Acting techniques and the Cinema

As a filmmaker I often come across a lot of different actors with different disciplines. I am sure there is allot of opinions out there on what is the best discipline, but I have to make my own opinion on the subject because as a person who makes films I often see lacking in performance on camera and in the edit room.


I know of many actors who gravitate towards film will only use the meisner technique.

Meisner Training is an interdependent series of exercises that build on each other. The more complex work supports a command of dramatic text. Meisner students work on a series of progressively complex exercises to develop an ability to improvise, to access an emotional life, and finally to bring the spontaneity of improvisation and the richness of personal response to text. The technique develops the behavioral strand of Stanislavski's 'system', via its articulation in an American idiom as Method acting. The technique asserts this by emphasizing "moment-to-moment" spontaneity through communication with other actors to generate behavior that is truthful under imaginary circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meisner_technique

I find Meisner technique too stubble and often times it lacks a well roundedness if not balanced with theater. 

Theater is the actores medium. It forces the actor to say large chunks of dialogue and forces him or her to use the whole body to project emotion to the audience. Theater also allows the actor to connect with the audience and the audience can connect with the actor. This connection allows for a moment by moment critique from the audience.

In filmmaking the actor is relient on the director for guidance. Tho director guidance may be necessary, the director is still human and may not always be able to express a specific execution. Therefore, an actor has to interpret that direction. At the end of every performance the delivery is still to the audience. If an actor can feed off the reactions of the audience he or she is better able to fine tune there acting skill on the spot and for future performance.

In theater there is a lot of repetition. Theater can be good for acting infront of the camera because it forces the actor to act on beats and hit the same mark every time delivering consistent continuity. 

With the meisner technique the actor is too relient on the emotion at a given time and the performance is not always the same. Don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with getting in to character, but to rely on emotion is disaster for any actor. One of the biggest chalenges for any actor is to act on demand. Hence, why relying on emotional readiness is not going to work if the actor is going to have to act on cue.

When I took a class on theater, I learned of the Stanislavski's system of acting. The Stanislavski's system is well rounded and most other metheds of acting derive off of Stanislavski's system. 

Internal experiences and their physical expression are unbreakably united. Whether it is through a facial expression or the tapping of a foot, everything a human experiences psychologically is displayed through physical means. This is termed a psycho-physical union. On stage, if an actor experiences only internal feelings or only physical actions, then the performance is dead. The reasoning behind this goes back to the union of the psychological and physical—the two go hand-in-hand. For an actor to portray a character employing one aspect of the union without the other is to perform incompletely. Stanislavski developed a technique he called "the method of physical actions" to solve the dilemma of spontaneity in a created environment (stage or film set). In this technique, the actor would perform a physical motion to create the desired emotional response. For instance, if an actor needed to tear up, he could sigh and hold his head in his hands, a physical action that many who are crying instinctively do. The correct physical action does not come automatically for any psychological response. Many times, actors need to experiment until they determine what best works for them and for the character they are trying to portray. The best way to experiment in this many is through improvisation, and the best improvisers are those who can intuitively act and behave as though in a real situation. Through his work, Stanislavski reversed the human reaction system in which an emotion allocates an action. Method actors use actions to control their emotions. The best actors are those who "live" in silences and not only in words. Reacting is essentially emoting and includes allowing the body to outwardly express what the mind is inwardly experiencing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislavski's_system

I am sure there are a lot of actors that would love to argue with this idea, just as there are many different approaches to art as a whole.  What I am expressing here is there are rules in the art of filmmaking and there times to bend those rules.  The Stanislavski's system is often neglected, but without the  Stanislavski's system we would not have all the other methods we have today such as the Meisner technique.  The Stanislavski's system is really the whole system of acting and like anything in life the Stanislavski's system is really about balance.  

For those who have already been taught using such acting disciplines as the Meisner technique, my suggestion is for those actors to focus on theater, especially Shakespeare.  Some of the best actors I know act in theater and have done Shakespeare.  The combination is enough to really polish the actors craft.  

If any actor who is starting out I recommend reading:   

An Actor Prepares

Building A Character

Creating A Role

These books are all by Constantin Stanislavski. I guarantee that these books will make any aspiring actor better in there craft regardless of there discipline.  

The Stanislavski System: The Professional Training of an Actor by Sonia Moore

 

Sonia Moore worked directly with Stanislavski and understands his system much better than E. Hapgood. Not that the books vagueness is all her fault. It seems that Stanislavki goes to great lengths to explain things that are, nowadays, common sense. He certainly wasn't the first to ever think of these concepts; he was merely the first to organize them and give them names. 

I find that most starting actors I work with lack presents on screen.  I guarantee its because there is a lack in balanced acting and its because they have a lack of or no experience in theater or Shakespeare.  

I believe if the actor understands the Stanislavski's system and acts in theater especially performing Shakespeare then there is no doubt in my mind that they will make better actor on the screen.  

By
Robert Sawin