Talk:Lee Strasberg

His take on acting???

I think this article downplays what Lee Strassberg is known for to the vast majority of people worldwide: The portrayal of Hyman Roth in The Godfather II. I would estimate that most people could identify a picture of Lee with "Hyman Roth", but not with the actual name "Lee Strassberg". This article mentions "Hyman Roth" nowhere (even though there is even a separate Wiki entry for the fictional character), his participation in Godfather II briefly mentioned in the Actors Studio West paragraph. Compare this with the disproportional amount of material about method acting. IMHO this article tries to reflect the author's opinion that his Godfather role is not relevant compared to his method acting legacy, even though popular opinion is clearly different. --AlexInWikiland (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Untitled

Is the following too much of mere anecdotal information?? 134.244.154.182 — Preceding undated comment added 11:56, 6 September 2004 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.38.218.55 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.210.190 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Click here to review image comments

AndJustice.jpg 1.12

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• All files resulted in deletion at the FfD discussions. Next step would be WP:DRV. RfC no longer valid/active.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making that clear; every little bit helps. Tag removed. arimareiji (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot to re-think on the work side of things...

first, let's get some better perspectives than kazan's biographer for goodness sake! there's far more of lee's material to mine and put out there and it's far more reliable at times. i can't see the page as i write this, so i don't know who's said it exactly, but that comment on nonexistent objects as related to the ephemeral something of emotions?! that's way WAY off the mark and one could very easily go read Dream of Passion, let's say, and find lee's own simpler and more practicable justification for that sort of work. there's no need, and indeed it's rather unfair on many, at times like these to expect or allow anyone to explain the work or the reasons behind the choices for the work other than lee himself. and seeing as it's so widely available, there's no reason why we can't tighten some of that together. Also, the limiting of the work primarily to affective memory and improvisation is out of step. affective memory is much broader than dealt with - we've got to trace the whole history of 'living memories' as first expounded by Stanislavski through to here via Vakhtangov, Zakhava et al. as the core source of actors' experience - but i think what's been mistaken is that affective memory (EXERCISES!) and improvisation together normally characterise the Group Theater's first summer's work. Poor sentence there, i know. basically, those are the two main areas of work those actors were introduced to their first summer together. but it didn't stay like that. emphases on interpretation, style, language, fantasy etc all entered in subsequent summers. also, while that is something on the work of a role, though by no means enough (you've got to get at least into substitution and the whole Vakhtangov influence), that leaves out ALL his work when it comes to training actors. in fact, there is something on a private moment - but completely out of context. you've got to trace the increasing systemisation of a SEQUENCE within acting training in conjunction with explorations into facilitating the actor's expression (private moment is a stepping stone on lee's journey in this particular vein) - THOSE are his main contributions in training - none of which is touched upon in the work. there may actually be a new book available in a few months that could help to clear up these issues even more. Valentinovalentino (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

So Strasberg cried during his James Dean speech because...

...he was sad that several talented and prominent stage actors began to move to movies and forget their theatrical roots, right? 207.255.127.59 (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Chief proponent ?

Please provide reliable sources that substantiate that Mr. Strasberg was the "chief proponent" of method acting.Mk5384 (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"Theater director, actor, and acting coach Lee Strasberg was the chief U.S. teacher of method acting, or the Stanislavsky method. This method, pioneered by ... Strasberg

"Strasberg was little known to most of the world except as the guru of Method Acting . . ." Strasberg essay

"Lee Strasberg . . . perfected the best-known American adaptation of the Stanislavsky "system" commonly grouped together as the Method." Los Angeles Times --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"The one man most responsible for Method becoming the dominant method of screen acting in the United States was Lee Strasberg: popularizer of the term 'the Method'." Star texts: image and performance in film and television By Jeremy G. Butler p. 42, Wayne State Univ. (1991) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, although this should probably be cited within the article itself.Mk5384 (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Split with Stanislavsky

Is it possible to include information about LS's divergence from the Stanislavski system (predominantly due to his reliance on affective memory)and subsequent critical appraisals of his whole 'method'? (79.190.69.142 (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Just give some quotes or descriptions, and published sources and it can be added. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Lee Strasberg crop.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lee Strasberg crop.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 9 January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded the image in question to Commons from flickr, and then tagged it as a copyvio when it turned out to be a LA Times photo. I subsequently uploaded it here under NFCC rules, with a slightly different name, so the image referred to above is not in use in this article at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Puff piece may fail WP:NPOV

The article runs the gamut from "Is he awesome?" to "Is he wonderful?"Balanced coverage is expected in Wikipedia articles, but there is only ceaseless praise of his approach to acting. Did no reliable source ever criticize him (other than Brando denying that he was a significant influence)? There has been some ridicule of method actors seeking their "inner motivation:" [1]. The "method" has been criticized as "psychobabble:" [2]. Strassberg's method acting movement was called a "cult:" [3]. Method actors were criticized for portraying one character all the time based on their sad childhood, ignoring the character the writer envisioned. The "method actor" was a stock comic character in movies about acting, described as "a raw nerve mumbling and scratching himself."[4]. Edison (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The solution to the problem you perceive is easy: find those sources who criticize Strasberg (who I have no doubt was in many ways less than a perfect teacher, father or husband) and use them to add material to the article, but the stuff you've quoted above -- generalized criticism of The Method -- isn't the answer, since this article is about Strasberg and not Method acting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Free image vs. non-free

The removal of this photo is erroneous. The editor's summary is incorrect, as they wrote: I suggest you explain on the talk page how a promotional image is "free", because it isn't. It maybe *usabl;e*, but it is inherently copyrighted - it needs to markings to be so. (sic)

I suggest the editor read the free image's full description, along with relevant links, to learn how a promotional image is free. If there is something there that is wrong, please note it. --Light show (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Polish born

Lee Strasberg was born to Polish-Jewish parents in Austrian occupied Poland. The country ceased to exist after the partitions in the late 18th century. Just because parts of Poland were under Austrian administration, does not mean that the Austrian citizens were of Austrian ethnicity, ancestry and nationality eg. Marie Curie and Chopin were born under the Russian Empire, yet they are not Russian-born. I don't see how "Polish born" would be misleading.

Oliszydlowski (TALK) 14:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC).

I was curious about 'polish born'. What does that mean? Did his parents speak yiddish, the galician variety of polish or did they converse in a local vernacular consisting of rural polish with white-russian flavour? Strasbergs certificate of birth wouldn't say 'nationality - polish' in 1901, but 'subject of the habsburg empires galician lands'. So, what does 'polish-born' actually mean?--92.226.134.11 (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lee Strasberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090118235929/http://strasberg.com/lee_bio.html to http://strasberg.com/lee_bio.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516042657/http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/forum.php?lecture_id=1745 to http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/forum.php?lecture_id=1745

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Uncredited role in Parnell

I have added the "dubious" tag for his appearance in the 1937 film Parnell, he doesn't appear in all of the 72 cast members listed in the AFI film page.

Other online research (TMC, Allmovie, etc) don't give any positive results either. Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)