The half truth of David Mamet:
the omnipotent writer
provoking the actor
David Mamet speaks a lot of sense
in his book TRUE AND FALSE. It
is possibly the least pretentious book on the subject for twenty
years. However his call for simplicity and clarity can be deceptive
for the actor.
Half way through a sentence, the director calls "keep it
clean" or "directly to him" or more difficult:
"No". The actor regroups, collects his control and tries
again. Only to hear "directly to him" called out in a more
concentrated tone. The actor senses frustration from the director.
The director IS frustrated. Then she picks up the script and calmly
states: "The LINE is ... " and reads the line the actor
isn't able to recite correctly.
This might happen for a few minutes or a few hours. It can be painful
for all concerned. Of course, the actor might simply have learnt his
lines, taken note of what was required and gone through the routine.
A professional actor would normally be expected to do this: learn the
lines, take note of the director's directions after assessing the
objectives of the writer. Rehearsals would then be playful, fun and
games-like between the actors. Simple! Or is it?
David Mamet
in True
and False suggests only two things should happen in rehearsals:
"1. The play should be blocked.
2. The actors should became acquainted with the actions they
are going to perform."
The obvious problem here is the suggestion that such processes are
merely mechanical by necessity. You read a script. Then it's
positions on a set are obvious and stated. Stage left simply means to
the left of the stage etc. The action is also obvious. Character A
obviously wants such and such within a scene and so full stop: end of
enquiry. But anyone who has ever been involved in such a process
knows the multifarious nature of the process. Can it ever really be
as mechanical as Mamet suggests?
Mamet also suggests the same with learning lines. Learn them by rote
as if they were the contents of a "phone book". Don't
embellish. This is qualified by the need for the actor to develop as
a person open to the world, with real life experience and opinions.
But it ignores way the mind operates as "a
self organizing patterning system".
It also over-simplifies the reality of the writer's effort. There is
not necessarily a direct one-to-one correlation between the writer's
words and the writer's meaning or some universal and static meaning
to the work. It is not uncommon for the same words and original
intentions to change or at least become open to differing intention
from the writer over time.
Given this situation, and given the changing cultural situations in
which work is adapted and presented, it is not possible to simply
learn lines by rote and have them presented with anything even close
to their potential meaning. The various exercises and activities used
by the dreaded "drama schools" etc. are like carrots to a
hare. They help the actor bridge the distance between his/her self
and the material of the play conveyed by the text on the page. If
nothing else, they become as "random points" circling the
area of "focus". By attempting to forge a link, whether it
be through active blocking or through lines work, the actor is
encouraged to spiral in towards the play and its reality.
I believe this to be more than excessive leisure time activity as
suggested by Mamet. Learning lines is not like banking: filling up
the account ... like depositing and withdrawing. This seems to be the
model suggested by Mamet: paradoxically as he also argues against
acting "by numbers". I would suggest a better analogy would
be that offered by Edward de Bono (the "lateral thinking"
guy) with his concept of "a
self organizing patterning system".
In this system, the mind incorporates the text into its own
framework: comprising the actor's experience, understandings and
newly acquired perceptions or insights as a result of provocations
offered during the workshop or rehearsal process. In this way, the
actors, director and writer become partners in a creative process.
This differs from Mamet's suggestion of the actors being
functionaries interpreting the clear specific intentions of the
writer on a kind of one-to-one correlation.
I don't wish to do Mamet an injustice by reducing his excellent book
down to simplistic levels. The work is an important contribution to
the craft and practice of acting and working in the theatre. It is
possibly the least pretentious book published in the area for twenty
years and is very well written. For these reasons alone, it is a MUST
read for anyone interested in acting and general theatre practice.
In de Bono's terms, the book itself is a brilliant provocation for
theatrical creativity with the most provocative statement coming on
page 8:
"Stanislavsky was essentially an amateur."
So let us take some of Mamet's principle ideas. The actors come to
rehearsal with some small scenes learnt (by rote if necessary) or at
least some easily managed lines prepared ... maybe some lines
considered central to the action. Then, to take de Bono's central
concept, we use games and exercises as the random point to spiral in
on to the central FOCUS of the project. Exercises are set up in which
the lines are taken out of context or parallel to the context. The
actors are forced to respond to each other in an immediate and
spontaneous way ... on the floor and not isolated by semantic or
intellectual consideration.
From this work, the actors and director determine the key actions of
the scenes. Blocking considerations follow. In a kind of hindsight,
the through line is pieced together: cementing or confirming what was
previously only a hunch (in Peter Brook's terms) or feeling.
Such activity removes the mechanistic problems associated with some
of Mamet's proposal. The process of "acquainting" (not
covered in Mamet's book) is followed by the blocking and not the
reverse as suggested.
The moment of text usage is all important: not the line through or "super-objective".
Most directors, teachers and actors have a variety of exercise and
games that will assist this process. But Mamet seems to argue that it
is not necessary. The answers are contained in the text and all we
need to do is read with a basic level of intelligence. This dogmatic
tone is in keeping with de Bono's own thinking on art. He says:
"Art is, and probably has to be, extremely intolerant."
(Edward de Bono: "I'm
Right - You're Wrong" 1990)
Mamet, also being a screen writer, is no doubt influenced by the
contempt writers receive in the film industry. A writer's script may
be butchered beyond recognition by all the so-called processes that
go into making it into a movie. On the stage, it is different. The
writer has final say in what goes on the stage. Could it be that the
dogma of the writer is coming through in Mamet's book?
His suggestion that the text is final and the writer omnipotent
doesn't account for the way people actually work: how the mind of the
actor is itself a self organizing patterning system. While Mamet may
well be right in claiming so much of what accounts for acting
training and rehearsal process is inflated recreational nonsense, he
doesn't address the question of how people actually become
"acquainted" with a work or even how a work might be
conceived according to different cultural, social, personality and
creative constructs, contexts or interests. Taking such things into
account is not necessarily a waste of time or doing a writer a disservice.
This said, MAMET is very accurate in his portrayal of many very
negative aspects of our industry. His depictions of the bureaucrats,
agents, managers, casting people, critics etc. as impediments to be
over-come is refreshing and encouraging. His love for the theatre and
its creative processes and potential is inspiring.
He has no time for the pedantic wankers with academic pretensions who
constantly clutter the area with pious pontifications about our lack
of depth or our failure on some isolated aspect or with arguments on
some abstracted semantics that have nothing or little to do with
bringing a work to an audience. Too many such people find themselves
in positions of power over theatre practice: either as wishy-washy
and confused directors grappling with their own insecurities without
offering a clarity of direction and support to the actors; or as
"committee" members cluttering the funding processes and
arbiters of WHAT actually gets to be performed in front of audiences.
Mamet is clear in his disdain for such people.
If nothing else, TRUE AND FALSE is a well targeted provocation
that should be considered by all involved in theatre.
*******************
For performance and licence details for staging any SHADOW HOUSE PITS
production, contact: pitspro@shadowhousepits.com.au
Return to Home Page
Email
Us!
