The End of Acting: A Radical View (Applause Acting Series)

Rating:
Summary: all you need to know about acting
Review: Acting has always been an enjoyable activity for me. That is, until I got to college, where I took my first acting class. It was also my last. As one actor quoted in this book calls it, it was "method bulls**t." The class was very demeaning, very preachy, full of doublespeak and pretentiousness, and, worst of all, it has affected my enjoyment of any play I've done since, as I've had to work with mediocre actors who think they will improve by treating this teacher's words as gospel truth, and so can't rehearse a scene without a lot of pointless exercises.

This book reiterates everything I have picked up through the years about acting, before I had "training."

Rating:
Summary: An End to the Means
Review: As a theatre student, I found Hornby's book to be, at first irreverent, and at times absurd (with all those references to Freud and the "oceanic feelings," "the pleasure principle"). Honestly, you have to read the book to get the connections!Anyway, as I continued to read, I kept an open mind. I read the book not as a Method actor, but as a kid who enjoys learning and reading about a variety of viewpoints. In the end, I found the book to be incredibly worthwhile. I learned a great deal from it. He asks many questions in his book, such as: Is acting an art form? Can anyone act? He makes references to Brecht,Grotowski,and Diderot. He obviously is a very learned man, who had an eclectic range of sources available to him. By far, his annototated bibliography was extremely helpful when it came time for me to research the craft on my own. Yes, he puts Strasberg to shame, but I believe it was Stella Adler who when Strasberg was laid to rest, muttered, "That man set American theatre back 100 years."

Rating:
Summary: A manifesto on acting and teaching
Review: Contrived as a manifesto, this book takes a revolutionary tone. Hornby's revolt is against a certain conception of acting which the author blames on Lee Strasberg; and against the conception of actor-training as being primarily vocational. What of theatre as a humanity? Considering the rate of unemployment in theatre, should we not rethink our motives in training people in theatre? Hornby does a skillful job of confining the scope of his book to American theatre, in spite of the questions he raises about psychology and emotionality.

In his critique of Strasberg's method and teaching, Hornby may be faulting the teacher for the work of those who followed him (the way some have blamed Stanislavsky for what they didn't like in Strasberg). He may be over-generalizing about how American actors box themselves into outmoded Freudian conceptions of psychology and dualistic approaches to the work.

On the other hand, there is much to value in his call for production-oriented training programs and for teaching acting as a humanity more than as a career. Here the reader may find his numbers and his criticisms dated; also, he strangely has little to say about training actors to generate their own work.

Rating:
Summary: A manifesto on acting and teaching
Review: Contrived as a manifesto, this book takes a revolutionary tone. Hornby's revolt is against a certain conception of acting which the author blames on Lee Strasberg; and against the conception of actor-training as being primarily vocational. What of theatre as a humanity? Considering the rate of unemployment in theatre, should we not rethink our motives in training people in theatre? Hornby does a skillful job of confining the scope of his book to American theatre, in spite of the questions he raises about psychology and emotionality.

In his critique of Strasberg's method and teaching, Hornby may be faulting the teacher for the work of those who followed him (the way some have blamed Stanislavsky for what they didn't like in Strasberg). He may be over-generalizing about how American actors box themselves into outmoded Freudian conceptions of psychology and dualistic approaches to the work.

On the other hand, there is much to value in his call for production-oriented training programs and for teaching acting as a humanity more than as a career. Here the reader may find his numbers and his criticisms dated; also, he strangely has little to say about training actors to generate their own work.

Rating:
Summary: Outstanding Theoretical Work
Review: So why are the Brits, pound for pound, far better actors than their American cousins? Over a hundred years ago Edwin Booth and other greats toured England performing Shakespeare. The idea of American actors touring England these days, performing Shakespeare--or any of the classics---is about as far fetched as as a rap group, a mariachi band or The Dixie Chicks touring Rome performing Verdi.

What went wrong?

Why did critics give James Earl Jones good reviews as the judge in an Ibsen play but felt compelled to inform you that, just in case you didn't know it, there were no black judges in 19th century Norway---and yet felt no need whatever to point out that, just in case you didn't know it, they spoke (unlike Jones and the other actors in the play) Norwegian, not English?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Hornby examines conventions so ingrained in American acting training, that we're not even aware they're conventions any longer.

His main target is the indubitable Lee Strasberg and his followers. Hornby is not so much anti-Method as he is pro-Stanislavsky. Using examples and photos from actors as varied as Marlon Brando, Humphrey Bogart and W.C. Fields; his section on 'Stanislavsky's Basic Theories' is worth the price of the book alone.

Hornby's critique against Lee's guru/teacher offsprings is that among many sins, they 'train' actors in the manner of a football coach who runs all sorts of endless exercises but never actually lets the team play in a real game.

If they did reality would set in and the con-job would be over. Actors are of course equally guilty in perpetuating the con out of their own fear--if they actually had to audition, get hired and depend upon the audience's pleasure to earn a living in the theater--Gee, they'd be rather like the English wouldn't they?

As it is they can stay in the sidelines and talk forever as they examine all their 'flaws' in labs/studio/workshops, but do not have to dirty their hands battling in the arena.

Equally guilty, in his eyes, are the pundits that run American Theater Arts departments at universities. Even those who are not the offspring of Lee & co, encourage actors to 'play themselves' to such an absurd degree that Hornby notes that the late Peter Sellers could not have passsed the audition for an entrance exam. he could not 'play himself'. Olivier would have probably fared equally badly, and of course Meryl Streep regularly gets put down for using accents, i.e; for ACTING. Even if the accent is required in the role.

The book begins with a section entitled the psycho-sexual basis of acting, which quotes Freud extensively and is a bit long winded. Not badly written by any means, just that the points that acting is fun because the lines of ego are not so rigidly drawn as one thinks, that actors are considered 'childish' by those who hate their own jobs (Oh, 90% of the public), The common distrust towards people who pretend to be someone else--all this was better stated in David Mamet's "True and False", when he observed that, in the Middle Ages, actors were buried at a crossroad---with a stake through the heart. "An awesome compliment"

Nevertheless, this is truly a 5 star book, and contains more constructive critique than Mamet's.

Absolutely required reading for any actor or director.

Rating:
Summary: A Radical Common Sense View
Review: You have to be in businnes or teaching acting for long time to appreciate this book fully. I don't remember when last time I read with the same interest anything on Method Acting theory. I will recommend "The End of Acting" to my Advanced Acting classes. Besides, it's a good read, although the subtitle "A Radical View" loaded with a double irony -- it's "A Common Sense View"! It will take me a while to incorporate the notes on Richard Hornby's book, I plan to do in on method.vtheatre.net pages. If Mr. Hornby would take another shot at this book with less attention to the polemical aim (very relevant today), the book has a chance to become a classic text. [I save the last star for the next edition.] I don't know, if Richard Hornby knows that this is not "his" interpretation of Stanislavky (which is always the case), but the right reading of Stanislavsky -- and even to the point of being more "Stanislavsky" than Stanislavsky's own writings.
I appreciate the straight style and the "photo-analysis" of film actors could be another book by itself (to save many actors a lot of money on their headshots).
I guess, now I have to read Mr. Horby's other books. Especially, Drama, Metadrama and Perception.

Prof. Anatoly Antohin, University of Alaska Fairbanks