One of the best books I've read is 'Secrets of Screen Acting' by Patrick Tucker; it has a lot of practical info rather than weird theories.

In terms of learning, though, you can learn the basics from a book but then you need to get out and practice in front of a camera.

Thanks. Hopefully i can find things specific to film acting. Because i can't understand all that method acting and getting into character so I'm hoping i can understand that through a book.

Personally, as someone who's edited a lot of movies, I don't have a high opinion of 'method acting'. Maybe it's necessary on stage where you have to stay in character for two hours, but in a movie your performance is created at least as much in the edit as it is on set.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 15filmakernyc

With no acting experience at all, i figure i myself and the actors i use should learn a little about acting. I've tried the strasenberg, Adler and checkov (or however u spell them) but i have no idea what it means. I know to be a good actor you have know the history and philosophy but i haven't been alive long enough to understand those long drawn out paragraphs about human nature or how the mind works.

My point: What book/video should i be looking to learn how to act. Even more important: Can you really learn how to act through a book or video?

---

Take a look at this book which I recently read, a natural approach. Author coaches many famous and not famous people:
How to Stop Acting (Paperback) by Harold Guskin (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/How-Stop-Acting-Harold-Guskin/dp/0413774236/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4213635-0316031?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183299714&sr=8-1

"I know to be a good actor you have know the history and philosophy but i haven't been alive long enough to understand those long drawn out paragraphs about human nature or how the mind works".

Don?t take this the wrong way yeah, cause its meant with best intentions in mind. That?s complete bull shit, get that out of your head straight away. The person sitting next to me might know all there is to know about the analytical side of acting, inside and out, but dose that make him a good actor? It means that he?s easily influenced by what other people say is the right way to do things.

You need your actors to work to your own vision, and not how some one else would have them work for him/her. Plus why are you going to take advice from some one that you don?t know, that wrote a book about how he gets his actors perform.

To be a good actor you have to be good at portraying accurately different emotions, body language a mood that the scene requires and reality (Unless of course your making a comedy or something, in which case this doesn?t apply). I could probs pick 20 people of the street right now to do an audition, and by law of averages Could probs find at least 3 good actors. Which is why I put this question to ya.

Why is it important for them to know every thing there is to know about acting, if they can just get up in front of the camera and perform?

Books: Acting for dummies could probs help you if its books that your looking for.

Life?s full of natural performers, most just aren?t a wear that their doing it. Cleary.

www.myspace.com/holteendproductions

Did you ever see "The Champ"? Rick Schroder was 9 in the remake and so was Jackie Cooper in the original. Do you think they knew the history and philosophy and had lived long enough to understand those long drawn out paragraphs about human nature or how the mind works?

Tatum O'Neal was 10 when she was in "Paper Moon" and won an Academy Award. Anna Paquin was 11 when she was in and won the Academy Award for "The Piano". Dakota Fanning was 7 when she was acting in "I Am Sam" and was nominated for best actor by the Screen Actors Guild Awards. Do you think any of these young actors knew the history and philosophy and had lived long enough to understand those long drawn out paragraphs about human nature or how the mind works?

I agree with Cleary - get this crazy, insupportable idea out of your head straight away! You are looking for reasons to fail. The more you look, the easier they will be to find.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

There are two kinds of acting. The Method, and acting. The method believes you must think like the character. How would the character open the door? What would they think as they stubbed their toe? This is suppossed to be visible to the viewer and is big amung many in Hollywood who will even insist in acting as the character offset during the filming of a flick.

Acting is pretending you are the character. The script says you cry so you think about some really sad event in your life and try to get yourself to cry. If that doesn't work you get the prop guy to add some fake tears. You pretend. Anthony Hopkins in preperation to do Hannibal Lecktor did a Hal 9000 impression with his voice. That's it, but out of context it came off as very creepy. This is much more common with the English.

I have a lot of respect for actors but I have to say the Method reminds me of criminal profiling like in the movies "Manhunter" and "Red Dragon" and I don't doubt its one of the reasons many actors seem emotionally unhinged to the rest of us.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

I guess my question is pretty much answered. But it brings another that i might have asked. With everything said than what I thought was true. You can't learn acting from a book or video. It just doesn't feel like its something you learn by looking at words.

Different people learn in different ways. Some are naturals and others take classes.

There is also another level of technical acting nobody here has mentioned. That is eyelines, hitting marks, and continuity of action between takes. Books can probably help a great deal in those regards. Eyelines (very roughly) is looking in the right direction and not at the camera, and not allowing the sound guy to distract you when he sets up right behind the other actor. It's really hard, I had to scrap a lot of scenes because one actor kept looking at the camera (or director) and I didn't notice the subtle eye flickers until editing. Hitting marks is mostly about the actor walking and stopping at the right spot where the lighting has been pre-arranged for you to look good. Walk to far and your in darkness or the catch-lights in your eyes are gone and you look lifeless. Continuity is doing the same thing over and over each take in the same way and at the same timing so that editing is as easy as possible (which means less cut-aways and potentially more screen time for that actor).

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA