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)



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

 * 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:". The "method" has been criticized as "psychobabble:". Strassberg's method acting movement was called a "cult:". 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.". 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.

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)

Misleading citations
The statement (top section) that Lee Satrasberg "co-founded, with theatre directors Harold Clurman and Cheryl Crawford, the Group Theatre in 1931, which was hailed as "America's first true theatrical collective" does not coincide with the indicated source, which does not affirm that the referred Group Theatre was "hailed" as "America's first true theatrical collective" whatsoever. Actually, what the source informs us is that four acting students (Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, Harold Clurman and Cheryl Crawford) "founded the Group Theater, "America's first true theatrical collective," in 1931.". Also, (top section, second paragraph) we are informed that "Lee Strasberg is considered to be the "father of method acting in America," according to author Mel Gussow.". What the text here implies is that according to the author, Lee is considered (by someone with the necessary authority) the "father of method acting in America". However, the citation does not support that, stating simply and economically that "Lee Strasberg, father of Method acting in America, artistic director of the Actors Studio, stage director, film actor and a major figure in world theater, died of a heart attack yesterday. He was 80 years old.". This kind of accidental instead of direct citation is highly misleading, because it gives the idea that the editors, without the facts at hand, decided to choose anything that fits their previous perception about the topic. When it comes to an Encyclopedia, I do not think accidental citations to be appropriate. 2804:18:582F:D0CF:3045:3EDA:181C:6D52 (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)