There are two major styles of acting -- natural and method.
Some of the critically acclaimed actors like Aamir, Kangana, Rajkumar Rao, Priyanka Chopra,Ranveer Singh prefer dipping into realms of research, rather than just showing up and performing. They completely inhabitate the world of the character - including the body language, the dialogues, the emotions etc.in such a way that you forget the original personality traits of the actors.
Do you think method acting, which involves lot of discipline and is not an easy task, is essential for long-term critical success? Or is the whole point to appear so natural that the effort is just not seen, which also takes effort?
Do you think method acting takes performances to another level? Or do you think the outcome comes across as too rehearsed and artificial, which takes away the natural charm and spontaneity? I know some people use the term 'contrived' to describe method acting. But the question is how can it be a negative 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, right?
For me, effortlessness on screen and passion off-screen is very important. So long as someone is convincing in a role, it doesn't matter how they achieve that. I find Vidya Balan one of the best actresses, and I think she's a pure natural. Kangana is also someone whom I enjoy watching onscreen, and she's a method actor. For me, I cannot choose between Kangana and Vidya. Both are supremely talented, in different ways.
Thoughts?
Anupamaa
9