Mamet: The Remainder

Basically, for the last 10 or so pages of this book, Mamet reiterates what he said in the rest of the book: your insecurities benefit you onstage, your imagination is better to use than your belief, technique is not a good thing. Also, he discusses how the great acting instructors of old (Stanislavski, etc.) used to be just like us before they came upon their fame. This book was a good one, but I felt that Mamet just said the same things over and over and over again. He just said the same things in different ways all the time. I did find a lot of nice quotes throughout the book, too. I enjoyed it for the most part.

Mamet: Performance & Character and The Villain & The Hero

Performance & Character: Mamet does not seem to like large acting. I may or may not agree with this. I think that big acting can be really fun to watch and to perform. However, it may not have its place in a lot of plays. Shakespeare, for instance, should be performed big, I think. I think that Mamet is very harsh about performance. He does not think that actors should do anything to help the audience better understand the play. But, in this day and age, I feel this is necessary more often than not. Mamet would be perfectly happy with boring, cold readings of plays. I am not content with that in any way.

The Villain & The Hero: What I got out of this very short chapter was that the actor does not need to add anything else while portraying the hero or villain; the words in the script are enough for this. Yeah, okay...

Mamet: Habit and The Designated Hitter

Habit: I enjoyed this chapter, because Mamet talks about the need to leave personal issues on the street and theatrical issues inside the theatre. This can help to make for a better performance. Mamet also talks about how there is no character onstage; it is you, "Everything you are. Nothing can be hidden." This is both terribly frightening and oddly reassurring to me. I feel comfortable onstage.

The Designated Hitter: This chapter really confused me. I'm not even sure what I just read...I think that Mamet talked about how the profession of acting is a respectable one; to be compared with things that have their place in society, such as nurses, teachers, etc. But again, I'm not really sure. There were just a lot of words and I did not understand most of them.

Mamet: Concentration and Talent

Concerntration: "Acting has nothing to do with the ability to concenrate. It has to do with the ability to imagine." I kind of like this saying, actually. I've jumped onto the imagination board in this book. I think it's a far healthier way to act; to imagine things as opposed to actually believing them.

Talent: "A concern with one's talent is like a concern with one's height -- it is an attempt to appropriate prerogatives which the gods have already exercised." I agree with this. I think that each person has specific talents that they are born with; these skils can be bettered, but they cannot be created. I think that Mamet suggesting that actors learn skills in voice, dance and script does not particularly mean that the actor needs to go to school. They may need lessons on these things, but that could easily occur during rehearsals.

Mamet: Action and Guilt

Action: This chapter talks about how the action is what holds the play together. The action is the commitment to achieving a single goal. In order to create an effective action, it must be fun. People only do imaginary things that are fun to them; therefore, it makes the most sense for actors to use their imagination to create fun actions in a play.

Guilt: This chapter talks about the guilt involved in theatre and it confused me; I was lost most of the time. What I think I got out of it was that an actor should not shy away from their self-doubt while acting, because it helps to create truth in the moment; it helps to create a character.

Mamet: The Rehearsal Process, The Play and The Scene and Emotions

The Rehearsal Process: Once again, Mamet thinks that the rehearsal process used by most actors is incredibly too long. He thinks that rehearsals need only be used for the actors to learn their blocking and their actions. I kind of agree with him, but I personally need to rehearse to learn my lines efficiently.

The Play and The Scene: Mamet thinks that an actor should pay attention to each scene separately, as opposed to the play as a whole. This kind of makes sense to me; it's almost like "living in the moment". Which is good for the believability of a performance...a character should not know what is going to happen next and if an actor focuses on scene to scene, this would help.

Emotions: In this chapter, Mamet talks about how actors can learn how to act, but the learning and teaching must happen on the stage. This is a good point; I can sit in a classroom for hours being told how to act, I can read for hours about acting, but it will do me no good if I cannot get out there and experience it for myself. This is where I find a fault in Mamet's teachings. This goes back to how he thinks plays are better read than performed; but if an actor needs to perform in order to learn...how does this make sense?

Mamet: Helping The Play and Acceptance

Helping The Play: "Most plays are better read than performed" WHAT!? That doesn't make sense! Plays are written for the purpose of being performed, therefore they would seemingly be at best once performed. I didn't really like or understand Shakespeare until I performed it finally. Now, I'm in love with it. I may be stupid, but I think that plays that are merely read are boring...there's little life to them. But I am a visual and hands-on learner; maybe that is where Mamet and I differ.

Acceptance: this chapter talks about how Mamet hates how actors are told to "believe" what they are acting; Mamet thinks that imagination in the key. I agree with this. This also goes along with one of Stanislavski's followers, Stella Adler. Adler is all about big performance and loads of imagination. I feel that imagination is healthier than belief; particularly while acting.

Mamet: "Work" and Oral Interpretation

"Work": Mamet says in this chapter that it is not necessary for actors to try and find deeper meaning within a play. They are simply supposed to speak the words that are written on the page. This confuses me a little; what about subtext? Does it not exist to Mamet? Does he also not like Dramaturgs? He doesn't seem to think that actors need to know the background of a play. I like Mamet, but he seems to be a little too minimalistic for my taste.

Oral Interpretation: I think that this chapter just answered my question about subtext. It seems to me that Mamet doesn't believe in it. He says, in a roundabout sort of way, that the only thing about the script is what is written on the page. That is it. "...the best service you can do is to accept the words as is, and speak them simply and clearly in an attempt to get what you want from the other actor." Point made. Check mate.

Mamet: Auditions & Paint By Numbers

Auditions: First of all, this chapter was a little bit confusing at first. Basically, Mamet is saying that he hates the audition process; an actor is expected to pretend that this is the performance, when it is not, "For much of the beauty of theatre, and much of the happiness, is in a communion with the audience." Mamet seems to really not like auditioning, but it's an essential part of theatre. It may be hard at times, but how else would things get accomplished? Some of the advice in this chapter is kind of common sense, such as saying things like "I was terrible" is not effective self-improvement. Well, of course it's not...but we're actors and we're always self-conscious. Personally, I think I'm usually self-conscious because I don't want people to think I have a big ego. I try to force myself to stay grounded and humble.

Paint By Numbers: Mamet hates rehearsals. I agree with him; I also loathe the rehearsal process. He also does not like school; this seems to be an overwhelming theme in this book. I partly agree with him in the fact that if you have a group of competent actors come together and know their parts, they need not rehearse for months on end. Shakespeare and his fellows did not rehearse for long, for instance. They also typically did not attend school. I think that if you are going to study a specific field in theatre (technical, playwriting, directing, etc.) then school would be benefitial. But, if you're studying acting, school isn't necessary. I may go to graduate school to focus on Shakespearen studies; that's another thing that could be helpful simply because the language is so very different.

Mamet: Business is Business

"Someone says character is the external life of the person onstage, the way that that person moves or stands or holds a handkerchief, or their mannerisms. But that person onstage is you. It is not a construct you are free to amend or mold. It's you. It is your character which you take onstage."
Another great quote! I think this makes a very good point and it's why it's hard for actors to get rid of the personal quirks while performing. Since every character you play is still you, it can be difficult to separate the character from yourself. I know that I have a problem with my hands while I act; I feel protected if I hold and play with my own hands. This is a hard thing for me to tear away from my acting.

What I got out of this chapter is that Mamet believes that one should always live in the moment and take each job they are offered, because they never know when the next job will come. This makes sense to me and that's what I'll end up doing.

Mamet: I'm On The Corner

This chapter confused me a little; and frightened me, too. Sure, it's fun to think about how you'll live an adventurous life while following all of your dreams. But, I tend to be a realist and I do not think this is necessarily realistic. I think that sometimes people may need something to fall back on. But I also agree with Mamet when he says, "Those with 'something to fall back on' invariably fall back on it. They intended to all along." That may be true. Personally, I won't really have something to "fall back on" if my intended acting career fails. The only thing I can think of (and hope does not happen) is going back to working guest services at a hotel. But I don't consider that something to fall back on. I consider that a skill that I may need in times of struggle.
The theatre world is a uncertain one. It's hard to ever know in any job if you will have it in a year, in five, or in ten.

Mamet: Find Your Mark

This chapter is about how Mamet believes that the act of performing is heroic. Mamet also believes that when people say they "can't" do things, it's not true. To quote him, "...every other 'I can't' excuse is engendered by the play because our suggestibility knows no limits." I think that this idea is an interesting one and I believe it partly. I think that maybe all that needs to be done is getting into the correct mindset. Actors frequently have difficulty putting their personal things behind them. I know that I do this, too. But that is also the beauty of acting...however badly your personal life may be going, you are then able to forget about it for a few hours. It's a comforting release.
"So wisdom consists in this: do not attribute feelings, act on them before attributing them, before negotiating with them, before saying, 'This is engendered by the play, this is not engendered by the play.' Act on them."
I am always finding nice quotes from this book. I think that Mamet makes a lot of good points in his book.

Silly London

The final chapter, horray! Anyway, this chapter talks about modern-day London. The chapter discusses the different opinions of Londoners; from people who believe that the growing Islamic community is dangerous, that the transportation system is horrid and the crime rate too high, to people who believe that the city has never been better or brighter. I'm looking forward to going there to find things out for myself; I'm sick of merely reading people's opinions about things I'm about to see. I want to see them for myself! The author distastes the Americanization of London and gives several examples as to why he dislikes them. I guess I can understand where he's coming from; I think that I would find it annoying if my city's administration was replacing classic places with new, foreign, uninteresting places.

London Cosmopolis

The first few paragraphs of this chapter are very interesting to me. The author discusses the many different people he encounters throughout the day; all who have different ethnical backgrounds, but are still considered Londoners. I think that this is amazing. I know that this is what America is supposed to be, too, but I have not encountered a whole lot of very different people in my life yet. Most of the people that I have met have been from English, German, Norweign, and Irish decent. I'm greatly looking forward to going to this large city with it's huge melting pot of culture. I can't wait to dip my toes in it, so to speak.
I also had no idea about the number of riots that took place around the city in the 1980s. There was a lot of racial tension throughout London and the topic of immigration was often to blame for these numerous riots, injuries, destruction, and deaths.

London: The End of the Bowler Hat

I had no idea how influential the bowler hat was to London. Apparently during the 1950s and 60s, the bowler hat was symbol of the upper working class. Nearly every man who worked in an office wore identical clothes: a dark suit, a bowler hat to match, and always carried an umbrella. This chapter discusses the many changes between the 1950s and 1980s; including the changes in fashion, technology and the banking system. With the birth of new technology (such as the computer), Londoners no longer felt the need for hard work. Money was able to be made quickly and vastly, thanks to technology. London businesses were slowly being taken over by conglomerations. This to me seems to be more important to the history of London than the rebuilding after WWII. The author seems to think that the glory of the austectic London was destroyed in the modernized rebuilding process. I, however, think that these larger businesses taking over the smaller ones was probably more damaging. It seems to have destroyed the spirit of London more; it slowly took away bits of the city's identity.

Postwar London

This chapter obviously discusses what London did after WWII. It begins by talking about some of the great comedies produced by Ealing Studios after the war, most of which center around homely, cheerful criminals. Also, it discusses the 1951 Festival of Britain, which was a celebration of all things British. This Festival was a way to boost morale fot Brits and begin the ultimate planning process for rebuilding the city. There is also a brief history of what was happening in the government at this time; Attlee's Labour administration was replaced by Whinston Churchill once again. After Churchhill's reluctant retirement in 1955, the Prime Minister became Sir Anthony Eden. The end of the chapter talks about how London then became a place with a desire to do both good and bad; after this period of time, London proved that it had both very good and very bad people. This chapter was probably the easiest for me to read; it seemed to flow the best.

Wartime London: 1939-1945

Hebert Mason's famous photograph of St. Paul's Cathedral being bombed by Germans on December 29-30, 1940.

World War II is one of my favorite subjects to study. I don't know why, but this war has always fascinated me above all the others. I can't even imagine what it must have been like to live in London during this time; it was bombed continusouly nearly every night for months, maybe even years. This chapter did make me proud of London, however; it showed an immense amount of pride from the author and gave me pride, too. It's a wonder that London survived these air raids at all; with the number of bombs dropped nightly, you would think that even a large city would eventually be forced to surrender what little was left of it....but once again, the author ruins a beautiful thing. Apparently all that came out of WWII for London was that the city was rebuilt by criminals. I'm not much of an optimist myself, but come on!

The chapter continues to talk about what Londoners did during this time of war, the Prime Ministers of the time, and quoting author after author about this time.

1900-1939 London

Having taken a very long pause between blog entries, I'm hoping that these remaining will not be a complete disaster. Once again, it's difficult for me to follow the author so I had a hard time trying to get back into the swing of things...
The autho begins this chapter by talking about the life and work of British politician Herbert Morrison. This man was prominate in London politics for a long time, but gave up his parlimentary seat to focus on something called the LLC (the definition of this was not mentioned until after he had used the abbreviated form about 6 times). One of his largest accomplishments was to create a little mock roadway system for children of the White Hart Land Estate. Apparently, however, this area has currently fallen to ruin, as can be seen by the author's obvious distaste for the area currently; stating that, "Anyone...today is more likely to encounter a sex maniac released into the community, or a heroin addic shooting up..."
I'm hoping to sometime approach something in this book that would make me want to go to London. The author always starts off by talking about some wonderful piece of history, but then soon destroys it by inserting his opinion of the area today. This book just frustrates me in general.

Mamet: The Generation That Would Like to Stay in School & Scholarship

The next few chapters were about Mamet's feelings on graduate school and other such programs. I am fond of Mamet's opinions on graduate school. I have considered going to one in the past, but the idea of higher student loans has kind of killed it for me. Also, I don't believe it is necessary to do so to become an actor. I'm not looking to become the most well-trained actor of all time. To quote Mamet, "Formal education for the player is not only harmful, but useless." I think that this is true, because after struggling to read through just one of Stanislavski's books, I was deeply confused about HOW to act. I was trying to pick things out of that book to help me better myself while acting. And all I got out of it was CONFUSION. I can in no way make sense of the Stanislavski method...it's too complex for me.
I believe that some people are born with a specific talent or "gift"...I don't really think that a ton of formal training is going to help you if you don't have that natural instinct of how to act. I do not believe that people have to go to school to play sports. That seems highly useless. Perhaps this idea is because I do not like a challenge, and I'm willing to admit that. However, I will take challenges when it comes to roles...such as when I played Cassius. I was very scared of that part of a while, but once I finally got over a few hurdles, I was able to better connect with him.