I think that both actors make a case for truth and for imagination. But isn't that the goal of every component part of the film gig. We are all seeking to build a world that rings true, whether the film is noir, fantasy, drama, farce, sci fi. We use our imagination whether we are designing, art directing, make-up artist, actor, director, writer, to create a credible world that will suck in the audience and allow them to use their imagination as they watch.

What I think the writer gains by learning the hows and whys of the acting process is that it is his words that feed that process. His words create both the questions and the answers that the actor uses to get to his truth in the situations and the actions of the script. If you really focus on how that process works it is going to affect your choice of words that you use and actions that you describe to get the result that you want the actor to reach. If you actually get involved in that process you can learn why an actor sometimes struggles to reach the described goal. I don't think that means you have to get up in a class and try to do something that is alien to you and is uncomfortable. Stephen Bochco and I belonged to a theatre company forty years ago where Jack Colvin had a free class for interested members based on his personal mentor, Michael Chekov. Stephne never missed a class. He was there as an observer, watching the interplay between Colvin and his students as questions were asked and answered in ways that described the process and created changes in perfomance that came from within the actor based on the facts of the script i.e. dialogue and activities. I think it developed in Stephen an eye for casting and writers that he has made use of his entire career. Actors who can parse a script and writers who can write to the strengths of a cast. Both hugely important in successful television series.