I think so. It strikes me that committed actors try to authentically *be* the role, fill the role. I say this because they (in interviews and such) often use words like "bring humanity to the character" and "see the world from the character's perspective". They seem to do this *not* because they want to trick the audience (seemingly), but because they're acting like defense attorneys. Even the most horrible *person* deserves to be treated like a person.
I suspect many/most (?) LEOs are pretending to be some person in order to *stop* that person from playing that role, whatever it is. The common trope is that an undercover LEO or spy might have to commit their own small crimes/sincerities in order to focus on the larger crimes/insincerities. A method actor would, I think, want to at least simulate the entire person, with no intention of *preventing* some aspects of the person from coming through. I think we can distinguish a spy whose purpose is to do something like "regime building" versus a spy whose intent is to, say, catch a mole. A spy who wants to, say, set/prop up a particular form of government, e.g. the Saudi Prince, would be more like the method actor and less like a LEO. On 1/28/19 10:18 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Is there an important difference between Stanislavski method acting and > convincing insincerity? Similar skill set to vice cops and spies. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
