As Dyer explains, Brando is
a perfect example of the “Method”, embodying an omnipresent virility and
putting all the emotions in the body instead of the ‘head’ or social
expressions.
Brando,
especially with his performance in A Streetcar
named Desire, is actually the concrete roots of the Method: he embodies a savage
male character in every simple actions such as chewing or sorting through
clothes. He showed how the Method is used to tap into an actor's subconscious
thoughts and emotions that may help portray more complex states of being or
thoughts, such as jealousy, repression, or layered emotions.
The differences
between stage acting and film acting are fascinating as we can read but
probably the gap is not as huge as we think. Stage actors are often thought to
be "more talented" because of the immediateness of their performance,
whereas film actors' final performances are edited in post production, and it’s
somehow true.
If so few actors make the transition between stage and films and do it well it is probably a question of habits. The context of work is very different. But the acting technique itself is very close now with the Method.
A major point
is that despite emotions and gestures are the key component of the Method,
actors do not fully act to make feel their inside emotions but instead perform
to fully comply with the stereotypes, especially with the gender conventions.
I think the idea of film and theater being dramatically different would vary from person to person. I personally think that the two styles are entirely different because one (theater) is the emersion of a character for an extended period of time, unbroken and projecting to the back of the theater for everyone to clearly understand character motivations form scene to scene. With film, actors can reach a more grounded and intimate performance because of how close we can actually see them, their eyes, and their minor mannerisms.
ReplyDelete