"Method Acting" vs Method Acting Part 1

As of late, my mind has been preoccupied with "Method Acting" and the negative tones that seem to inexplicably accompany the term.


A couple months back, I was pompously asked by a fellow performer what I think of "Method Acting". I answered honestly, "Method acting is a tool, how it's used is up to the individual actor." She rolled her eyes and scoffed at me, deriding my thoughts on the matter. I realize in retrospect, we were talking about two completely different things.

The term "Method Acting" commonly thrown around is a negative stereotype of an acting style where the actor becomes the character. In a field where we, the performers, are out to portray the truth; it's no bad thing to become the character. Why is this method viewed in such a negative light? Monday evening I witnessed the phenomena that created the negative stereotype.

During rehearsal, an actor who was pegged as a "Method Actor" charged in, without the knowledge of the director, in character. Why is this negative (besides the fact he charged into a rehearsal uninvited)? The character he was portraying is an unhinged killer and rapist.

I will admit, he is a phenomenal actor. The energy he brings to the character legitimately fills the rest of the cast with fear. During the scenes, his energy fueled the rest of us to bump up our performances. However between scenes he remained in character. Initially I respected his choices; but when I needed to communicate with him for the sake of safety, he refused to acknowledge me at all.

To clarify why I felt the need to communicate with him for the sake of safety: we were improvising a scene which required physical violence. I wanted to know what his limits were, what he is comfortable with and what he absolutely will not tolerate. Basic safety questions so neither of us get seriously injured. Something that should be discussed, right? According to him, I did not exist as the actor and as the character I was to be ignored. Despite my admiration for his talent, he lost any and all respect I had for his skill by his refusal to drop character and communicate with fellow actors and the directors. It is this phenomena, this refusal to drop character, that created the negative term "Method Acting".

Why the refusal to drop character? Does this mean he's more committed to the art? Does it make him better than the rest of us like he claims to be? He actually did say this when he charged in. Additionally he threw a chair across the room, flung someone's script in their face after ripping it out of her hands, and violently accosted the female director. So does his refusal to drop character and drastic actions make him a better actor then the rest of the cast?

NO! It makes him less professional! His refusal to drop character is like the actions of a petulant child who is relishing in throwing a temper tantrum because he knows for certain he can get away with it. In his mind, his actions could all be excused because he was still "in character".

To return to the initial question: "What do I think of "Method Acting?"

I do not condone the self indulging actions of actors who gave birth to the negative stereotype and find them to be astronomically unprofessional. However I stand by my initial statement about method acting: it is a tool within the arsenal of the actor.

Which then begs the question: "What is method acting?"

A topic such as method acting (the techniques) deserves more than a simple blurb on a new blog in its infancy. It deserves a much more in depth look in another post, but perhaps another day.

In the mean time: What do you think of the actions of the "Method Actor" and the refusal to drop character? Are his actions, indeed, unprofessional or do you think I made a rash judgment out of fear? What are your thoughts on the negative stereotype of  "Method Acting"?

I look forward to reading your thoughts on the matter. Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts!