Yet they must be mindful of how much of their own lives and experiences they imbue their characters with.” In the words of Richard Brody from the New Yorker, method acting “links emotional moments from a performer’s own life to that of a character, and which conceives characters in terms of complete and filled-out lives that actors imagine and inhabit, asks too much of performers,” because, “in the effort to make emotions true, to model performance on the plausible actions of life offstage or offscreen, the modern actor is often both too much and too little …show more content…
Classical acting is repeatable and logical, based more on physicality and embodiment than it’s emotion-based counterpart, and while method acting can certainly lead to excellent results if done properly by the right actors, the dangers to those actors’ psyches make it not quite worth the risk. However, ultimately, whether to try the method acting technique or go entirely classical is a decision that every actor should make for himself. As creators, actors work best with varying mediums and must all hone their skills in different ways that suit them best; there may be some method actors who ignore Strasberg’s “inside-out” emotion theory entirely and focus on their circumstances outside in more of Meisner’s technique, and this may do no damage to their mental state or in fact enhance their emotional and psychological capabilities. Though classical acting is overall a wiser choice, it is necessary for every actor to choose their own risks and decide alone if the merit of their good work is worth potential emotional problems for them in the