What are the *best* acting methods?

Question

I heard of Stanislavski, S. Adler, the Meisner thing, Uta Hagen and Strasberg. Is there anything else? Is there any more-concrete methods? What was Orson Welles trained in? Thanks in advance

I don't know why this damn yahoo thing doesn't allow me to add any more posts in this thread but I wanted to say something as an answer to what you said (especially ... Morris) : Stella Adler, Stanislavski and all that bunch of "methods" do tend toward being the character and I think this is not correct, an actor should play the character, be in control. All that emotion stuff, belief etc just make you miss the point. That's what I think anyway. Now someone said Orson Welles went to an acting school. Now, if the Stella Adler studio etc aren't schools, then what is an acting school? Because that's the place I'd like to go. To become an actor, I get the impression I gotta go to a school, which annoys me cause I don't like those "methods". If there's places where you learn technique technique and technique please do tell me about it. Thanks a lot for answering anyway

Answer 1

It's not really a matter of one being better than another, it's whatever works best for you in any given situation. You can go to classes and study each of them and see which techniques or combo of techniques you feel the most comfortable with. You may even find that any given scene or role will work best with one technique or a combo...

Strasberg & Adler practice the Stanislavski method which is to try not to act but to react and be real. To be one's self and act as you normally would if this situation had happened to you in your own life.

Ms. Hagen believed in jumping into the sould of th echaracter and acting as that person would. She wrote a couple of books and there is a Master CLass on DVD featuring famous students who of course praise her technique.

The Meisner technique works off believe that first you must be able to improvise, then bring out your own emotions, then finally use the spontaneity of improv and your personal emotions to bring life to scripted text.

Oh, and Orson Welles got most of his training on the radio. He did not have a specific acting technique and was to my knowledge trained at an acting school. He was most concerned with vocal intonation. He would often think most about how if his voice went up on a certain line someone else's could go down on the next or vice versa. He thought about how it would sound.

Answer 2

Forget about Stanislavsky, Stella Adler and the rest.

The most concrete method is to BE the character, not play it. Orson Welles, Laurence Olivier, even "frivolous" characters like Groucho Marx knew the secret: connection.

You MUST connect on two levels: Character - you - audience.

What does this mean? Ah, this is where it gets a bit complex.

You must be able to put yourself in the character's shoes. If you're playing a mass murderer this does NOT mean that you should interview mass murderers or attempt to murder anyone. It simply means that you must apply your brains and your gut to figure out why anyone would be a mass murderer. Dr. Hannibal Lecter was one simply because he liked raw human flesh. Did Sir Anthony Hopkins show that in "Silence of the Lambs"? You bet. Did he interview any mass murderers? I can't find any evidence that he did.

The whole of human experience is in us. In our genes, in our cellular memory. Tap into it and we connect with audiences because cell calls to cell.

The methods of Stanislavsky, Adler, Meisner, et al. are but attempts to figure out how the real actor achieves what he does.

Answer 3

Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts in London, England.

Juillard, in New York City.

Answer 4

1: Know your lines
2: Tell the truth
3: Trust your director
4: Trust your fellow actors
5: Do not bump in to the furniture
6: Enjoy

The rest is just technique.