A Conversation for The Theatre
Researcher 211368 Started conversation Dec 9, 2002
Above the text refers to several users of 'the method'. It mentions David Mamet. Interesting fellow, located in Chicago, his dialogue is usually fun listening to. He writes his dialogue sometimes with a actual metronom clicking to create pace to the diaglogue.
Which is a fabulous idea and all, HOWEVER he isn't of 'the method' acting/writing/whatever style.
In 'A Pratical Handbook for Actors', written by several students of his from their experience with Mamet, it has a considerable bias to the 'Technique' form.
(So what the article says is slightly wrong. TECHNIQUE not METHOD for David Mamet. Just wanted to get that out of the way. Rest of this post is to elaborate on the book written by the students, and general nittpicky nonsense on acting.)
So much so that in the book it has a chapter call 'Myth of Character'. In which it says something summed up by saying-if you play King Edward it is assumed by the audience that you are King, nothing in your personality/action (aside from something extreme) can sway the audience's belief in that.
Also, going further, the book basically says that the character of King Edward is fictional and Joe Smith performing as him ISN'T King Edward but Joe Smith pretending to be King Edward.
Sort of like Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter. Hannibal Lecter never existed, and in the performance there are things that ARE Anthony Hopkins.
Many method actors get into argument about this train of thought.
I for one believe in the existance of character and method acting and can find several specific flaws in some technique thought.
I am certainly not saying that Method is better than Technique, I just believe Method works for me.
However I do perform, and have performed with Technique because I had no connection to what I was doing. (i.e. playing a stereotype)
Anyways, what do you fellows thing? (anyone out there?)
Key: Complain about this post