What other acting techniques are there besides "method?

Is method acting really just a myth?

• Recently read this alleged quotation from Tom Hardy recently. "“It is a misconception. It’s a wanky term bandied around by people in the acting circle who don’t know what they’re talking about. For those outside the acting circle, I absolutely understand why we might be considered method actors, but there are really only two types of acting: convincing and not convincing. I don’t care how you get there. Just get there yesterday. I mean, there are any amount of coffee cup exercises, leather jackets and Brando haircuts. There are enough angry young men to fill several armies the world over. But to be honest, method actors have got a bit of a reputation. I think it connotes their taste in the 1970s Strasberg centre. Those boys were all heavily influenced by all kinds of *beep* in the 60s and 70s; it was a very different period of time. Method acting nowadays is a bit of a wanky term for ‘lazy’”

• Answer:

  I think there are points to this that are valid, and points that are generalized. Let's start with the parts I agree with. In argument against method-- "there are really only two types of acting: convincing and not convincing." Simple? Yes. True? Yes. The fact is, assuming you're a good actor, the audience will have no idea if you actually did the things your character did, or if you just imagined them. It's completely irrelevant. Moot point! The audience doesn't care what you did to "get there", only that you "got there". I also agree that the phrase "method actor" gets bandied about A LOT more than it should. However, just because it gets misused doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. In argument for method-- Oh, I can assure you, method acting is very real. The problem here isn't existence, but a difference in the actual intended definition and the bastardized version. What people think "method acting" is--Staying in character for the duration of the project. What method acting really is--Derived from Stanislavski's "method" (acting approach), or that of one of his students (notably Strasberg, Hagen, Meisner, Adler). This involves an actor immersing themselves in the character to the point where they can think, feel, and react in the way the character would. So, we have this discrepancy. I think Hardy's (alleged?) response is directed towards the first definition. Again, he's making broad generalizations. But if you look at the quote in terms of true "method", most of his points are completely off. Yeah, there are "method actors" out there. Anyone who employs Lee Strasberg's teachings is a "method actor". Is this approach "lazy"? Absolutely not. It is incredibly taxing mentally, physically, and especially emotionally. And it is exceptionally difficult. I think this quote exists, not to refute the existence of method actors, but instead to argue against the validity of the bastardized definition of the word. I wonder, though--what do you mean by "alleged quotation"?