Isaac Butler’s "The Method: How the Twentieth Century Learned to Act" is a fascinating history of one of the most influential acting techniques of the modern era. It traces the evolution of Method acting from its roots in early 20th-century Russia to its explosive impact on American theater and Hollywood. We follow key figures like Konstantin Stanislavski, Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, and Sanford Meisner whose ideas reshaped the craft of acting. Along the way, there are discussions of iconic performers such as Marlon Brando, Marilyn Monroe, and Robert DeNiro, whose careers were profoundly shaped by the Method. Butler doesn’t just explain the technique; he explores its cultural significance, showing how it mirrored and influenced broader societal changes.

That said, the sheer density of information can be overwhelming at times, especially for readers unfamiliar with the subject. But if you’re willing to dive in, you’ll come away with a deeper appreciation for the craft of acting and the enduring legacy of the Method.

Thank you to the publishers and NetGalley for the opportunity to review a temporary digital ARC in exchange for an unbiased review.

Everyone has a sense of what a good performance looks like. Sure, there’s some room for individual interpretation there, but whether we’re watching a movie or a play or a TV show, we have a certain baseline understanding of what “good” is.

But how does the performer get there?

Isaac Butler’s new book “The Method: How the Twentieth Century Learned to Act” is the story of one celebrated, well … method … of doing just that. From its origins in the Russian theatre scene in the early part of the 1900s to its gradual-then-rapid ascent to the apex of American acting, the Method spent decades as one of the preeminent schools of thought regarding performance.

This book treats the Method almost biographically, walking the reader through its embryonic stages with Stanislavski and the Moscow Art Theatre through the acolytes crossing the Atlantic and delivering it to America to the splintering and development of assorted variations on the theme, all of them falling under the umbrella of “the Method.” It is, for intents and purposes, a biography of the Method. Not of those who created it or those who learned it, but of the Method itself.

Some of the greatest actors in American history – stage and screen alike – were students of the Method, though not all learned precisely the same method from the prominent and iconoclastic instructors that brought it to life in the middle of the century. Still, there’s no disputing the impact that the philosophy (however you choose to define it) had – and continues to have – on the acting world.

It all started over a century ago in Russia. A gifted actor named Konstantin Stanislavski sought a way to replicate his own ideas and philosophies of performance. He devoted years to developing what he called “the system,” refining it and sharing it with his partners and peers as he breathed life into the Moscow Art Theatre, an institution that would for a time be recognized as one of the preeminent theatres in the world, presenting groundbreaking revivals and original works that defied the performative conventions of the time.

Great acting was something that was entirely external. Young performers studied assorted gestures and poses that were understood to indicate certain feelings and ideas. If you held your hand one way, it meant this. Another, it meant that. The way you stood, the way you moved – all of it dictated and codified.

Stanislavski introduced interiority to the stage. Instead of utilizing universal gestures and the like, he and his students sought inner characterization. They sought to feel rather than present an exaggerated physical representation of feeling. Their performances were driven by internal choices and actions rather than strictly by scripts and conventions. It was unlike anything the world had ever seen.

However, what we came to know as “the Method” was born when Stanislavski’s system made its way across the ocean. During a U.S. tour by the Moscow Art Theatre, a number of American artists were captivated by the possibilities presented. That captivation would lead to a theatrical revolution in America.

Starting with the experimental and paradigm-shattering work of the Group Theatre, the system would change and evolve into something else … although no one seemed to agree on just what that something else was.

Three teachers would come to embody the Method and its place in American acting – Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler and Sanford Meisner. All three came to the Method from different directions, with each bringing their own ideas and experiences into play. Their students would redefine what it meant to be an American actor.

Perhaps the best-known Method proponent was Marlon Brando, though even his connection to the philosophy was complicated. The truth is that just about every prominent actor from WWII up through the 1970s was at least tangentially attached to Method acting, whether they studied with a specific teacher or simply internalized some of the ideas. The proliferation of academic theatre programs only expanded the Method’s reach.

While the Method has fallen out of favor in recent years, there’s no disputing the significance of its impact on American acting. Stage, screen, doesn’t matter – there is Method in that madness.

As someone who spent time in two different academic theatre programs a decade apart, I am familiar with the fundamentals of the Method – particularly since my stints straddled the shift in attitude regarding the philosophy. Early on, I was skeptical of the Method’s broad acceptance; later, I was equally skeptical of its general dismissal. As is so often the case, reality lay somewhere in between.

Even with that level of familiarity, “The Method” proved fascinating. The story of the philosophy’s growth and evolution plays out in the same manner as any good biography, with each high point explored with scholarship and thoughtfulness. A book like this could have easily read as dry and/or academic, but instead, Butler has woven his thorough research into a compelling narrative, one with heroes and villains and misunderstood figures from the nebulous middle space. All this while also producing a work of theatre history exploring arguably the most significant development in the history of American acting.

The early history, with Stanislavski and the MAT and his other, more experimental endeavors, is interesting, to be sure, but to my mind, things really start to soar when we see just how explosively the Method landed on American shores. Over the course of just a few years, the entire face of the discipline completely and fundamentally changed; within those changes, some of our greatest performers were forged.

“The Method” will be of great interest to fans of history and the theatre, of course, but the truth is that anyone can read this book and engage with it. Butler has crafted an impressive and engaging work of nonfiction, a book that will prove fascinating to anyone who picks it up.

“Though this be madness, yet there is method in’t” – Polonius, “Hamlet,” Act II, scene ii

A fascinating look at the actors training that taught them to embody the character they are bringing to life.This is so interesting so full of information anecdotes showing the methods immense influence on acting and actors.#netgalley #bloomsbury

“The Method” refers to what has been called “Method Acting.” No discussion of The Method would be complete without a solid grounding in its founder, Stanislavsky. This narrative takes the history back to its foundations with the life of Konstantin Stanislavski in Russia in the late 1800s. (Stanislavski is an assumed name, as his family were successful merchants.). The author sets up these beginnings and then launches into a narrative of the formative time that Stanislavski spent with his theater partner Nemirovich.

Together, Stanislavski and Nemirovich revolutionized what audiences saw on the stage in Russia. Their partnership incorporated real research into the past for classic plays and changed set design and audience perception. Stanislavski acted as the director, rehearsing actors in his vision until the actors were exhausted. This company later became known for their rendition of “the notorious flop” “The Seagull” by Anton Chekhov.

I find in reading the history of Stanislavski’s Russian troupe that he wanted actors to turn their backs to the audience when the scene required it. (We were yelled at in high school by the theater director for even getting close to showing our backs to the audience! Yeah, high school.) Stanislavski wanted realistic performances. He wanted the performer to inhabit the role. In the early 1900s, Stanislavski had an internal crisis which resolved itself into a style that he called the “system.” Years later it would be interpreted by film actors and directors and morph into the method.”

Stanislavski and Nemirovich’s Moscow Art Theater made it to the U.S. on tour after the Russian Revolution and was a smash hit. However, two people were fired and stayed on in the U.S. teaching acting. Lee Strasberg happened to take some of those classes until he felt he was ready to act. He then struck out on his own, and with Harold Clurman, made plans for a truly American acting theater and style that was simpler and lower key: thus was born the method. But boy, there were many twists, turns, and variations in teaching acting.

I know I am really jumping over a lot but I want to emphasize that when someone is called “a method actor,” they may or may not be. And, what kind of method actor? There are variations under various interpretations of what should be taught to actors (that shorthand includes females). In the 20th Century there were 3 main coaches teaching “method acting:” Lee Strasburg, Stella Adler, and Sanford (Sandy) Meisner. This book also discusses other studios and other coaches but these three coaches receive the focus. The three may all have started at the Group Theater of the 1930s, but their approaches varied widely. Widely enough for a massive feud between Strasburg and Adler. It is fascinating and sad that interpretations of a style have riven such deep divisions in the acting world.

Likewise, there are many actors who were method actors but the book focuses on actors such as Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift, and later, Robert DeNiro. There are also actors out there that say they are method actors but never reached tutelage from Adler, Meisner, or Strasburg. The practitioners of this style of the art of acting are nearly gone, and are being replaced by new interpretations of what the audience wants to see.

“What is method acting” has been a burning question for a long time; the author points out all of the differing views and traditions, and allows the reader to draw the conclusions.

This is a well-researched and written book. The subject matter is complex; only someone with a historical knowledge of the theater and film could’ve written it. I found it not only fascinating, but now can see over-generalizations made by biographers of actors. The fine differences are a lot to keep straight.

Thank you to Isaac Butler, Bloomsbury Publishing, and NetGalley for allowing me to read a pre-publication galley of this book. My opinions are my own, and I didn’t receive anything for my review.

A biography of the Method arguing that it is one of the most influential cultural movements of the 20th century. And I would definitely agree that the author makes that argument successfully.

This sucker is DENSE as all hell if you’re not familiar with the subject (which I absolutely was not), but it’s still an incredibly compelling read.