This is the third in a series of reflections about David Mamet's controversial yet influential book, ten years after its initial publication. Click here for the previous installment.
Let's set aside, for now, whether or not pursuing a career in acting is a good idea. Mamet assumes that if you are reading his book, you have already chosen a career in acting, and now his goal is to convince you to stay out of school. I find this to be pretty sound advice, and I think it can be extended to include other creative disciplines, including film school, music school, culinary school, etc. Despite the tone of my previous posts, I really do find a lot of good and useful material in True and False , which is probably why the book has stuck with me after all these years.
Although he is certainly not the first to say it, this is where I first encountered the idea that acting "is, finally, a physical skill, not a mental exercise." It is not for intellectuals, but for artists, and there's a difference between the two. An actors' time would be better spent in dance or martial arts training rather than vain attempts at scene study.
Mamet's advice to actors is to get out of your head and act on instinct. Very Kenobian of him. Thinking, examining, and reconsidering all the emotional beats in the play and stringing them together in performance is not nearly as interesting to watch onstage as someone whose attention is outwardly focused on a exterior goal. Assuming you can let go of script analysis and "get out of your own way," acting isn't difficult. Challenging, yes. Worthy and courageous, certainly. But acting is not, nor should it be, difficult.
It occurred to me while I was re-reading that I haven't really met or worked with anyone who professes a reverence for the Stanislavsky Method. I was required to read some Uta Hagen in college, and everyone was real sad when Brando died, but nobody I've worked with actually uses the Method anymore. But the anger and frustration apparent between the lines of True and False leads me to believe that Mamet must be constantly surrounded by "misguided" actors who subscribe to the Method. Otherwise, why would he be compelled to write the book?
Continued in part four of the series...
Comments (3)
While I tend to agree with Mamet that going to acting school is not particularly worthwhile, I can only follow him and you into the "act by instinct" approach if the actor has spent some time getting educated. Not theatre educated, but liberally educated; becoming acquainted with the ideas and circumstances of the world, both past and present. In other words, if you are going to rely on gut instinct, I want that gut to be highly educated. And I disagree completely about script analysis -- most theatre artists' ability to really figure out what a play is saying and how it works is woefully inadequate, and it leads to the "hey, wouldn't this be cool" school of theatre that leads to so many piss poor productions.
But isn't it odd that Mamet runs an acting school, given what he's said in this book?
Posted by Scott Walters | July 24, 2007 7:25 PM
Posted on July 24, 2007 19:25
"Assuming you can let go of script analysis and "get out of your own way," acting isn't difficult. Challenging, yes. Worthy and courageous, certainly. But acting is not, nor should it be, difficult."
Actually, acting is very difficult, it's why the very good ones get paid so very much, and why very few people are very good at it. It's difficult because it goes against our survivalist nature to stand in front of a crowd of strangers and utterly expose ourselves in all our flawed, weak, messy, wonderful glory that makes us all identifiably human, which is what great acting is. Not faking it, not merely "learning the lines, finding a simple objective like that indicated by the author, and speaking the lines clearly (pg. 57). This will impart information to the audience, but it won't impart that intangible harmony of emotion between player and audience that can really make the experience of watching a play visceral and gut-wrenching and heart-breaking.
Mamet was saying that the method takes a hard job and makes it harder with a bunch of intellectual exercises that have no effect on the finished product, so just skip the homework, memorize some text, have a beer or something, and do it on the night. Wouldn't it be nice if that was in fact the case? We would be nations of brilliant actors, which we obviously are not. Stanislavsky, for better or for worse, was trying to bring truth to the stage, truth that we recognize not on an intellectual level, but on a purely emotional one.
Acting is the embodiment of humanity, and as such both a physical and a mental skill, not merely one or the other. Calling Stanislavsky's school of thought "The Method" was a misnomer, as every actor has their own unique method, which is comprised of two things: their personal life experience and their courses of study, which should be many and varied. What works for one actor by means will not work for another, because it is their very uniqueness that we are paying to see. This is the basis of Stanislavsky's approach, aimed towards bringing that which is inside and hidden bubbling to the surface for all to see and, more importantly, feel.
Posted by Simon | July 25, 2007 2:31 AM
Posted on July 25, 2007 02:31
I think acting is actually a very simple process, really . . . which is why animals and children are so good at it . . .
Then again, hitting a baseball with a bat is a very simple endevour, too . . . but doing that at a high level, a major league level, requires a lot of work and concentration.
But at its core, it's still the simple act of hitting a ball with a bat.
The problem is, like with anything, when we get in our own way . . . when we overthink what should be a natural imaginative act, that's when it becomes too complex and bogs us down, not just with acting, but with all things . . .
Just my opinion, of course, no more, no less.
Posted by Joshua James | July 25, 2007 9:08 AM
Posted on July 25, 2007 09:08