Mamet's "True and False: Heresy and Common Sense for the Actor (Paperback)" is recommended reading. It's a quick read and gives a refreshing and blunt opinions about method acting.
From the editorial review on Amazon.com:
"To hell with Stanislavsky. To hell with the Method. "The actor is onstage to communicate the play to the audience," says David Mamet. "That is the beginning and the end of his and her job. To do so the actor needs a strong voice, superb diction, a supple, well-proportioned body and a rudimentary understanding of the play." Anything else--"becoming" one's part, "feeling" the character's emotions--devalues the practice of a noble craft and is useless to the play. "The 'work' you do 'on the script' will make no difference," he cautions. "That work has already been done by a person with a different job title than yours. That person is the author.""
However, what I personally think is even more interesting is that before and after reading Mamet's book I've always found Mamet's movies somehow lacking on the emotional level. Either Mamet's opinions about acting (and directing) are a crock of shit, or I don't understand anything about the subject.
Yeah, but he is wrong. Nothing compares to a good method actor. Look at some of the most brilliant and memorable roles in movies and they were not done with merely "a strong voice and superb diction." Say Al Pacino in scarface or Marlon Brando in the godfather, these people became the character (and both had really bad diction, btw).
I think his instructions are for average actors, who think they are Marlon Brando and do a bad Brando impersonation when acting. These are the actors that drive directors crazy, so directors always tell them to keep it simple.
Mamet's opinions about acting (and directing) are a crock of shit
They are. Proof by counterexample: go watch Ian McKellen perform Richard III (1995 film). Here's a YouTube clip of a few opening scenes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke5-SUDrHMU. This is simply brilliant stuff. Now imagine actors, no matter how good, merely reading the lines — without an overriding concept for the show, just reading the text and moving just enough to make the action make sense. Laurence Olivier's 1955 Richard III is rather like that; good mostly because the play is awesome, not because it's a good movie or a good production.
Just read Mamet’s unqualified (in the sense of phrased-as-universally-applicable) statements as being about his particular corner of the acting world. He likes to overstate his case, but there’s room in the world for more than one kind of good production.
McKellen and Mamet are like, say, Picasso and Monet. We can all agree that Three Musicians is brilliant without seeing it as a proof by example that Monet’s ideas about painting were wrong.
Edit: while I’m here, I second the recommendation of McKellen’s Richard III.
I think his opinions (also on writing) are spot-on. His ability to put them into practice is hit-and-miss. Many people suffer from a similar problem, and I have to count myself among them from time to time. I am not a very big fan of his creative work - although when he does hit the target, he can be very very good - but I am a big fan of his teaching work.
Maybe he is a good teacher precisely because the things he talks about about do not come to him easily or consistently, but but are struggled for over and over again. Tortoise/hare and all that.
From the editorial review on Amazon.com: "To hell with Stanislavsky. To hell with the Method. "The actor is onstage to communicate the play to the audience," says David Mamet. "That is the beginning and the end of his and her job. To do so the actor needs a strong voice, superb diction, a supple, well-proportioned body and a rudimentary understanding of the play." Anything else--"becoming" one's part, "feeling" the character's emotions--devalues the practice of a noble craft and is useless to the play. "The 'work' you do 'on the script' will make no difference," he cautions. "That work has already been done by a person with a different job title than yours. That person is the author.""
However, what I personally think is even more interesting is that before and after reading Mamet's book I've always found Mamet's movies somehow lacking on the emotional level. Either Mamet's opinions about acting (and directing) are a crock of shit, or I don't understand anything about the subject.