Rating: 
Summary: yes,but...
Review: Mamet's book is excellent, and on the whole true, but often there is often something missing, and I realise this is sacrilege, and that thing missing is flavour. There is something a little too "well behaved" in Mamet's doctrine. Also, as Mamet himself would say, beware of doctrine. What is missing is something about "mucking around" and seeing what you can get away with. When something works it is self evident. Yes, the story is important, but so is how you tell it. There is something to be said for crash and burn acting. Mamet's book is the best. But it's a lot of FUN to break those rules. I saw an interview with Mamet where he admitted that there are times in rehearsal that all of his ideas about acting don't help. Basically his ideas are the jumping off point. Mamet says he may have been a criminal if not an artist. I feel that is what has been lost. Actors should be more on the criminal side than the side of the status quo. We should be human, not ACTORS.
Rating: 
Summary: All true...
Review: Mamet's essays on acting in this book will show you how to act and not how to act like you're an Actor. For every Actor that ever thought they didn't have what it took to understand their acting teacher, this book is for you. But beware if you subscribe to one of the more popular schools of acting you will be shocked, upset and maybe even enlightened. "True and False" is also a great reading companion to Atlantic Theater Company's book "The Practicle handbook for the Actor"
Rating:
Summary: Debunks the false and praises the simple truth
Review: Mamet, an educator himself, immediately on the first read of this simple, direct and painfully blunt treatise caused me to completely overhaul my own approaches in training young actors.So much of acting training can be based in either psuedo- pyschoanalytical academic trivia or blind hero worship and name dropping.I myself proved guilty of such crimes- as I am sure all directors, actors and acting teachers have. Mamet, in 127 pages debunks all these false posings and boils theatre art down into simple truths, and causes one invovled in these noble professions to do a radical sould searching and simplify their lives and approaches. Especially helpful are his chapters on "Talent", "Ancestor Worship", "The Rehearsal Process", "Emotions" (how many times have all actors been crippled by the lie that they aren't connecting emotionally enough to a part!), "I'm on the Corner" and "Action". In a few well selected words, Mamet is able to de-mystify the theatre while celebrating the magic it does produce. Add this immediately to your shelf. Whether you end up agreeing or disaggreeing is immaterial. It will cause you to re-evalaute!
Rating: 
Summary: Sense and Nonsense in the Theatre
Review: Mr Mamet makes a convincing case for the perfect actor being 'Joey' in 'Friends' - I had previously thought Brando was rather good myself, but now have discovered he was rubbish by reading this book. Entertaining silliness throughout - perfect for breaking the ice at play readings and provoking pretentious conversations among thespians and directors everywhere. I don't believe that Mamet's take on acting is nonsense... I accept it.
Rating:
Summary: Mamet mouths off
Review: Mr. Mamet has a lot of opinions. And they are certainly prevelant in this collection of short chapters on various aspects of the acting profession. The good news is that there is some solid advice for up and coming actors. I firmly believe in his stance that one should be an actor to act not to be a star. The bad new is that Mamet also reduces acting to a "just say the lines" profession. He blasts method acting and its numerous offsrpings as wasteful baggage that an actor brings to a role. His offering that a playwright puts all the information in their script is true--if your David Mamet! Many, many, many scripts lack the depth of character that this very gifted writer puts into his work. If it is not there, the actor has to provide it. The failing of this book is in that Mamet really has no respect for the actor. While reading this book I could not figure out WHY he wrote it other than to just gripe. This thin book resembles one large rant filled with complaints and irritations. There is helpful advice, but among all the whining and moaning it is very difficult to find
Rating: 
Summary: Worth the Pain?
Review: Mr. Mamet's book certainly provides the aspiring actor with some very valid pointers, but there are certain ones which merit some questioning. For example, is it worth it to forego a higher education to pursue an acting career? This is something Mamet expresses much opinion on, but is something the reader might want to give serious thought to before carrying out. On the other side, however, the points Mamet makes are very valid and relevant for those who would like to pursue an acting career.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing - not very useful
Review: Much of this book is taken up with Mamet raving against the Stanislavski Method, of which he demonstrates a stunning ignorance. For example, he claims that the Method is not practical because you cannot "force" your emotions (those who, unlike Mamet, have actually READ any of Stanislavski's books will recognize that Stanislavski said this exact thing) and you cannot force yourself to believe things (I would suggest that Mamet read Stanislavski's sections on the "magic if," and he would find that Stanislavski also teaches this). When he quits ranting against the Stanislavski Method and what he thinks actors need to stop doing and gets down to what he thinks actors SHOULD do, many of his principals are (or, at least, should be) either painfully obvious (such as, our job as actors is to entertain the audience) or of little use to the professional actor. Unlike Stanislavski (whose approach was "these are the principals of what must happen "internally," this is how it looks externally, this is how it looks when you're creating a character for the stage), Mamet does not consider it important to spend much time explaining how his principals work or how they are to be applied on stage. I will give Mamet credit for a few things, though. His writing is concise and to the point, and touches on a few of the basic principals of acting. He also points out some of the mistakes that some actors make. The one thing that this book does a very good job with is reminding us of the basic job of the actor, which actors tend to get away from sometimes, such as the fact that the audience is paying good money to see us perform and our first obligation is to them. He makes a few other interesting points (e.g., we learn to act on stage, not in the classroom). Do not read this book instead of other acting books, but rather in addition to it. The book is pretty short and the writing concise - you should be able to get through it fairly quickly. This might be good to read along with Stanislavski or books on the Method, but do not read it as a the first or only acting book you read, or read it instead of others. I'm not sure that it is necessarily worth buying vs., for example, getting it from the public library - it's possibly worth reading once, prefrably after you've already been studying and acting for awhile, but probably not more than that.
Rating:
Summary: Actors will hate this book - that's why they MUST read it.
Review: No other author, from Hagen to Meisner to Strasberg, has captured the art of acting so simply, so quickly (127 pages), or so truthfully. I hated this controversial book when I first read it (surely, Stanislavsky is turning over in his grave), but after much thought and practice and observation, I must admit that the art of acting really is, and must be, as simple as Mamet makes it. This truly is the only book on acting that a professional must read.
Rating:
Summary: .. humbug...
Review: The chip is as big on Mamet's shoulder as the callus is thick on his dead soul. A product of his own marketing, a man whose reputation as a playwright is based on his ability to "capture the subtleties of the language of the day" of various stereotypes in modern western society, his plays become irrelevant ten years after their introduction to the world. Irrelevant because the words no longer seem "brilliant or clever". Irrelevent because the petty lives of his petty inventions become dated. Irrelevant because the art of the actor, which he obviously despises, transcends the ".. strong voice, diction, ... supple, well proportioned body..." needed to give any dramatic piece longevity. The actor as "craftsman" wastes much time worrying about pleasing the David Mamet's of the world. The actor as "artist" doesn't need to please the David Mamet's of the world, and in fact doesn't need words to communicate the life of the human spirit. Give me Al Pacino. Give David Mamet Tom Cruise. Give me Dustin Hoffman. Give David Mamet Robert Redford. Give me Robert DuVall, Gene Hackman, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Robert DeNiro, Bridget Fonda, Patricia Arquette, Martin Landau, Ellen Burstyn,
Mickey Rourke and Shelley Winters. Give David Mamet Luke Perry. Humbug to you, Mamet. Thanks to you, now I've got a chip on my shoulder.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing to say the least - little useful advice
Review: This book is the voice of a scared actor. This is the voice of a stubborn playwright. Anyone who loves the magic of the theatre knows that a production is composed of two elements: the actor and the play-- not the playwright and his play. It is the actors job to create truth within himself with the part he is given. Plays written by authors like Shaw and Shaffer are crippling to actors, because they write in the lines all that is felt. This is not reality. This is not art. Acting (now, after reading this book, I feel the need to use the words "Method Acting") is the only art that uses real emotions and the human body as it's medium. This book is suggesting that actors need only be an extention of the literature, which my friends, is insane. Stanislavsky knew there was something wrong in the theatre, and composed a path for actors to follow in order to reach that "awareness". Strasburg found it. Chekov found it. Hagen found it. Meisner couldn't think abstractly, so he made revisions, but still believed strongly in the honest actor. This book is a good example on what NOT TO BELIEVE. Trying to say that this is a better method of acting is like trying to say that Humphrey Bogart was more believable than Marlon Brando. If this book is taken seriously by too many, the entire world of our our theatre could be ruined.
| 
