This is the fifth 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.

Mamet considers acting to be a profession that has been taken over by amateurs, "a profession of the genteel class... the hobby caste" as opposed to the buskers, gypsies, and those "noble" performers who came up from the streets. I don't disagree with this diagnosis, but it's interesting to me that Mamet is currently working on a movie about mixed martial arts prizefighting, which is notable for attracting athletes from a middle-class background who have the extra time and money to pursue martial arts classes at the local dojo. This is dramatically opposed to the boxing circuit, which historically tends to cull its athletes from low-income backgrounds, those who depend on boxing for their livelihood and a chance to escape the cycle of poverty.

It seems inconsistent to denigrate the dramatic amateur while at the same time celebrating the MMA. But maybe in comparing acting to prizefighting I'm also putting oranges in apple carts.

Please click here for the next installment.