Talk:Lee Strasberg

message: 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)
thread_title:  His take on acting??? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stop the Jason Bennett Spammers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Monroe 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Table of contents formatting 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 .  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section#Citations I5kfun (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

text: ps, thanks for the link to cites in the lead, couldn't have said it better :) --Tom 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Needed 

message: 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)
thread_title: Length of lead

message: Click here to review image comments
===Actors Studio Cover.jpg 1.10 ===
===WithBurstyn.jpg 1.11===
===AndJustice.jpg 1.12===
--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for making that clear; every little bit helps. Tag removed. arimareiji (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos marked for deletion

message: --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for making that clear; every little bit helps. Tag removed. arimareiji (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:File:AndJustice.jpg|AndJustice.jpg]] 1.12

message: 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)
thread_title:  A lot to re-think on the work side of things... 

message: ...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)
thread_title:  So Strasberg cried during his James Dean speech because... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Just give some quotes or descriptions, and published sources and it can be added. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Split with Stanislavsky

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: File:Lee Strasberg crop.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Puff piece may fail [[WP:NPOV]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Free image vs. non-free 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Polish born 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Uncredited role in Parnell