Content deleted Content added
Line 100:
I have stopped arguing that they shouldn't be grouped as "method". It's really just semantics. Basically, you were right and I misconceived calling them method as calling them Strasberg. I didn't want my sources to mean otherwise, all I "wanted them to say" was the stuff I quoted. And they said that. You know... since they're quotations. Again, I just want to have a separate article for Strasberg's Method. My point was Ribot "discovered" it ''first''- and the term "affective memory" was coined by him. As for Stella, the source you gave and what I said say basically the same thing- the only difference is that source says she kept EM intact, whereas I drew a distinction between her practices and EM. I did read the abstract and I read a majority of that thesis. And I've always been talking about America, not London. When I say "early on" I mean before the 50s- since many say that's when the term was coined. And the 30s are before the 50s! :) And my comment about non-Stanislavskian influences is referring to other acting theorists who inspired them, such as Chekhov in the case of Meisner. You say Chekhov moved into expressionism up above- I agree he ventured away from strict realism, which is what Meisner liked. I generally term that "transcendental realism" because it strikes me very as different from German expressionist theatre and film. How can I be both one of Meisner's lot and one of Adler's lot, and a hapless victim of ideological Sovietization of the MAT? You have to give me a little more credit, first you say I'm not using reliable sources then I say all the research I've done and you say, well those are biased because they're primary sources. Forgive me for trusting the people who were actually there! But again all of this is distracting from my main point. I just want to split this from Strasberg's Method! And yes, you did a great job at [[Stanislavski]] and [[Stanislavski's system]]. Do you have any interest in film? Maybe you know of sources I can use to fill in the blanks at [[Classical Hollywood cinema]]. I hate that name because idiots confuse it with "Golden Age Hollywood", which apparently means "studio system age Hollywood". All of those articles need work...-[[User:Monochrome Monitor|<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome</small>]]<big>_</big>[[User talk:Monochrome Monitor|<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor</small>]] 15:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I am confused by your response. On the one hand, you say "I have stopped arguing that they shouldn't be grouped as 'method'". But then you write: "I just want to have a separate article for Strasberg's Method". Which is it? Are you proposing to write another article to act as a subarticle to this more general one? I don't follow you. And no, the sources don't support the sense you're arguing. Look at the Benedetti one, for example. It doesn't say Stan abandoned EM. It's not the same thing to say that Stella abandoned it and/or kept using it. They're opposite statements. (And really, you read that thesis??? Even the abstract reveals it's garbage! How that got past a Viva panel is beyond me... But like I said, off-topic.) Chekhov isn't a non-Stanislavskian source. He's completely within the Stanislavski tradition--it's simply that his "psychological gesture" overlaps with Expressionism, rather than mainstream Naturalism/Realism. Just like Stan's work is as much "Symbolism" as N/Realism. I wasn't commenting on your allegiances at all--I was describing the geneaology of the arguments you are presenting: Moore adopts uncritically DIAMAT version. The teleological narrative is more widespread in its sources but is a central part of that. Again, Carnicke explains it at length. And the point about 3rd party is that's '''our''' critera for an encylopaedia (which is a different argument to assessing the truth of any of the primary sources' claims, though as Carnicke demonstrates at length, as does Benedetti, they ''are'' dubious claims). Yes, I've been a film studies/history of cinema/film theory lecturer, and I teach acting for camera. But there are far fewer editors contributing to theatre articles than those for film, so I won't be straying anytime soon. (But I would observe, I'm afraid, and again off-topic, that your sense of the film term isn't entirely in line with academic criticism--it does refer to a set of techniques and attitudes, but it is also the historical designation of a period that includes the "golden age"). The point about the material presented above is that it is offered to support the position that all three of the named practitioners belong together under the general term "method acting". This doesn't exlude the development of articles on variations of the approach of each as subarticles. It simply proposes that the current organisation of grouping all the variations together under the general term is correct and supported by reliable third-party sources. <span style="border: 2px dashed #BDBDBD;">[[User:DionysosProteus|'''<span style="background-color:#F7F7F7; color:black"> • DP • </span>''']]</span> [[User_talk:DionysosProteus|<sup>{huh?}</sup>]] 16:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
| |||