Method: The Evolution of Acting
Where did this acting technique come from and why is it so elusive?
If you’ve ever watched an actors’ roundtable interview, you’ve probably heard some sort of reference to the era before and after Brando.
The before and after era refers to the evolution of professional acting between the ’30s and ’50s, famously associated with Marlon Brando. Commonly known as the elusive “Method,” Brando’s technique deviated from classical acting as he sought to humanize his characters and experience an emotional connection with the role in order to convey something “real.”
A groundbreaking innovation in the realm of performance, the Method offered a way for actors to experience themselves through "the prism of another life."
Rooted in the ideas of Russian theater director and actor Constantin Stanislavski, method acting was interpreted differently by its leading proponents, resulting in two distinct schools of thought, popularized by Lee Strasberg and Stella Adler.
Strasberg advocated for the use of affective memory and urged actors to draw on personal experience in order to convey some kind of “truth.” Adler, who personally trained Brando, viewed Strasberg’s practice as being “sick and schizophrenic,” advocating instead for the actor’s imagination and the character’s motivation.
"Strasberg is dead. The actor cannot afford to look only to his own life for all his material nor pull strictly from his own experience to find his acting choices and feelings. The ideas of the great playwrights are almost always larger than the experiences of even the best actors."
Then came Sanford Meisner, who adapted Adler’s technique to include instinctual behavior. This taught actors how to be “truthful” under imaginary circumstances—to find some kind of alignment between “self” and “other” in their pursuit of authenticity and realism.
Of course, that’s not how the rest of us act in everyday life.
Even though, in a way, we’re all playing a character—some we identify with more closely than others—we simply don’t have the capacity to emotionally invest in each role. Especially when that insulated role conflicts with our identity.
That’s where self-deception comes in.
Going Method in Everyday Life
Let’s say you’re very different at work compared to how you are around friends and family.
Maybe being “a tough cookie” gets you ahead in your profession. Your employer has certain expectations, and you need to protect your reputation on the job.
In this case, you may keep a certain distance with your team in order to manage the burden of this “uncharacteristic” role.
You’re not really the asshole everyone makes you out to be, but hey, if it’ll get you and your family that trip to Europe, let ’em have it, right?
Getting your “boss mode” on in a meeting
Alternatively, you might secretly enjoy this role and dive right in, keeping your co-workers away from your friends, or your friends away from your family so you can present different versions of yourself at the same time to different audiences (a phenomenon described by sociologist Erving Goffman as audience segregation).
If that sounds familiar and you’re conscious of doing this, consider yourself an expert at practicing role distance.
When you stand estranged from a role, you allow yourself to “act out of character” without incurring the emotional cost of betraying yourself. It’s a socially acceptable form of playing pretend, even though it’s inherently tied to deception and social survival.
If you’re NOT conscious of doing this but have evidence to suggest you probably do: Congratulations, you’ve managed to go “full method” and reached heightened self-deception. The kind that would concern Daniel Day-Lewis.
"It’s utterly delusional to say you become some other person—you don’t. But you do get to know yourself in a different way, through the prism of that other life."
And if you think that’s complicated, consider for a moment what that might look like in the world of AI acting and performance…
