Jeremy Strong Defends Method Acting, Says He Doesn’t Feel the Need to ‘Apologize’ to Co-Stars Who May Think ‘I’m Taking It Too Seriously’
Developed over time first seen 2 days ago
Jeremy Strong has defended his commitment to method acting, saying he does not feel he should apologise if colleagues find his approach too serious or uncomfortable, provided he believes it serves the material. He said he does not intend to interfere with anyone else’s way of working and was not frustrated by less committed co-stars.
Strong plays Mark Zuckerberg in Aaron Sorkin’s The Social Reckoning, due out on 9 October. Sorkin has said Strong treated co-stars as he imagined Zuckerberg would, while Brian Cox has called Strong’s method annoying but also praised him as an acting partner. The film follows whistleblower Frances Haugen and Wall Street Journal reporter Jeff Horwitz as they expose Facebook’s inner workings.
- Strong says he does not owe an apology for his acting process.
- He argues his commitment is in service of the material.
- Co-stars and collaborators have expressed mixed views of his method.
New here? Start with this
Jeremy Strong is an American actor known for his role in the television drama Succession. He has become associated with method acting, an approach where performers deeply immerse themselves in their character's psychology and behaviour. In recent comments, Strong defended this working style, stating he does not feel he owes apologies to colleagues who find his intensity uncomfortable.
Strong's particular form of method acting involves treating scene partners as his character would treat them, rather than as himself. This has previously drawn criticism from colleagues, including his Succession co-star Brian Cox, who nonetheless praised Strong's considerable acting ability.
Strong is currently promoting The Social Reckoning, a forthcoming film in which he plays Mark Zuckerberg. The film dramatises the story of Frances Haugen, a whistleblower who exposed Facebook's internal documents and operations. Director Aaron Sorkin has confirmed that Strong applied his characteristic method acting approach whilst filming, treating his co-stars as Zuckerberg would.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of Strong's method acting contend that intense character preparation is a legitimate and rigorous technique in service of authentic performance. They argue that a committed actor has the right to their creative process, and that understanding a character's psychology—including how they interact with others—is essential to truthful portrayal. Professional actors entering such productions are understood to work alongside craftspeople of varying intensities, and proponents suggest that some temporary professional discomfort is inherent to serious filmmaking. From this perspective, Strong's commitment serves the material rather than causing genuine harm, and his considerable talent arguably validates his approach.
The case against
Critics argue that a film set is fundamentally a workplace deserving of basic interpersonal respect, regardless of artistic method. They contend that treating co-stars according to how a character would treat them—potentially as subordinates or adversaries—represents a form of conduct to which colleagues cannot meaningfully consent. Whilst acknowledging method acting as potentially valid, opponents assert it should not extend into affecting others' psychological wellbeing, noting that alternative preparation techniques can achieve excellence without such costs. From this position, acknowledging co-workers' discomfort through apology represents basic professional courtesy, and artistic commitment should not override workplace respect.
Full account
Jeremy Strong has reasserted his commitment to method acting during a recent interview, declining to express regret for an approach that appears to trouble some of his professional colleagues. Speaking with David Remnick, editor-in-chief of The New Yorker, on the publication's radio programme, the actor addressed persistent questions about how his intensive character preparation influences those working alongside him during filming.
Strong acknowledged that his methods may generate discomfort amongst cast and crew, yet stated he harbours no intention of disrupting colleagues' working experience. When pressed on whether others on set appreciate his technique, he indicated he could not definitively speak to their perspective but maintained that absolute commitment to the material remained paramount. He contended that should some perceive his intensity as excessive or experience unease as a result, this represented something requiring no apology, as he views his work as fundamentally serving the narrative rather than arising from personal motivation.
Director Aaron Sorkin has publicly endorsed Strong's approach, explaining that the actor undertakes substantial preparatory work prior to production. Sorkin informed fellow cast members that Strong would neither socialise during breaks nor engage in conventional actor interactions, instead maintaining character-appropriate behaviour based on his interpretation of how his character would treat them. Sorkin argued that the creative results validated this methodology.
Strong's intensity has nonetheless drawn sustained criticism from co-workers. Brian Cox, his former Succession colleague, has been particularly vocal, characterising this level of method acting as a distinctly American phenomenon that undermines ensemble cohesion and generates tension. Whilst acknowledging Strong's talents as a performer, Cox has suggested the actor would benefit from moderating his immersive commitment, arguing it diminishes inclusiveness within ensemble casts.
Where outlets differ
Source 1 emphasises narrative details of 'The Social Reckoning' including cast members and the film's subject matter concerning Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, whilst Source 2 references Strong's earlier work on The Apprentice
Source 2 provides more extensive detail regarding Sorkin's explicit briefing to other actors about Strong's immersive approach, whereas Source 1 offers less specificity
Source 1 includes Cox's characterisation of the method as 'fucking annoying' alongside praise for Strong's acting ability, whilst Source 2 develops Cox's broader critical framework about method acting as an American cultural phenomenon and its ensemble impact