Core Response #4: Method to the Madness - Benjamin Noble

Being able to focus on the notions of what a 'star' is, and how this image is cultivated through the lens of acting techniques and their effect on the audience is a very though provoking notion, particularly considering the various screenings and performances that we have seen in class so far. It’s particularly interesting for me to revisit the techniques of acting, particularly the concepts of Melodrama vs. Method acting. All of the readings, touching on these types of performances, used this theoretical and historical background of acting to touch on the dynamisms between the character that actors play and themselves as a person.

Dyer provides a great overview of the various acting techniques and the ways in which a performer must embody the character, focusing on how melodrama is focused on “the use of gestures…[to be] expressive”, and, while Method Acting is similar to Melodramatic performances, it tends to focus more on the “psychological makeup” (Dyer, 141). We can see this when we look at Brando’s performance in A Streetcar named Desire; he is the center of attention, doesn’t have a clean-cut accent, instead having a more unique/individualistic take on his performance, giving his performance more depth. When we look at the historical context of creating this form of performance, we come to understand how Lee Strasberg, the founder of the Method Acting school, envisioned that actors should “try not to act, but to be themselves” (Gledhill, 228). In this light, the divide between performing as a character and being oneself becomes much more convoluted and difficult to understand. When we’re watching Brando perform, is he Stanley Kowalski, or just himself, depending on his own past emotional experiences to try and convince the audience of his performance?

Least to say, when we get into the techniques of acting, understanding the relationship between the star and their performances becomes much more complicated. There are so many schools of acting, ranging from Melodrama to Method Acting to Stanislavski’s Technique to Vaudeville, etc. Some argue that an actor should rid himself of any personal influence/attitudes and become the part itself, while others argue that the actor is already endowed with the attributes to highlight a performance, bringing in his own ideas/physical ticks to help shape the role into something more unique (King, 172). In any case, the crossroad between an actor’s persona and their own performance becomes hard to narrow down, when we really begin to think about what we are seeing on screen.

Are there any actors that you feel are ‘just themselves’ and don’t really perform? What about actors that always act like anything but themselves?