There are four key components to the method and its portrayal, the first of which is 'new ease' or naturalness on stage, they should be able to use their bodies freely and express themselves through movement in non symbolic ways that allow them to simply be their character. This was in direct defiance of the acting of the time during Strasberg's early days in theatre. The acting of the time was often described as aristocratic, this is characterised by very clear diction and correct postures and gestures. This was very stylish and had a certain swagger to it but for the most part was very clearly artificial. Strasberg however, aims to give actors freedom, their movement should not be defined by the conventions that theatre sets for them but should instead be a free expression of the character they are portraying. This comes from a wider idea which aims for the complete portrayal of truth on the stage, to give a slice of a real world that has been created by the producer of the play and feels real to the audience. Aristocratic acting then not only appeared to be artificial, it also created artificial meanings, anything that was created in the actors portrayals was therefore inauthentic and by extension not a genuine expression of their intention. As a response to this component, Strasberg would defy conventions by giving actors roles which they were not physically optimised for, which is what commonly occurred in theatre, rather than basing it upon acting skill. This made the actors awkward and rough in comparison to traditional aristocratic acting but it did make them more free to create genuine expression. This freedom of expression made a fundamental shift in performance, when we see an actor being 'awkward' it serves as sign that they are engaging with the world of the character rather than striving to impress the members of the real world, this is key to a realistic performance and a portrayal of truth.
(Master and apprentice- Al Pacino and Lee Strasberg on set of Godfather 2)
The second key component of The Method is the expression and creation of the character's 'inner life'. The basis of this component is that the actor must create and maintain a sense of reality surrounding their character. This focus means that Strasberg performances are punctuated with dense minute details that evidence and highlight the creation and implementation of this fake world that the character inhabits. These are details like facial expressions, vocal inflections and nuances of gesture. All of these subtle details serve as sign posts for the internal mind and world of the character and the actor expresses these just as they would in real life away from cameras and audiences. To put an example of this with the explanation: in The Godfather 2 the moment before Michael slaps Kay Adams, we see his eyes dart around and his lips quivering, the reason for this, the genuine rage inside of Al Pacino because at this point he is Michael Corleone and within the world of Michael Corleone his is irate at Kay for (what he views as) killing his son, the hard part in this I would imagine for Al is to stop himself actually hitting her because the rage is genuine, it would make sense that he would want to lash out. That being said I am probably doing Al Pacino a disservice by even suggesting he may lose control, the man is a model professional after all.
The third key component to this whole process is heightened emotionalism, while it can be said that this is similar to the second component of the internal life, it is probably more accurate to say that one derives from the other. This component comes around to a system which Strasberg uses to create 'true emotion' and this system is called the "emotion memory exercise". To explain this system we must first understand Strasberg's three types of memory (of which one gets split another two times): Mental memory, remembering a fact, physical memory, knowing how to carry put tasks like walking and tying laces, and finally affective memory, which comes in two halves: Analytic memory, which deals solely in physical sensations which was used in Strasberg's tasks of handling imaginary objects which is deigned to get actors engaged with creating imaginary worlds. The second half is emotion memory, this is the ability to draw upon and mould emotionally memories so that they may draw upon them as the basis of their performances. These memories are intended to be drawn upon as experiences not as facts. What is meant by this is that instead of saying "It was cold" one would say that "My hands felt cold" this draws attention to how it made you feel and from this the emotional and physical conditions of the scenario can be drawn upon during a performance. Performances of this manner will therefore deal with strong emotions rather than a time when an actor felt a little happy they will draw upon a time of great joy and recreate that strong emotion, this means Strasbergian performances can be characterised by their strong emotional responses and portrayals which is what component three is all about. This does however, mean that at first glance these performances may seem implausible and unnecessarily over the top, however, this spontaneity and passion shows an inner self in the character which makes them psychologically readable and thus much more believable from an audience stand point.
The fourth and final component doesn't particularly have a name but the gist of it is the disconnect from script and character. Allow me to explain this, actors like Brando and Dean were often criticised for their mumbly performance and seemingly odd pronunciations and stutters. However, after Strasberg became more accepted in the mainstream it was realised that in fact this was not an issue with the quality of the actor, but rather this was signifying something bigger than what the words could portray, an inadequacy in the the quality of words to display an emotion or feeling. You see it is a very human thing to be lost for words or to wrestle with the correct words for a scenario. If a character knows exactly what to say in every scenario and has no issues with elocution then they appear to be very one dimensional and they do not come across as genuine in the slightest. Now I am not suggesting that an actor should stutter over every word or deliberately deliver lines badly, what I mean is that genuine emotion is key and this is conveyed through real human utterances. This is why improvisation is such a big deal for Strasberg as it shows a unison between actor and character as they are able to speak and act in character as though the person is organic and real. This is equally useful because it adds depth to a production where it otherwise may not exist. If we return to the Godfather example from earlier (and ignore the slap that follows) we can just from the actors performance understand his moral code, his emphasis on family and his disdain for his wife, all from a subtle movement on his face. Now, is this good acting from a aristocratic point of view, probably not because it doesn't follow any of their conventions as they would prefer some form of gesture to signify anger and probably some accompanying words. This is why Shakespeare productions are often problematic for Strasbergian actors, this is because the script and delivery are somewhat set on what they can be and as such there is not much call for the kind of acting Strasberg pioneers, Shakespeare is very much of the aristocratic style with long flamboyant prose and symbolic excessive gestures. This then has been a description of Strasberg's method and method acting, this is widely the most used acting system by top actors and as such it was important for me to grasp if I am to understand what a 'good' performance from these standards is.
No comments:
Post a Comment