1.
Introduction
 |
| Debby Dewes - 4th Year Project |
According to Robert Lewis, author of Method or Madness, there are many
misconceptions and ‘fetishes’ about Method acting. Some of these come from
people’s own views based on little to no study of the technique, while others
come from misunderstandings or misinterpretations by ‘young’ (unthinking,
inexperienced) actors, while still others come from actors placing too little
or too much importance on certain aspects of the Method (Van Niekerk: Solutions to
Problems...Part #1). Whatever the case, fetishes are a
reality and it is important for Method actors to avoid falling into these
traps.
2.
Method Fetishes
2.1. Method
as the only answer
Many people believe that the Method is the
be all and end all of acting techniques, and that the only good actors are Method
actors. However, this is not true. As Lewis states: “...I know of great actors
who are completely unaware of it...” (Lewis, 1957:4). The problem
with this belief is that actors then tend to close themselves off from other
potentially beneficial creative processes. This is in contradiction to what
Lewis teaches when he says: “We must also study all new techniques, thus
constantly expanding our understanding of fundamental beliefs.” (1957:74) The reality is that there are many techniques for achieving realistic
and truthful acting out there, and although the Method works, it is important
to remember that it is just that, a method, a technique to get the job done and
should not be adhered to so religiously that it stumps creativity and
exploration. Stephanie van Niekerk references Lee Strasberg:
[The Method] is
not a ‘paint-by-numbers technique to be sheepishly followed by those who are
without talent, creativity and acting ability. Creating the character, telling
the story, playing not only the scene but also the intent (of the character and
the dramatist/script writer) is the actor’s job and can certainly be done
without using Method acting. (Van Niekerk: Idiot Winds)
Another problem with this belief is that
actors who fall into this fetish, may begin to see themselves as superior to
other actors and may behave as such to others, or even stop attempting to work
as hard because they think the Method will carry them through. No one likes a
know-it-all or worse, a lazy know-it-all and that means that actors with this
attitude may soon find themselves without work.
2.2. Method
as a curse
The flip-side to the above fetish is that
many people (usually non-Method people) see the Method as a curse to the
theatre. This fetish stems from various ideas. Firstly, people may believe that
the Method ruins theatre because the actors’ focus is inward, rather than on
creating a character or playing a scene. I will elaborate on this idea later.
Another idea is that the Method is limiting; that it can only be used for certain
types of roles but is meaningless for others. The biggest argument for this
comes in the form of ‘stylised theatre’ – that is to say works like
Shakespeare, pantomimes, farces and so forth – where the acting ‘needs’ to be
over-the-top. I say ‘needs’ because although acting in these kinds of plays
does require a certain ‘largeness’, that does not negate real feeling, instead,
“what the Method helps [actors] to do is to make what the character experiences
real, believable, truthful and honest.” (Van Niekerk: Idiot Winds). Lewis states: “...Method...is not only for serious playing.” (1957:58) The reality is that the Method is an all-encompassing technique that
addresses both emotional and physical aspects as well as working with (not
against or without) basic technical theatre norms. It is a flawed notion that
the Method hinders creativity and theatricality and is therefore useless in
certain roles. Lewis states: “The work that you have done in preparation [for a
role], the technique you have invested in your creation, should not be a
preventive. If it is, it is worthless.” (1957:58) He
also writes: “...the purpose of a
technique is to stimulate this creative process when you need it...as you need
it...” (1957:17) The point of using any
technique is ‘to free the spirit’ (Lewis, 1957:20) and if it
becomes a hindrance to performance (of any
genre) then it should not be used. Stanislavsky himself said: “If the System
doesn’t help you, forget it.” (Lewis, 1957:54) Then why bother
using any kind of technique at all? The problem comes in, rather, with the
actor’s inability to apply the techniques properly, than the method or
technique being flawed. If we look more carefully at the above quote from
Stanislavsky: “If the System doesn’t help you, forget it...But perhaps you do not use it properly.” (Lewis, 1957:54, own emphasis).
Finally, there is potentially a fear that
the Method cannot work in a fast-paced environment and is therefore a curse to
the actor in a television series or such. I remember that when I started using
the Method, I couldn’t see how it would be at all possible to prepare for an
hour in order to get ‘work’ in the film or television industry. But the reality
is that the longer you work on the Method and the more you understand how it
works, the less time you need for your body to respond to your ‘work’. Actors
who ask for motivations or spend hours in preparation and cannot think on their
feet and change their Method work accordingly either have a flawed
understanding of the Method, or have not spent enough time perfecting their
responses and techniques. That, then, is not the Method’s fault, but rather the
inexperienced actor’s, but this tendency brings the Method into further disrepute
with those who do not know much about it.
2.3. Method
equals mumbling
One of the biggest complaints about Method
actors is that they mumble. This, however, is not what the Method teaches.
Stanislavsky himself focused a lot on voice placement and projection (Lewis, 1957:4-5) as Lewis writes: “Stanislavsky...did not...decide to formulate a
system for mumbling...” (Lewis, 1957:5). In fact, he makes it
very clear that voice placement is critical to a good performance: “...you
should be able to place your voice where you want it for purposes of character.” (Lewis, 1957:43). The fact is that there are
many non-Method actors who mumble and many Method actors who don’t. So why,
then, does the Method illicit this belief? Lewis relates this inability by some
actors to articulate properly to the ‘fetish some people make of emotion’ (1957:67). He writes that there are two types of people with a fetish about
voice and emotion:
...people who think a beautiful voice or good diction
cannot be achieved if disturbed by real feeling and, conversely, those who
think real feeling cannot arise if it is disturbed by considerations of voice,
diction, or other problems of physical characterization. (1957:67)
This is to say that some actors incorrectly believe
that when they are expressing true emotion, they cannot (are incapable of)
speak with clear diction, pronunciation and adequate stage volume. This is a
complete myth. If they are truly incapable of doing so, it means they have no
control over their body and are swept away by their emotional response.
However, we all know that we are perfectly capable of controlling our bodies
and emotions in equal measure – we do it all the time in real life. It simply
means that the actor is too lazy to bother implementing theatrical necessities –
and by that I mean too lazy to concentrate on what needs to be done – to fulfill
a role completely. And a role is never complete if an audience cannot hear what
is being said. Talking properly does not automatically cause ‘indicating’ and
it certainly does not negatively influence emotional expression. So actors –
regardless of whether they are Method or not – need to be able to hone in their
concentration and willpower and embrace all their training and techniques to
perform properly. There is no excuse for mumbling. And it certainly isn’t
Method.
2.4. Method
as secretive
The reason why this fetish exists is
because there are many people who do not understand what the Method is. It also
relates to those actors that I’ve previously mentioned who believe that the
Method is the be all and end all of acting. Some people follow the Method as
though it were a religion; or a special cult for the ‘above-average actor’. Lewis
refers to them as the ‘True Believers (1957:6) and describes them
as: “...the insular ones. They feel part of a holy order, and all outsiders are
infidels.” (1957:6) They are the ones who religiously put into practice all that
Stanislavsky teaches, right down to only ever using the ‘correct’ terminology
(which I will address in more detail later), but can often fail in actually
creating ‘art’. As Lewis writes: “Dogma may be all right in some quarters, but
it doesn’t agree very well with artists...an artist’s study goes into his being
and then comes out some way, unconsciously, in his work.” (1957:8). The strict, dogmatic adherence to technique, then, makes the Method foreign and strange to those on
the outside.
There is truth in the fact that many Method
actors prepare for their work in private, and the techniques used in the Method
are mostly internal (such as affective memory) which does lend itself to a kind
of ‘secretiveness’. But the Method is not some mystical magic trick to make
actors act, and if people were more open to learning about what Method actors
do for preparation, they would find that many actors are willing to share
information and talk about what they are doing. Unfortunately the combination
of ‘strict adherers’ and ‘false prophets’ (those who claim to know the Method,
but don’t) aid in perpetuating this idea of secrecy.
2.5. Method
as ‘un-theatrical’
I have already touched on this fetish under
previous headings, but it is important to note that this fetish is one of the
biggest reasons for criticism of the Method. People believe that Method actors
cannot be theatrical due to their Method training. That these actors are so
focused on real emotion that they cannot deliver free expression, move around a
stage without being given reasons or play any roles that are ‘larger than
life’. This is false as Stanislavsky himself made the physicality of a role as
important as the inner life of the character. The easiest way to explain how
the Method can be used for ‘big’ roles is that the Method actor would do all
the physical requirements – the loud voice, and all the necessary ‘theatre’
acting – but then once he or she has completed that, they will find Method work
to add over the stylization that will make the character real and believable
even though they are big and theatrical. To illustrate this point, Lewis tells
the story the actor Jacob Ben- Ami. He compares his performance of a scene in The Living Corpse to the same scene
acted out by Alexander Moissi (a non-Method actor). He states near the end of
the story:
The effect that Moissi made was stunningly
‘theatrical’. It was a real physical thrill....The effect that Ben-Ami made
with different means was, I maintain, theatrical too. But it was not only
physically exciting; there was an internal thrill to it as well. (1957:12)
The reason for this difference was because
Ben-Ami managed to make the audience live inside the head of the character; to
feel tremendous empathy and terror for the character. That is not to say that
Moissi did not do a good performance, it was simply that there was a slightly
bigger gap between reality and the audience’s suspension of disbelief. This gap
was overcome in Ben-Ami’s performance due to his at once completely theatrical
approach, and his additional Method
work.Therefore, Method actors simply use the
Method to add another, beneficial, element or layer to the character.
Stanislavsky emphasises the importance of movement and technical training, and
those actors who disregard these elements needed for the art are not, then,
Method actors, but falsely claiming to be followers of a system they do not use correctly or understand.
2.6. Method
as ‘easy’
This fetish comes from that small group of
people who think that attending a short course or a few academic lectures on
the Method makes them experts. They then go out into the field and either claim
to be Method actors or open schools and call themselves Method
teachers/coaches. Lewis warns about this in his second lecture where he states:
I don’t want anyone hearing these talks to go out and
say they studied the Method with Bobby Lewis. And what’s worse, then go and
open a school! That sort of thing has been done, you know (1957:24)
He goes on to
describe actor training, and specifically Method training, as working on the same
principle as dance lessons. It’s all good and well to know the theory of how to
dance, but without constant, dedicated practice, you will never be a dancer (1957:24-25). While there are some aspects of the art of acting that can be
learned simply by attending theoretical lectures, the reality is that any
acting course needs to be practical.
Regardless of the technique an actor uses, they need to have actually studied
it practically as well as theoretically in order to be able to use it – acting
is action, and action is practical. The Method is the same as any other acting
technique, it needs to be practiced. But unlike a lot of other techniques out
there, it takes time to master. The technique of using technical ways of moving,
i.e. covering your eyes to show that you’re crying, holding your stomach while
you laugh, etc. will take a very short time to master. But the Method takes
years to understand and perfect. Therefore, the Method is not ‘easy’. It takes
lots of hard work, time and effort to perfect. A few classes here and there or a
sense memory exercise once in a while does not adequately equip you in being
able to use the Method. And the notion that it does causes many problems for
actors and is one of the greatest reasons for the Method having a bad name.
2.7 Method
as purely psychological/emotive
While
most of the fetishes discussed so far have been with regard to misinformation
or people outside of Method circles, this one pertains to strict Method
followers. These actors have often studied the Method – possibly even for years
– and believe in Stanislavsky’s technique. However, they have missed out on
something vital – the fact that acting is doing, not feeling. Part of the
reason why this might be the case is because there is a lot of emphasis placed
on the psychological and emotional responses and make-up of a character. And
most of the training in Method – such as with sense memory (affective memory,
personal objects, substitutions) – is related to the internal life of the
actor, and hence, character. The reason why there is so much emphasis placed on
training your instrument to respond to sense memory and creating an inner life
is firstly, because it takes a lot of time and practice for your body to learn
how to do this (Van Staden: A 4th Year Student...) Let’s
face it, most of us don’t need much training in how to walk across a stage –
our bodies are used to walking. But our bodies are not used to responding to
things that aren’t there. They’re not used to the concentration and dedication
needed to perform Method tasks. So more training in this area is required.
Secondly, in order to create a real and believable character, any actor –
regardless of whether or not they are Method – needs to have a basic
understanding of the psychology and inner workings and motivations of that
character. If the character is crying, the actor needs to determine why this is
the case, based on external and internal aspects. The Method aids an actor to build
this psychological background and form the needed emotional response and
realism.
But, and this is a big ‘but’, that is not
the only thing the Method teaches. Actors who wholeheartedly embrace the
Method as a good technique to use, but fail to see it as anything other than
psychological or emotive have, in essence, failed to understand the Method and
Stanislavsky’s teachings. In Method or
Madness, Lewis provides a handwritten table by Stanislavsky himself which
sets out all the necessary requirements of the Method with regard to fully creating a
character. One half of the table deals with creating the inner life of a
character (circumstances, beats, sentiments etc). It is interesting to note
that already ‘emotion’ only forms a small part of the complete inner process.
The other half – that is 50% -- deals
with a character’s external creation. That means the physical characteristics
and movements, voice placement, actor relaxation and so forth. 50% of character
creation deals with things like blocking, learning lines and physical
activities – looking up, looking down, walking away from another character,
holding hands, whatever. The point is that movement – action – is emphasized in
equal measure. Not only is it important for the actor to develop the external
for a character, but Stanislavsky also notes the importance of general focus on
physicality such as dancing, playing sports and so on in order to develop the actor; the person who needs to be able to play any number of characters. There
might be techniques out there that focus purely on the physical, while others
focus solely on the internal, but the Method is not one of those techniques.
Equal importance is placed on purely technical and action requirements as well
as psychology and emotion. It is unfortunate that promoters of the Method fail
to follow the teachings they believe in. If the originator himself did not
negate action, then why should his followers?
2.8. Method
terminology
This is another fetish that Method adherers
love to punt – the sacredness of terminology (Lewis, 1957:79). Lewis states that even Stanislavsky, who made the terminology,
sometimes forewent the term in order to create clarity, or simply because he
found another way of expressing his ideas. As Lewis says: “I was glad to see
that the Master could use improper terminology too – or was it simply that he
was not making a fetish of his own system!” (1957:71). Focusing
so much on ensuring correct use of words, could possibly lead to ‘outsiders’
seeing Method actors as pretentious. It also takes away from what the actor is
required to do, or covers up the fact that they are not actually doing Method
work: “They learned the terms, and then they used the terminology to cover
their own perceptions which were at times creative, but mostly merely
theatrical.” (Lewis,
1957:71) Yes, we all know that you have to act the
intent of a character, but if you accidentally use another word instead of
‘intent’, it’s not the end of the world. As Lewis states: ‘I myself don’t care
if you call it spinach, if you know what it is, and do it, because it is one of
the most important elements in acting.” (1957:29). The
reality is that words are just words, and if one person attaches the same meaning to a different word to what
the correct term is supposed to be, then they might as well use their word
instead because it will deliver the correct response or end result. Method
terminology is complex and important in aiding understanding of concepts within
the techniques and training, but it is dangerous to focus on the terms so much
that at the end of the day you miss out on what they are there for – to help
you to act.
2.9. Method
as too analytical (actors can’t play
the scene)
I’ve already spoken at length about the
fact that analyzing the psychology of a character, as well as the play as a whole, is
important. Analysis is crucial in acting. An actor needs to analyze their
character – their motivations, their relationships with other characters – they
need to analyze the words, the subtext of a script. They need to, in other
words, understand the script. But this is true for all actors, not just Method
actors. The problem comes in when actors focus so much on their character’s
internal responses and executing their beats correctly and ensuring that they
do their Method work that they fail to play the scene. Lewis states that this
‘wrong emphasis on certain aspects, at the expense of others’ can lead to
actors lacking any sense of rhythm or movement, and finding it difficult to
play ‘small scenes’ as they are too involved with the ‘crescendos’ (1957:77-78) Another problem is when the actor ‘over-analyses’, that is to say he
or she goes outside of the realms set within the play in order to make sense of
the play. Lewis refers to this as follows: “I feel that often not enough trust
is put in the play...A good play will also play a great deal of itself by itself if you will let it.” (1957:75) I remember in my first year of studies, that I struggled to ‘play
the scene’ and communicate effectively with my fellow actors on the stage. There
were so many things to concentrate on, that my focus was constantly drawn to
these things, or within myself, that I failed to do simple things like make eye
contact. My focus (and internal analysis) on technique and my own acting, plus
my ‘over-analyzing’ of a character and the play – instead of just using the
play as guidance enough – caused me to, at times, fail the play. This, however,
stopped once I was more comfortable with what I was doing Method-wise.
Therefore, this fetish exists because of, once again, the inexperienced actor
claiming to be able to do things that they can’t actually do.
2.10. Method
as ‘self-indulgent’
This fetish comes from the belief that the
Method is only focused inward. That is to say that people who know nothing
about the Method and the way it works, or those who apply it incorrectly,
believe that the Method is all about the actor. How the actor feels, how the
actor responds to things, how the actor can mould the character in his or her
image. There are many egocentric exhibitionists and narcissistic people in
this industry –some of them may be Method ‘practitioners’, but definitely not
all. A technique for acting cannot be blamed for any individuals’
self-obsession or delusions of grandeur – that is all the individual’s doing.
This fetish probably stems from the other fetish of actors focusing solely on
the psychological aspects of Method, but instead of applying it to fit the
character, they use it for self-exploration and expression.
There is nothing wrong with self-exploration
and self-expression; in fact, it is always good to have a healthy and whole
image of yourself as it will make you a better actor. And the desire to express
is what leads creative individuals into art forms in the first place. Van
Niekerk deals extensively with the idea that Method training can be used as
therapy (Van
Niekerk: Method Acting as Therapy) because through the
process of learning the Method, actors learn to know themselves. This is due to
exercises possibly highlighting past memories, self-perceptions and so forth
that might need to be dealt with, but that the actor was perhaps previously unaware
of.
I would like to digress here briefly to
discuss another fetish which is bred from this process – that the Method can
drive people crazy (Van Niekerk: Idiot Winds) or that it is
dangerous and possibly even damaging to individuals because serious matters are
dealt with in an unprofessional or incorrect manner. Now this may be true for
‘Method’ teachers who actually don’t know anything about how the Method should be applied and who may
force information out of their students, for instance. Method training, when
done correctly, may bring to light an issue for an actor, but that issue should
never be discussed or probed into by their coach. Instead, and especially if it
is traumatic, the actor is told to see someone who can help them – like a
trained psychologist. People who have had negative experiences with Method
training in this regard, have either had bad, unprofessional or ill-equipped
teachers, or they might simply be too scared to find out what lies inside their
psyche and this fear prevents them from having a positive learning experience.
As Van Niekerk writes: “Those who are too terrified of what they might find if
they become quiet and connected and therefore get to know themselves, usually
leave the course quickly.” (Van Niekerk: Method Acting as Therapy)
Now, back to the topic at hand: we have
established that inward focus plays an important part in acting training and
character preparation, but when you
are playing or preparing for a role, it is not the time to psycho-analyze
yourself, or to put yourself centre stage. It is about the character, the
script, the story. You, as a person, are insignificant. It is not about you because you are simply the vessel
through which the story comes to life. You don’t see a guitar stop a show and
tell the audience, ‘Look at me, I’m a guitar, I’m the reason you’re hearing
amazing music because I’m fantastic’, so why should the actor, who also happens
to be the instrument involved in acting, call attention to themselves in a
role? The Method, when studied and practised correctly, does not promote this
kind of self-indulgence. Everything you do as the actor is in order to tell
the story, and to create a completely different person or character that
fits the story. Any Method actor, or any other, worth their salt knows that the
point of acting is to tell the story. And the Method is there to aid that
process. Yes, the actor uses memories, emotional responses, people and so forth
from their past, yes, there is great emphasis placed on the psychology and
physical development of the actor, yes, there is time spent on inner focus in
the Method, but all that inner work is only ever applied to aid the scene, to
help the actor become the character, not the other way around. People who
(ab)use the Method for self-glorification, clearly miss the point of what
acting is all about and what Stanislavsky desired to achieve through the
techniques he developed.
2.11. Method
improvisation
Method teaches improvisation in order to
develop communication, quick decision making, scene development etc. in its
actors as well as to improvise given scenes with the actor’s own words, and
this is where the fetish comes in that Method improvisation takes away from
what the author originally intended for their script. Sometimes, in order to
get into the behaviour of a character, a Method actor (or director) may do the
scene they have learnt, but in their own words. That means that they ‘forget’
the script for a moment and simply focus on playing the scene. This technique
can be used if actors are struggling to find a motivation for their actions, or
to find new actions, or if the actors on the stage struggle to communicate
effectively, have a lack of chemistry and so on. The point of the improvisation
is two-fold. Firstly to fix whatever the problem might be by focusing
specifically on that aspect without the stress of being word-bound, and
secondly, to focus on maintaining the action of the scene. That is to say that,
although the words might not be the same as the script, the intents and purpose
of the scene remain the same. Once the problem is solved, the actors need to do
the scene again immediately with the scripted lines in order to remember the
solutions decided on and then be able to apply those to the actual script, using
the given words. Lewis states: “I believe it should be used sparingly and only
for certain definite results...you get real value from an improvisation because
you are working for a solution to a particular problem.” (1957:80-81). He says this because it is
easy for actors to use improvisation as a way of ‘doing-their-own-thing’,
instead of using the technique for the specific purpose it was designed for,
which is to solve acting problems in order to play the script. Lewis refers to
this as follows: “There is, in my view, the danger that, instead of achieving a
sense of ‘freedom,’ improvisation can lead to a looseness of form. It can lead
to playing ‘yourself’ at the expense of the character...” (1957:79) Actors are not meant to ‘do their own thing’, they are meant to
play the scene, using the words and actions provided for them by the writer.
And that is why people have problems with Method improvisation. However, if
managed correctly, the technique can be very effective. And, once again, just
because an actor feels led to improvise their lines, to let their emotions be
freely expressed apart from the script, doesn’t mean that the Method teaches
this kind of unprofessional behaviour. And it also doesn’t mean that only
Method actors do this. There are many actors who have never studied Method, who
will easily improvise their way through a scene because they think they can
write it better that the author. It’s not just a Method problem, and it
certainly is not encouraged by the Method to use improvisation unless it is used for a very specific
reason.
2.10. Method
characterization (animal exercises)
Stanislavsky developed animal exercises in
order to aid actors to develop their physicality and provide ways of externally
and visually creating a character. People with a fetish about the way Method
actors go about their characterization, once again, clearly do not understand
why animal exercises would be important. This, for me, is a very odd fetish to
have, because all techniques to a lesser or greater degree emphasize the
importance of the physical nature of a character. Once again, the reason for
this fetish may be because the Method actor is going to an ‘outside source’ for
inspiration instead of focusing solely on the script. Let’s say the script
calls for a character who is very big and loud and aggressive. Now let’s say
that the actor who needs to play this role doesn’t quite fit the part because
they are a bit short and their demeanour is naturally more refined. What animal
exercises allow the actor to do is reproduce movements that are representative
of these outward characteristics while still being able to be believable, real
and honest. They also provide ways to find less stereotypical movements that
would still be correct in their final analysis – what is called playing the
opposite of the obvious – the end result being what the script requires. If an
actor cannot simply provide needed physicality by themselves, then why can’t
they find external sources, outside of the information provided in the script,
in order to be able to produce what the script asks for? And, once again, many
non-Method actors use similar means of creating physicality.
The bigger issue, then, comes in when
animal exercises are not used for a specific purpose, or in a purposeful and
controlled environment. In essence, then, the people who have an issue with
Method’s animal exercises, probably have these issues for the same reason that
improvisation is frowned upon – there is no purpose and it takes away from the
requirements of the script. As Lewis writes:
I have seen people do [an animal] exercise for the
purpose of simply stimulating the imagination of the actor generally and I
think that is where all the funny
stories come from. I agree that you can go too far in that sort of thing if you
never apply the results practically. But if you have a specific objective in
mind, or something that you are actually going to use in a part and you know
how to incorporate it into acting, I think it is something that is as valuable
as any other kind of characterization work. (1957:83)
As with all Method fetishes, it is clear
that complete disregard of a technique should be questioned, but at the same
time, incorrect application of the technique may be the reason for the
misconception.
3.
Conclusion
As we can see, the biggest misunderstandings
and fetishes about the Method can be categorized under one main heading:
‘Method actors don’t play the script’. And, let’s face it, if you don’t play
the script you are not doing your job. But, as we’ve also established, actors
who cannot be heard, who get swept away on their emotions, who put themselves
before the character, who cannot think on their feet or who are unwilling to
accept any other forms of acting and get so hung up on terminology or technique
that they forget that acting is a creative art form, are either inexperienced,
if not completely unqualified, and should not call themselves Method actors. And actors who
use the Method for purposes other than to create a character and play the given
script – like promoting their own ego –or who find the work emotionally and
psychologically ‘damaging’- have not understood the purpose of the techniques
taught, or have been taught them incorrectly by someone who is not qualified to
teach Method. Fetishes are dangerous as they either limit the actor by creating
under or over emphasis of certain aspects; or create negative stereotypes which
prevent people from trying to learn the truth for themselves; or turn what
should just be seen as a helpful guide and aid for creative acting into a
cult-type religion with followers who worship the process and technique instead of
simply creating the end product, which is the art. There are a lot of
misconceptions out there and many unthinking, unrealistic, inexperienced
‘Method’ actors who perpetuate these false beliefs. It is, therefore, important
to always ensure the work is applied correctly at all times and know what to do to fix incorrect working methods. It is only then that these fetishes will stop.
4. Bibliography
a.
Lewis, R. 1957. Method or Madness? New York.
