Top Law Schools

I was stuck between (B) and (D), and when i looked up the manhattan expl. I wasn't really satifisfied with the expl. for E being wrong (It just said out of scope)

However, here was my reasoning. I couldn't really pin point why I wanted to get rid of (B), but I knew why I wanted to pick (E). I picked (E) because I thought that if a method actor DID need experiences identical to the characters portrayed in order to act as them, then they wouldn't have this experience, making the argument fall apart because the standard that the method actors use for a more effective performance wouldn't be able to be attained.

After writing it out I guess it sounds a bit weird, but thats why I'm writing it out here! I guess it is fully possible that they actors had the same experiences as the character anyway right? We are never told otherwise? I suspect I'm wrong for multiple reasons lol, so if someone could please help me out that would be great.

We are first told that performances are judged to be realistic to the degree that actors can reproduce the behaviors that the audience generally associates with the emotional states of the characters portrayed. Then we're told traditional actors imitate these behaviors and method actors experience the same emotions as the characters portrayed. The conclusion ends with audiences will judge method actors to be more realistic than traditional actors.

The gap is clearly that the method actors could experience the same emotions but have different behaviors, which would destroy the argument.

(B) address this


As for (E) it is out of scope. We are told that method actors experience the same emotions as their characters, they achieve this by a recollection of personal experiences, whether they were identical or not to the characters does not matter. If they were identical then cool, if not then...well..that's cool too! As long as the emotions are the same as the character portrayed we're fine.

I think Clyde did a great breakdown of the essential argument here, and I just wanted to add a few thoughts to why (E) isn't necessary for the argument.

I think what you're saying, flash21, is that if you negate (E) then Method actors would never be able to portray any character, and if they couldn't actually portray any character, then audiences could never judge those performances to be "more realistic". But let's take a sharper look at the negation.

Negating (E) actually leaves us with: In order to portray a character, a Method actor MUST have had identical experiences. As you yourself point out, it is actually possible that an actor DID have identical experiences to their character! So this negation wouldn't tell us that Method actors can NEVER portray any character, it just tells us that there's some limitation on the characters that Method actors CAN portray. So long as Method actors stay within the boundaries of characters that have identical experiences, portraying their character (perhaps "more realistically" than traditional actors) is still a distinct possibility!

Thanks a lot for the help = from both posters above, I understand now.