John Garfield is absolutely brilliant.
Film's first method actor who preceded a generation of actors including Brando, Clift, Dean, Pacino, De Niro, Hoffman, etc.
He was supposed to play Terry Malloy in Waterfront but passed away before it was made. I hope new film fans get to know this brilliant actor as his life was cut short due to poor health and the stress and anxiety of the insanity of the Hollywood blacklist.
From what I've seen, he may have well saved his best to the last - his Nick Robey is such a complex creature who radiates real vicious danger while also being confused, afraid and even somewhat sympathetic in his vulnerability. A paranoid man who can't quite convince himself that he's in control, try as he might. And it's in a very large part thanks to him that things never gets dull, even though he's holed up in that apartment for some 2/3 of the film. Winter doesn't do too bad, either, even though her homely persona and clumsy, needy schtick became all too familiar over the years.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
I agree John Garfield was brilliant in this film and imho, he was getting better and better as an actor all the time as great as he already was. Had he not left us so soon, we'd have seen some phenomenal performances.
I do have to correct you about one thing. Garfield was not film's first method actor, certainly not even American films first either. He was probably the most famous during the height of his career, but there was at least one great actor who preceded Garfield right out of the Group Theater. And that was Franchot Tone who was very popular in the 30's and also became an amazing character actor as an older man on stage and in film. One of his last great roles was as the President in "Advise and Consent"
Tone was among the early members of the "Group" and in it's first stage production.
Tone was thought by many at the time, including Lee Strasberg to be the best actor in the Group Theater. He was also nominated for an Oscar in 1935 for his role in "Mutiny on the Bounty". His movie career preceded Garfield by about 5 years.
Tone is little remembered now, but he was an excellent actor, stereotyped in "gentleman" type roles in the 30's, much as Garfield was playing tough guys.
No doubt these two men were the most famous film actors to come out of the Group Theater and the first two, if memory serves. Stella Adler, perhaps the greatest Acting teacher in America in the last century, also started acting in films at the time and she too was excellent, but her film career didn't take off.
Shortly after Tone, Garfield and Adler there was a wave of actors from the Group Theater and even actors who were personal students of Stanislavsky himself; all whom preceded the popular so-called method actors of the 1950's. So those guys were not even close to being among the first.
Where the great transition took place was two-fold. Firstly, the 1950's appearance of Brando's singular work as an individual talent raised everyone's attention in the theater/film business and out. His mixture of acting skills and personal charisma and utter relaxation that also revealed a great intensity underneath is what caused the so-called sea change.
Secondly,the greater wave of talent in the 1950's was the direct result of many performers in the Group Theater becoming acting teachers in the 1940's. Kazan, Stella Adler, Sandy Meisner, Bobby Lewis, Kazan, Harold Clurman,Checkov, etc created a new generation of so-called method actors, even though each of them had their own unique approach that sometimes disagreed with one another. Mostly though they all disagreed with Strasberg who focused his approach on one aspect of Stanislavsky's much broader approach.
In fact many actors who are associated with Strasberg and the Actor's Studio trained with other teachers either exclusively or in large part. Brando for example studied with Stella Adler and was her protege'. Gregory Peck and Eli Wallach started with Meisner, Monty Clift worked with Mira Rostova, Yul Bryner, Jack Palance, Beatrice Straight and Gregory Peck also studied with Michael Checkov who was considered by Stanislavsky to be his most brilliant pupil.
Interesting info but can you explain Method acting as opposed to whatever else other actors do? All I ever hear is that some of these people will stay in character and try to 'become' the character.
It all sounds pretty obnoxious to me; and, frankly, the opposite of what I'd consider an actor to be. I enjoy movies from the past before the Method came about and enjoy those movies quite a bit. Daniel Day Lewis is the actor that I most associate with Method acting and I'm not at all a fan. I did enjoy Garfield's performance in this movie and I like most of the other actors you mentioned.
I don't consider them similar in the way they play a role so what am I missing about this Method type of acting?
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]
Sorry for the delay in replying. I'm happy to help if I can.
There is no one "method" acting style. There are a number of them today and always have been actually. The struggle to find a truthful approach to acting has been going on since acting came out of the mystery centers in ancient Greece.
There was a Greek actor named Polus, who lived in ancient Greece for example who was doing a scene from Electra, I think. Anyway the scene called for him to be holding the urn of Orestes in a very emotional moment. Polus opted to use the actual urn of his own dead son for the scene. I don't know if he pulled it off or not lol, but you can see here that way back in ancient Greece there was an actor striving for this balance between realism or truth and theatricality, so to speak.
This back and forth has gone on ever since. Even Shakespeare gets into the act and as a writer in Wiki states, his famous speech of Hamlet's from act 3 sc. 2 of Hamlet is kind of a "proto-Stanislavsky" approach. Read that whole speech and you will see everything that a so-called method actor would and should be doing.
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speak_the_speech#The_speech";
I'm wondering what you feel "sounds pretty obnoxious"? If you get specific maybe I can clarify some things for you or better respond to your questions.
Your dislike of Day Lewis could just be a subjective one. Lewis and Garfield who you do like would both be considered method actors in the loose sense of the phrase.
Sometimes there are some actors who people just don't like, who may objectively be good actors. Just like there are some singers who do hit the notes, they can sing but you might not like them. For example, Joan Crawford and Bette Davis are two actors I just never liked. I do like B.D in "All About Eve" but just don't care to watch her or Crawford's films. They kind of grate on me. But they are empirically good actors.
The modern definition of method acting is quite a loose one as I said as there are a number of different modern styles that often disagree with one another.
I studied with Sandy Meisner who disagreed adamantly with Lee Strasberg in terms what was considered important in acting training. Now why has acting training even become important. It has in the same way that artists, actors, dancers, musicians, etc need to practice their art and with the dying of live stage performances (in the early part of the 20th century, there were still many theaters that aspiring and professional actors could apprentice at and hone their craft. Well that is no more, so the school's have taken precedent. This is where they learn and make their mistakes and stretch their acting muscles much like an athlete trains in sports.
But perhaps if you name some of the actors you like and don't like and ask any other more specific questions, I could help you further.