If there is such a thing as naturalistic acting, why do you think it has changed over time?

In examining this question I will discuss the fundamental ideas that brought about the concept of naturalistic acting, taking it from its roots through twentieth century film and into contemporary cinema. In doing this I will call upon films and performances from two actors to support my findings, Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro.

The term star has established itself as an integral part of film theory and criticism as the subject has evolved. From early cinema, when the actors playing roles were merely seen as shells upon which the character would use to express itself, the roles have now changed considerably. Actors and actresses have become iconic images made up from a collection of texts that contrast a star as the performer (on stage) and the person (off stage), which then creates different meanings.

‘It is this duality of image which is deemed to mark a star, a duality which emphasises a balance between the site of fictional performance and life outside’. (Geraghty in Gledhill, p184)

In his work on stars Richard Dyer called upon the use of semiotics to explain why a stars appeal will connect with certain types of individuals. Rather than relying upon the belief that a stars charisma is a magical uniqueness, he looked at how the stars image related to social concerns. This image is built intertextually, not only from their films, but the other media texts that a star encounters such as interviews, trailers and newspaper articles. Using this approach Dyer found that a stars image is a collection of signs that are prone to change with time, thus making it polysemic. As a result the spotlight was brought onto how the stars ideals can either complement or contradict within the star image.

‘In some cases, the various elements of signification may reinforce one another…In other cases, the elements may be in some degree in opposition or contradiction, in which case the star’s image is characterised by attempts to negotiate, reconcile or mask the difference between the elements, or else simply hold them in tension’ (Dyer in Hollows 2000, p124)

The different aspects of image can then be encouraged or repressed when required for certain roles. An example can be taken from two of Marlon Brando’s portrayals, Stanley Kowalski in A Street Car Named Desire and Terry Malloy in On the Waterfront. In the former Brando plays a brutal, arrogant and misogynistic animal, whilst as the latter, despite playing a boxer we see little of these traits, instead witnessing a gentle, softly spoken and sensual character. The two scenes I have chosen to represent the differences both involve Brando in a one on one situation with the central female characters. As Kowalski we witness him slouching on the top of chairs, scratching himself and drinking beer with little elegance, allowing much of it to spill over himself and the floor. When talking his tone is harsh, mumbling in a scraping voice and often breaking into shouting, whilst the lighting upon him is bright and powerful, offering no place to hide. Any contact with his female lead is either to restrict her movement around the set, trapping her, before he then throws her onto a bed leading, we believe, to him raping her. In contrast as Malloy we see his childlike nature as he attempts to win the female leads affection, again mumbling but in a softer tone with less aggression. Wandering through an inner city park, playing effortlessly with the female leads glove that she has dropped, as if it were the woman itself, using it as a replacement for her before sitting on a swing in a relaxed posture: ‘suggesting macho power mixed with sexy graceful indolence’ (Naremore, p195). This typifies the bisexual effect that Marlon Brando has had in many of his films: ‘Even when he is playing a slightly punchy ex-boxer, there is something deeply sensual about him’ (Naremore, p194).

After identifying the contradictoriness of a stars’ image Dyer then continued to identify how stars might resolve ideological contradictions: ‘the stars’ image was a construct, not a pure expression of their ‘real’ personality….the signs which construct this image are still deployed by someone, the actual performer’. (McDonald in Hollows, 1995, p81). This is achieved partly because the contradictory elements are signified as the property of one person, the performer. In addition the meanings that become attached to that star become naturalised, as if they are an inherent feature of their identity, presenting that which is social as though it ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Marlon Brando’s breakthrough as a star came at a time when sexy, impulsive, rebellious young male leads were becoming the next generation of stars’ in the shifting post war world. The fifties became the decade of the teenager, with the film studios quick to observe this, identifying that it was adolescent teenagers who had the disposable income, thus making them a primary target. Stars were formed and films made that would appeal to this new phenomenon: ‘Brando is symptomatic of the period that produced Montgomery Clift, James Dean…all of them brooding, ostensibly inarticulate types who suggested a scandalous sexuality and who signalled American entertainments drift toward adolescent audiences in the decades after the war’. (Naremore, p195).

It was not only a rebellious, sexual nature that these players shared though; they were also part of the first generation of method actors to hit Hollywood.

Method acting had been a concept first conceived by Konstantin Stanislavski, co-founder of the and eminent practitioner of the naturalist school of thought. As the founder of the first acting ‘System’, the "Stanislavski Method", he challenged traditional notions of the dramatic process and proved to be the catalyst for method acting. The method presumed that truth in performance was rooted in genuinely felt experience-the moment on camera was merely the immediate manifestation of everything the actor had ever experienced up until that moment. In theory, the performance resonated with something like life.

‘It consisted of a series of quasi theatrical exercises, often resembling psychological therapy, designed to “unblock” the actor and put him or her in touch with sensations or emotions….thus appearing more natural and spontaneous’. (Naremore, p197)

1947 saw the creation of the Actors Studio which, headed by Lee Strasberg, heralded the first wave of cinematic method actors to reach Hollywood. Strasberg called upon his students to use the body as a spectacle through their facial expressions, voice and gestures, as well as their movement and posture.

‘The emphasis on realism and naturalness fitted the Bazinian notion that cinema’s key task is to reveal reality; the emphasis on emotion expressed through gesture and sound (rather than words)…the emphasis on the expressiveness of the body…the emphasis on inner character was consonant with the cinema’s promotion of stars as unique and authentic individuals’. (Geraghty in Gledhill, rfs, p192)

With the progression of time further generations of method actors have also emerged onto the scene bringing with them fresh perspective and impetus, in addition to the turmoil and anxiety that seem to be a pre-requisite to fill the role. Of the actors I speak of Robert De Niro is one who, like Brando before him has remained very much the individual, ignoring many of trappings that come with fame and abandoning responsibilities that many stars embrace; “Naremore comments that De Niro, ‘since becoming a famous actor, has avoided tacky celebrity interviews’” (Geraghty in Gledhill, p192). Brando, the original rebel had led the way with his non-conformist views and anti-celebrity manner and others such as Dustin Hoffman have kept the tradition alive. As a result the method has become synonymous with the word ‘difficult’ when referring to a practitioner of the technique, much like the characters many of the actors portray on screen.

The emphasis on the individual is one that De Niro carries heavily both on and off screen. Performances such as Max Cady in Cape Fear, Taxi Drivers Travis Bickle, Neil McCauley in Heat or Goodfellas Jimmy Conway, have all involved De Niro segregating himself, often in the name of a self appointed vocation. In his role as Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull we witness a man who gradually severs links with all who mean anything to him, most notably with his brother, Joey. ‘Dysfunctional in those roles- husband, father, brother- that might ordinarily add up to identity, LaMotta effectively exists in a state of isolation and alienation approaching Bickles’ (Friedman, p120). We see how he excludes his brother from his life, the victim of his own paranoia when accusing him of sleeping with his wife. The calmness LaMotta displays as he speaks with his brother in what would have been a highly charged emotional atmosphere suggests this is not a spontaneous outburst. As he attempts to tune the television (a task you could often associate with loosing ones temper) Jake probes Joey, the character we associate with more self control. On this occasion it is he who is unable to control his emotions at such an accusation though and storms out of the house. LaMotta is a man in conflict with himself, and without the ability to articulate his emotions, rage against those who create his feelings of animosity seems the only answer. That De Niro can and has been asked to assume this loner trait so many times offers support to Colin Councells description of the method and its key signs. “‘a heightened emotionalism’ which is expressed in intense outbursts of expression; and ‘an underlying vision of the individual as divided between an authentic inner and potentially repressed/repressive outer self’” (Geraghty in Gledhill, p192). De Niro appears so competent at playing this trait that the line between performance and natural could be so blurred that it no longer exists, what we see is Robert De Niro, playing a character as Robert De Niro.

Placing emphasis on performance through work, craft and talent has become apparent amongst male method actors. As Malloy in Waterfront Brando used the technique to full effect in a scene featuring him and his brother, Charlie. Squeezed into the back of claustrophobic taxi cab to accentuate every gesture, look, gaze and line, as the scene develops both actors assume control. From the opening Charlie controls the pace, nervously focusing solely upon Terry, who is relaxed and slouching back in his seat. As the discussion continues Charlie’s tone gets higher due to the unwanted responsibility he has been given, whilst Terry’s remains at its normal level. As Charlie becomes more frantic he pulls a gun onto Terry, which signals the change of pace and control, what has been described as a ‘beat change’. From here on Terry grows in strength, his emotion switching between disbelief and disgust; ‘The scene’s climactic speeches derive much of their power from Brando’s rhythms and gestures, which reveal tides of emotion running beneath Terry Malloy’s supposedly clumsy talk.’ (Naremore, p210). Terry, with one gesture then seems to gather all emotion present in him as he recalls how he was once forced to take a dive in a fight by his brother, raising his hand in the air with his palm facing his face and declaring ‘I coulda had class! I coulda been a contender! I coulda been somebody!’. The reversal of roles complete, as a result Brando subsequently became known as an ‘axiom of method acting’ and pioneer of naturalism.

With Scorsese’s Raging Bull twenty five years later came De Niro’s opportunity at playing the boxer at odds with his brother. LaMotta, like Malloy relied upon his brother both professionally and emotionally, as well as having thrown a fight on his prompt. Unlike Malloy, LaMotta gained the chance to avenge this mistake though and became champ. In contrast to Brando, De Niro’s boxer does not display a sensual side, having more in common with A Street Car Named Desires Stanley Kowalski in many respects. The animal aspect to his nature is displayed away from the ring through his manner of eating and scratching, whilst his relationships with women are volatile due to his inability to keep his temper in check, defining him in purely physical terms. In one the films final scenes LaMotta is heard quoting Malloy though, likening not there persona’s, or their careers, but their relationships with their brothers. In becoming LaMotta De Niro had gone to extreme lengths to reflect as closely as possible; ‘fine tuning his body to portray LaMotta in his prime or ballooning sixty pounds to resemble obese and dissolute, De Niro lived the role so completely’ (Friedman, p126). The commitment shown emphasises the lengths to which the actors must now go to if the audience is to believe the performance as realistic.

In recent years as the audiences understanding in identifying the method has improved. Acting is now forced to share the screen with new forms of technology, which have subsequently heralded the blockbuster and to some extent the star that becomes famous for ‘being themselves’ in a performance, as apposed to the method actor who gains stardom for ‘acting as themselves’.

‘In the process, the method has been conventionalised so that audiences can recognise the signs of performance cognitively as well as responding to its emotional resonances’ (Geraghty in Gledhill, p192).

The audience now has the ability to form a distinction between star and character in which the performance is taking place, though reliant as it is in contrast to non-method acting. The method allows the audience to connect with the character on a new level, a result of which sees them gain further knowledge of the performances quality and value; ‘Thus, where as in the 1950s’ cinema the Method was associated with the youthful naturalness and impulsive rebellion of James Dean or Marlon Brando, cinematic method acting is now a way of marking performance as work and thus claiming cultural value’. (Geraghty in Gledhill, p193). The method has offered stars the chance to pro-long their careers through the pin-up years, taking focus away from the body as a spectacle and onto it as a site for performance.

Michael Mann’s Heat offered two method actors, De Niro and Al Pacino, with the chance to pit their legendary skills against each other in the same scene for the first time; ‘Their roles in Heat distil the elements of other roles they have played throughout their careers, and not just in the sense of iconic weight their screen presence and familiarity brings to every role’ (James, p53). One the criminal, one the cop, we see how two highly experienced actors, renowned for roles played in the youth, trade blows as the camera focuses purely on their faces, framing tighter as the scene continues. Though their performances differ, Pacino seems more alert, eyes wide open, leaning forward where as De Niro is more reserved leaning back, the sense that they work well together is obvious. The method has allowed them both to conceive a form of acting that, though it may differ from Brando due to cinematic developments, is still born from the same ideals that Stanislavski and Strasberg had brought to cinema, just that now the cultural value associated with the technique has reached greater heights.