Talk:Lee Strasberg

His take on acting???

I can't believe this isn't mentioned. Franciscoh (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the following too much of mere anecdotal information?? 134.244.154.182

Strasberg refused to take a screen-test for the role and so Coppola had to guess at his suitability based on a cocktail-party conversation. Ironically, the great teacher of acting technique subsequently proved unconvincing playing the role as scripted and so the character was extensively rewritten to portray Hyman Roth as a sickly, understated senior-citizen whose quiet menace was shrouded in mundane domesticity. Once rewritten to work around Strasberg's limitations, Roth became a fascinating study of a old man unwilling to relinquish power long after his prime.

Seems like a good note to make about the man to me. Interesting too. - Sajt 10:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Stop the Jason Bennett Spammers

This entry has been repeatedly spammed by Jason Bennett and his supporters. If this spam appears again, it should be deleted. Mr. Bennett's Wikipedia entry has been deleted for not being notable and his spam has been removed many times. Please help keep Wikipedia a place for sharing information not advertising. Tree Trimer 10:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Monroe

Does anyone else believe that there is too much about Marilyn Monroe on here? That this entry is bogged down with needless information about her estate and the after effects of this will? I do not think that this serves a purpose to be part of Lee Strasberg's entry. What do you think? --K72ndst 04:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. All this stuff about Marilyn Monroe belongs elswhere. Perhaps a link to it would be more appropriate, if there were any reference to it at all.

I do not agree! Marilyn Monroe is as important to Lee Strasberg as the water for the Hoover damm. He got all her belongings and the name Strasberg will always be mentioned together with Marilyn Monroe. Anna Strasberg did not made actually $13.5 million, that is a correction. It is Lee Strasberg's fault, that Marilyn Monroe did not take a wonderful tv part in a Sommerset Maugham movie. He said no to it and he was wrong. In my opinion Lee Strasberg was way too overrated. He was a terrible actor himself and found a good spot as a teacher, that's all.

Table of contents formatting

I've reformatted the TOC to remove white space under the lead. Comments pro or con are helpful. -- Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations Needed

In the first paragraph I think citations are needed for the following bold claims,

one of the best-known and most important acting teachers in the history of American theater and film.

. . . "America’s first true theatrical collective"

considered "the nation's most prestigious acting school,"

was chief proponent of "Method acting"

These are broad claims, and if they cannot be backed up they must be removed. I5kfun (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Bold indeed! They're all backed up in the article - where they're supposed to be, with any cites. -- Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the following link for where they are "supposed to be. These appear to be claims rather than facts, and as such MUST be backed up by citations . I5kfun (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not revert the citation needed tags until consensus has been reached in the talk page. I5kfun (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC).

These are easier to find. I already added one. I am sure they can all be cited in a day or two. Wikiwatcher1, instead of being insulted, think of it as a challenge, and rev up Google and test your research skills. Every fact needs to be sourced, especially in the lede. If I5kfun thought they were incorrect he could have deleted them, he just wants to see the source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent/ec) I was asked to comment. I personnally have no problem with an editor adding a "fact tag" ANYWHERE in an article where they feel a statement or opinion or whatever needs to have a citation/backup. Even if the citation is already in the body of the article, it can easily be added to the lead if needed or requested, especially if it involves "claims" of impressive order. We all know that Wikipedia is a blackhole of policies/guidelines/manual of styles/younameit and these can be interruptted to support many different points of views and arguments. All most all of these have disclaimers that make them anything but rock solid. Wikipedia, for better or worse, works only by consensus and usually on a case by case basis. The notion that the lead should have no citations seems a stretch to me. Anyways, as always, I am one tinywiny editor so there :) --Tom 16:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

ps, thanks for the link to cites in the lead, couldn't have said it better :) --Tom 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Length of lead

The lead seems to have "grown" out of hand. Would anybody like to take a stab at a rewrite that isn't so "bloated" and hits just the high lights, with the commentary and quoations left for the body? Thanks in advance, --Tom 16:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The drop shadow and frame on the main image should go too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Photos marked for deletion

To add comments on the value of three photos to the article, you can comment here, and the two image sectons next to it: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_10#Actors_Studio_Cover --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)