Martin Freeman: Method acting is pretentious nonsense

Is he wrong?

I'm no actor, but from what I've read about "the method" most actors who do it aren't even doing it properly! I think it's usually an excuse for assholes to become bigger assholes. People never discuss the NICE things they do when they go "method."

It's not 1955. Most Hollywood actors don't follow "the method" anymore

R2 Exactly, it's just an excuse for assholes to become bigger assholes under the guise of art.

Method Acting has become so twisted. The whole thing of staying in character and losing yourself in the role is not part of it.

I took some classes in it. The whole thing is about using your own experiences in the role. It is almost the opposite of what people have come to think it means. (That drove my teachers crazy.)

R2 I know—that’s why everything sucks.

Method acting IS pretentious and masturbatory. Lee Strasberg and his 'method' truly bastardized Stanislavski's methodology and views on the art of acting. Stanislavski's 'method' was repurposed far better for American actors by Stella Adler, Uta Hagen and even Sandy Meisner (though they themselves added a lot of their own psychology onto it).

Freeman's views reflect the British tradition and approach to acting, which while classical in nature, focusses on strong voice and speech training, movement and character work. It's seen very much as a craft, but also a job. The Brits also put importance of understanding 'style' and how to play it -- whether that's Shakespeare, comedies of manners (Wilde, Coward) or absurdist black comedy (Beckett).

It's the school that many wonderful, versatile actors (and certainly those great dames like Dench and Smith) emerged from. And I think the acting is frankly better for it. They toss it away and don't carry it around the sound stage when the camera stops rolling. The American 'method' popularized in the late 40s/early 50s grew a generation of insufferably self indulgent actors.

There's that now infamous encounter between a young impassioned Dustin Hoffman (a 'method' actor) and that old classical Brit Laurence Olivier where Hoffman was working himself into a state to prep for an important scene. Larry looks at him bewildered and suggests "why don't you try ACTING, dear boy?" Exactly!

But was Sir Laurence ever really that great in that much other than Shakespeare? I think Dustin has a better resume.

Olivier was hammy and mannered in Marathon Man and The Boys from Brazil his last two big films.

Olivia Colman is a gifted actor who can master a wild comedy and a devastating drama in one scene, uninterrupted.

Martin Freeman sounds like an arrogant guy. Big talk for someone of so little accomplishment.

I'll cut you r8.

Colman was a stoic bore on The Crown.

I so agree with him. I wanted to be an actor very badly but after taking drama classes throughout adolescence and college I was burned out by teachers who wanted to teach some version of “the method” so I abandoned it. They constantly wanted us to immerse ourselves in the character, stay in character, develop back stories for our characters etc. The last class I took, I quit half way through because I got fed up and told the teacher “I want to act, not develop a fucking multiple personality disorder.” I often wish I had just said fuck it and went to NYC or LA, the teachers always insisted I had a great talent just that I needed to harness my talent to their technique, which I couldn’t or wouldn’t do.

Well therein lies the issue too -- it's so damn subjective. I think Hoffman is a remarkable actor, but he's not above giving a hamfisted performance any more than Olivier. And in fairness to that old (yet effective) ham, he emerged in a very different era than Hoffman.

Styles and attitudes change. If you consider the Best Actor/Actress winners from the 30s and 40s and compare their 'acting' to those even in the 50s/60s, most look totally lightweight -- sometimes flatout terrible. Same with comparing those 50s/60s nominees against those from the 70s or 80s.

But styles and tastes change with every era. Stanislavski's 'method' emerged out of the Russian theatre and was intended for a very specific kind of playwright and a specific kind of audience observing it. It served the needs of the play and the public observing it. There are many older British actors who felt his 'method' should have only applied to those dreary turn of the century Russian plays. But of course the Americans got ahold of it and it became a craze via luminaries like Brando and Kim Stanley who put its virtues on display (and to great effect). How much the 'method' actually helped these genius talents is questionable, but it has only prolonged its mythical status.

Ironic since Martin Freeman is widely known as the biggest pretentious asshole on any film set.

r12 you'd have had just as hard a time with English drama schools. They were (are?) known for being downright tyrannical with their students. In theirs you spend hours learning physical warmups and flamenco dancing and stage combat that most people would never use.

I never got how they expected actors to use the warmups they taught. Yeah at 18 you can do a 2 hour callisthenic warm up before your play but how is Dame Judi Dench supposed to go onstage now after hours of warmup.

I've seen him in enough things to realize he essentially plays every character with the same dry smugness.

R15 it does sound largely stupid, but I could’ve stuck it out better than the stupid psycho babble I was subjected to. No, I do not need to “discover” what my character’s favorite cereal was as a child. Unless it’s in the script.

He is right, though. Just read all of the stories about Jared Leto.

Jared never studied method acting. He is making up his own style as he goes.

I would argue actors are far from artists.

And most actors are full of bullshit. It's an overrated 'profession' - it's a job.

Most of the magic of a goid film is more about a great script supported by proficient acting.

And Olivia Coleman is okay. But there's always Olivia being Olivia in all her roles. And she could do with less gushy interviews and award appearances - comes across as fake and 'oh shucks'.

Choose your poison. The British like you think they’re so good at everything they don’t need to immerse in order to transform into the character, but the result is you get, almost invariably, extremely mannered performances. It’s the acting equivalent of painting by numbers.

Olivier certainly did it.

Martin Freeman is one to talk. He’s Tim Canterbury in every roll he’s ever played.

Martin Freeman is a notorious asshole so his opinions carries no weight

Yet, Daniel Day-Lewis is one of the most overt "method" actors out there getting into and staying in character for the entire shooting schedule of a film.

DDL even went "mad" while doing Hamlet in London and has kept off the stage since then.

Soooooo....not ALL British actors are the same.

^^^ role

And, to be frank, Martin Freeman is VERY lucky to have the career he has...he's rather a minor actor who keeps on getting these good roles in major projects yet he's so...

bland.

No Briton ever went poor by shitting on things identified in British eyes as “American.” It’s a particularly useful enterprise for Britons who take a lot of American coin. Gervaise, anyone?

I agree that Martin Freeman is lucky to have the career he does. He's not a bad actor, but his mannerisms are the same for every character, and I find his nose very disturbing to look at.

DDL is tattoo-infested, he's already mentally unstable. His son too, very hideous.

Method acting doesn't require that you stay in character all the time and it isn't American, it's Russian. What a bunch of nonsense from this unfunny frumpy actor.

It's bizarre that some people think only Stella Adler or Lee Strassberg were doing method acting

He’s a terrible actor.

And Stanislavski techniques are used by Olivier and taught at RADA.

I agree. Jody Foster has never taken an acting class and she's got TWO academy awards.

Method actors can go fuck themselves! (but they actually will, because they're "method actors"!)

(And closet gays-- well, this IS hollywood, you bitches!)

I saw this actor in a sexy scene on the tv show with Adam Brody. I was like “Is this a thing? Who is this guy really? Wasn’t he a hobbit?

He’s a sexy hobbit. I have mild crush on him.

He's not wrong, but in every interview, the guy comes across as a total twat

Why does it matter what actors have to do for a solid screen performance, as long as their performances are good? I don’t even think I know Martin Freeman.

r18/r19 Jared Leto is blackmailing someone or doing favours for someone, he shouldn't be as prolific as he is.

Re Freeman's example of Jim Carrey playing Andy Kaufman, Carrey gives a better performance in that one film than Freeman gives in his entire body of work.

As someone mentioned upthread, Freeman gives the same performance in every film or TV show he's in.

R6

It went as follows....

"Dustin Hoffman has long been known as one of method acting’s most earnest exponents. A showbiz story involves his collaboration with Laurence Olivier on the 1976 film Marathon Man. Upon being asked by his co-star how a previous scene had gone, one in which Hoffmann’s character had supposedly stayed up for three days, Hoffmann admitted that he too had not slept for 72 hours to achieve emotional verisimilitude. “My dear boy,” replied Olivier smoothly, “why don’t you just try acting?” (Hoffman subsequently attributed his insomnia to excessive partying rather than artistry)."

Appointment At Eleven is consistently ranked one of the lowest of Alfred Hitchcock Presents series. It stars famous method actor Clint Kimbrough. Having sat through episode one night was almost ready to throw a glass at television.

That being said Clint Kimbrough was apparently a highly regarded actor and in demand with people like Elia Kazan.

Laurence Olivier was fed up to the back teeth with Marilyn Monroe and her "method acting" when doing Prince and the Showgirl. Never the less later in interviews given after her death (or maybe before as well) Laurence Olivier admitted that when they reviewed rushes of day's filming MM blew everyone else out of the water.

R7 You're displaying your narrow-mindedness if you can only bring yourself to mention two of Olivier's 80 or so screen appearances.

[quote] Colman was a stoic bore on The Crown.

Have you had many exciting, entertaining conversations with Queen Elizabeth II?

Laurence Olivier despised "Method Actors".

^ I don't know if that's a quote but he despised the fact that Monroe kept a hundred production staff waiting every morning while she wasted 4 hours trying to find her 'method'

All the people who claimed to be Method Actors are dead. Dustin Hoffman's career is finished.

Method Acting was 1950s fad. Nowdays movie stars want to be Non-Binary rather than be Methodists.

Well, Marty, that's just great. Let's see your take on Andy Kaufmann. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it will be pretty much identical to your take on every other person you've ever played - yourself, only slightly whinier.

"What works for one actor does not work for another actor: film at 11."

METHOD is a Lee Strasberg of the Actors Studio term. He taught actors to 'use it'. Ride off your nervous system! This bad technique caused a lot of casualties. It is a bastardization of Stanislavsky.

Martin Freeman has presented dong in movies, so he is always right.

He’s right. Either you can act or you can’t. Brits don’t understand this nonsense.

Angela Lansbury was trashing method actors for being pretentious pos and how people on the sets of some of the most acclaimed Hollywood films couldn’t believe that people actually needed to do this in order to act. This is why Hollywood churns out such shitty actors. Acting is make believe. Method is not. You can either act or you can’t.

[quote] The British like you think they’re so good at everything they don’t need to immerse in order to transform into the character

Honey, unlike Americans, Brits actually get trained in drama. It’s also a regular jobs. Americans want fame and glamor. Actual talent has very little to do with it.

[quote] The British like you think they’re so good at everything they don’t need to immerse in order to transform into the character

Honey, unlike Americans, Brits actually get trained in drama. It’s also a regular job. Americans want fame and glamour. Actual talent has very little to do with it.

I guess Freeman has never heard of 3-time Oscar winner Daniel Day Lewis, who is (or was) known to immerse himself in his characters. Christian Bale too.

[quote] Angela Lansbury was trashing method actors for being pretentious

Angela Lansbury trashed Fonda. And rightly so!

Fonda was totally miscast and totally terrible.

I studied with Uta Hagen. Her method was a character always had to be doing some bit of physical business. She pushed actors into unnatural acting because they always had to think up something to be doing. When I saw her in Collected Stories, I knew exactly what she was going to do before she did it: eat a muffin, lick fingers, pick up crumbs and eat them. Her performance was click, click, click.

Judi Dench: "Acting is about the exploration of character rather than simply a projection of self. I was in New York with Maggie Smith recently, promoting a film, and we were asked about the Sanford Meisner Method school of acting which is based on ruthless self-exploration. Maggie, in her unique way, said, 'Oh, we have that in England, too. We call it wanking.'"

I also think Martin Freeman is probably a major asshole, although that doesn’t make him wrong about Jim Carrey. I’m watching Freeman in “Breeders” and he plays an asshole father. I strongly suspect the show is based on his life with former partner Amanda Abbington, who is ten times a better actor than he is.

His snippy singular note appalls me so he probably isn’t the person to deliver this home truth. But I do agree.

Freeman was very good in the 2000s sketch comedy BRUISER, but probably because—following the fine tradition of British character comedy—most of the characters he played were absolute tossers.

People who compare Olivier (not my favorite but his technique and effectiveness cannot be criticized outside his "for the money" goof roles) with the irritatingly unconvincing (in most roles) work of Dustin Hoffman.

I think acting is more about personal magnetism than actual ability. But I think the Brits have a stronger technique than Americans. American actors rely too much on looks. I think the Brits being trained in Shakespeare goes a long way to making them better actors.

But let’s be honest, even the Brits fall into their “method”. Maggie Smith is always acerbic and strident, master of prim yet kooky. Judi Dench is always the martyr and plays even peasant women as grande dames.

And sometimes actors vary in quality. Toni Collette had been both brilliant and boring.

Since Freeman plays everything the same, it's not surprising that he dismisses the concept of emotional connection to specific acting requirements in order to present a convincing array of traits.

Whatever the ridiculous, at many times, Jim Carrey was doing, it can't be confused with using the Method.

I don't fault Freeman. Olivier would have said the same better, more tersely, and with less judgment. But Freeman's "I'm thinking deeply," "I'm working through something," "I'm in love" and "I'm angry" looks are all the same, as is his "I'm over Jim Carrey" look.

Some really good (and entertaining) actors studied with Lee Strasberg. The only one I ever met was Eva Marie Saint, she was about the least pretentious famous/talented person I ever met. Angela Landsbury, who I also met, acted like she was some kind of minor royalty and I felt like we were being presented to her. I also met Claire Bloom who was more like a regular person, but still rather full of herself.

I find it interesting how (some) Brits trash American acting methods, but Americans don't trash the Brits. At any rate, some actors you all have probably enjoyed, Like Paul Newman, Karl Malden, Eli Wallach, Julie Harris, Sidney Poitier, Patricia Neal, Shelley Winters and Gene Wilder studied at the Actors Studio. In some cases you can see a major improvement in an already-famous actor's work after they went to New York and studied with Strasberg. His method may have been bullshit, I don't know, I wasn't there. I have read lectures by him where he talked about some stars of the day, to his classes, like Gary Cooper and John Wayne, how they were natural and compelling on screen and that was what should be emulated. That doesn't strike me as a bad thing.

I doubt actors were encouraged to stay in character 24 hours. What Brit's call "The Method" may in fact be what they say it is, self-indulgent, pretentious nonsense, or it may work for a particular actor, but I don't know who teaches it. No one, as far as I know.

[quote]They constantly wanted us to immerse ourselves in the character, stay in character, develop back stories for our characters etc.

Honestly, developing a back story for your character hardly seems beyond the pale, to me? I guess an actor does't have to do it, but can it really hurt? Anyway, training looks good on the resume, but nobody forces actors to go to classes they don't agree with. If you didn't like the way acting was being taught, and you thought you were talented, you should have stopped your classes and done whatever you wanted.

*Lansbury

It may work for actors like Day-Lewis but look how low his output is. I don't blame regular actors for getting annoyed with the theatrics that accompany method actors. Just get on with it and get the job done, this is a job not your therapy session.

He seems like such an asshole. But, I can't decide if its 'Method' or not.

Wait - so he wasn't in the Kaufman film with Carey. WTF? I don't see it on his credits anywhere.

You can criticize method - but god damn, you don't have to be such an asshole and tear someone up who you don't know.

How does he know this about Carey? Because of a documentary he watched?

I don't care what Martin Freeman says about METHOD ACTING.

I do know that I would LICK HIS BALLS.

You'll have to get in line, R68. Unfortunately, after Martin Freeman.

If you have to live as your character for months before you actually play it, is that really acting? I'm fairly certain you could take anyone off the street, and as long as they can remember lines, they'd turn in a realistic performance if they lived as the character for three months before shooting.

He's not wrong.

Then again, he's not nearly the actor that Daniel Day Lewis is, so...

R69- What do you mean after Martin Freeman?

R72, I mean Martin Freeman is already licking his own balls.

Martin Freeman, Chris Burke - same level.

It would be sort of amusing to phone up Carey and ask what he thinks of Freeman's performance in any given film.

I somehow doubt he knows who Freeman is.

[quote]One actress who does not go method is Olivia Colman, whose colleagues remark upon her ability to snap in and out of character.

Same is said about Bryan Cranston. During his run as Walter White, others on the set were amazed at how he could get in and out of character quickly. One of the grips said that they would always talk baseball between takes and Cranston wouldn't miss a beat between takes, getting back to the conversation.

[quote]How does he know this about Carey? Because of a documentary he watched?

R67 Because Jim Carrey has talked about it freely in interviews...

He's absolutely right about Jim Carrey. Carrey is totally full of himself, he's off the rails. He truly does think he is enlightened like a guru or Christ. However regular DL readers will remember his truly detestable treatment of Cathriona White, who killed herself as a result of the gaslighting and abuse. This is the guy who thinks he's God's gift to acting, painting, the arts, religion, and humanity.

R77 - right, so it's not first-hand. There isn't a lot of bad things said about Carrey, outside of what we know about his struggles with depression.

I just don't see why he had to go after Carrey so hard. You can criticize method acting without attacking someone. And didn't Kaufman also exist in this alternative personality off camera? Kaufman was a fucking weirdo and abusive - but it doesn't mean Carrey was the same.

This has nothing to do with acting. It has everything to do with Marcia Gay Harden attacking Judi Dench.

They send one of ours to the hospital, we send one of theirs to the morgue.

Next you’re going to hear Renee Zellwegger throw shade at Helena Bonham Carter. Then Idris Elba will throw shade at Denzel Washington. Then Patti LuPone will throw shade at Hannah Waddingham.

And who's a more accomplished and brillant star than Bryan Cranston, amirite?

[quote]I just don't see why he had to go after Carrey so hard

Because Carrey deserved it? People who actually knew Kaufman would try and tell Carrey stuff about what he'd do or wouldn't do, and Carrey would insist they were wrong and he knew better because he "was" Kaufman, non stop, for those four months.

R81 Multiple Emmy awards, a Tony, Oscar nomination for Trumbo...yeah, Bryan Cranston has done alright.

I've liked Martin since The Office. I thought his Watson to Cumberbatch's Sherlock was excellent. He's good on Breeders but I prefer the Michael McKean character...

I thought it was Morgan Freeman until the word "arse" popped up.

The photo didn't clarify.

Drama training is good for certain kinds of films. Not all. Not always. Film acting is different from theater acting.

"Get off my lawn!!"

--Martin Freeman

For some reason I'm REALLY attracted to Martin Freeman.

[quote]For some reason I'm REALLY attracted to Martin Freeman.

I used to like him, but some info came out that painted him in a bad light - made him seem like a real tool.

I wish I could find it - is was your classic DL fodder.

Not on topic, I know, but the thoroughly repugnant Martin Freeman was a perfect fit in Season 1 of Fargo. Olivia Colman is marvelous in everything she does, except for The Crown. I didn't think Colman was physically right for the part, and Claire Foy was a hard act to follow. British actors are trained much differently, of course. Does this mean they are better? Comparing Paul Giametti with Damian Lewis in Billions, I can't decide.

Martin Freeman is basically "What if Misery Bear was an actual person".

Martin will always be the porn stand-in in "Love Actually".

Is Jim Carrey actually a "Method actor", literally? Did he study the Method? Or is Martin Freeman just saying that? He's Canadian, anyway, not American. And his background is in standup comedy.

[quote]Is Jim Carrey actually a "Method actor", literally?

I think Martin is saying that Carrey used "Method" ideas in that he lived the role 24 hours a day and was a pain in the ass to those he was working with because he stayed in character all the time. Whether anybody has been trained as a Method actor is not really the point. The point is that if you're going to be an asshole, don't try to cover it by saying, "This is my way of making art."

And frankly, the Method as bastardized by some actors doesn't even make sense. I remember Ed Harris, when he was making Pollock, said he started smoking the same brand of cigarettes that Pollock smoked. Does that level of characterization show up on the screen?

R94 Yes, that is the point. The point is, there's no need to criticize the Method because Jim Carrey was an asshole. Just say, Jim Carrey was an asshole. Martin dragged a whole lot of actors besides Carrey when he dragged the Method. And if Carrey didn't study it then why call what he did "Method acting"?

As for Ed Harris. Why do people criticize actors for doing what they can to bring themselves to a level of performance where they can play a part well? If Ed wanted to smoke the same brand of cigarettes, what do you care? It shows up on the screen if it helps him give the performance, yes. What if a musician wanted to use a guitar pick belonging to an artist they admire because they think it helps them play better? It's up to them. Whatever works.

When he wins an Oscar, I might listen.

R63 [quote] In some cases you can see a major improvement in an already-famous actor's work after they went to New York and studied with Strasberg.

Can you name them?

Read "The Genius and the Goddess" for backstory on LO and MM filming Prince and the Showgirl

"This is against the modern trend which works the other way round.” Using the Method for the frivolous Showgirl seemed like taking a deep dive into a shallow pool. When Olivier, as director, urged Marilyn to “be sexy,” she took this as an insult. The caviar-eating scene required no less than two whole days, thirty-four takes and twenty jars of the costly sturgeon roe."

"The cameraman, Jack Cardiff, noted that Paula’s instructions confused Marilyn and interfered with her work: There was something unreal about it all. The great Olivier, magnificently costumed in heavy military felt, cumbersome medals, epaulettes, belts, riding boots and thick make-up, with his hair plastered down and a monocle wedged in his eye, would be all ready to shoot a scene. Having wearily rehearsed Marilyn for ages, he would be about to say “Roll the camera” when Marilyn would go over to Paula in the shadows and talk again, while Larry waited – in sweat and silent fury. Paula would then tell Marilyn, ‘“Now remember, darling, think of Frank Sinatra and Coca-Cola.’ At last Marilyn entered into the scene – and forgot her lines.” When Olivier inevitably contradicted Paula’s instructions, Marilyn immediately sent for Greene, and he complicated matters by calling Lee Strasberg in New York."

"This collapse of her respect for Olivier was the most direct reason for her inability to sleep at night.”7 Marilyn’s support group – Miller, Greene, Paula and Hedda Rosten (who’d been a psychiatric social worker and had been brought to England as a secretary and companion) – attempted to encourage her performance and control her conflict with Olivier. But they all made the mistake of trying to provide what she wanted instead of giving her the discipline she needed. Olivier despised Marilyn’s pretentiousness and lack of professionalism."

Trained British actors move seamlessly between stage, film and television. Many also make good money doing voice over work as well.

Pick any actor Americans know from PBS imported British television and you'll likely find they have a good to extensive C.V. of all sorts of work. Judi Dench, Patricia Routledge, Clive Swift and list goes on...

Dan Stevens and a few other actors on Downton Abbey took quite a lot of heat (largely from American and other audiences outside of UK) for leaving a hit show. But that is what British actors do all the time, not wanting to end their days on this or that television show just because it is a "hit". Yes, you have the odd long running shows like Coronation Street or EastEnders which basically long running soap operas where actors often land and remain for some time. That however is more of an exception rather than rule.

That Dwayne johnson is one of the top ten or five highest paid actors in Hollywood speaks loudly about differences between America and USA.

[quote] That Dwayne johnson is one of the top ten or five highest paid actors in Hollywood speaks loudly about differences between America and USA.

Exactly! The bulk of British actors are knowledgeable, genuine actors. The Americans know how to stand in front of a camera.

In recent memory Jim Parsons is one of the few trained American actors to leave a highly lucrative television series (The Big Ban Theory) to pursue other options.

It takes quite a lot to walk away from a studio dangling astronomical sums for what amounts to comparatively little acting work (it's not like TBBT is filming 52 weeks a year), but serious actors often value their craft above simply monetary compensation. Yes, actors have to eat and so on, but they also want to do good work with other people.

Has Jim Parsons done Checkov or Ibsen or Shaw or Shakespeare?

[quote]Trained British actors move seamlessly between stage, film and television

You do have to remember that British actors have the benefit of geography - London is the centre of both theatre and film/television in the UK, and even then the most distant cities are all easily reachable. Whereas in the US, actors tend to have to make a decision as to whether they'll focus on theatre in New York or film/television in Los Angeles.

The more we get to know these actors off screen, the audience finds it more difficult to differentiate the actor from the character they play.

Martin is effectively a character actor, best not get too familiar with the audience.

R99 Dwayne does a decent job for the roles he does. He proves that acting isn't all that - there is so much self congratulatory hype about acting (so many awards for a single field) and silly talk of acting being an 'art'.

As I've said before - acting is akin to prostitution - you are told what to do with your body in return for good money for the sake of entertainment (pleasure).

Maybe all these navel gazing actors, including Martin, deep down, know this.

I'm sure acting has its tough and challenging moments, but so do most jobs. And ultimately acting is just a job.

He annoys me. I don't disagree though.

[quote]Has Jim Parsons done Checkov or Ibsen or Shaw or Shakespeare?

He certainly could if he wanted to. I'm surprised The Public Theatre/Shakespeare in the Park hasn't offered him a good role. A few years ago some brave producers should have grabbed him and Elisabeth Moss and mounted a short run of The Glass Menagerie.

[quote] In some cases you can see a major improvement in an already-famous actor's work after they went to New York and studied with Strasberg.

[quote]Can you name them?

Patricia Neal, the second half of her career (post-Actors Studio), she won an Oscar. Shelley Winters was another example. Marilyn Monroe, some would argue she was better before she studied at the Studio, but she probably couldn't have played a role like the one in Bus Stop before she studied in NY.

Also James Dean was going nowhere in Hollywood before going to NYC and studying at the AS. He had been a theater major at UCLA, but you can see the change in his TV work after he went to New York. He did a TV show in LA before that, where he's theatrical and fake.

R108 Thank you for responding. I'm the sceptic at R100.

I couldn't say I noticed any change in Shelley Winters (though I understand she spent time studying with Charles Laughton as well).

And frankly I see Patricia Neal as another screen performer whose options changed according to her appearance as she changed from sultry sex-object to middle-aged wife.

It seems she's another screen performer who avoided the stage as much as she could.

For all you know, the Public did offer Parsons a good Shakespeare role and someone did offer him Glass Menagerie.

We never know what they turn down.

And for R102, Parsons has done Shakespeare (Iago), Chekhov, and Brecht. Not sure about Ibsen.

It's just make-pretending.

I've seen him in some things I like, but Martin Freeman is the biggest Grumpy McGrumperson and he needs to stop talking trash and being such an arrogant prick.

Martin Freeman has Short Man Syndrome to the point where that was an entire three-movie role for him and screams neurotic closet-case on top of that.

I believe he’s a jerk, but he’s really good on BREEDERS. Great series, too.

Didn't Cumberbatch really hate him? He's probably a jerk too, but I seem to recall the Sherlock series went off the rails in part due to conflicts between the two

Lee Strasberg's worst advertisement was his own daughter.

She attempted to emulate Hepburn in a remake of Hepburn's first Oscar-winning movie. It was so bad it's never shown on TV.

And her career trailed away into slasher and horror films.

[quote] but he’s really good on BREEDERS. Great series, too.

I didn’t like the time jump between Series 1 and 2. What was it, 10 years?

R117 So many interesting support actors —Plummer, Greenwood and Marshall— but she was a dud.

She looked like Clare Bloom but she was still a dud.

Angelina went into character and stayed in character in "Girl, Interrupted." She admitted that she did that, I think.

As much as I love the Sopranos and James Gandolfini, he sounded like a diva on set. He punched / damaged a car once in order to get into character. He also disappeared for days. He was the main character of the show and there was a lot of pressure on him to produce. He apparently wanted to get out of the Sopranos. Someone (Stevie Van Zant, I think) talked him into staying. I wonder if he'd still be alive if he had left when he wanted to leave.

R110 It seems she's another screen performer who avoided the stage as much as she could.

Patricia Neal didn't avoid the stage. She became a star in Another Part Of The Forest (the prequel to The Little Foxes)on the stage in 1946. Despite becoming a Hollywood star she continued to return to the stage in The Children's Hour, Cat On A Hot Tin Roof (as a replacement for Barbara Bel Geddes), A Room Full Of Roses, and the original production of The Miracle Worker starring Ann Bancroft (Neal played Helen Keller's mother). You know she had a series of strokes, in the 60's, (as she was about to do a movie with John Ford - and was replaced by Bancroft). She made an amazing recovery, but after that she didn't do too much theater work. She did do some, though - just not on Broadway.

But I was referring to how much more realistic, emotionally truer, and deeper her work was after she studied at the Actor's Studio, because the work she did in Hud was nothing like what she did before, although she was good before. You can see the difference, though.

Similarly, Shelley Winters played showgirls, gun molls, western saloon gals, things like that (films like A Double Life and A Place In The Sun were rare), before she studied at the Actors Studio. Superficially she was good but again her acting had more depth and emotional truth after studying.

I don't know why you even doubt that actors improve after studying their craft intensely. It would be stranger if they didn't.

* I shouldn't have implied Neal wasn't changed, as a performer. before Hud, because A Face In The Crowd (1957) would probably be the point at which she came back to films after having studied, and her performance (directed by Elia Kazan) is so different from the work she did before that. People who have seen it know what I'm talking about.

Strasbergs did well off Marilyn Monroe's estate, this despite her final wishes. Karma stepped in to fix that particular wagon wheel.

[quote] Angelina went into character and stayed in character in "Girl, Interrupted." She admitted that she did that, I think.

Was this when she was using heroin and coke?

R122, R123 Thank you

[quote] Olivier was hammy and mannered in Marathon Man and The Boys from Brazil his last two big films.

He wasn't hammy in this one , R7

Laurence Olivier was hammy going back to his 1970's films if not before.

First time saw "Sleuth" (on Movies! channel) nearly burst out laughing.

He was even more campy as Lord Marchmain in Brideshead Revisited.

[quote]As much as I love the Sopranos and James Gandolfini, he sounded like a diva on set. He punched / damaged a car once in order to get into character. He also disappeared for days. He was the main character of the show and there was a lot of pressure on him to produce.

I don't know that he was a diva so much as a troubled guy that found the perfect role in the troubled Tony. While & Chase clashed, Gandolfini was supposedly very generous to the cast & crew, cutting them in on $$ when he didn't have to. But I can also see where he felt pressure to continue as many livelihoods (and not just fat HBO executives) depended on the Sopranos production.

Whatever the case, Freeman reminds me of that line from the Big Lebowski "you're not wrong, Walter. You're just an asshole"

He's a cunt, but he's correct.

R128 "Sleuth" was designed as light entertainment.

Perhaps you lack empathy in seeing someone die in "Brideshead Revisited"

I don't know anything about acting but to me this guy is the definition of "one note".

I love Britbox, especially all those detectives with marital problems/substance abuse/troubled teens, drinking day and night, shagging their co-workers and calling everyone a cunt. It makes me want to move there. But I'm shocked at how many ugly actors there are and shows that run for years without a single fuckable character.

I just googled this and found out it was a thing. If I wanted to look at ugly people with bad teeth and pasty white skin, I'd look in the mirror.

[quote]He wasn't hammy in this one , [R7]

R127 He was brilliant in Sister Carrie. Omg that was a great performance. I was not a particular fan of his but that, and a movie called Term Of Trial, made me a fan. No offense to people commenting but it's kind of funny for people to give opinios of Lauren Olivier based on Marathon Man. lol First we was a stage great of the 20th century & most of us never saw him onstage. Also many people haven't seen his best screen work. But I always picyre someone who is like, "Oh, he was a ham." "Oh, well, who do you think is a great actor?" "Leonardo DiCaprio." Oh, really? How was his Hamlet and Henry V, how was he in Chekhov?

Fairly recently saw Olivier in Hitchcock's 'Rebecca', and Tony Richardson's 'The Entertainer', which reprised his landmark stage role. Really glad these are captured on film, as it's thrilling to catch Olivier's quicksilver genius, while still in his prime. I certainly didn't feel he was hammy in these roles - just an entire level more effortlessly detailed and alive than everyone else around him. I'd give a lot to have seen him on stage. You either have magnetism or you don't.

More recently watched Olivier in Pinter's 'The Collection' (on You Tube). He was into Lord Marchmain territory, but expertly reigned in. He glowered with suppressed power as an elderqueen, ham free. Olivier did more than enough great work to justify his pension-cheques for lacklustre projects.

My favorite Olivier role is still Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights. I don't know that anyone else gets the unconventionally handsome/extremely angry/passionate combination quite right

Yes, sometimes as Heathcliff he looks on the point of orgasm.

(It's a pity he had work with silly rag of a woman in that movie)

He said he had athlete's foot from a pair of boots he was given to wear. Maybe his expression has half pain.

Martin is right, but he's also a giant asshole

Eva Marie Saint is the only one alive who can claim to be a Method-ist.

They're all dead and most of them are forgotten.

Martin is actually a rather diminutive asshole, in my opinion, R138.

[quote]They're all dead and most of them are forgotten.

R139 I think Dustin Hoffman studied at the Actors Studio. And studied the Method. There are many still around.

^ Hoffman has sunk into a state of desperate decrepitude.

He has to schlep over to Blighty for leading ladies like Judi Dench and Emma Thompson.

He's a dry drunk.

Martin Freeman suffers from a Napoleon Complex.

Or as a friend of mine calls it, "More foreskin than actual cock".

[quote]^ Hoffman has sunk into a state of desperate decrepitude.

Still not dead, still not forgotten.

[quote] People who compare Olivier (not my favorite but his technique and effectiveness cannot be criticized outside his "for the money" goof roles) with the irritatingly unconvincing (in most roles) work of Dustin Hoffman.

Dustin Hoffman is a better film actor than Olivier.

Method acting is still used by some actors. How does someone think it all died off? It sure hasn't.

I wouldn't put too much into what the Little Man says. He has issues.

I suspect that like singing, acting is pretty much a “you can either do it, or you can’t” situation, and teaching and technique doesn’t make all that much difference to how good you are at it.

Martin Freeman is just as pretentious as the method actors. Why is he even bothering to have an opinion on how other actors prepare for their jobs?