does method acting impress you? - Page 3

Yes. I find the best of the acting performances have come when actors follow this approach. Its restrained and the character is the focus not the actor. It is as realistic and true to the sourrce as it can get. This is a reason why the art is so hard to master and many don't bother with it. Also one of the reason why the actors who take such a path are respected around the globe and thought as the best there are.

I have seen people throwing terms around like not natural, artificial etc on this forum. And surprisingly its a view that I have come across so dominantly only here. The question is how can it be artificial when the said person is working extra hard to understand the character. To get the little nuances right. It will be as close to the character, as realistic as it can get.
Surely that person is better equipped to bring out all the details in a certain portrayal.

The problem as I have come to understand it, is in the roles. Prior to 2010 (even now) most of the BW movies were either romances or Masala action with little to no story behind them; songs and dances are thrown in between. These kind of roles don't require much acting at all and hence one can get away with it. But seen now, they come across as comical and over the top. However, take Earth, Swades, Lagaan, Maqbool etc and you wont see any difference. That's what good acting to me is, it stands the test of time. And in that you would find most of the performances that are restrained, well thought out and calculated.

I have seen some of Aamir's movies from the 90's and he is not even 20% the actor he is today or was from after Lagaan. Baring few movies like Earth, Sarfarosh, Raakh; there is nothing to write home about in his performances. Some of them are downright mediocre. There is a world of difference between the Aamir of pre 2001 as opposed to post. And the reason why is obvious.

Edit: This is not to say that you cant be good otherwise in a role. You can be, there are certain roles that don't require these methods at all. But as I have said above; I have noticed that people have delivered some of best performances through this route, more so by far than the other way around.

In my opinion a good actor is some1 who becomes the character onscreen . Don't care whether it's natural, methodical,physical,chemical etc

Method acting requires that you don't play a role which is comfortable for you, it will never challenge you..

A sacrifice for method actors is it will take considerable amount of time to nail it and become a ''natural method actor''
Ranveer is in the process early and is taking strides, Aamir while is the role model in bollywood for method acting.. Nawaz is an extremely powerful natural method actor..Akki is a method actor too..
Ranbir is trying to be one...because he has already understood that he cannot go on doing YJHD and ''normal'' roles his whole life, there's no fun and satisfaction and one can notice it in his choices these days..

As long as I am able to forget their real self and engage myself into their characters. I love that kinda acting..don't care what's their approach is. Be it Jhilmill or Rancho.. nowhere I was reminded of hottie PC or 40+ Aamir acting as a college student. Recently being Bajirao and Ranbir in Tamasha.. They all were brilliant..made me forget who they are.

The question is why is method acting not considered as something good in bollywood? I don't care what acting actors use as long as they are able to convey the emotions to the people, be it joy, sadness, guilt, pain or conflict.

Originally posted by: mayumi

The question is why is method acting not considered as something good in bollywood? I don't care what acting actors use as long as they are able to convey the emotions to the people, be it joy, sadness, guilt, pain or conflict.

Method acting and Aamir khan lol no ways. His recent films besides probably a PK are all so stiff. He is such a woody actor. Bt I appreciate some1 like ranveer he is not only a naturally actor bt some1 who works on his acting and it shows. I think a natural actor who is a method actor is the best.

Originally posted by: mayumi

The question is why is method acting not considered as something good in bollywood? I don't care what acting actors use as long as they are able to convey the emotions to the people, be it joy, sadness, guilt, pain or conflict.

Originally posted by: rogerrocks

But who said method acting is not considered as something bad in Bollywood? If that were the case, Aamir wouldn't be considered a brilliant actor today😆 I don think anyone is against method acting per se..Of course its awesome when ppl take their profession seriously..The whole point is whether an actor comes across as natural/ relatable on screen..Doesn't matter whether you rehearsed for a year or just came to the sets and gave the shot..All that is irrelevant so long as you appear natural on screen..Actors go on and on about preparing for a role(Varun i think mentioned that he stopped talking to people while prepping for Badlapur or something along those lines😆)..If method acting was considered bad, they obviously wont bother doing that😆

I don't know what Bollywood folks think about it. But I have noticed that there is a notion of method acting being 'mechanical' or something. Why is it even called natural acting vs method acting. Method acting can be very natural and effortless. When one pits it against terms like effortlessness and being 'natural', it automatically sounds as if method acting is robotic, whereas it's just another way to get into the skin of your character. At the end of the day, all that matters is Good acting and I'm pretty sure everybody agrees on that unanimously.