Today we looked at David Mamet and it confirmed something for me. Throughout my time here in STAC I've been trying to discover what "acting" really is. I knew I loved it. I knew I wanted to be good at it. But I simply didn't know what it was. Like I've said in previous posts, I had developed an obsession with the script. I wanted so badly to become the character and not only say the lines but live the lines. After being in STAC for 2 and half years (wow, how the time flies) I know not that this is bullsh*t. It's simply impossible to become a character and "live" the lines, because that's simply not how humans operate. Now getting to David Mamet, his scripts are so ridiculously flat and simple. Characters repeat words and rephrase lines that were previously said. It has never been more clear to me that the words simply don't matter. They really could be saying anything. It doesn't matter. I'm just going to keep repeating this until I've convinced myself. The words don't matter. The words don't matter. The words don't matter. Well, let me clarify. They don't matter for the actor. Yet they matter a whole lot for the audience, I think for obvious reasons.
Now of course, there are different schools of thought and some acting techniques are all about the lines. But I'm sticking with this for now. I think the words will always matter to me. I like words. But going with this school of thought sort of balances things out. It will keep me from getting distracted by the words, but I will never ignore them. They were written for a reason.
Bravo! Now, this is a blog post: beautifully written with an effortless quality, incorporating what you are learning into your own words. Why haven't you done this for the past 2 years???
ReplyDeleteWords... they absolutely matter in that they carry the story along, and a good actor says them clearly in the right order and is moved by the words as they come out of the mouth. But one cannot believe the words, necessary, or live them, or use them as a tool to become someone else.
The script to a great extent takes care of itself. If they playwright writes a character who curses a lot and uses foul language (we've seen Mamet do this...) then one doesn't have to ACT like a character who curses, one has to merely say the lines and the cursing will be there. Does that make sense? I often use the example of saying "Would you like a cup of tea?" The line cannot be acted such that it makes more sense. If the audience can't understand tea is being offered then there is no acting in the world that is going to help the situation. But the WAY it is said - the intent behind it - this is the realm of the actor, and that is what is interesting to the audience.
The line is the ENVELOPE, the acting (the action) is the letter within the envelope. The line simply allows transmission.