Verified answer

I suppose one of the main differences is that the Checkov approach is more internal while the Meisner approach is more external.

Checkov has the actor focus on interpretation and bringing out the hidden meaning for the audience. The approach talks about focusing on the psychology of the character and using the imagination - like asking the character "how would you approach this scene". It talks about creating the appropriate atmosphere for a performance and then submitting to that atmosphere. He also talks about "the Psychological Gesure" - the idea that the actor can develop a gesture that encompasses all the needs and wants of the character and use that to tap into the character.

Meisner focuses on reacting to other performers and the environment. His exercises focus on listening and reacting. The actor lets the emotion and subtext build based on the action and the other characters around them (reaction) rather than just playing the action or playing the emotion.

Which one is better? -- the one that works for YOU in the circumstances in which you are performing. I don't believe that one technique is better than the other - because each actor is an individual with different understandings, life experiences, strengths and weaknesses. Personally, I learned several different techniques and so I have several options when I approach an audition or a part.

Meisner believed all acting was improvisation--and that every time an actor is onstage is unlike any other time, even in an ongoing show with the same script and the same cast night after night. I have respect for Chekov's Psychological Gesture and other elements of his approach, and while I would argue that there are internal elements to both Meisner and Chekov, all of the preparation involved in Chekov technique, though not as blatantly as the Strassberg Method, can tend to put an actor in his or her head--whereas students of Meisner, will be much more in the moment in their actions and reactions because no one, including the actor, will know quite what is coming until the very moment that it comes.

I would analogize the Chekhov and Mesiner approaches to acting, to the 2 poles of some contemporary schools of thought on pure, unscripted improvisation. For example, the getting out the who what where in the first 3 lines as espoused by The Groundlings--is a totally "in your head" approach to performing; whereas a more organic, or Meisner-esque approaches, such as that taught at the former Hothouse in North Hollywood (alumna of Burn Manhattan), teach that an actor should not say or do anything until something a scene partner says or does, irresistibly compels the actor to do so. And if the scene is not going anywhere, then the actor should just keep doing what they are doing, such as, e.g, mirror-copy/mirror-compliment, and if the scene is still not going anywhere, then just keep doing what you're doing--only slower--and in time, the scene will erupt like a volcano, and when it does, it is such a joy to behold--and thereby, truly, something beautiful, right away.....

Michael Chekhov was deeply respected by his peers- Stella Adler, Sanford Meisner, Lee Strasberg, Herbert Berghof, Morris Carnovsky and Harold Clurman. He received an Oscar nomination for Hitchcock's "Spellbound" and spent his last 13 years, acting in films and coaching some of our greatest actors in film history. His student, Deirdre Hurst du Prey transcibed every class from 1936 to 1942. Keep your eyes open for future publications based on these notes.

His books "On The Technique of Acting" and "Lessons for the Professional Actor" are recommended for all actors, teachers, writers and directors. Noted actors Jack Nicholson, while receiving his 1999 Golden Globe Award, and Anthony Hopkins, on "Inside the Actors Studio", both acknowledged the power of Michael Chekhov's Psychological Gesture. Today, the Chekhov techniques are gaining world-wide recognition in an amazing expansion of interest as artists seek to discover a consistent means to peak states of performance. Current technology can scientifically support the once considered "too mystical" means of Mr. Chekhov and humanity is now ready to embrace this inspirational, organic means to accessing one's highest artistic aims.