Natural Acting Versus Method Acting

[Razard86]

I'm not an expert on this topic, but I believe I have a reasonable opinion on this topic. Method Acting is basically a real life character transformation. You don't put the costume down and go back to normal life, you become the character and live life as them. The purpose is to transcend acting, and for it to be authentically "YOU." The cost can be to high as Heath Ledger for example is thought to have killed himself because of the psychological toll it took to become the Joker. 

With that said I think a better term to refer to Method Acting would be Authentic Acting. Also the person in the following video doesn't realize, that the best Natural Actors.....aren't acting. That is the power of Authenticity at work. When someone really places themselves in a role and BECOME IT, it's not fake. 

So to me these are just fake distinctions, the goal is Authenticity they just needed different approaches to reach the same result.

[Razard86]

A good video about Method Acting.

 

[Schizophonia]

@Razard86 Joe Dispenza explains he cures people and triggers synchronicities in their lives for some reasons by manking them changing their persona.

 

Edited Tuesday at 01:46 PM by Schizophonia

[Jannes]

14 hours ago, Razard86 said:

Also the person in the following video doesn't realize, that the best Natural Actors.....aren't acting. 

No I disagree actually. I think method acteurs are getting close to not acting but natural acteurs to it differently. 

I do some amateur acting myself so the nature of acting is often an object for my inquiry. And I haven't figured it out really.

What I can say is people often get roles close to their character so the jump isnt that big. A confident guy with a big ego will easily play the bad guy and will struggle to play a weakling and vice versa. I think thats true for both natural acting and method acting. 

I personally never did extreme method acting but for some roles I got a little more into it then others. When you really get into it, it can be really tiring. When you do natural acting it can actually give you energy. Its insane. It's something other people also report that they can get energy from acting. 

One time I played a collapse naturally with very little energy required. I just knew intuitively how I would have to look with my eyes/ avoid eye contact, how to distance myself, how to make the right pauses and everything just intuitively without effort. It's like I just tapped into intuitive intelligence. I was shocked about how light it was to play that role and how instantly I could get out. 

 

Method acting might be forming your ego into a role while natural acting might be letting go of your ego and letting your intuition take over. If both go to extremes, they touch. 

Edited Tuesday at 04:08 PM by Jannes

[Nilsi]

I always saw myself as an artist without a craft - until I discovered Stanislavski's Method.

It gave me the philosophy and tools to see my character as a work of art - to understand it, dominate it, shape it, and unleash it with unrestrained imagination.

As a thinker, Stanislavski is criminally underrated beyond the world of professional acting.

[Nilsi]

15 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I always saw myself as an artist without a craft - until I discovered Stanislavski's Method.

It gave me the philosophy and tools to see my character as a work of art - to understand it, dominate it, shape it, and unleash it with unrestrained imagination.

As a thinker, Stanislavski is criminally underrated beyond the world of professional acting.

Bloomsbury released a top-tier print edition of Stanislavski's original trilogy in its Revelations series - one of the best-curated publishing collections out there.

Highly recommend checking it out!

Edited Tuesday at 08:18 PM by Nilsi