*10 Hour Acting Masterclass 2.0* the-actors-academy.teachable.com 1. Takes 2 minutes to sign-up 2. Gain instant access 3. Work at your own personalized and designed pace Join over 1,000 of the consumers who have already bought the course!
@@JayBerrios-tn2xc- look, method acting can bring out some amazing performances, but I would highly recommend you try to perfect Your natural acting instead, because method acting can really mess you up mentally.
"I think your assessment of method acting has a small flaw in it. While it’s true both methods can yield similar results, in each of the examples you showed, the very subtle microexpressions of authenticity were missing from the natural actor's performance. However, to most people, these are not noticeable, so it truly does not matter to them. As a trained police interrogator, though, I can say that it is clearly a performance. That is just my personal opinion. I would suggest that if one were to compare, it would be best to present both sides blindly, without revealing which is which, and then disclose at the end where method acting was used."
I feel the same it's not a debate that's so black and white it depends on a lot of things at the end of the day as long as the actor is immersed in their role, then so are we
Heath Ledger didn't use "the method" for playing The Joker. His approach was intense, yes, but there are many accounts from people who worked on the production saying he was fun and "himself" in between takes. Sure, there's even a picture of him messing about on a skateboard in between takes.
Agreed. The speaker here is incorrect when he asserts that method acting requires the actor to stay in character the entire length of filming. It does not.
@@risk5riskmks93 method acting a quick search in google will actually tell you that method acting requires to portray a character different from yourself, natural acting is just people playing characters made for themselves with personalities that align better with theirs and so they act more natural because is how the actor would react
Heath was definitely using method acting, he was known to use this approach and practiced embodying the role of the Joker for months prior to filming. It doesn't have to mean the actor never leaves character, it's the fact that they spend a good amount of time jn character even when they aren't filming
I prefer the embodiment of the character to something that goes beyond our current reality. That dives deep in a reality that even tho seen not natural to us, it's realistic on its own setting. Which is great, because not always our reality is the best. So feels good to be transported to this better reality.
@@malimoor2654method acting:where actors tries to bring their own emotions to screen, they are not acting or imitating, they are behaving but for many actors to do that they must understand everything the character has gone through and character's personal traits so some actors behave like that character outside shooting for perfection.(important thing is they tend to exaggerate their acting but it will not feel out of place) Natural acting:just means it is close to realism where mostly actors just behave like themself in that situation. (It works really well when story is grounded and it is highly relatable) Atleast this is what i understood from so many conversations about it, dont know whether its to the point or not
Exactly! This skill inspired me to take an acting class, where I learned about script analysis and subtext. The subtext is critical-in acting, it guides the emotions an actor brings to a scene. In real life, subtext aligns with the subconscious emotional motivators behind our actions. I began practicing this constantly to consciously control my emotions. Over time, I achieved that control, but there was a downside: my emotional responses became unnatural in real-life situations. As a musician, I also found it harder to feel music intuitively, as my emotions were now under conscious control. I realized I didn’t enjoy this state. I craved the natural, reactive emotional flow that acting had disrupted. Since acting wasn’t a deep passion for me, just a curious pursuit, I decided it wasn’t worth the trade-off. Ultimately, I quit the acting class and returned to my natural emotional state. The experience taught me valuable lessons about the mechanics of the mind, emotions, and the involuntary systems that make us human.
@@J1VPeethat’s why actors say they do all their research and then throw it out the window come performance time - so that the performance isn’t mechanical.
Forgive me the self-indulgent reply. I was once an actor, and had to cry on stage. The scene was towards the climax of the show, it was the death of my son. During rehearsals I cried quite extensively. The director asked how I managed to cry, and if I could sustain it over the 3-month tour of the theatre show. i said I cried because it was the death of my son, and I didn't know if I could sustain it. I cried every night during the 3-month tour of the show. How? Why? Simples... every night we performed, I cried, because, every show... I lost my son... ;-0(
Hi Ben, imo Denzel is a fantastically charismatic performer - I still remember him in The Mighty Quinn - but Daniel is a proper actor. It's like Brando and Nicholson, separately they are both great, but stick them both in the same film - The Missouri Breaks - and Nicholson is just another two-cents-an-hour actor. So saying I really wasn't a fan of Daniel in the Lincoln film, but wow, was he so convincing as the uptight tailor in the long-winded Phantom Thread. Anyway, it's a silly profession, love whom you like, from Keeanu Reeves to Oliver Reed ;-0)
I can’t lie- Paul Dano was going tit for tat with DDL in There Will Be Blood. Those were two amazing performances- technically three, since Dano played two characters.
@@lalaeuroDenzel would never be seen as "just another two cents an hour actor" with anyone on screen. We can have our favorite without completely disregarding someone else's greatness.
@@WillWilliams-vo4nk Will, that's my two cents. Did you miss the bit where I said imo Denzel is a fantastically charismatic performer...? But, again imo, he is of the modern film school of acting where it is the celebrity actor that brings in the audiences, whether Paul Newman, Robert Redford, or dare I say it, Keeanu Reeves. It all depends on your definition of 'an actor'. Imo, Brando and DDL make them ALL look like two-cents-an-hour actors. That's not to say we don't love them, and enjoy their shows, but it's like comparing... Kenny G to John Coltrane. In other words, we really shouldn't, but that is the theme of the video ;-0) Love who you love my friend, don't let my opinions feel disparaging.
@@deanmarten Yeah ok. His act in The Godfather and Apocalypse Now impressed me more than ddl roles, cue cards or not. I like the result and outcome on the screen, not the method they adopt. And i love ddl
Micheal ja white, who worked on the film with Heath Ledger, said that Ledger wasn't even doing the method acting, he would ask them what they thought about this or that. when he was trying to come up with the joker on different scenes and that Ledger would crack jokes when they yelled cut.
Well, Ledger locked himself in a hotel room for a month to get into the character. He even once asked Christian Bale to really beat him up in a scene. If that's not method acting I don't know what it is.
There is no better, it's just what moves you. 99% of viewers couldn't pick the difference if they were given random movies they didn't know to choose from and pick which was which
I feel they both have their places. If the movie centers more on the event, I would favor natural acting. If the movie centers more on the transition of the character, I would favor method acting.
I personally love both the Method Acting and the Natural, they are both equally good even though they have great differences. In one you're temporarily becoming someone else unaware of the real world around you, only living in the movie itself. In the other you are yourself fully aware of the real world around you trying to portray a character in the best way you can by being yourself. I personaly think you can use one of them, or even both.
Method Acting is not walking around, 24/7, as the character, (as has been reported by so many erroneous articles over the years), it’s just what some actors did, who just happened to be Method Actors. Why did they do it? To help them ingrain, into habit, all the traits they chose for their character, so that they don’t drop any of those traits during filming. Method Acting is pretty much just asking basic questions about the character one is to portray such as “Who Am I?” “What do I want?” “Where am I from?” “What am I feeling & why?” etc. With these questions, an actor can begin to form an idea for the portrayal of the character, whose lines they are reading in their script. Basically, all acting today, derives from Konstantin Stanislavski’s Method, whether an actor considers themselves Method or not. Influenced/inspired by Robert DeNiro? Method-trained. Al Pacino - Method-trained, Marlon Brando, James Dean, - Method trained. Stanislavsky merely posed what are actually just common sense questions that one might ask of a new acquaintance, and it helped actors enrich their portrayals, psychologically. As the Method was brought to America in the 1930’s, from the Moscow Art Theatre, different people who taught it, added theories, or emphasized certain aspects of the Method over others. Lee Strasberg was the most famous Method teacher and he emphasized affective memory (or emotional recall) to strengthen an actor’s work. Others may have emphasized intention of the character, or encouraged practical experience in a job, that the character does for a living, in order to bring added authenticity to the role, as well as understanding more about the character. Today, such an approach is, again, common sense, and something some directors would insist their actors do, before the actor would even make that decision for themselves. It’s really unfortunate that “Method” almost seems to be a dirty word these days, as its influence, whether direct or not, has greatly fueled the growth of acting as a true art form, and certainly raised the bar of excellence in performance.
@@grey.fox. honestly, I think a lot of the misconception came from journalists, who sensationalized the more extreme examples of research that certain actors undertook, in order to feel informed enough about their character to free their imagination on set. Those examples were so focused on, by the press, that everyone, (even younger generations of actors), came to believe that those examples were what the Method was.
@victorcornet21 You are right, but it also comes from people who scoff at artistry or creative temperaments in general. The demonization of filmmaking has been largely lumped together with everything being out of touch Hollywood when really it's still an art form
@ Yes, that’s a good point. There definitely is negativity coming from that direction as after all, it’s not going to cure cancer or solve homelessness, but I appreciate, as a paying audience member, those actors who care so much about doing their job to the best of their ability. Even if the movie is mediocre, a great actor is always worth watching. It’s nice they care. Artists of other disciplines can also be among the harshest critics of actors and acting, especially film acting. Movies are just too popular to be art, apparently, and “the only thing actors do is just memorize lines.” 🙄
Someone who knows nothing about acting the first clip made me truly appreciate his acting i was so invested ...seems like method acting need lots of work but its really worth it..
2:11 How on earth did that actor pull off that scene 😳 Those thin lines between Valour vs Fear, Hope vs Despair.... Everything is so perfectly nailed by his Face, Eyes and Voice 👏👏 Just curious to know how many takes did he go through to find that accurate balance between those emotions which could easily slip out of hands and could've gone scattered anywhere 🙄
I don't quite understand why you contrast Method and "natural acting". Method is Lee Strasberg? And what is Stella Adler? Sanford Meisner? Michael Chekhov? To summarize, all these are different schools that originated from Stanislavsky, who wanted to make acting "natural". Please clarify what you are talking about.
Agreed. He kinda plays fast and loose with the term Method. And I have never heard "Natural Acting" as a term before (at first, I thought he meant Naturalism... like from the late 1800s, which was basically Realism on steroids, but since he chose examples from films all the acting is more or less "realistic"). I mean, he gets the point across, but he does kinda run roughshod over some rather nuanced concepts.
@@DribbleFunkI still don’t know, for certain, what newspaper & magazine articles mean when they say, “so-and-so is a great naturalistic actor.” I thought I came to understand what they meant, but now I think the writers of those reviews are just as clueless about that term as the journalists who screwed up the definition of Method Acting. Now days, even actors think “Method Acting” is never breaking character, and going to crazy extremes. It’s nuts.
Right, I think this video is confusing acting styles (naturalistic vs. non-naturalistic) with acting methods (Method acting vs. technical acting), even though it is easy to conflate it. This either or thing is too reductive. For instance, Daniel Day-Lewis isn’t a traditional Strasberg Method actor, that would be Al Pacino, who uses emotional memory. Instead, Day-Lewis employs classical theatre training and an extreme version of Adler’s technique, using external actions to drive emotion while staying in character off set for consistency. Denzel Washington, on the other hand, separates himself from his roles, combining classical training with Adler-like methods, which aligns with her philosophy. Anthony Hopkins fits the video’s "natural acting" label, as he doesn’t stay in character off set, and is highly technical, but I just find the definitions of this video confusing, as there is nothing natural about his acting. A more accurate comparison would focus on Method acting vs. technical acting rather than reducing Method acting to staying in character all the time.
@@baishihua what is technical acting though? What is considered technique? I had an acting teacher who shared with us exercises from the various well-known Method teachers: Meisner, Strasberg, Adler to give us a broad range of exercises that might help free up our imagination and ability to riff off one another. How is Technical Acting different?
@@victorcornet21 Granted, framing this as "this vs. that" isn’t the ideal way to break it down (since in some sense, everything that works is a technique). Technical acting focuses on external tools like gestures, voice, character and text analysis, and imagination. These exercises are external with no emotion inherently ingrained in them, making the approach more consistent because it relies on craft and control, great for many days of repeated performances in theatres. By contrast, Method acting revolves around emotions, using techniques like emotional immersion and recalling personal memories to drive actions. This can feel more authentic and emotionally powerful, more suitable for movies. Strasberg’s Method is the most traditionally "Method" approach, following an "inside-out" process. Meisner and Adler, however, lean more toward technical acting, emphasizing actions driving emotions-an "outside-in" approach. Of course, it’s not strictly one or the other, as most acting schools blend a bit of everything.
I can't help but to find someone who can shift between himself and an acting role in the blink of an eye more impressive as an actor than someone who must remain in a role to feel it.
I love both method acting and natural acting you can use both to get the work done. I love acting very very much I just love to be on set acting to tell a real story
I am not into acting. I never watched any acting tutorial video before. But, somehow this video popped up and I clicked in, and I loved watching it. It's not bad to learn something new sometimes, is it ?
I feel like there's a fine line in which some roles were great because the method acting allowed an already talented actor to enbody a role they couldn't have naturally played however, I also do believe that method acting allows for less skilled actors to pretend that they can when in reality if they were only allowed to naturally act they couldn't. TL;DR: I feel like actors who are great at natural acting can use method acting for some roles. Unskilled actors should practice natural before trying method.
The first time I watched TDK and Joker appears I was hooked by him and believe in every words he says and rooting for him to win that's how great Heath Ledger performance is
It's never about the approach, it's whatever works for the actor. Secondly, you can't compare performances - not in a serious discussion, which I can see this is not.
Gary Oldman --- method actor extraordinaire (like Daniel Day Lewis). He can play any role and just becomes it. He changes the costumes, can be anything. But. Gene Hackman as a character actor (natural actor?), often plays the same type of role, lawyer, colonel or sheriff . . . but YOU JUST CAN'T take your eyes off of him when he delivers his lines . . . he just OWNS the screen (same as Jack Nicholson). Both types of acting have something amazing to contribute.
To me, it's like comparing Michelangelo to Picasso. They all have their own kind of beauty. But, personally, I like natural. Method is realistic, but natural is way more dynamic.
Some roles require method acting because they are difficult and complex and the actor needs to feel them so much. characters like Joker and Szpilman and Daniel Plainview. in the end the quality of acting depends on the actor and his role. Some roles need natural acting because their depth appears through that.
Method acting v. natural acting seems like someone who is empathetic v. sympathetic. One performance brings a person down to that level so they are in the character's shoes and understand what they are experiencing whereas natural acting is sympathetic in the sense where they feel the emotions of their character but see it through their own eyes and not the character. The major difference is that one is more emotionally draining than the other
I respect the effort that method actors do for certain roles. Christian Bale in The Fighter might be one of the best examples, to the point where standing right next to the real Dicky Ekerlund, the two were practically interchangeable. However, it takes a genuine talent for a natural actor to be able to get into a role before the director says “action” and to put that on pause when the director says “cut”. The energy involved in that is underrated. One thing you didn’t mention in this video that I hope you’ve mentioned in the other videos is the tool of “sense memory”. That seems to be the key for natural actors to be able to draw out some of those emotional performances you used as examples, especially from Denzel Washington and Viola Davis. The ability to draw from actual life experience and channel it into their role, it’s a catharsis that makes the role more personal without completely immersing into it the way a method actor would. That’s why Viola’s tears and pain are so moving in that scene, because they come from a real place, and it makes you appreciate not just her performance, but her as a person.
Theirs an argument Neither one is better than other. But theirs argument one method of acting might better suited for a particular role. For example if an actor is doing a major biopic where has to play a real life person. He might have do deeper dive of that historical figure and to really capture and keep hold of that version of the figure for long periods of time until the shoot ends. Going Method might be the way to go if the actor is afraid losing the essence of the figure their playing if they don’t stay in it
You whatever you need to use to get the job done. I had the same argument about writing: Outline v No outline. I write without an outline because it allows me to develop the story organically. I trust that when I sit down, god will deliver the words to me. But that’s me. Some people work better with a guideline to keep them on track. Do you👍🏿.
One of the best monologues I ever seen was Stellan Skarsgård's Monologue in Andor S01E10. I was completely blown away. Stellan's performance and delivery, the writing, all at the point of perfection in my humble opinion. Check it out if you have not seen it. You will not regret it.
Natural Acting definitely! Hey man I'm new to the channel and I've always been really good with voices/impressions and stuff. I always thought of becoming an actor growing up I even took some classes but that years ago. So I'm trying to get the ball rolling again and get better at the craft can you give me some critical pointers to Use and to Watch out For and what to do to keep the Tools Sharpened? Much Love and God Bless Ya'll
Ppl on set said Heath went back to being normal after each scene was done. So idk if he was actually method acting. Maybe it was a combination, but from stories it seems as if he was doing Natural acting.
I was in plays in high school even got a standing ovation for my role in the play they did Little Women. So I like Natural acting cause I like that in the moment type of vibe. But this video was really good. Method acting I like it too BUT I'm not that good! LOL
Well natural acting does show convencing good, intence emotions. Emotions you can empathy with the character. But method acting shows exact emotions the character going through in tiny bit details.
Reminds me of the famous interaction between Dustin Hoffman and Lawrence Olivier on the set of The Marathon Man, Dustin was having trouble getting into character, and Olivier simply said, My boy, why don't you just learn how to 'act'?
Method acting is just a deeper study of the character. It's like the difference between studying some problem in construction engineering from books and 3D models vs. going into the actual building with a real sample of the problem and actually touching it, feeling it, knoking on the walls to feel the vibration, etc. That "feeling" is an extra bit of information that you wouldn't get otherwise. Now, of course, the main thing is not the method of studying, but the skill and talent. Daniel-Day Lewis doesn't "need" method acting to deliver a oscar-winning performance, hes an amazing actor, period. It's the same the other way around, there are plenty of "less good" actors that aren't going to be any better just by going the method acting route.
One thing that Ive noticed with both the approaches is that, Natural acting works best when an actors plays a character closer to the life around us, whereas method acting on the other hand is much preferable while playing characters coming from a much complicated background, characteristics etc etc.. Choice of approach "may" also depend on whether the film is Plot centric or Character centric.
It comes down to whatever works to release the best work from an individual actor. I always viewed the different styles as classical acting (the British style), Stanislavsky's method, and Meistner method.
The modern day method is very different from its roots. That said, it is an easy way to get more practice in. I think that's it. You get used to the way of talking, moving and generally embodying the character. Anthony Hopkins doesn't use the method but he also puts in the hours. He reads every line 250 times. He says that gets him from learning the lines to feeling the character come out through it. So, it sounds like hard work pays off, no matter how you approach it.
I think good actors, regardless of their approach, feel the emotion and act on it. Perhaps for some method acting allows them to do that more effectively, but at a high cost. With practice, we can easily feel an emotion without also invoking the mental baggage and story that we ordinarily attach to that emotion. Which means we can also move out of that emotion quickly at the end of a scene. It's the stories we tell ourselves about an emotion that keep us trapped within it and causes us harm, not the emotion itself. All the Natural actors you showed are feeling the emotion in the moment, they're not just acting it, however, they are also not attached to that emotion. Personally, I agree that this always makes for a better performance. This is because while they can feel it and draw on it, making their acting more convincing,, they are not 'possessed' by the emotion so can therefore make rational artistic decisions. Acting that always feels contrived to me is when the person acts the emotion without feeling it, no matter how well done, it always feels wrong. There are too many unconscious micro expressions etc that come along with an emotion that aren't possible to convincingly act (at least on camera, in a theatre this wouldn't be a problem) and therefore comes across as incongruent and makes the performance unconvincing. Granted not everyone will pick up on this, my husband doesn't but he openly admits his EQ is somewhat lacking.
I'm a natural actor. The first times I had to do a presentations, skits, play acting as part of a presentation people have told I sound real and believable. I do sad and angry really, really well😂😂😂
Hey man. Thank you very much for sharing these experiences with us. I believe natural acting more authentic and believable . Also is faster to connect emotionally with character but I believe this needs life experience ( hardship situations, happiness, anger and fears which someone can use all these different emotions to connect with character.
Surely it’s whatever gets you to your best performance. Isn’t that what preference is all about. As long as you are committed to the route, you will reach your destination.
I think it depends on the actor and the specific kind of role you're talking about. If I were an actor I'd go for natural acting, I personally like better when an actor plays a role naturally in a way that you think you're seeing the real person and not the character. I don't like overacting and fakeness that can be frequently spotted with method acting, or even worse in drama theater acting where it's all fake and you see that they are pretending.
Yea, it's more about the actor and the outcome. Daniel Day-Lewis utilized the method responsibly and respectably for the crew. Natural acting has phenomenol outcomes too. The best for many would probably be somewhere inbetween, just enough to be immersed.
I think looking at a performance comparison is like looking at 2 different houses built with different tools and asking me which house I prefer based on the tools. Ultimately it questions the idea that there is a "better way" when really, 2 beautiful houses were built and there would be millions or billions of people happy to live in either.
I'm just honestly convinced that method acting still gives stronger performances than natural acting. However, I completely agree that method acting takes too much out of the actor and natural acting overall seems just fit enough for the job
I'm not an actor but I prefer method acting. It has a higher emotion and expression than natural acting. But if I'm an actor, I'll start from method acting to learn natural acting.
This debate is messy and immeasurable. We wouldn’t say Christian Bale is completely method because he uses weight as a huge factor in building character, the same for Austin Butler and his Elvis accent. There is no dividing line between Method actors and Natural actors, it’s a difference in the tools an actor uses to create a character. Natural actor doesn’t even make much sense as a true acting style. Method is based in a couple different training methods, but Natural isn’t clear at all.
In Sidney Poitier’s autobiography “Measure of a man”, he says that acting is real life in practice! Boy that made look at acting different! I always looked at acting as lying and make believe! Now I have a new perspective on it!
It really depends. If you’re able to rehearse before filming, you’ll get a good sense of who they are, how they take direction and the type of direction that works well for them. Any direction you give, keep it simple and direct. They need to understand what you are wanting. Along with this YOU need to practice being able to give constructive changes which are easy to understand. It’s not just on them, it’s also on you.
You first need to have a laser-focused vision of what it is you actually want. If you have that, then you should be able to explain it in the purest terms.
As an actor I kind of do a mix of a lot of things . Which is Natural , Method, Action Verbs , and laban efforts . My approach is like a gumbo just a mix of different things😊
While I agree that you don't need method acting to be a great actor, it's a great way to have a deeper connection with the character you are playing, as long as it's done in a relatively healthy way.
Denzel is a method actor. You should seek the training day script vs what he actually did with it. That ENTIRE scene was ad libbed. SHU program line was insane.
So from what I understand, you're saying that natural acting uses the actors natural abilities, looks, and other natural inclinations like accent to the scenes advantage while in method acting they have to change to suit their character?
In natural acting it's like natural to those people who does that, but method acting involves pure dedication and so many layers and maybe can provide so many emotions and meanings with deep effects to audience. But it's healthy for an actor to choose natural, artists who prefer method acting they go through lots of emotions and sometimes reach or cross the borders of sanity to bring out new things for the character, story, audience, these people are risking their lives. They could maybe have a normal life using natural way but they prefer method even though they know they break their mental balance.
I have never knew that Denzel Washington role, that makeup and mannerisms were something new from him. I didn't know what that movie is but he is so different from all his movies. Well I liked this video, good analysis :)
neither method or natural are good / bad approaches. the main things are how well do you know the character and the given context surrounding a scene? also, how deeply can you get into the character during any given scene? if you can accomplish both these things, either approach will get you oscar nods.
There are no two ways of being acting such as method acting or natural acting. I mean those are natures of some acting capacity... We can't select wisely each as we think about it as an aproache... As we think to act some which seem to day to day works and then what is the different between being acting on naturaly or keeping a camera secretly by filming on when we living everyday.?
I think the true advantage of method acting is for when an actor has to play a character so different from their natural self that they need to become another person in their mind to give a convincing performance as that character. Denzel and Viola in these examples probably had enough of a personal connection to these characters to give a convincing performance without needing embody it off set.
*10 Hour Acting Masterclass 2.0*
the-actors-academy.teachable.com
1. Takes 2 minutes to sign-up
2. Gain instant access
3. Work at your own personalized and designed pace
Join over 1,000 of the consumers who have already bought the course!
Thank you
@@JayBerrios-tn2xc- look, method acting can bring out some amazing performances, but I would highly recommend you try to perfect Your natural acting instead, because method acting can really mess you up mentally.
@@TheActorsAcademy it’s either you do it or you don’t.
"I think your assessment of method acting has a small flaw in it. While it’s true both methods can yield similar results, in each of the examples you showed, the very subtle microexpressions of authenticity were missing from the natural actor's performance. However, to most people, these are not noticeable, so it truly does not matter to them. As a trained police interrogator, though, I can say that it is clearly a performance. That is just my personal opinion. I would suggest that if one were to compare, it would be best to present both sides blindly, without revealing which is which, and then disclose at the end where method acting was used."
Tom hardy said it best... There's only two kinds of acting, convincing and unconvincing
So true ..
Well said
Oh, that's good! 🏆
Yup
this is gold
I really don't think it's an "either / or" type of thing. Different approaches will work for different actors in different roles.
agreed
Only a mature mind understands what just said.
I feel the same it's not a debate that's so black and white it depends on a lot of things at the end of the day as long as the actor is immersed in their role, then so are we
@@FrostbiteMadHatter2112 The ending line of your comment was beautiful.
@@ralx225b Thank you so much... I think this is the best reply I ever got as well... thanks for making me smile
Heath Ledger didn't use "the method" for playing The Joker. His approach was intense, yes, but there are many accounts from people who worked on the production saying he was fun and "himself" in between takes. Sure, there's even a picture of him messing about on a skateboard in between takes.
Agreed. The speaker here is incorrect when he asserts that method acting requires the actor to stay in character the entire length of filming. It does not.
@@risk5riskmks93 method acting a quick search in google will actually tell you that method acting requires to portray a character different from yourself, natural acting is just people playing characters made for themselves with personalities that align better with theirs and so they act more natural because is how the actor would react
Heath was definitely using method acting, he was known to use this approach and practiced embodying the role of the Joker for months prior to filming. It doesn't have to mean the actor never leaves character, it's the fact that they spend a good amount of time jn character even when they aren't filming
@@JustnNDTrollSniper I agree
Not true, many other actors have said he was himself behind the scenes and was funny and fun to be around.
All acting techniques are legit.
You’re right, you don’t need method acting to do a good performance.
you do
@@neilr603 no
@@ilyassebenana3824 can't act huh?
@@neilr603 If you need to be in character 24/7, you aren't really acting
@@oneslikeme Yep exactly
Yes! Natural acting is so much healthier. I prefer it over Method Acting because you can still be realistic but use your imagination.
I prefer the embodiment of the character to something that goes beyond our current reality. That dives deep in a reality that even tho seen not natural to us, it's realistic on its own setting. Which is great, because not always our reality is the best. So feels good to be transported to this better reality.
Great examples and perspective.
That E.T. screentest is amazing. Love the part where he says "Ok, kid, you got the job!"
I like natural acting better for me. Method acting is messy it isn’t required to give a great and earnest performance
Hey I’m still confused is there a way you can simplify method and natural acting? Thank you.
It isn’t required but it could be needed if it’s hard to tap into the character
it's the same thing, the guy's dumb
@@malimoor2654method acting:where actors tries to bring their own emotions to screen, they are not acting or imitating, they are behaving but for many actors to do that they must understand everything the character has gone through and character's personal traits so some actors behave like that character outside shooting for perfection.(important thing is they tend to exaggerate their acting but it will not feel out of place)
Natural acting:just means it is close to realism where mostly actors just behave like themself in that situation. (It works really well when story is grounded and it is highly relatable)
Atleast this is what i understood from so many conversations about it, dont know whether its to the point or not
@@haloed-herofor joker and characters who is extremely loud method acting is the best
to be able to cry on cue and express real emotional in the charecters experiences is wot makes acting seem natural!
Exactly! This skill inspired me to take an acting class, where I learned about script analysis and subtext. The subtext is critical-in acting, it guides the emotions an actor brings to a scene. In real life, subtext aligns with the subconscious emotional motivators behind our actions.
I began practicing this constantly to consciously control my emotions. Over time, I achieved that control, but there was a downside: my emotional responses became unnatural in real-life situations. As a musician, I also found it harder to feel music intuitively, as my emotions were now under conscious control.
I realized I didn’t enjoy this state. I craved the natural, reactive emotional flow that acting had disrupted. Since acting wasn’t a deep passion for me, just a curious pursuit, I decided it wasn’t worth the trade-off.
Ultimately, I quit the acting class and returned to my natural emotional state. The experience taught me valuable lessons about the mechanics of the mind, emotions, and the involuntary systems that make us human.
That’s crazy
@@J1VPeethat’s why actors say they do all their research and then throw it out the window come performance time - so that the performance isn’t mechanical.
Forgive me the self-indulgent reply. I was once an actor, and had to cry on stage. The scene was towards the climax of the show, it was the death of my son. During rehearsals I cried quite extensively. The director asked how I managed to cry, and if I could sustain it over the 3-month tour of the theatre show. i said I cried because it was the death of my son, and I didn't know if I could sustain it. I cried every night during the 3-month tour of the show. How? Why? Simples... every night we performed, I cried, because, every show... I lost my son... ;-0(
@@lalaeuro (hug)
Daniel Day Lewis and Denzel Washington are arguably the 2 greatest actors of all time. Gosh, imagine them in a movie together.
Too much Aura
Hi Ben, imo Denzel is a fantastically charismatic performer - I still remember him in The Mighty Quinn - but Daniel is a proper actor. It's like Brando and Nicholson, separately they are both great, but stick them both in the same film - The Missouri Breaks - and Nicholson is just another two-cents-an-hour actor. So saying I really wasn't a fan of Daniel in the Lincoln film, but wow, was he so convincing as the uptight tailor in the long-winded Phantom Thread. Anyway, it's a silly profession, love whom you like, from Keeanu Reeves to Oliver Reed ;-0)
I can’t lie- Paul Dano was going tit for tat with DDL in There Will Be Blood. Those were two amazing performances- technically three, since Dano played two characters.
@@lalaeuroDenzel would never be seen as "just another two cents an hour actor" with anyone on screen. We can have our favorite without completely disregarding someone else's greatness.
@@WillWilliams-vo4nk Will, that's my two cents. Did you miss the bit where I said imo Denzel is a fantastically charismatic performer...? But, again imo, he is of the modern film school of acting where it is the celebrity actor that brings in the audiences, whether Paul Newman, Robert Redford, or dare I say it, Keeanu Reeves. It all depends on your definition of 'an actor'. Imo, Brando and DDL make them ALL look like two-cents-an-hour actors. That's not to say we don't love them, and enjoy their shows, but it's like comparing... Kenny G to John Coltrane. In other words, we really shouldn't, but that is the theme of the video ;-0) Love who you love my friend, don't let my opinions feel disparaging.
Method acting is true dedication to the art. Daniel Day Lewis is probably the best actor who has ever lived.
You should’ve seen Robert Duvall’s best works. Another great chameleon actor!
It's Marlon Brando
@@sonakeshine Brando was amazing. Used cue cards! Lol.
@@deanmarten
Yeah ok. His act in The Godfather and Apocalypse Now impressed me more than ddl roles, cue cards or not. I like the result and outcome on the screen, not the method they adopt. And i love ddl
DDL's depth of accurate portrayal of Bill the Butcher is unrivaled, approached only by his Daniel Plainview.
One thing I learned today. Does not matter if it's method or natural.
There is Daniel Day Lewis...
and then there are other great actors.
Absolute facts. There is a chasm between him and all the others.
Only person I can think of that I would put in that league with Daniel is Gary Oldman.
That "ok kid you got the job" was priceless
Micheal ja white, who worked on the film with Heath Ledger, said that Ledger wasn't even doing the method acting, he would ask them what they thought about this or that. when he was trying to come up with the joker on different scenes and that Ledger would crack jokes when they yelled cut.
Well, Ledger locked himself in a hotel room for a month to get into the character. He even once asked Christian Bale to really beat him up in a scene. If that's not method acting I don't know what it is.
Heath Ledger playing the Joker would crack jokes when they yelled cut. Sounds pretty method to me.
@@miguelvidalmartinez9456 You’re just making up this dark story to make it look like the character he played consumed him, but that’s a big lie.
Natural/ Method hybrid ?
@@miguelvidalmartinez9456 That is preparation only to understand and build your character.
There is no better, it's just what moves you. 99% of viewers couldn't pick the difference if they were given random movies they didn't know to choose from and pick which was which
Exactly.
I feel they both have their places. If the movie centers more on the event, I would favor natural acting. If the movie centers more on the transition of the character, I would favor method acting.
I personally love both the Method Acting and the Natural, they are both equally good even though they have great differences. In one you're temporarily becoming someone else unaware of the real world around you, only living in the movie itself. In the other you are yourself fully aware of the real world around you trying to portray a character in the best way you can by being yourself. I personaly think you can use one of them, or even both.
9:45 Viola Davis wow… what a moving performance. Its not acting she is actually living the character and her emotions👏
Ugh
Method Acting is not walking around, 24/7, as the character, (as has been reported by so many erroneous articles over the years), it’s just what some actors did, who just happened to be Method Actors. Why did they do it? To help them ingrain, into habit, all the traits they chose for their character, so that they don’t drop any of those traits during filming.
Method Acting is pretty much just asking basic questions about the character one is to portray such as “Who Am I?” “What do I want?” “Where am I from?” “What am I feeling & why?” etc. With these questions, an actor can begin to form an idea for the portrayal of the character, whose lines they are reading in their script.
Basically, all acting today, derives from Konstantin Stanislavski’s Method, whether an actor considers themselves Method or not. Influenced/inspired by Robert DeNiro? Method-trained. Al Pacino - Method-trained, Marlon Brando, James Dean, - Method trained. Stanislavsky merely posed what are actually just common sense questions that one might ask of a new acquaintance, and it helped actors enrich their portrayals, psychologically.
As the Method was brought to America in the 1930’s, from the Moscow Art Theatre, different people who taught it, added theories, or emphasized certain aspects of the Method over others. Lee Strasberg was the most famous Method teacher and he emphasized affective memory (or emotional recall) to strengthen an actor’s work. Others may have emphasized intention of the character, or encouraged practical experience in a job, that the character does for a living, in order to bring added authenticity to the role, as well as understanding more about the character. Today, such an approach is, again, common sense, and something some directors would insist their actors do, before the actor would even make that decision for themselves. It’s really unfortunate that “Method” almost seems to be a dirty word these days, as its influence, whether direct or not, has greatly fueled the growth of acting as a true art form, and certainly raised the bar of excellence in performance.
Yes this video is quite bad, this person really understands the art and studying of acting and just what it means when one is method.
Thank you! This narrator is entirely incorrect in saying that method requires the actor to stay in character.
@@grey.fox. honestly, I think a lot of the misconception came from journalists, who sensationalized the more extreme examples of research that certain actors undertook, in order to feel informed enough about their character to free their imagination on set. Those examples were so focused on, by the press, that everyone, (even younger generations of actors), came to believe that those examples were what the Method was.
@victorcornet21 You are right, but it also comes from people who scoff at artistry or creative temperaments in general. The demonization of filmmaking has been largely lumped together with everything being out of touch Hollywood when really it's still an art form
@ Yes, that’s a good point. There definitely is negativity coming from that direction as after all, it’s not going to cure cancer or solve homelessness, but I appreciate, as a paying audience member, those actors who care so much about doing their job to the best of their ability. Even if the movie is mediocre, a great actor is always worth watching. It’s nice they care.
Artists of other disciplines can also be among the harshest critics of actors and acting, especially film acting. Movies are just too popular to be art, apparently, and “the only thing actors do is just memorize lines.” 🙄
"Techniques are just... well techniques. Neither one is better than the other. Perform! That's what matter, by what you prefer the most."
Someone who knows nothing about acting the first clip made me truly appreciate his acting i was so invested ...seems like method acting need lots of work but its really worth it..
2:11 How on earth did that actor pull off that scene 😳 Those thin lines between Valour vs Fear, Hope vs Despair.... Everything is so perfectly nailed by his Face, Eyes and Voice 👏👏 Just curious to know how many takes did he go through to find that accurate balance between those emotions which could easily slip out of hands and could've gone scattered anywhere 🙄
he actually improvised that scene, the written speech was way shorter.
I don't quite understand why you contrast Method and "natural acting". Method is Lee Strasberg? And what is Stella Adler? Sanford Meisner? Michael Chekhov? To summarize, all these are different schools that originated from Stanislavsky, who wanted to make acting "natural". Please clarify what you are talking about.
Agreed. He kinda plays fast and loose with the term Method. And I have never heard "Natural Acting" as a term before (at first, I thought he meant Naturalism... like from the late 1800s, which was basically Realism on steroids, but since he chose examples from films all the acting is more or less "realistic"). I mean, he gets the point across, but he does kinda run roughshod over some rather nuanced concepts.
@@DribbleFunkI still don’t know, for certain, what newspaper & magazine articles mean when they say, “so-and-so is a great naturalistic actor.” I thought I came to understand what they meant, but now I think the writers of those reviews are just as clueless about that term as the journalists who screwed up the definition of Method Acting. Now days, even actors think “Method Acting” is never breaking character, and going to crazy extremes. It’s nuts.
Right, I think this video is confusing acting styles (naturalistic vs. non-naturalistic) with acting methods (Method acting vs. technical acting), even though it is easy to conflate it. This either or thing is too reductive.
For instance, Daniel Day-Lewis isn’t a traditional Strasberg Method actor, that would be Al Pacino, who uses emotional memory. Instead, Day-Lewis employs classical theatre training and an extreme version of Adler’s technique, using external actions to drive emotion while staying in character off set for consistency. Denzel Washington, on the other hand, separates himself from his roles, combining classical training with Adler-like methods, which aligns with her philosophy. Anthony Hopkins fits the video’s "natural acting" label, as he doesn’t stay in character off set, and is highly technical, but I just find the definitions of this video confusing, as there is nothing natural about his acting. A more accurate comparison would focus on Method acting vs. technical acting rather than reducing Method acting to staying in character all the time.
@@baishihua what is technical acting though? What is considered technique? I had an acting teacher who shared with us exercises from the various well-known Method teachers: Meisner, Strasberg, Adler to give us a broad range of exercises that might help free up our imagination and ability to riff off one another. How is Technical Acting different?
@@victorcornet21 Granted, framing this as "this vs. that" isn’t the ideal way to break it down (since in some sense, everything that works is a technique). Technical acting focuses on external tools like gestures, voice, character and text analysis, and imagination. These exercises are external with no emotion inherently ingrained in them, making the approach more consistent because it relies on craft and control, great for many days of repeated performances in theatres. By contrast, Method acting revolves around emotions, using techniques like emotional immersion and recalling personal memories to drive actions. This can feel more authentic and emotionally powerful, more suitable for movies.
Strasberg’s Method is the most traditionally "Method" approach, following an "inside-out" process. Meisner and Adler, however, lean more toward technical acting, emphasizing actions driving emotions-an "outside-in" approach.
Of course, it’s not strictly one or the other, as most acting schools blend a bit of everything.
Depends on the actor. I prefer Natural Acting overall, but Daniel-Day Lewis is a very great actor.
I can't help but to find someone who can shift between himself and an acting role in the blink of an eye more impressive as an actor than someone who must remain in a role to feel it.
I love both method acting and natural acting you can use both to get the work done. I love acting very very much I just love to be on set acting to tell a real story
Realistically speaking its hard to tell the difference, except for when i saw Leonardo and Adrian. Those two were absolutely insane
I am not into acting. I never watched any acting tutorial video before.
But, somehow this video popped up and I clicked in, and I loved watching it.
It's not bad to learn something new sometimes, is it ?
7:50 that kid in the movie "brothers" acted better than most of hollywood actors.
I think what actors should take away, is not one way is better than the other, its about discovering what you need to get into your own character.
Method Acting: Crazy people or disturbed people
Natural Acting: Can't tell you're acting.
pretty good take on it
@@chevylevi7stupidest take ever...
I feel like there's a fine line in which some roles were great because the method acting allowed an already talented actor to enbody a role they couldn't have naturally played however, I also do believe that method acting allows for less skilled actors to pretend that they can when in reality if they were only allowed to naturally act they couldn't. TL;DR: I feel like actors who are great at natural acting can use method acting for some roles. Unskilled actors should practice natural before trying method.
Henry Thomas is STILL a great actor - he’s having a nice third act of his career right now and I’m really enjoying his work.
The first time I watched TDK and Joker appears I was hooked by him and believe in every words he says and rooting for him to win that's how great Heath Ledger performance is
It's never about the approach, it's whatever works for the actor. Secondly, you can't compare performances - not in a serious discussion, which I can see this is not.
Gary Oldman --- method actor extraordinaire (like Daniel Day Lewis). He can play any role and just becomes it. He changes the costumes, can be anything. But. Gene Hackman as a character actor (natural actor?), often plays the same type of role, lawyer, colonel or sheriff . . . but YOU JUST CAN'T take your eyes off of him when he delivers his lines . . . he just OWNS the screen (same as Jack Nicholson). Both types of acting have something amazing to contribute.
Gary Oldman is not a Method actor.
He was the best Lex Luthor.
I preferre method acting when I admire the character and want to retain some of the traits in my real life
To me, it's like comparing Michelangelo to Picasso. They all have their own kind of beauty. But, personally, I like natural. Method is realistic, but natural is way more dynamic.
I feel like it’s kinda un fair comparing these different characters and scenes.
inspiring to see this
Been practicing a bunch of short monologues and it changed my viewing experience completely
Natural all the way for me! I want to bring my own heart and personality to the character I transform to!
Great video! Very much love Daniel Day Lewis, however...so many great talents.
Some roles require method acting because they are difficult and complex and the actor needs to feel them so much. characters like Joker and Szpilman and Daniel Plainview. in the end the quality of acting depends on the actor and his role. Some roles need natural acting because their depth appears through that.
Method acting v. natural acting seems like someone who is empathetic v. sympathetic.
One performance brings a person down to that level so they are in the character's shoes and understand what they are experiencing whereas natural acting is sympathetic in the sense where they feel the emotions of their character but see it through their own eyes and not the character. The major difference is that one is more emotionally draining than the other
The fact is GREAT ACTORS come from BOTH schools of acting.
Jeremy strong is also a method actor, he's amazing ❤
I respect the effort that method actors do for certain roles. Christian Bale in The Fighter might be one of the best examples, to the point where standing right next to the real Dicky Ekerlund, the two were practically interchangeable. However, it takes a genuine talent for a natural actor to be able to get into a role before the director says “action” and to put that on pause when the director says “cut”. The energy involved in that is underrated.
One thing you didn’t mention in this video that I hope you’ve mentioned in the other videos is the tool of “sense memory”. That seems to be the key for natural actors to be able to draw out some of those emotional performances you used as examples, especially from Denzel Washington and Viola Davis. The ability to draw from actual life experience and channel it into their role, it’s a catharsis that makes the role more personal without completely immersing into it the way a method actor would. That’s why Viola’s tears and pain are so moving in that scene, because they come from a real place, and it makes you appreciate not just her performance, but her as a person.
Sense memory came from Lee Strasberg’s version of the Method.
Denzel improvised that scene from Training Day..
Theirs an argument Neither one is better than other. But theirs argument one method of acting might better suited for a particular role. For example if an actor is doing a major biopic where has to play a real life person. He might have do deeper dive of that historical figure and to really capture and keep hold of that version of the figure for long periods of time until the shoot ends. Going Method might be the way to go if the actor is afraid losing the essence of the figure their playing if they don’t stay in it
You whatever you need to use to get the job done. I had the same argument about writing: Outline v No outline. I write without an outline because it allows me to develop the story organically. I trust that when I sit down, god will deliver the words to me. But that’s me. Some people work better with a guideline to keep them on track. Do you👍🏿.
One of the best monologues I ever seen was Stellan Skarsgård's Monologue in Andor S01E10. I was completely blown away. Stellan's performance and delivery, the writing, all at the point of perfection in my humble opinion. Check it out if you have not seen it. You will not regret it.
I don't know which is better but the the first guy Daniel Day Lewis is a very good actor for sure.
Natural Acting definitely! Hey man I'm new to the channel and I've always been really good with voices/impressions and stuff. I always thought of becoming an actor growing up I even took some classes but that years ago. So I'm trying to get the ball rolling again and get better at the craft can you give me some critical pointers to Use and to Watch out For and what to do to keep the Tools Sharpened? Much Love and God Bless Ya'll
8:20 this kid is the best actor in this entire video.
Nah bro , it's McKenna grace from gifted
Daniel day lewis obviously smokes that kid ... if you dont see it your blind ..
There’s so many different aspects to each one it’s not even comparable.
Ppl on set said Heath went back to being normal after each scene was done. So idk if he was actually method acting. Maybe it was a combination, but from stories it seems as if he was doing Natural acting.
Micheal Jai White said that Heath Ledger wasn’t method acting and that they’d talk and have a laugh on set.
Method actors can break character.
I was in plays in high school even got a standing ovation for my role in the play they did Little Women. So I like Natural acting cause I like that in the moment type of vibe. But this video was really good. Method acting I like it too BUT I'm not that good! LOL
Well natural acting does show convencing good, intence emotions. Emotions you can empathy with the character. But method acting shows exact emotions the character going through in tiny bit details.
Reminds me of the famous interaction between Dustin Hoffman and Lawrence Olivier on the set of The Marathon Man, Dustin was having trouble getting into character, and Olivier simply said, My boy, why don't you just learn how to 'act'?
That method acting hit crazy
Method acting is just a deeper study of the character.
It's like the difference between studying some problem in construction engineering from books and 3D models vs. going into the actual building with a real sample of the problem and actually touching it, feeling it, knoking on the walls to feel the vibration, etc.
That "feeling" is an extra bit of information that you wouldn't get otherwise.
Now, of course, the main thing is not the method of studying, but the skill and talent. Daniel-Day Lewis doesn't "need" method acting to deliver a oscar-winning performance, hes an amazing actor, period.
It's the same the other way around, there are plenty of "less good" actors that aren't going to be any better just by going the method acting route.
One thing that Ive noticed with both the approaches is that, Natural acting works best when an actors plays a character closer to the life around us, whereas method acting on the other hand is much preferable while playing characters coming from a much complicated background, characteristics etc etc.. Choice of approach "may" also depend on whether the film is Plot centric or Character centric.
It comes down to whatever works to release the best work from an individual actor. I always viewed the different styles as classical acting (the British style), Stanislavsky's method, and Meistner method.
The modern day method is very different from its roots. That said, it is an easy way to get more practice in. I think that's it. You get used to the way of talking, moving and generally embodying the character.
Anthony Hopkins doesn't use the method but he also puts in the hours. He reads every line 250 times. He says that gets him from learning the lines to feeling the character come out through it.
So, it sounds like hard work pays off, no matter how you approach it.
I think good actors, regardless of their approach, feel the emotion and act on it. Perhaps for some method acting allows them to do that more effectively, but at a high cost. With practice, we can easily feel an emotion without also invoking the mental baggage and story that we ordinarily attach to that emotion. Which means we can also move out of that emotion quickly at the end of a scene. It's the stories we tell ourselves about an emotion that keep us trapped within it and causes us harm, not the emotion itself.
All the Natural actors you showed are feeling the emotion in the moment, they're not just acting it, however, they are also not attached to that emotion. Personally, I agree that this always makes for a better performance. This is because while they can feel it and draw on it, making their acting more convincing,, they are not 'possessed' by the emotion so can therefore make rational artistic decisions.
Acting that always feels contrived to me is when the person acts the emotion without feeling it, no matter how well done, it always feels wrong. There are too many unconscious micro expressions etc that come along with an emotion that aren't possible to convincingly act (at least on camera, in a theatre this wouldn't be a problem) and therefore comes across as incongruent and makes the performance unconvincing. Granted not everyone will pick up on this, my husband doesn't but he openly admits his EQ is somewhat lacking.
I'm a natural actor. The first times I had to do a presentations, skits, play acting as part of a presentation people have told I sound real and believable. I do sad and angry really, really well😂😂😂
I'm an Actor and I go with natural acting whenever I'm on set the role I'm to play I'll just switch into the character automatically 💯🎬
Hey man. Thank you very much for sharing these experiences with us. I believe natural acting more authentic and believable . Also is faster to connect emotionally with character but I believe this needs life experience ( hardship situations, happiness, anger and fears which someone can use all these different emotions to connect with character.
Talent is the key. Nothing, no method can teach that.
1:18 he can play Dutch from RDR
REALLL
I like natural better but I might use method in the future. Either way, I believe one should use anything that is useful to them.
Surely it’s whatever gets you to your best performance. Isn’t that what preference is all about. As long as you are committed to the route, you will reach your destination.
okay kid you got the job
Most actors and actresses are the same person in every film. It’s unique when you see one who doesn’t
Just thinking of John Q has me in tears 😭
I think it depends on the actor and the specific kind of role you're talking about. If I were an actor I'd go for natural acting, I personally like better when an actor plays a role naturally in a way that you think you're seeing the real person and not the character. I don't like overacting and fakeness that can be frequently spotted with method acting, or even worse in drama theater acting where it's all fake and you see that they are pretending.
Yea, it's more about the actor and the outcome. Daniel Day-Lewis utilized the method responsibly and respectably for the crew. Natural acting has phenomenol outcomes too. The best for many would probably be somewhere inbetween, just enough to be immersed.
I think looking at a performance comparison is like looking at 2 different houses built with different tools and asking me which house I prefer based on the tools. Ultimately it questions the idea that there is a "better way" when really, 2 beautiful houses were built and there would be millions or billions of people happy to live in either.
I feel like Tom Hardy is constantly overlooked. Guy’s range is crazy
I'm just honestly convinced that method acting still gives stronger performances than natural acting. However, I completely agree that method acting takes too much out of the actor and natural acting overall seems just fit enough for the job
I'm not an actor but I prefer method acting. It has a higher emotion and expression than natural acting. But if I'm an actor, I'll start from method acting to learn natural acting.
I was surprised you didn't recount that famous anecdote about Laurence Olivier commenting on Dustin Hoffman while they were filming Marathon Man.
Personally natural acting feels better for me as it feels more genuine
This debate is messy and immeasurable. We wouldn’t say Christian Bale is completely method because he uses weight as a huge factor in building character, the same for Austin Butler and his Elvis accent. There is no dividing line between Method actors and Natural actors, it’s a difference in the tools an actor uses to create a character. Natural actor doesn’t even make much sense as a true acting style. Method is based in a couple different training methods, but Natural isn’t clear at all.
In Sidney Poitier’s autobiography “Measure of a man”, he says that acting is real life in practice! Boy that made look at acting different! I always looked at acting as lying and make believe! Now I have a new perspective on it!
Natural acting!! All the way!! It takes more creativity.
Also how would you suggest i direct new actors who have a month to prepare to film?
It really depends. If you’re able to rehearse before filming, you’ll get a good sense of who they are, how they take direction and the type of direction that works well for them.
Any direction you give, keep it simple and direct. They need to understand what you are wanting.
Along with this YOU need to practice being able to give constructive changes which are easy to understand. It’s not just on them, it’s also on you.
You first need to have a laser-focused vision of what it is you actually want. If you have that, then you should be able to explain it in the purest terms.
That heath Ledger performance made me even forget I was watching this UA-cam video it made me think I was watching the full movie.
As an actor I kind of do a mix of a lot of things . Which is Natural , Method, Action Verbs , and laban efforts . My approach is like a gumbo just a mix of different things😊
Yes, I do prefer natural acting also method acting. How come you didn't include Robert De Niro?
While I agree that you don't need method acting to be a great actor, it's a great way to have a deeper connection with the character you are playing, as long as it's done in a relatively healthy way.
All Natural acting clips were amazing 😢
Denzel is a method actor. You should seek the training day script vs what he actually did with it. That ENTIRE scene was ad libbed.
SHU program line was insane.
Nice content 👍
the difference in between styles is clear as day and night
So from what I understand, you're saying that natural acting uses the actors natural abilities, looks, and other natural inclinations like accent to the scenes advantage while in method acting they have to change to suit their character?
In natural acting it's like natural to those people who does that, but method acting involves pure dedication and so many layers and maybe can provide so many emotions and meanings with deep effects to audience. But it's healthy for an actor to choose natural, artists who prefer method acting they go through lots of emotions and sometimes reach or cross the borders of sanity to bring out new things for the character, story, audience, these people are risking their lives. They could maybe have a normal life using natural way but they prefer method even though they know they break their mental balance.
I have never knew that Denzel Washington role, that makeup and mannerisms were something new from him. I didn't know what that movie is but he is so different from all his movies. Well I liked this video, good analysis :)
Training Day
neither method or natural are good / bad approaches. the main things are how well do you know the character and the given context surrounding a scene? also, how deeply can you get into the character during any given scene?
if you can accomplish both these things, either approach will get you oscar nods.
There are no two ways of being acting such as method acting or natural acting. I mean those are natures of some acting capacity... We can't select wisely each as we think about it as an aproache...
As we think to act some which seem to day to day works and then what is the different between being acting on naturaly or keeping a camera secretly by filming on when we living everyday.?
I think the true advantage of method acting is for when an actor has to play a character so different from their natural self that they need to become another person in their mind to give a convincing performance as that character. Denzel and Viola in these examples probably had enough of a personal connection to these characters to give a convincing performance without needing embody it off set.