Stanislavski Studies

Practice, Legacy, and Contemporary Theater

ISSN: 2056-7790 (Print) 2054-4170 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfst20

Lee Strasberg’s Method

Peter McAllister

To cite this article: Peter McAllister (2018) Lee Strasberg’s Method, Stanislavski Studies, 6:1,
105-110, DOI: 10.1080/20567790.2018.1446410

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/20567790.2018.1446410

Published online: 06 Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 517

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfst20
Stanislavski Studies, 2018
VOL. 6, NO. 1, 105–110
https://doi.org/10.1080/20567790.2018.1446410

Lee Strasberg’s Method

Peter McAllister
The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama, London, UK

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Lee Strasberg (1901–1982) is a divisive figure whose method of acting Lee Strasberg; method
is often misunderstood. Few people really know what it is or how it acting; actors studio;
works, or what is its true relationship to the Stanislavski System. This Stanislavsky; Boleslavsky
is due to a number of misconceptions about the nature of his training
with its emphasis on the development of the sensory imagination.
This paper aims to challenge some of the myths about the Method,
and to clarify Strasberg’s unique contribution to actor training.

For many years now, Lee Strasberg’s reputation as a teacher of acting has been repeatedly
called into question. Depicted by his detractors variously as “a highly overrated cultural
icon”1 and as “a dogmatic who brooked no heresies,”2, it has also been suggested that he was
largely responsible for the decline of the American theatre.3 Even playwright Arthur Miller
chose to ridicule him in his last play, Finishing the Picture, in a thinly disguised portrait of a
self-serving artistic fraud called Jerome Fassinger.4 As David Krasner observes in his article,
“I Hate Strasberg,” disdain for him is so intense that it “has become a favorite pastime.”5 With
so much hostility towards him personally, it’s hardly surprising many people find it difficult
to separate the man from the Method. In this article, therefore, I wish to re-evaluate the
artistic legacy of this hugely controversial figure, as well as to challenge some of the more
common misconceptions about the Method.
So what exactly is the Method? To begin with, it’s not really a method.6 As Strasberg tried
to clarify on a number of occasions, it’s an approach to acting rather than a fixed set of rules:7
I have always stated simply that the Method is based on the principles and procedures of the
Stanislavsky system… However, I have always referred to our own work as a “method of work,”
because I never liked the implication of the term “system”… (Strasberg 1989, 84)
The important words here to note are “principles” and “procedures” − it’s a way of working
− as he stated in an interview, “it’s about tools, not rules.”8
Strasberg based his training on a model taken from Stanislavski. In the first part – “the
actor’s work on the self ” − the focus is on training the actor’s sensory imagination, while in
the second part – “the actor’s work on the role” − the focus is on preparing scenic material
for performance.9 His private classes reflected this two-part structure with two hours on
exercises to train the actor-as-instrument, and two hours for work on monologues or scenes
to train the actor-as-player. It should be noted, however, that this applied only to his private

CONTACT  Peter McAllister  Peter.McAllister@cssd.ac.uk

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
106   P. MCALLISTER

classes − in the sessions at the Actors’ Studio, the actors themselves chose whether to work
on exercises, monologues or scenes in front of an audience of professional observers.
The training part consists of a sequence of exercises involving imaginary objects. This
is because Strasberg believes that the fundamental skill of acting is in learning how to
respond to imaginary stimuli.10 The exercises involve simple everyday activities such as
having a drink, looking in a mirror, putting on underwear, and taking a shower.11 Through
a sequence of carefully structured exercises, the actor explores a series of imaginary objects
going from the simple to the complex − from single to multiple sensations, from material
to non-material sensations, from outer to inner sensations and from sensorial to emotional
experiences.12 The sequence incorporates all five of the senses, slowly increasing the strength,
intensity, and combination of sensations experienced by the body.
To enable these sensations to be manifested fully, the actor prepares the body to express
them by relaxing both physically and mentally, using sounds to release any pent-up feelings,
and by “speaking out” any difficulties that may occur.13 Each step of the sequence encour-
ages the actor to go deeper into the sensory imagination so as to meet the full range and
complexity of experience required by a play.14 And while the style of theatrical expression
may change from play to play, the basic organic reality is always the same − no matter what
kind of play, the actor always creates a real “live” human being who thinks, breathes, senses,
feels, moves, speaks, acts, and experiences on the stage.
The performing part consists of working on monologues or scenes. The emphasis here
is on learning to apply the exercises to various kinds of scenic material. Strasberg’s opening
question after each presentation − “What were you working for?”15 − aims to clarify whether
the application of the exercises to the scenic material has been successful in terms of creating
the basic sensory and emotional experience leading to physical action.16 It’s important to
note that Strasberg conceives of physical action as part of a complex interplay of character,
relationship, situation and event, leading him to disagree with Stanislavski’s later “Method
of Physical Actions.”17 In A Dream of Passion, he clarifies his view on the nature of action
saying it is “determined by a character’s emotional state”:
… if an actor knows how to create the proper sensory and emotional experiences which moti-
vate and accompany the behavior of the character, he will be accomplishing the primary task
of the actor: to act − that is, to do something, whether it be psychological or physiological.
(Strasberg 1989, 165)
For, as David Krasner points out in his article, “The System, Sense-Emotion Memory, and
Physical Action/Active Analysis”:
…affective memory combined with given circumstances doesn’t deny the importance of play-
ing actions: all three are holistically incorporated into the performance … But what Strasberg
insisted on, following Stanislavsky, is experiencing the life of the circumstances onstage through
feelings and tasks and not by the Method of Physical Actions − mechanically reproducing
actions. (White, 2014, 204)
Work on scenic material includes extensive use of improvization, together with exercises
based on animals, paintings, and music to help the actor to embody a character.18 Much of
this work derived from his time at the American Laboratory Theatre and from his rehearsal
practice with the Group Theatre, as has been fully documented by Wendy Smith and Helen
Krich Chinoy.19 The performing part also includes the analysis of scripts as can be seen from
the detailed transcripts of the tape-recorded sessions at the Actors’ Studio, where his commen-
taries include many reflections on character, relationship, situation, event, action, and theme.20
 STANISLAVSKI STUDIES   107

The specific value of the Method is that it trains the actor to live organically on stage
with the same reality as in life:
On the stage it takes the peculiar mentality of the actor to give himself to imaginary things
with the same kind of fullness that we ordinarily evince only in giving ourselves to real things.
The actor has to evoke that reality on the stage in order to live fully in it and with it … In life
the reality exists with or without the awareness of the participant. On the stage it has to be
created. (Hethmon 1966, 198–199)
What Strasberg means by reality has nothing to do with realism. He is referring to the
physiological functioning of the actor which is why he emphasizes that training must be
undertaken through the five senses. It is only by engaging the sensory imagination that
the actor learns how to live on the stage organically and experientially. He dismisses the
suggestion that the Method is only suitable for plays based on psychological realism, and
as his own productions for the Group Theatre testify − such as The House of Connelly, Men
in White, The Case of Clyde Griffiths, Gold Eagle Guy, Johnny Johnson − the Method can be
applied to a wide range of scenic material.
Some critics take Strasberg to task for over-emphasizing the training of the inner tech-
nique at the expense of the outer technique, but this is to forget that use of voice, speech,
movement, and dance as part of an actor’s training was already well established by the
1920s. Training the inner technique on the other hand − including the sensory imagination
of the actor − was an entirely new phenomenon, and this explains the powerful impact
that the Method had on actor training in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. The arrival of the
Method heralded a theatrical revolution − not only the discovery of a wholly new approach
to acting, but also one which helped to give expression to the work of a new generation of
American playwrights such as Clifford Odets, Arthur Miller, Lillian Hellman, William Inge
and Tennessee Williams.
I would now like to challenge some of the more common misconceptions about the
Method. The first of these is to do with the origins of the Method and its relationship to
the Stanislavski System. As regards the name, it almost certainly derives from a series of
lectures given by Richard Boleslavsky to coincide with the first visit to America of the
Moscow Art Theatre, as can be seen from an article published in Theatre Arts Magazine
called “Stanislavsky − The Man and his Methods.”21 The appellation was later adopted by the
Group Theatre as can be seen from the compilation of articles put together by Toby Cole in
Acting: A Handbook of The Stanislavski Method, and from the title of Robert Lewis’s book,
Method or Madness? How it came to be associated primarily with Strasberg is explained by
him in a letter to Christine Edwards in 1960:
I do not believe that anyone but Stanislavsky himself has a right to talk of the Stanislavsky
System. I have therefore stressed the use of the word “Method” as against “System” … By say-
ing that the Group Theatre used an adaptation of the Stanislavsky Method, we mean that we
emphasized elements that he had not emphasized, and disregarded elements which he might
have considered of greater importance … In other words, while it would be true to say that
we try to make use of the basic ideas of the Stanislavsky System, we do not feel it necessary
to be limited just to those ideas … I therefore think it is both theoretically wise and practi-
cally sound to talk of the work done by the Group Theatre and the Actors Studio as being an
“Adaptation of the Stanislavsky System.” The Method is therefore our version of the System.
(Edwards 1966, 261)
In A Dream of Passion, Strasberg qualifies this further saying:
108   P. MCALLISTER

The work which I represent can now legitimately be called the Method. It is based not only
on the procedures of Stanislavsky’s work, but also on the further clarification and stimulus
provided by Vakhtangov. (Strasberg 1989, 84)
The important point is that the Method grew out of the work of Stanislavski. Even if it is
only a partial reading, based on elements taken from the inner technique, it undisputedly
derives its origins from the so-called “early” stage of the Stanislavski System.22
A second misconception, based on a misunderstanding about its specific use, is to do with
the exercise known as affective or emotional memory. This particular exercise has been the cause
of more heated debate than any other aspect of the Method. Condemned by its many critics as
“sick,” “neurotic” and “psychologically damaging,” it has also been suggested that it encourages
actors to probe dangerously into their own private traumas.23 According to Strasberg, however,
the exercise is only to be used for moments of high or intense emotion that cannot be created
any other way, and there are usually only one or two such moments in any play.24
While he may have disregarded his own guidelines about the exercise while working
with the Group Theatre, in later years he would insist that only his advanced students were
allowed to practice it,25 and undertook “live” demonstrations of the exercise − including
the one featuring his third wife, Anna, on the cover of A Dream of Passion − to prove its
efficacy and safety as a means of creating emotion onstage.26 In addition, as Mel Gordon
points out in Stanislavsky in America,27 he did not fully systematize his teaching until the
mid-1960s − before founding the Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute – as is confirmed
by the accounts of his acting classes given by his former students such as Lola Cohen, Edward
Dwight Easty, Ned Manderino, S. Loraine Hull, and Ed Kovens.28
The third misconception, connected to the use of the emotional memory exercise, is the idea
that the Method is based on Freudian psychoanalysis. Jonathan Pitches argues in Stanislavsky
and the Science of Acting, that Strasberg’s understanding is drawn “not from Ribot’s theories but
from Freud’s psychoanalysis,”29 that “Freud’s theories were not so much a source of interest but
a methodology” for Strasberg,30 and that the Method is based on “a pseudo-psychoanalytical
approach.”31 He also claims that the Method redefines certain elements of the System as psy-
chological rather than physiological,32 and suggests an interpretation of Anna Strasberg doing
an emotional memory exercise as “offering private pain as public spectacle.”33 A quick glance at
the transcripts of Strasberg at the Actors’ Studio, however, reveals that the key technical terms
used by him are words such as impulse, stimulus, response, transmission, volition, tension,
relaxation, habit, conditioning, sensation, and emotion.34 In A Dream of Passion, Strasberg
explicitly acknowledges his debt to Ribot,35 and in the prospectus for the Lee Strasberg Theatre
and Film Institute, he describes the Method in behaviourist terms saying it is based on:
“… how the human organism functions, of the process of conditioning, of the creation
of habits, of the interaction between the conscious and the unconscious…” (Lee Strasberg
Theatre and Film Institute 1993, 3)
Certainly Strasberg had read Freud but he had also read Ribot, James-Lange, Pavlov,
Wilhelm Reich, Alexander Lowen, Moshe Feldenkrais and many others.36
I would like to conclude this article with an extract from an interview with the American
film director, Arthur Penn, who knew Strasberg personally from his close association with
the Actors’ Studio:
There always was a lot to criticize about Lee [Strasberg] and there always will be. He was a
controversial figure, a combative, opinionated man with whom I often had disagreements. But
I respected him greatly, and he was a wonderful teacher… I always recommend to people who
 STANISLAVSKI STUDIES   109

ask about Lee − and they always do − to focus on his work, his teachings, and that’s where the
heart of the man will be found. (Grissom: 2016)

Notes
1.  Holmberg, “The Price of Fame,” 3.
2.  Senelick, Chekhov Theatre, 288.
3.  Hornby, End of Acting, 184.
4.  Miller, “Finishing the Picture”.
5.  Krasner, Method Acting Reconsidered, 7.
6.  Hethmon, Strasberg at Studio, 41–42.
7.  Hull, Strasberg’s Method, 18.
8.  Barthel, “The Master of the Method Plays,” 1–2.
9.  Strasberg, “Acting and the Training,” 146.
10. Ibid., 146.
11. Strasberg, Dream of Passion, 132–143.
12. Ibid., 124.
13. Ibid., 124–130, 141.
14. Strasberg and Schechner, “Working with Live Material,” 118.
15. Hull, Strasberg’s Method, 235.
16. Strasberg, Dream of Passion, 161, 165; Adams, Imperfect Genius, 179.
17. Garfield, Player's Place, 176–179; Strasberg, Dream of Passion, 78.
18. Strasberg, Dream of Passion, 74–75, 90–91, 106–107, 147–148.
19. Smith, Real Life Drama, 91–4, 140–2; Chinoy, Group Theatre, 65–9.
20. Hethmon, Strasberg at Actors' Studio, 281–322.
21. Boleslawski [sic], “Stanislavsky,” 37:27, 74, 80.
22. Tcherkasski, Stanislavski Studies, 113.
23. O’Malley, “Can the Method Survive,” 7.
24. Strasberg, “Lee Strasberg Technique,” 20–21; Strasberg and Schechner, “Working with Live
Material,” 132.
25. Strasberg, “Lee Strasberg Technique,” 20–21.
26. Strasberg, Dream of Passion, 151.
27. Gordon, Stanislavski in America, 142.
28. Cohen, Method Acting Handbook; Easty, On Method Acting; Manderino, All About Method
Acting; Hull, Strasberg's Method; Kovens, Method Manual.
29. Pitches, Science and Stanislavsky, 113.
30. Ibid., 109.
31. Ibid., 117.
32. Ibid., 115.
33. Ibid., 116.
34. See also the index of technical terms and topics in Hethmon, Strasberg at the Studio, 417–420.
35. Strasberg, Dream of Passion, 111–112.
36. His views on the James-Lange theory can be read in Strasberg, Dream of Passion, 183–184.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Bibliography
Adams, Cindy. Lee Strasberg: The Imperfect Genius of the Actors Studio. New York: Doubleday, 1980.
Barthel, Joan. 1975. “The Master of the Method Plays a Role Himself.” The New York Times, February 2.
110   P. MCALLISTER

Boleslawski [sic], Richard. 1923. “Stanislavsky: The Man and His Methods.” Theatre Arts Magazine.
Brustein, Robert. Seasons of Discontent: Dramatic Opinions 1959–1965. New York: Simon and Shuster,
1965.
Chinoy, Helen Krich, ed. “Reunion: A Self-Portrait of the Group Theatre.” A special issue of Educational
Theatre Journal 28, no. 4 (Dec. 1976).
Chinoy, Helen Krich. The Group Theatre: Passion, Politics, and Performance in the Depression Era,
edited by Don B. Wilmeth and Milly S. Barranger. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
Cohen, Lola, ed. The Lee Strasberg Notes. London and New York: Routledge, 2010.
Cohen, Lola. The Method Acting Exercises Handbook. London and New York: Routledge, 2017.
Cole, Toby, comp. Acting: A Handbook of the Stanislavski Method. New York: Crown, 1955.
Counsell, Colin. Signs of Performance: An Introduction to Twentieth Century Theatre. Oxon: Routledge,
1996.
Easty, Edward Dwight. On Method Acting. Orlando: House of Collectibles, 1978.
Edwards, Christine. The Stanislavsky Heritage. London: Peter Owen, 1966.
Garfield, David. A Player’s Place: The Story of the Actors Studio. New York: Macmillan, 1980.
Gordon, Mel. Stanislavski in America: An Actor’s Workbook. London and New York: Routledge, 2010.
Grissom, James. “Interview with Arthur Penn on Lee Strasberg and Marilyn Monroe: The Heart of
the Man.” Follies of God, November 26, 2016. Accessed September 3, 2017. http://jamesgrissom.
blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/arthur-penn-on-lee-strasberg-and.html
Hethmon, Robert H. Strasberg at the Actors’ Studio: Tape-recorded Sessions. London: Jonathan Cape,
1966.
Holmberg, Arthur. 1998. “The Price of Fame: Robert Brustein on Lee Strasberg and the Studio.”
ART News, XIX.
Hornby, Richard. The End of Acting: A Radical View. New York: Applause Publishing, 1992.
Hull, S. Loraine. Strasberg’s Method as Taught by Lorrie Hull: A Practical Guide for Actors, Teachers
and Directors. Woodbridge: Ox Bow, 1985.
Kovens, Ed. The Method Manual: For Teachers and Actors. Lulu.com, 2006.
Krasner, David, ed. Method Acting Reconsidered: Theory, Practice, Future. London: Macmillan, 2000.
Krasner, David. “Stanislavsky’s System, Sense/Emotion Memory, and Physical Action/Active Analysis:
American Interpretations of the System’s Legacy.” In The Routledge Companion to Stanislavsky,
edited by R. Andrew White, 195–212. London: Routledge, 2014.
Lewis, Robert. Method or Madness? New York: Samuel French, 1958.
Manderino, Ned. All About Method Acting. Los Angeles, CA: Manderino Books, 1985.
Miller, Arthur. “Finishing the Picture.” In Plays: Six. London: Methuen, 2009.
O’Malley, Suzanne. 1989. “Can the Method Survive the Madness?” The New York Times, October 7.
Pitches, Jonathan. Science and the Stanislavsky Tradition of Acting. London and New York: Routledge,
2006.
Senelick, Laurence. The Chekhov Theatre: A Century of the Plays in Performance. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Smith, Wendy. Real Life Drama: The Group Theatre and America 1931–1940. New York: Alfred Knopf,
1990.
Strasberg, Anna. “Lee Strasberg Technique.” In Handbook of Acting Techniques, edited by Arthur
Bartow, 17–27. London: Nick Hern Books, 2008.
Strasberg, Lee. “Definition of Acting.” In Enclopaedia Brittanica: Macropoedia. 15th ed. New York:
Enclopaedia Brittanica, 1979.
Strasberg, Lee. A Dream of Passion: The Development of the Method. London: Methuen, 1989.
Strasberg, Lee. Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute Prospectus, 1993.
Strasberg, Lee. “Acting and the Training of the Actor.” In Producing the Play, edited by John Gassner,
128–162. New York: Dryden Press, 1941.
Strasberg, Lee, and Richard Schechner. “Working with Live Material.” Tulane Drama Review 9, no.
1 (1964): 117−135.
Tcherkasski, Sergei. “The System becomes the Method.” Stanislavski Studies, Nov. no. 3 (2013).