and each actor shifts and alters as per the role. And Stanislavki's system was more subtle and nuanced than what you have listed here.
The film that I want to win: Call Me by Your Name
The film that should win: Phantom Thread
The film that will win: Three Billboards
Vox $
My favourite actor Christoph Waltz was phenomenal in Inglorious Basterds
Au revoir! Soshana!
He makes the apple studel scene distressing.
Rigby so true. The only thing i remember from that movie is his performance. One of the best i have ever seen.
Smoking pipe vs. smoking pipe was my highlight in that outstanding first scene.
and in django unchained!
I'm a bit more cynical. Yeah, method acting has produced some awesome stuff, but I think we're growing obsessed with it for the wrong reasons. Actors are doing it more and more not just to create good performances, but also to display how dedicated and demanding their works is. It's like the more intense they can make the behind the set story, the more we'll take them seriously as ARTISTS and not just movie stars.
All well and good for them, but I think there's also value in acting styles that appear more seamless, like the actor just eases into it without much effort. Sometimes actors get stuck playing a certain type, but lots of others manage to inhabit a role without forcing us to constantly think about how scenes were filmed or how intensely they had to prepare. And I find that impressive as well. I couldn't do that, just slide into a role and read my lines convincingly but with enough charisma to make them stick. On the other hand, if I ate bison liver, I'd puke.
Heath Ledger's acting in The Dark Knight is unbeatable.
Yhea true
It's the role that killed him....I think
His death made him unbeatable in some people's empty mind
Chill dude, heath ledger, is not even half of daniel day lewis.. Go watch some movies 🤣🤣
Bruh, i really think that Phoenix acting was way more deep and poweful
The Oscars are about narratives. Leo won his Oscar because the campaign behind his movie made it seem overdue and necessary after his previous losses. Matthew McConaughey won because his 'McConaissance' was *the* thing that year. Alicia Vikander was the season's shooting star and she won her award, etc. Studios pump millions into those campaigns and make sure everything is all set for the big night (safe for some Academy wackiness like Mark Rylance's win over Stallone and the likes)
Events like the Governor's Ball and special Luncheons are basically made to allow nominees to suck up to the Academy. As mentioned, Mark Rylance was sort of an outlier since he skipped all those events and kept working as a theater actor. But generally, you don't win unless your studio wants you to...
It's a little pointless to argue about singled out instances (sorry for doing so in my initial post, guess we're down that road now) since they are obviously debatable, as always in arts. Michael Fassbender could have been recognized for his turn as Steve Jobs the year DiCaprio won. That's not to say Leo didn't deserve to but he was the sole frontrunner, partly due to a strong campaign.
In my personal opinion, Vikander was better in Ex Machina and Rooney Mara ought to have beat her anyway - then again, Mara shouldn't have been in Vikander's category anyway since she was more of a lead than Cate Blanchett in Carol, but that's a whole separate issue.
Point is, I was overgeneralizing and of course no one wins an Oscar for a terrible performance. It's just not enough to be a good artist and a lot of money can sometimes go a long way...
Hendiatetris Alicia doesn't deserve the award- she was more of the lead in that movie but it comes to show that the roles picked up in awards season don't get categorized in the right place. Besides she could not compete w/the other actresses in Best category and honestly I think Mara or McAdams should have won that year for Best Supporting Actress. I never understood what is so interesting about Alicwhatever😝😝😝😝😪😪😪😪😪
The fact Leo didn't want in The Wolf of Wall Street tells you that the Oscars is rigged. His performance in The Revenant is nothing compared to the Wolf of Wall Street.
The issue with categorization again is due to the studio's efforts to land as many nominations and wins as possible. Jordan Peele lamented the fact that Get Out was competing as a comedy at the Globes because Universal saw more potential in that category. Mara was placed as a supporting actress because larger names (i.e. Cate Blanchett in the same movie) are perceived to have a better chance at winning. Vikander wasn't as high-profile prior to her win and so she competed as a supporting actress while Eddie Redmayne, fresh off his win the year before, got a lead nom. Some standards like minimum screen time could help improve this mess...
Whilst the performances may end up being incredible, I think it's incredibly detrimental for young actors to have this kind of method (whether or not it's the true definition of method acting is another question) celebrated so highly. Many characters undergo deep emotional, psychological or physical trauma over the course of their journey - thus making the conflict interesting. If you as an actor go to extreme lengths to put yourself in that exact place for authenticity's sake, rather than finding a parallel emotional circumstance, you run the risk of bringing your character home with you and taking on some of that trauma yourself. At the end of the day, each project is just that - a project, and I think that celebrating any kind of method that encourages bringing characters home with you will ultimately result in a public belief that actors are noble for sacrificing their personal health and safety (physical or mental) for a role. A talented actor with strong technique should be able to tell you their story without putting themself in harm's way. As consumers of art, we want longevity for our artists and safety for the human beings behind the art. While connecting to the character is cruical - staying safe is equally as important, and I think that as an artistic community, we need to recognize that.
Well said
This is exactly what I was thinking, and you said it so well. 😊
You hit it: "A talented actor with strong technique should be able to tell you their story without putting themself in harm's way." The Germans have this attitude: if you're staying after work to work, that means you need 10 hours to do the work intended for 8 hours a day, then you're not working well (if you need more time to work). :D
"Method acting is what all actors have always done whenever they acted well."
Lee Strasberg
There you have it, I´ve saved you 4:06 minutes of your life
This is the simplest and best response to this video, period. Anyone who knows anything about acting knows...there is no such this as "method".
For me to see Leonardo DiCaprio going through the physical and mental challenges in The Revenant was the closest I had felt to a movie character. I think it's because of what he physically endurred. Staying in character in a sub zero environment with his clothes being entirely wet in several sequences was admirable. Plus Alejandro's choice of natural lighting and his unique method of directing added that extra touch of art.
exactly. and I don't get how some people can say The Revenant is boring
Alexander The ones who say it's boring are the new age Marvel superhero bullshit fans who can't grasp the meaning of a deep drama.
The first time i saw the revenant i was like so scared and got chills all over my body. I saw the bts of the bear attack before i saw the film on tv but still the sound effects, angle, actors expressions etc were so good my breath hitched in several scenes😅
Safa Nadia It truly was a masterpiece. Sometimes when the weather gets cold here during the winter and starts to rain, I lay down in bed and watch The Revenant over and over, with a cup of hot English tea and my dog lying next to me. You should try it, it's soothing and cozy.
Al H. The Revenant is a great film, and DiCaprios performance is epic.
Method acting: you should go through me to won an Oscar.
Tom Hanks: hold my bear
brando for godather
@Ali Farhadi he had used method acting in several films ...but not for godfather .....
@Ali Farhadi Brando has done both method and sponatious / natural acting ..... ..
In his carrier .....he is mostly called method actor because he is the one that made method acting popular
you obviously haven't seen Tom Cruise in Magnolia, Collateral, Rain Man, Born on The Fourth of July, or even Tropic Thunder. Dude can disappear into a character.
Interview With the Vampire, Rock of Ages (performance only) , Eyes Wide Shut.
Everyone loves to attack Cruise. But the reality is he is a better actor and has a better filmography than most of the so-called greats.
Tom cruise from 1980s-2000s was the peak of Tom Cruise acting. Every movie after that were of course awesome action/comedy's.
Yea, literally
OldSchool fun fact about that sex scene if you're talking about the movie that I think you are ( also 'I actually came across the sex scene first online' looool) but yh apparently that woman said in an int. that she was supposed to have a random nude scene and cruise who wasn't that powerful in Hollywood at the time convinced the director to drop it, and also in that scene he convinced the director to let her leave more covered and eventually said, I think the way she said it was not flippant sounding it was written idk, but TC said 'ok, that's fine but if she's naked then I'll be aswell' which apparently made her fell much more comfortable in front of a kid of crew she said it can sometimes feel uncomfortable. Anyway just one of many stories about how polite he is.
Exaactly... Jerry McGuire too
If you wanna see a contrast between method acting and classic acting take a look at A Streetcar Named Desire, it's almost a perfectly divided slate in help of observation of the two acting styles. Take a look at Vivien Leigh's acting and then at Marlon Brando's. You'll see two of the greatest acting moments on screen but see through that, you've heard your whole life about Brando being the greatest but look at Viv, she completely took the cake for me, I've yet to see Bette or Katherine do that kind of acting (I haven't seen all their pictures so that's why I say yet to see)
Mystery _ they are both amazing!! Legend who will never be forgotten
Brando didn't do classical technique
so vivi did classical acting
Morgan freeman is still my favourite . He should’ve got an oscar for shawshank redemption or his epic narration...
Shrey Vaghela LoL for his larynx
I don't agree that it's impossible to Tom Cruise as anyone but Tom Cruise. Maybe Oblivion/Last Samurai, sure, but have you seen Magnolia?
Have you seen Tropic Thunder?
Maybe unpopular opinion, but I really liked his performance in Interview with the Vampire
Even in Last Samurai, he was amazing. And don't even get me started with Valkyrie.
I agree with a lot of people here Tom Cruise is slept on as a great actor. He’s wonderful in Tropic Thunder and as Lestat (Lestat felt like a “Tom Cruise” role until you actually pay attention, not just look. He’s bafflingly a different person. An intoxicatingly perverse, selfish, pitiful being).
Have you seen Collateral??? That's his best performance imo
adrien brody! from the pianist to a italian mafia antagonist in peaky blinders so good gave me goosebumps
Tom Cruise to me is forever an eccentric Scientolgist.
ifurkend hopefully he'll get out one day
Existential Transhumanist when did he ever promote it?
ifurkend I thought he left it recently
Existential Transhumanist Stupid rich people.
Pretty sure he left Scientology recently
*All I ever wanted was to become an influential actor ( started when I watched Disney channel after school ) Any ideas on what kind of videos I should be making on my channel to help me promote my talent and still be entertaining to viewers? Thank you*
I realised Method Acting had become some kind of marketing tool and did not sound so 'respectable' and refined and sophisticated anymore was the moment when the media blew up how Jared Leto dove into method acting for his portrayal of The Joker on Suicide Squad.
I like Leto's performance on Dallas Buyers Club. But bragging about Method Acting the way actors do nowadays is not cool. Just my thought.
Rachma Rizky Jared Leto's Joker sucked. He was the worst joker of all time. Heath Ledger and Jack Nicholson were the best jokers.
You're 100% correct most people who do professional theatre do not use method acting. Due to the horrible effects, it has.
@@phoenixgrove Now we have Joaquin Phoenix to create the Golden Trinity of Jokers
That kid from florida project deservedly so for her oscar worthy performance. It was a huge potential!
Hazman Rostam Ehhh, it was okay
John Yaurimo mehhh.. it was amazing acts!!
As far as I could tell it was stunt casting. Hardly anyone in that movie were actors. They just found random people to be themselves. I even looked up the imdb info and it seemed to confirm it but then again they could have just not had a lot of parts before.
John Yaurimo an eh performance by a kid is automatically a 7/10. That little girl was a def 8/10
My God the Tom Cruise example is so on point! That is what I have always told people that I don’t find him a good actor because he is still Tom Cruise in all the character he plays.
I love how the people doing things for real on camera are awarded as the "best actors", rather than the people who act like they're doing something
They Academy should just automatically give every contestant from Fear Factor an award
well yeah doing things for real is more real than just acting
So how is Tom Cruise doing his own stunts not a form of method acting? Its one of the most extreme ways of getting into character by actually jumping of a building to get that same authenticity. This video felt like a wiki video of the superficial aspects of method acting, not on the same level of interesting as Vox's other videos.
@Mr Banker true
More like drama acting not action movies
Gary Oldmans performance was phenomenal from start to finish in the Darkest Hour.
Gary Oldman's makeup*. Without it was forgettable and in a couple of years no one will be talking about it.
B Thomson the shade of it all. it's an honorary oscar that is doing method acting as a competitive one😂
B Thomson...By your logic even DDL shouldn’t have won the oscar for Lincoln..
And it doesn’t matter if his performance in Darkest hour was oscar worthy or not...Oldman has constantly given us Phenomenal performances in films such as True Romance, Immortal Beloved, Dracula, Leon, The Fifth Element, Sid and Nancy, Meantime etc..
Even leo’s performance in Revenant wasn’t as great as his other performances in films such as Django Unchained or What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?...yet he won his first oscar for revenant.
Same thing should happen to Oldman...its only “fair”
I also think it was a great performance, but the heavy prosthetics ruined it for me. I'd rather see a thinner Churchill than whatever they did there. If it's mainly physical acting, it doesn't matter, it's all about body movement, but this case was different. The rubbery face was a distraction throughout the movie.
B Thomson Actually Gary Oldman's performance is the only performance that will be remembered for years. Let me guess, you're a Chalamet fanboy.
Rooting for Margot Robbie here! She is phenomenal!
In looks yeah but acting wise she still has a way to go. Her potential is 10x higher then Jennifer Lawrence.
@@proxyjan Only Fans
Tom Cruise should have won an Oscar for Magnolia. One of the most powerful performances ever.
3:51 "Heroes never die!"
*clicks the thank you voiceline*
Delet this
no u
*Legends never die.
I see what you did there.....
Adam Sandler is a God then......
He's actually a really good actor. It's just he made his career on saying gibberish and making funny faces--it's the kind of thing that's funny for two seconds and then it's old. Except he's in his 40s now and still doing it, which is particularly off-putting, seeing a grown man act like a little child.
Shaaadaaaaaapp!
Jay Kay Adam is actually phenomenal actor. He's just chosen to delve into silly slapstick comedies, since I guess he found a schtick. You should watch Reign Over Me, Spanglish, and more recently The Meyeorwitz Stories.
Adam was actually very good in Punch Drunk Love, where he played a non-Sandler-ish role. I wish he hadn't typecast himself as an annoying man child.
@LB2007 Agreed.. I can't stand the dude's acting or movies, but Punch Drunk Love was fantastic.
Donald trump is method actor too
ankit soni whoa 😮
ankit soni lmao
Jay Kay Have we met?
Jay Kay Oh okay.
ankit soni you always find a moron who makes a dumb joke about Donald Trump even when it has nothing to do with the subject. It never fails. Why don’t you find a job as a writer for Jimmy Kimmel show?
You're getting it all wrong:
1. Method acting is not about eating a raw liver.
2. You don't have to know what kind of preparations the actor went to appreciate real acting.
3. Leo is not a great method actor.
exactly
I like actors like Tom Cruise. He's got that vibe.
As you said method works for some actors I'm sure but these days it is mostly a marketing thing.
How an actor gets to a role is irrelevant, the performance is what matters. That said if the method is done in such a way that it causes stress and inconvenience for the crew and co stars then I don't think that's worth respect when other actors can achieve beautiful performance without mentality scaring everyone around him.
“it helps leo grows from this (shows titanic) to this (shows revenant)”
arnie grape came before titanic what are you talking about
I think people didn't watch his works before Titanic.
He was fabulous in movies like this boy's life, what's eating Gilbert Grape, The Basketball Dieries, Marvin's Room
I also think he made a good job in Titanic too
He was natural and spontaneous. Same characteristics he lost over the years to approach himself to the technical work
Why eat raw bison liver when you can, well, just act like you did? Doesn't this defeats its purpose?
Akylas Strat
Exactly!
This channel knows batsh*t about the method. Leonardo is not a good example of method acting, most of his performances are way too over the top, while his acting in aviator is underrated.
On the other hand, DDL's body of work showcases the efficacy of method. The guy has played a cerebral palsy patient, a butcher, an oilman, even Lincoln. Each of those performance is throughly believable.
Authenticity, like Leo said
Nick Dahlstrom well one could argue that a starving frontiersman would actually be less grossed by raw liver than DiCaprio was. If he ate it off camera would be another story, but now just feela like a gimmick
When Danaerys Targerian ate the horse's heart, the actress had a heart made out of gummy bears (melted and re-shaped).
You are soul, awww you think it was made from gummy *bears* lmao, it was a gummy heart made from scratch, with ingredients like jam etc. It is not like they went out and bought a bunch of actual gummy bears and melted them and reformed them! Lmao.
Just a pedantic correction but Tom Cruise was fighting against the Imperial army in The Last Samurai. I think it was his best role ever.
Tom Cruise is a better actor than many give him credit.
Many conflate the mock religion he belongs to and his zany ideas with his abilities as an actor.
Do you believe you are better at your job than Tom Cruise is at acting?
Day-Lewis, Hanks, Streep, Fiennes, Denzel, Leguizamo, Pacino, Halle B, theee are perfect examples of true method actors because they have mastered their skill. It’s a rare thing to see and many still do not know the difference between the majority character acting versus the few method acting types
Charlize Theron in Monster - one of the best method acting performance ever
Jack Nicholson in the shining sis
The academy for the best edited videos should go to Vox! well done lads
I think it helps that most great actors are at least a little crazy.
As for Tom Cruise, his problem I'd that he's spent recent years doing very similar, action hero roles. He needs to shake things up with performances like what he did in Collateral and Tropic Thunder.
Seems like it's kind of a straightforward case of being more committed and working harder yields better results.
Except for Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder, didnt even realize it was him until the end
genuine, authentic and immersive acting is a pleasure to watch
i've been method acting as myself for all my life, where's my oscar
Tom cruise’s role in born on the Fourth of July was definitely Oscar worthy.
I think you forgot to include how many actors and actresses among those nominated used method acting.
Imagine 80% did. Then winning less than half would actually lead to the conclusion that method acting reduces the chance of winning.
2:47 wow he fixed his hair really fast, I couldn't even see him do it!
well my thing with this is that when it comes to method acting is that a lot of modern method actors is that it's no longer about the internal interpretation of what a character is, instead of just trying to physically become the character if that makes sense. Like why eat the raw bison, why send used condoms to costars, honestly like why? it was once a strong mental game, but this is just a thought, I'm still fixated on method acting a la the kinda Marlon Brando's era used instead of what we have today. I'm also kinda tipsy rn so this is just a stream of consciousness, cheers y'all.
PietreADI Stop commenting that.
+Vox @1:25 In order for your stats to be interpretable in the way you suggest, you also need to present the prevalence of method acting. E.g., if method acting is used by 80% of actors, but such actors receive only 40% of Oscars, then there doesn't seem to be a favorable bias for method acting.
If you're going to present stats, please consult a decent statistician... or any statistician.
"Almost half of best actor awards have been won by method acters since 1951"
So more than half of best actor awards have gone to people who do not method act. So if you want to improve your chances of winnig....don't method act?
seriously it doesn't matter. It would be a disregard to say method acting or classical acting is bad. Every person inventing those techniques is a genius and every technique is good in her own way. That's why good actors always use more than one acting technique
Tom cruise was great in eyes wide shut. He just was.
This is why I love Leo 💛💛
Perhaps the greatest actor of all, Sir Lawrence Olivier, once said, 'don't act, just be your natural self'. Maybe, but it's more exciting to see Al Pacino go over the top than to see someone walk thru the part...
You said Oscar judges seem to favor method acting but then you 'proved' your statement by showing that the majority of Oscar awards *don't* go to method actors... what?
Lucas Freeman dumbass if there are 70 method actors and 300 normal then will you not call it a proof.
Contrary to popular belief, his co stars in the Dark Night said Ledger would break Character when the director yells cut and would just be a normal guy. Stanislavksi is the father of Realism. His stundent Lee strasberg branched out and called it Method acting.
In India it's the other way round.
D Sharma lol
Yeah Varun Dhawan is our DDL
I don't get it.. care to explain?
Hi Jack oh you won’t like it.
Shrey Vaghela So you mean the worst actors get the awards?
WHY?? Because it’s the pinnacle of acting. And done well, it’s incredible.
Really when it comes to every acting role, as an audience member, I just need to be convinced of the illusion the actor is creating. That they are that character. Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, all fantastic actors but their stardom is too in the way and I'm just watching them because they are a good actor in a film I am interested in seeing. The the latter two, earlier in their careers I saw them for the character they played but after a while it's.... just easy to watch. Leo DiCaprio amazingly, at least to me, transform into the character he is playing, and not using any prosthetic. Like he still looks like him but his acting is so intense and believable. And of course Gary Oldman, with prosthetics or without they guy is damn near unrecognizable in each role. You know it's him, but it's easy to forget it's him quickly into the movie.
I think its for 2 reasons:
1: because method actors do tend to put a lot of effort into their roles, so they tend to generate quality performances as a result of the effort, which shows.
2: Because method acting is easier to grade and therefore reward with awards because method acting shows levels of skill and degrees of difficulty that show. This is not always obvious with art, especially acting which is all about pretense... Its very hard to grade the effort someone puts into pretending - they could be pretending to put effort in... Method goes past this and shows real effort, so the people doing the awards are more comfortable giving awards to the method actors as a result.
Method acting is not acting. It is being. Being is not the same as acting. Acting is appearance of being a character, not actually being a character in reality.
How did people start putting their and their lovers initials in hearts? Did it start with carvings on trees and how did it get so popular?
Jack Nicholson has won three Oscars and you can tell from the very first frame that he’s on screen that Jack Nicholson is being Jack Nicholson.
1:43 wow that guy's lips are really pale
Whoa, did not expect this to be so detailed.
Got a feeling Vox really loved the hell out of I, Tonya.
Tom Hanks deserved an Oscar for Cast Away
Eh, with the Revenant, do not think it was Leo Dicaprio's best work, just that he was the lead, Oscar should have gone to the bear.
Just give The Greatest Showman and Dunkirk the Oscars they deserve. I love those two movies
Apart from acting a lot of other factors come into play as well.
The hype, lobbying, marketing and politics.
Movies about World War 2 for example are more likely to win awards, also Biographies, movies about homosexuality too.
Lately, women and minorities are the focus so you can see how politics of the day effects which kind of movies and roles get appreciated by the academy at various points of time. 30-40 years ago it was different and will be different in future.
True that, Last year as trump become president,denying people from some countries from entering into US, Racism etc. , its hollywood's way of saying We don't support him. Moonlight won best film, the actor in that won best supporting actor ( not that it's not good and also the actor's performance) and Salesman won best foreign film (I was kinda happy that it won because the director was one my favs but this is my observation as Iran was in the list of countries that trump denied Visas).
Abhishek Pathak Spotlight is the greatest example i think.Won the Oscar because of dealing with the child abuse in Catholic Church.
True, if it was a movie dealing with pedophilia in Islam, it wouldn't have won cos it's not PC
Actors should also study the Morbin technique of method acting
"If Leonardo eats liver in the woods but nobody sees it, does he still get the Oscar?" LMAO
Great episode!
There are good actors , like Leo and many others .. and there are great actors , like Brando, Streep , De Niro , Al pacino , Hanks , DW , Jack Nicholson , even Sean Penn ..
and then .. there is Daniel Day Lewis .. this guy is just a whole different level !
Riuda ....for sure .When ever I watch great actors I know they're acting is great.
With DDL....I never see DDL....ONLY ever the character he's playing.
Just mind blowing.
Meryl > day Lewis according to lots of actors and critics
Leonardo DiCaprio is a great actor in in my opinion
It doesn't beg the question. It raises the question.
The Moscow Art Theatre was created in 1898, 19 years before the October Revolution that established communist rule in Russia. Method acting was then developed in Imperial Russia, not the USSR.
There needs to be a Vox channel just for research in film! Incredible!
Dunkirk was awesome
Too bad Leo's "method acting" didn't turn him into a good actor. Tom Hardy completely out-acted him in every nook and cranny of that bear movie.
The character of Tom Cruise is one of the best roles ever played
0:52 vox noticed my hometown, what a good day!
"Does Tom Cruise even know the names of the characters he's playing anymore?" It's probably Jack.
Leo deserved the Oscars for Wolf of Wall Street. Best modern movie made so far
Why inception didn't get an oscar? Vox tell me
Siddharth Patel too confusing
wasn't confusing if you were actually following the movie. And inception did win 4 Oscars by the way.
Half the movie is exposition
It did I think..
Coz Leo didn't dream enough while sleeping
The best example for method acting being used as a marketing tool was Jared Leto's Joker in Suicide Squad. His role was heavily marketed as a great method acting performance by Leto and as the main antagonist of the movie but he ended up only getting 10 minutes of screen time.
Leonardo is such a great underated actor. And its such a shame that it took him so long to get an oscar
cassandra l hows it a shame, he didn't deserve it.
zee zoo thats the thing though. He did deserve it.
Continue the Good Work, Vox!
Tom Cruise was GREAT as Les Grossman :P That was not a "Tom Cruise" roll.
Jeffrey Fredricksen Also Vincent in Collateral.
And Lestat in Interview with a Vampire.
And Frank T.J. Mackie in Magnolia
Ron Kovic in Born on the 4th of July
Charlie Babbit in Rain Man
Eyes Wide Shut
He was also the best part of Rock of Ages. Tom Cruise is a good actor, great even, it's just that he keeps doing the same type of action roles now.
Only Daniel Day-Lewis is a method actor. The rest are just good actors who researched their character. The difference is is, when they yell cut, they're themselves again. Speaking of researching, you may want to do a little more next time.
Vox's quality is deteriorating.
I learned nothing new in this four-minutes video.
seriously, where's Joss Fong?
Yeah, I wanted to see more of an in-depth look at how Oscars (Academy members) really look into an actors work instead of how method acting helps publicity.
I'm always a bit disappointed when I don't see her name at the end of a video. I miss seeing her face too!
getting mauled in the woods by a bear...
Dias Amreé shut up.
outstanding contribution to discussion, Victoria. take a bow
0:52 omg didn't expect to see my hometown in this video
@ 1:54 I believe his/others' characters were fighting the shogunate that was reformed into Imperial (Meji.) Japan; I'm a tad just unsure, but mostly sure at the same time...
(I.E. I'm a history enthusiast.)
Leo was snubbed big time on Gilbert Grape. Every other movie he was nominated for were amazing but Gilbert Grape is by far his best performance.
I'm split between 'The Darkest Hour' and 'The Shape of Water' for best picture.
Von Hoytema for best cinematography.
Gary Oldman for best actor. He's versatile : funny, serious, emotional.
Oldman this year epitomized how the best actors make you forget that they're acting because they just *are* their characters. Props to Darkest Hour's make-up team, too.
how can you act so professional with a eyebrow shaved
2:50
It is indeed a shame that actors get nominated or rewarded on the sole basis of their "behind the scene stories". There is so much that goes behind the craft of screen acting in particular anyways, from an editing, producing, directing point a view, that it can be hard to tell which actor did the "best work" unless they try to show how much they worked. However, the best performances are often the best casted, best directed ones, with of course actors who are strong enough to rise to the opportunity, but seeing great performances being dismissed because the actors "play who they are" is sad. It's not always harder to take on a new "persona", a new wig, dress, or accent. It's not always well done either, and rarely necessary. There is as much of a biais in this star system considering (and rewarding) the contrast between one performance and the actor in real life as there is in only casting a actor in a role that is close to who they are, and what they're famous for. Good acting often starts with good casting. And the raw presence of a human being willing to be vulnerable and show the audience something about all of us to serve a good story isn't less rare than a crazy over-the-top performance, however well portrayed. "Method acting" as described here and coming indeed from Stanislavsky's system and everytning that followed is VERY FAR from "just character work", and definitely opposed to "showing big emotions" only, like Lee Strasberg had everyone believe. However, thank you for this great video !
Time to sign up for the Method One Clinic
Yeah, better stay away from Leo's Oscar!
The man worked for it.
Cinema is my heart and acting is my brain 💕
Oscar's are meaningless.
As well as life...
Not for actors
Tell that to the people who do thrm
and also white!
And the relevance of this is?
Dustin Hoffman famously asked Sir Laurence Olivier for advice during the filming of Marathon Man, to which he responded "Why don't you try acting my boy?" Or Jimmy Cagney used to say, "Know your lines, plant your feet, look the other guy in the eye, and just say your line!" Katharine Hepburn won 4 times, by just speaking the role. One doesn't have to go to extremes to make up for a lack of professional stage training, or just blowing off actually reading the script or book.
Method acting helps develop your acting skills OUT of your natural comfort zone and trains a professionals, people who are qualified, not just random people who succeeded in something else and are filming for ratings. And the problem with this video, acting like a psycho or someone before filming is a bad habit for people who learn method acting, it is considered toxic and harmful, because you don't use imagination, you just put yourself in the situation which brings us to the question, is it professional? Some directors shot real people who were matching with their role and it was believable, so these preparations make sense only to a person, who acts - to get a life experience and for people who are watching, because it makes things more impressive, but not their performances as a part of their talent and skill. In addition: Stanislavsky said that his method is not for geniuses, it's for regular people who want to be actors
There are many different methods for acting. The method that became known as “method acting” was the Strasberg method. Stanislavsky wrote a book of many different exercises for an actor to prepare for a role and then many teachers came after that creating there own rules or building off of certain aspects of the Stanislavsky method. The one where people become the character is really based around Lee Strasberg’s rules
Why has Johnny Depp never won an Oscar?
I got an oscar ad before this