Was interested to see Daniel day- Lewis on parky last night. For anyone who didn't see he was trying to explain his mental process during a job and developing a character within which he removes himself so that he can actually live as the character and experience everything that character would. For example when filming my left foot he insisted in being carried on and off set from his wheelchair. I know every actor is different to approaching a character but for me this approach would be mental torture. (i guess for him too ----after walking off stage during Hamlet he hasn't returned to the theatre since and probably never will) I would be interested to hear other opinions on this and is the whole idea of "ACTING" becoming less of a craft and more of a test of mental endurance. So should we have to suffer to reap the rewards and the Awards?
but i was refering to us all
all of us who work and study hard learn our craft to the best of are abilities then left out in the cold harsh light of day relising that out journey has only just begun
I'm not saying it's bad to discuss this kind of thing, more that it is a little futile. I agree it is always good to hear all the schools of thought.
I actually said Stanislavski "would" say that, not that he did. I was just naming two practitioners at the opposite ends of the spectrum. Stan would be in favour of reaching into the soul and emotionally suffering for the character, Mamet would not. Mamet would argue that as long as the performace is recieved well by an audience and conveys the text in the intended manner, the job is done.
Glad you agree with me about the audience. It's one of Mamet's best points, and one I think is so important. If the outer performance is flawed, then it really doesn't matter what the actor has in his/her head; it's still flawed. The same goes if it's great.
Mark,
You're right. I was replying to you. Sorry other Mark!
I think we're actually on the same page, so to speak. When I read Mamet's True and False, I felt like I was suddenly not alone in everything I'd always been dubious about. I totally agree with what you just said about doing what is required for the audience.
I think Stanislavski is often automatically linked with 'The Method', but in actual fact he was just searching for the truth of the character in the moment. As I said before, Sanford Meisner (a member of the group theatre and colleague of Lee Strasbourg) was also influenced by Stan's visit to NYC, but Meisner didn't agree with Strasbourg's interptretation of Stan's ideas. According to Meisner, Stanislavski also felt that Strasbourg had misinterrpreted what he'd said.
Incidentally, David Mamet studied with Sanford Meisner and wrote several of his plays based on scenes he watched in class. He then went on to form a theatre company with William H. Macy, teaching some of the techniques he learnt with Meisner and applying his own ideas of text analysis.
So, Stan and Mamet aren't actually that far apart really!
As you can probably tell, I love discussing this. I just find it interesting to see how other people work because some people don't just do what's required and sometimes it's felt that if you do more then you're more dedicated. Like you said, it's a personal choice and no one way is better than another.
You must login as a candidate to participate in the forum.
Please note:Messages written in the forum do not represent the views of The Mandy Network, nor have they been vetted by The Mandy Network staff.
If you read something which you believe to be offensive or defamatory, please contact us and we will take the appropriate action.
