It is common knowledge that there are multiple methods for acting. One of the most notorious (and controversial) is known as “The Method”, fathered by the famous theater practitioner, Lee Strasberg, in which the actor “becomes” their character often for long periods of time. While the use of “The Method” has produced many outstanding performances, it can be unreliable due to the loss of control actors face after being “in it” for too long, not to mention it is known to have caused serious damage to those who have utilized it. Like “The Method”, every single acting technique has its pros and cons as well as its proponents and opponents, but the truth is there is no correct way to act. 

Acting methods are like different painting styles. You can use an infinite number of different styles to depict the same image, but depending on which one you use, different effects will be produced and, in some cases, a different meaning will arise. When different acting methods are used to portray the same character in a play, scene, or monologue, the performances will be different, which must be taken into account. Different performances demand different approaches. Just as an artist might not prefer to paint images of nature in the style of cubism, for a play in which the character is seriously injured, an actor would probably not prefer to use a neo-futurism technique in which everything that happens in the story actually happens on stage. 

Whether or not an acting method is “correct” all comes down to the outcome of the performance and the actor. Yes, it is important that the performance accomplishes what is required for the project, but what good is it if the method used for attaining that result causes mental, physical, or other damage to the actor, leaving them unable to live regularly, let alone work on another job? It is true that some actors are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their craft, and I understand this way of thinking, but I encourage any and all performers to continue to search for and study different methods before deciding to go with one that could potentially cause damage. I believe that there is always another way to create the same effect without causing yourself harm- your only limitation is your imagination. And if you cannot find another way to accomplish what is asked of you without causing yourself pain– emotional, physical, or otherwise– perhaps it is not a project you should be working on in the first place. 

That being said, I still believe that Strasberg’s method is completely valid and I do not agree with theater practitioners who reject the technique altogether and vehemently oppose its use by other performers. While it is completely valid for teachers to suggest certain methods and recommend the avoidance of others for their students, it doesn’t seem right to totally invalidate any method of acting. While it is true that Starsberg’s method does not serve every actor the same (just like any other acting method), I think that it is still important to not discourage an actor from exploring techniques that could potentially serve them very well in the future.

Feature image via https://strasberg.edu/about/what-is-method-acting/