---

BY ANNE COLEMAN

In print | Published February 11, 2010

There is an old comic of a man trapped in a box next to a mime, who is behaving as though he is trapped in a box. The caption cites the hazards of being a “method actor.” The idea of a “method actor,” a person who puts oneself into situations or calls upon experiences to prepare for a role, has long been a source of amusement for Americans. The idea that a person would relive a personal trauma or try “slumming it” just to prepare for a role strikes many people as going a little bit too far.

The American Method, as it should be more specifically labeled, is a perversion (albeit a popular one) of its roots, which are credited to Constantin Stanislavski of the Moscow Art Theatre. Stanislavski’s innovations were in response to the demands of Anton Chekhov’s new “realist” plays, but he only employed psychological realism, as it is also termed, in his late work. The version of psychological realism that Lee Strasberg popularized as the American Method is far more formal and in-depth than that of Stanislavski’s.

Given the visibility of method acting and the fact that there are alternatives, it is perhaps surprising that no other form of acting is commonly discussed. There are numerous alternatives (including Stanislavski’s earlier style) which are still in use today, but the humorous mental images conjured up by method preparation have surpassed other practices in terms of recognition. Another problem is that most actor training styles are intended to make it look effortless, as is the case with method acting. Finally and most importantly, it can be quite difficult to distill the work of an actor into a single method. There is a sharing of techniques and ideas that naturally occurs. One would have to look long and hard to find an actor who only ever used one technique.

Among those other widely used techniques is improvisational theater (or improv, as it is more commonly known), popularized by Chicago’s “Second City” troupe and present on Swarthmore’s campus in the form of Vertigo-go. Even as improv has become a viral source of entertainment through YouTube, the population often forgets that it is, in fact, a legitimate acting methodology. It is something that can be taught, follows rules, requires practice and can greatly enhance the work of those actors when they are scripted.

Another approach that has been widely incorporated into popular culture is physical theater. Jerzy Grotowski advocated an athletic, communal yet confrontational (by which I mean theater that disregards the fourth wall) approach. In particular, Grotowski’s “paratheatrical” work, which involved physically exhausting theatrical benders in the wilderness spanning multiple days, or even weeks, has impacted the expectations and the perceived limitations of theater. Grotowski can undoubtedly take some of the credit for major marathon productions like the Robert Wilson/Philip Glass collaboration “Einstein on the Beach,” which had a running time of five hours, and the recent hit “Gatz,” a 7-hour-long reading and performance of “The Great Gatsby.”

At the same time that Grotowski was turning actors into athletes, theatrical clowning (also a form of physical theater) was seeing a revival on the stage. Clowning, with its roots in the Italian commedia dell’arte, has influenced and shaped every other style of theater since its revitalization by Jacques Lecoq in France. Its combination of intensely physically engaged bodies and mask work holds great appeal for those who work in comedy, but its influence extends beyond the general understanding of clowning.

In addition to filtering its way into the mainstream through celebrity disciples like actor Geoffrey Rush and director Julie Taymor, who is best known for staging Broadway’s “The Lion King”, Lecoq’s teachings have resulted in the establishment of full theater companies, including Philadelphia’s (and Swarthmore’s) rising star, Pig Iron Theatre Company.

In an extension of his clowning, Lecoq’s work utilizes another classic acting style, which is just as frequently mimicked as method acting, but which few people pause to consider as an independent school of acting: mime. The word conjures up images of painted faces, Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin, but it is more common than most people realize.

Put on your helmets, ladies and gentlemen, because your minds are about to be blown: while there are still many silent mimes, nowadays there are quite a few mimes that make noise and are even occasionally chatty. The taciturn but nonetheless noisy Blue Man Group is just as firmly rooted in mime as the late, great Marcel Marceau. The San Francisco Mime Troupe performs original musicals, which feature the vivid social commentary and farce elements that stem from commedia dell’arte and employ vestiges of classical mime. Another name that may surprise you is Bill Irwin, who attended Clown College, co-founded the Pickle Family Circus and is now performing in “Bye Bye Birdie.”

If these different methodologies strike you as too intertwined, there are still quite a few which remain distinct. Farce and camp, in particular, have managed to retain independent physical vocabularies and techniques, and are evident in their execution, whereas method acting is invisible. The difference between the two very physical, actively unrealistic styles is in their intention. Camp is exaggerated and comedic, but it is also gaudy and vulgar in its self-aware comedy. Camp mocks the performance as it happens, and the skills required to perform camp are entirely unique and difficult to achieve.

Farce is exaggerated and comedic, but it is both simpler and more difficult than camp. It is simple in the sense that the physical comedy is reduced to simple gestures and juxtapositions, like the double take and improbable series of events (for example, the one person enters just as another person leaves scenario, which made “Boeing Boeing” such a success in 2008). It is extraordinarily difficult, however, in the sense that an actor in a farce can never acknowledge the absurdity of a situation as a camp performer might. Both camp and farce require a rigorous level of training in order to be successful and are legitimate schools of performance in their own right.

What all of these methods have in common, however, is that they are perceived as suited to very specific types of plays, whereas method acting is perceived as universally applicable. The most noteworthy competition in that category is the Brechtian school of performance. Bertolt Brecht is famous for creating an alienation effect; he wanted to keep the audience aware of the fact that they were in a theater, seeing a performance. What is less well known about Brechtian performance is that it involves its own unique school of acting. A Brechtian actor is demonstrative but does not internalize the emotions. While a method actor works from the inside out, a Brechtian actor simply shows. The intent of this technique is to prevent the audience from forming a strong connection with the actor, but the technique of creating a purely physical demonstration of a supposed sentiment could just as easily be used in Chekhov. In fact, the detached quality may be an improvement on some method actors’ performances.

Many acting techniques feed into each other, but the fact of the matter is that it is difficult to really know what techniques an actor is employing to prepare for a role unless you are involved in the rehearsal process.

Bill Irwin may be a clown, but he has also played George in the iconic drama “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf.” Faye Dunaway may have been phenomenal is the camp hit “Mommie Dearest,” but she also made a striking Bonnie to Warren Beatty’s Clyde in the 1967 drama/thriller “Bonnie and Clyde.” The fact is that in any given production, the cast employs a motley set of styles. There are numerous alternatives to the American Method, all of which are at work and all of which deserve recognition for their contributions to theater and film. Next time you are at the theater, ask yourself whether or not the actors or actresses really needed to put themselves through hell to prepare for roles.
Anne is a senior. She can be reached at acolema1@swarthmore.edu.

---

« RETURN TO LIVING & ARTS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »