BACK
STAGE WEST
October
09, 1997
Canon Fodder
A
chat with David Mamet about "True and False," his provocative
addition to the literature of the acting craft.
Reporting
by Rob Kendt
Dramatist/director
David Mamet has known his share of controversy for his contrarian politics and
his uncomprising aesthetic astringency in such defining plays as Glengarry
Glen Ross,
American Buffalo, Edmond, Speed-the-Plow, and Oleanna.
With
his new book True and False: Heresy and Common Sense for the Actor, Mamet ventures into
another well-mined battlefield: the endless, unwinnable debate about
developments in the craft and trade of 20th-century acting, specifically the
legacy of the Method based on Stanislavski's system. Mamet, who studied with
Group Theatre giant Sanford Meisner, seems to agree with his former teacher
that the sensory work and "emotional memory" techniques advocated by
Lee Strasberg, among others, are "hogwash." But Mamet doesn't stop
there, instead constructing a persuasive if overstated argument that the
attention contemporary actors have lavished on themselves, in acting training
programs from which they can never matriculate, has distorted their proper
focus, which is to reach and communicate with a paying audience.
Mamet
spoke to Back Stage West recently from his office in Newton, Mass., where he is
preparing a new play, The Old Neighborhood, for a November opening on Broadway. A
novel, The Old Religion, is also on the way from Random House.
Back
Stage West: Was this book motivated more by bad acting you've seen, or more
by what you see as actors' wrongheaded approaches to rehearsal and preparation?
David
Mamet:
Both. First off, I always wanted to write a book about acting. I grew up
reading many, many books about acting, and that was always an ambition of mine,
to add to that canon. And I think, as I mention in the book, that something
rather drastic has changed, which is that actors now do not as a rule come up
through the fiery furnace of the theatre. Spending your time trying to earn
your living in the theatre will teach you a lot of lessons pretty quickly,
because you're working with an audience. The people working exclusively in
movies and television, or in a studio, for that matter, don't get the
opportunity.
BSW: I wonder, though, if
saying that actors can learn only from the audience is a bit like saying, The
customer is always right. I mean, it's been pointed out that before the
Stanislavski system and the Method, acting was very stagey, and there are still
actors around who seem to have learned from an audience only how to be hams.
Mamet: That's a very good
point, but I disagree. It's not saying the customer is always right. Learning
from the audience does not mean learning necessarily to placate the audience;
many times, one has to make the decision that one is correct and the audience
is wrong. But the point is, when you're working with a paying audience, you've
gotta be pretty goddamn sure you're right, because your livelihood depends on
it. In weak people, it may build subservience, but in people who are other than
weak, who are developing strength, it builds character.
BSW: In your criticisms of
the Method in the book, you seem to avoid naming names, other than
Stanislavski. Essentially, you say that a lot of the techniques associated with
Lee Strasberg, Uta Hagen, Stella Adler are hogwash and don't work--but without
naming their names, it seems that you're pulling the punch a bit.
Mamet: It's not my place--it
would be impolite of me to name people's names. But I've spoken very, very specifically
about the practices which I think are deleterious, which I think are beside the
point, and anyone who is interested can recognize those practices and determine
for him or herself whether they think I'm right or not.
BSW: Your point about a lot
of preparation--sensory techniques, historical research--is that it's a way for
actors to hide, to shield themselves from the spontaneous. But aren't some
actors into preparation simply because they love doing it, and it's their life?
I think of someone like Kevin Spacey, or of the exercises Uta Hagen developed
to work on her craft between acting jobs.
Mamet: Well, I've yet to see
it make any difference for good. It's my observation that a lot of people use
these exercises--sense memory, emotional memory, and so on--as kind of a
talisman, as magic to ward off fear. I think it's very possible that some
people do, as you say, use them as if they were a word-search puzzle to fill an
idle hour. I've yet to see them do anything good, and I have definitely seen them
do quite a bit of harm. I think that good actors may act well in spite of them.
Listen,
finally, it's not my business how anybody prepares to do what they do. As an
audience member, I've got no axe to grind that actors have to prepare a certain
way; I love to be delighted by the fresh, the unusual, the intuitive, the
spontaneous. Now, it's been my experience, working with actors, that these
generally do not come from the methods of preparation I enumerate in the book,
which is why I don't employ them. But on the other hand, I go to the theatre to
be delighted. I don't care how anybody prepares.
BSWõ How would you respond
to the criticism that yours is very much a playwright's perspective--that all
this talk about simplicity and playing the scene is just a playwright's way of
protesting, "Just say my damn lines."
Mamet: Yeah, well, Blah, blah,
blah, I respond to that. I'm writing the book for actors, and people who may
find my words and my ideas inappropriate certainly aren't going to use them.
Why should they? On the other hand, someone who might have been confused and/or
shamed by a technique which he or she did not understand may garner hope from
my observation that of course they were confused because, as far as I can see,
it's a bunch of gibberish.
I
guess you might say that one of the people the book was written for was me 30
years ago, who studied and went to all these goddamn classes, could never
understand a word they were talking about, and felt like a complete fool and a
failure because of it. It took me many years of constantly working with actors
as a director and as a teacher, much more than as a writer, to come the
conclusions in the book.
BSW: What do you say to the
point, which my critic, Matthew Surrence, makes in his review, that it's really
not all that heretical, in fact, to bash the Method--that to say the Method is
bankrupt or hogwash is not a new point?
Mamet: If that's a not a new
point, then I'm thrilled, and I would suggest that the critic take a big Magic
Marker and cross out the part of the subtitle where it mentions
"heresy." I couldn't be happier if the book is supererogatory.
BSW: The quote on the dust
jacket from Alec Baldwin--"I agree with almost nothing Mr. Mamet says in
this book and encourage you to devour every word"--is classic. Have you
spoken to him about his disagreements with you? Is there a story behind that?
Mamet: Well, we seem to work
very well together. I love to have him do my stuff; he seems to like doing it a
lot. I'm thrilled that he enjoyed the book.
Listen,
I have a friend, Donald Sultan, who's a painter, and we were in the Louvre
looking at some magnificent paintings, and I said, "My God, how did they
do that?" And he said, "They didn't know either." And the same
is true of actors. Not to say that actors are anti-intellectual, but that with
any art--and the only art I know anything about is writing--you strive and you
work, bat your head against the brick wall, and sometimes something happens
that makes you say, "My God, did I do that? Where the hell did that come
from?"
I
think the same is true of acting--that the art of the actor, which is a great,
great art, is finally a mystery. And what I'm suggesting in the book is that in
my experience it's easier to approach this mystery from the standpoint of simplicity,
coupled with a certain humility, an acceptance of fear--rather than saying, If
I work hard enough, everything's in my control, there's nothing which I can't
influence.
BSW: In the book, you
compare acting to athletics, music, dance, and obviously, athletes, musicians,
and dancers have to train a great deal, and go through a lot of coaching.
Mamet: So your question is,
Shouldn't people get into studios? I've spent a lot of time in every aspect of
this business; I started as a child actor in the 1950s. And I've never seen an
idea more terrifying than a group of mutual critics--we shouldn't be performing
for each other. It brings out not only the worst in us as actors, it brings out
the worst in us as an audience. So what I suggest, as was my very fortunate
experience as a young man, is: Get out of those goddamn studios and start a
theatre company, write your own plays, put on your own plays, and do something
for an audience.
Again,
what the book is about is, I'm not trying to damn anyone to hell or be holier
than thou. The book is written for actors, and I hope one of the things I'm
doing is suggesting an alternative, and further suggesting that to embrace such
an alternative is not only laudable but probably is more geared to individual
success than devoting oneself to the institutional moÉ