In-depth exploration

Renly was a bona fide graduate of the conservatory system, having received a complete education in systematic acting. His understanding of Method acting was rather limited, confined mainly to theoretical knowledge on paper. Even then, he hadn't truly delved into it and could be considered superficial in his grasp.

Until now, Renly had always believed that the essence of Method acting lay in experience—truly immersing oneself into a character and placing oneself in similar situations, then interpreting the character's emotions through personal understanding. In simpler terms, it was becoming possessed to bring a character to life, blurring the boundary between oneself and the character.

This style of performance was undoubtedly the most rigorous. Take "Buried", for example. If one hadn't personally experienced being buried alive, the resonance during the performance would be distorted. This, in turn, would cause the performance to veer off course, becoming outrageous and ultimately unsustainable.

Without exaggeration, this demanded strict focus, dedication, research, and innate talent from actors. It wasn't something anyone could attempt. When Renly lay in the coffin earlier, if he hadn't believed he was truly buried alive, if he couldn't hypnotize himself into that mindset, if his understanding of the character and script wasn't profound enough, if his comprehension deviated… the result of such personal experience would still not have brought him into character.

In essence, actors needed to fully immerse themselves in the situation, believing themselves to be the character. Without this ability and innate talent, unless someone really buried an actor alive in a desert, they couldn't embrace this style of performance.

From "The Pacific" to "Buried", Renly entirely adhered to this performance style, even in "50/50".

He genuinely infused his emotions and feelings into the despair of cancer, even producing genuine reflections of chemotherapy's side effects. However, the recent scene provided Renly with even greater insight.

He had genuinely empathized with Adam or Will's experiences, but his emotional immersion wasn't in cancer; it was in high-level paralysis. This was true during the scene on the third day of filming and was true again in today's scene. The anger, despair, sadness, confusion, and loss brought on by the torment of illness, the slow fading of vitality, all were entirely expressed through his performance.

However, from a different perspective, high-level paralysis wasn't cancer.

Renly had always been aware of this fact. High-level paralysis was a straight line. At the moment of paralysis, the turning point was a cliff-like plummet. But afterward, it was a stable straight line. Cancer, on the other hand, was a declining curve, gradually sliding downwards until it reached the endpoint.

Therefore, the performance style of "Buried" and that of "50/50" were two different approaches. Renly had always thought he was using Method acting, but in reality, "Buried" was experiential, while "50/50" was Method.

From a purely theoretical perspective, explaining might be a bit complex. It could be understood as follows: experiential acting involves the actor genuinely and profoundly visualizing the script's scenes, completely immersing themselves in the character, breaking down the barriers of the fourth dimension, bringing the imaginary into reality, and disallowing deviations in thought.

And what's known as Method acting, on the other hand, involves actors distancing their emotions from themselves, resonating with the character, and then interpreting the script and role in their own way. The result presented is half the actor and half the character itself, within which there can exist deviations in understanding.

For instance, during the filming of "Buried", an experiential approach would involve truly believing oneself to be buried alive. A Method approach, however, would use fear, horror, and dread to drive the entire performance.

To illustrate more vividly, consider the filming of "Brokeback Mountain". In an experiential approach, one would genuinely believe they had fallen in love with a person of the same sex, unable to extricate themselves—especially set against the backdrop of the 1960s. Meanwhile, in a Method approach, it was permissible to imagine the other person as the opposite sex, merely depicting a forbidden love.

From this perspective, Renly's speculation was proven correct.

During "Buried", his approach was a true experiential performance—immersing himself in the situation, his eyes bloodshot, truly blurring the boundary between himself and Paul, as well as the boundary between reality and drama. On the other hand, in "50/50", his approach was Method performance. He knew he was Renly, and he knew he was portraying Adam, interpreting Adam's emotions from Chu Jiashu's perspective.

In reality, this content had previously only been encountered in books. Even considering it in passing would be a stretch; theoretical knowledge had practically evaporated. Whether Method or experiential, the scope of acting was too narrow. The actor's energy and vitality often dwindled quickly after portraying a character.

Leaving aside actors like Heath Ledger, who passed away prematurely, even method acting masters like Daniel Day-Lewis produced so few works because, before portraying each character, he required extensive research and commitment. And after a performance, when one's entire soul felt hollowed out, they had to slowly settle and regain composure.

However, for traditional, authentic conservatories, an actor could only portray a single role over a certain period. This, undoubtedly, was a dereliction of duty. In terms of the technique of interpretive acting, the true essence of an actor lay in embodying myriad personas. Even on the same stage, an actor could play multiple roles, showcasing the characters' images and personalities—a hallmark of true mastery.

Experiential and Method acting were, to a large extent, interconnected. Experiential acting originated in the former Soviet Union and was considered the earliest concept of performance. Subsequently, the United States inherited and developed it, forming a branch—Method acting.

Because for Hollywood, there wasn't enough time to carefully tailor each role, image, or actor. In the rapid development of the film industry, they had to resort to assembly-line work. Therefore, the requirements for Method acting were relatively less stringent. For instance, white actors portraying black characters, heterosexual actors playing homosexual roles, Americans taking on British roles—this sort of approach was more suitable.

In 2016, a film temporarily titled "Anything" was in the midst of preparation. Produced by Mark Ruffalo, it centered around a transgender female character. Mark invited Matt Bomer, an openly gay actor, to play the role, sparking considerable controversy.

Because although Matt had publicly come out, he was unquestionably a man. In Hollywood, there were over two thousand transgender actors, yet they struggled to find work. Male roles were played by men, female roles were portrayed by women, and homosexual roles were taken by heterosexual actors. Now, even transgender roles were beyond their reach for "authentic portrayal".

This is Hollywood. There's even a fixed notion within the industry that if a homosexual portrays a homosexual character, it lacks authenticity because it's a portrayal of oneself. But when a heterosexual actor portrays a homosexual character, people applaud, considering it a breakthrough. However, the problem arises when a homosexual actor portrays a heterosexual character—major film companies aren't willing to risk it, fearing it might affect the box office.

The reason why Method acting has flourished in Hollywood is not without cause. Simultaneously, experiential acting and interpretive acting have gradually become marginalized in Hollywood, and experiential acting is on the brink of extinction.

Before today, Renly didn't have a clear sense of the distinction between Method and experiential acting. After all, the differences between these two methods were incredibly subtle. Who could have imagined that a comedy film would propel Renly to a higher level?

"50/50", encountering this work was truly fate.

So, is experiential acting better, or is Method acting better?

Honestly, during the performance of "50/50" today, Renly's execution was indeed effortless. His train of thought was remarkably clear, and he felt as if he were divinely assisted, acting with ease. What was more crucial was the sensation of having complete control over all aspects, making the performance a form of enjoyment. Even though his stomach was still uncomfortable, and his bald head shivered from the cold breeze, the effect he presented was satisfying.

But what about "Buried"?

The process of performing "Buried" was sheer torment. Because Renly truly believed he was buried alive, the genuine sensation nearly stopped his heart from beating. As a result, the performance became instinctive. Not to mention control, even his lines burst forth like a volcanic eruption. The outpouring of that relentless catharsis was almost terrifying.

Especially during the period of those nightmares, the distinction between reality and illusion became entirely blurred. Fortunately, Renly was shooting "Buried". If he had been filming "American Psycho" or "Requiem for a Dream", the consequences would have been unimaginable.

In a nutshell, the scope of Method acting was broader. Even without actually committing murder, it was possible to experiment with playing a serial killer. However, the finesse and authenticity of the performance would fall slightly short—after all, it wasn't a personal experience, and an actor's understanding deviation could easily lead the performance astray from the script.

The scope of experiential acting was extremely narrow. To play a serial killer, one might have to truly experience the visceral sensation of blood, even if not actually killing someone. At the very least, they would need to use artificial blood plasma to feel the stickiness and temperature of blood. The performance would be much more challenging, and if the sensation wasn't authentically conveyed in the process of thought and positioning, the performance wouldn't come to fruition. However, the advantage lay in complete immersion!

Both acting methods had their pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses. Renly had truly experienced both. Although he could now discern the subtle differences and nuances, he was just beginning. Not to mention becoming proficient; he might even struggle to differentiate between the two methods during the acting process.

Without a doubt, on the path of acting, he needed to slow down, delve deeply into his studies, and proceed step by step.

Setting aside the differences between Method and experiential acting for now, Renly earnestly savored every detail of his recent performance. The gradual, sinking sensation, akin to drowning, seeped deeper into his heart.

He relished this process of delving into acting.