List Price: $14.00Amazon.com's Price: $9.89 You Save: $4.11 (29%)as of 03/18/2010 08:15 EDT
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
This item ships for FREE with Super Saver Shipping.
Binding: Paperback
Dewey Decimal Number: 792
EAN: 9780679772644
ISBN: 0679772642
Label: Vintage
Manufacturer: Vintage
Number Of Items: 1
Number Of Pages: 127
Publication Date: February 22, 1997
Publisher: Vintage
Release Date: February 22, 1999
Studio: Vintage
Features:- ISBN13: 9780679772644
- Condition: NEW
- Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
Related Items:
Alternate Versions: Click to Display
Browse for similar items by category: Click to Display
Editorial Review:
Amazon.com Review:
To hell with Stanislavsky. To hell with the Method. "The actor is onstage to communicate the play to the audience," says David Mamet. "That is the beginning and the end of his and her job. To do so the actor needs a strong voice, superb diction, a supple, well-proportioned body and a rudimentary understanding of the play." Anything else--"becoming" one's part, "feeling" the character's emotions--devalues the practice of a noble craft and is useless to the play. "The 'work' you do 'on the script' will make no difference," he cautions. "That work has already been done by a person with a different job title than yours. That person is the author."
But True and False does not confine itself to the work done on the actual stage. Its brief essays contain sound advice on how an actor might apply himself or herself to the life of the actor: the proper consideration due the audition process, the selection of parts that one accepts, and so on. Mamet delivers these kernels of wisdom in the taut, no-nonsense prose for which he is justifiably famous, and, ultimately, his core principles are applicable beyond the theater. "Speak up, speak clearly, open yourself out, relax your body, find a simple objective," he instructs. "Practice in these goals is practice in respect for the audience, and without respect for the audience, there is no respect for the theater; there is only self-absorption." Substitute "others" for "the audience" and "life" for "the theater," and could any Taoist say it better? --Ron Hogan
Product Description:
A guide to the acting profession by a leading American playwright. He advises aspiring actors on topics such as judging a role, approaching the part, working with the playwright, undertaking auditions, and the relationship with agents and the business in general.
Average Rating: 
Rating: -
A provocative, no-holds-barred, slap in the face to the traditional methods of acting, noted playwright, director and screenwriter David Mamet minces no words when it comes to the art of acting. Mamet's fierce opinions regarding various schools of acting are a breath of fresh air, and True and False: Heresy and Common Sense for the Actor is likely to polarize the current sentiments on how actors should prepare.
The main argument Mamet makes is that Stanislavski's "Method Acting" approach should be eliminated from acting schools -- and, in fact, acting schools themselves should be eliminated as well. I was blown away by the bold simplicity of his arguments, which fly in the face of everything I was taught in school. But in the end, I was won-over, as Mamet's insights are brilliant and true.
Terse and short, Mamet gets right to the point, but tends to repeat himself ... well, repeatedly ... which makes me wonder if he was really trying to hammer home his ideas, or if he was merely trying to fill pages -- the latter of which would be more surprising, considering his accomplishments as a writer.
This book obviously has a very specific audience in mind, so it is not recommended for everyone, but if you are interested in acting or are currently studying acting, pick this up. You won't regret it.
Rating:  -
I feel like every young actor who has a serious interest in going into the business professionally should read this book. Everyone you talk to has a friend who has an aunt who knows the maid of a broadway star who gives out advice as if they were Streisand or something. I get really sick of that kind of stuff really fast and this book talks very bluntly about the reality of acting on the stage and comes straight from the master, David Mamet.
If you are an actor, read this book. It changed my life and the way I think about the business and my craft for the better.
Rating: -
This one's a tough one. What makes it so enjoyable also makes it misleading.
Okay, I'll start by stating that I like Mamet's style. It is abrupt and decisive. Take no prisoners. No conditions allowed. All subtleties and nuances are forbidden.
So, Mamet does not ponder, but declares.
In this book he declares much about acting. Now, because it is declared and is unconditionally stated, it can rile you up. Things that you may view as not so simple, Mamet will. Often, you will be ready to fight with Mamet. So, if nothing else, Mamet is good drama - even when he is writing an essay.
He claims Stanislavsky was a dilettante who never had to actually earn a living by acting and consequently developed a "system" which was more theoretical than practical (despite the fact that most of the acclaimed actors over the past fifty years have trained under Stanislavsky-influenced teachers), that the only true actors were those who scraped a living by learning whatever trick, gimmick, or acting bit made an audience laugh, cheer, or cry.
In simpler terms, he has no use for technical training, let alone for "silly" acting exercises like holding a conversation with your foot. In Mamet's world, a "real actor" does not study with a teacher, he apprentices by and through on-the-job training.
In effect, Mamet alleges training in technique is a waste of time. That it is as efficient to learn acting by "hit and miss" as it is to be taught a specific approach toward acting problems.
All "good clean fun" as my father would say. The problem is that Mamet clearly does not believe half of the things he declares and often he purposely misconstrues a fact.
Regarding the latter, Mamet knows that exercises such as holding a conversation with your foot are only used in beginner-level acting classes to assist the beginner in developing basic creative skills such as easy access to an imaginative mental state. Such skills are vitally necessary in acting since an actor is required to assume a metaphorical situation. As Mamet also knows, no acting teacher demands that advanced students continue such exercises.
The more interesting subject is the former. Mamet holds that an actor learns by acting and, therefore, technical training is not necessary. Further, he alleges that technical training does not lead to acting but to "oral interpretation" since technical training focuses on emoting. Finally, Mamet argues that technical training is a psychological crutch for the student.
Based upon his observation that actors who give consistently even performances will allege one day that their performance was "awful" and the next that it was "brilliant" though there was no discernible difference in the performance, Mamet believes that actors use technique not so much to be good actors as to find comfort in the fact that it is subjectively difficult for an actor to know whether or not his performance was objectively good. A secondary negative effect is that actors can tell if they are emoting and, therefore, they flock to techniques which favor emoting skills which, in turn, lead actors to interpret the role rather than simply play the role as written.
I will give Mamet the benefit of the doubt seeing as he has spent a lifetime in theater. However, the foundational argument that technique is unnecessary does not "hold water". In fact, Mamet has developed his own technique, called Practical Aesthetics. Consequently, he clearly does believe that technique is valid and, in fact, should be taught.
So, here's the rub. Mamet wants to declare. Not only does he want to declare, but having an expert dramatic sense, he wants to shock. Consequently, he boldly states that technique has no use other than as a safety blanket for young actors. Yet, Mamet clearly does not believe that is true.
In other words, the title of his book, True and False, not only describes the art of the actor, which he paraphrases from Meisner as "living truthfully within imaginary circumstances" (hence acting is behavior which is true in a false context and, therefore, true and false at the same time), but the nature of his own book.
In discussing this with a friend, I was told that Mamet should be read in "context" and, therefore, I should forgive his blatant misstatements as to his views regarding technique since I knew that he had developed and continues to endorse his own technique. But why should I? Mamet made the contract with his readers. He chose to be "dramatic" by misstating his actual views.
Does it make the read more fun? Definitely.
Is it honest? Not really.
Rating: -
Mamet's book shold be required reading for anyone who hopes to be an actor. It's the truest assessment of the actor's role I've ever read. Its many nay-sayers who have weighed in here are no doubt either acting "teachers" or self-absorbed, whiny actors who feel like they're not making "art" unless they've somehow "suffered" for it. Blah, blah, blah.
Read this book.
Rating: -
A must read for all actors, especially if you are contemplating going to school. The best career advice ever.
|
