Rating: 
Summary: A very dangerous, ignorant approach.
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.
Rating: 
Summary: Not to be taken personally.
Review: This book was recommend to me by a working Hollywood actress and acting instructor. She said that it is harsh and you cannot take what Mamet says personally, but it is valuable. I was amazed at how simply he trashes the ideas of the old schools of acting and suggests a more practical and accessible way to work as an actor. It's something that children can do. I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in real acting and not just intellectualizing the simple yet difficult craft. It is also a must for anyone who wants to direct. I do however give the same warning that I was given. It is harsh and you cannot take it personal. But it is good.
Rating:
Summary: MAMET IS WRONG BUT ESSENTIAL
Review: This book--another fit of didacticism from a writer of highly uneven output--is a bracing experience. Mamet's thoughts are so simplistic, his tone so dogmatic, that he provokes you to define your own thinking more sharply. I therefore recommend the book highly. I'd like to share one observation, out of the many that this book provoked in me: Mamet's own preference, it seems, is the flat, uninflected acting in most of his films. Compare, for instance, Lindsay Crouse's beautifully emotional work in Sidney Lumet's THE VERDICT with her strangely robotic work in Mamet's HOUSE OF GAMES. The disparity between the two performances--one directed by the Actors Studio-trained Lumet, the other directed by the virulently anti-method Mamet--points up a central, yet unacknowledged, truth: Mamet is advocating a particular style of acting. This style results from the action-oriented approach that he and his followers employ, but it is no more or less a style than that produced by the method techniques he decries. This may seem a minor point, but it is one that he would hotly deny, as he insists that he advocates a technique and not a style. I should add that the book contains a number of incisive thoughts on ethics and professionalism. So valuable were these that I typed them up and put them on my wall. They kept me sane through a difficult summer with a professional theatre company. The book is worth its price for these alone.
Rating:
Summary: Some wisdom--a lot of attitude
Review: This is a must read for any serious actor, acting teacher or theatre academic. I suspect much of this book is Mamet intentionally provoking the establishment, but there is much common sense, and a fair amount of traditional actor training included. Anyone who has seen young actors torture themselves (and others) with their understanding of method preparation will enjoy this book. But whether one loves it or hates it, it will spark genuine healthy debate--and that's good. (Oh yes, the playwright is the source of all wisdom concerning his/her play. If the actor remembers that, everything will be fine. Well . . . maybe, Mr. Mamet.)
Rating: 
Summary: A Playwright's Perspective on Actors
Review: This is a short, blunt and controversial monograph on the business of acting, but in assessing its lessons, one should consider two salient points. First, David Mamet tried unsuccessfully to become an actor, and, second, that as a playwright and director, he necessarily has his own ideas about how his works (and the works of other playwrights) should be produced, and his vision undoubtedly conflicts with actors' ideas about how those works should be realized. In the guise of giving acting advice, he is voicing his strong opinion that all actors' work must necessarily be subordinate to that of the playwright or director, and it recalls Alfred Hitchcock's famous dictum that he regarded actors as cattle. That's not necessarily acting advice, but it is a hierarchical view of roles within a production or a theatre company.
With those points in mind, much of what Mamet has to say about acting is very good advice indeed. It is no secret that the Stanislavski and Strasberg systems of acting often produce academic and/or inward looking performances. Mamet also finds nothing at all to praise in acting schools of any stripe or theory. And as readers familiar with Mamet's plays might expect, when Mamet wants to heap scorn upon an object, he is capable of doing so with cold and hilarious fury. His points about working truthfully in the moment (which he calls acting courageously) and focusing honestly on your partner or the other actors are surely solid. Similarly, his simple advice about how a scene should work and how an actor should understand the scene's objective are rock solid.
In the end, although Mamet skewers both acting schools and theories, he has really espoused a theory of stage performance, albeit one that takes as its guidepost a highly naturalistic and unadorned style. Similarly, his advice that only by constantly working, and subjecting your craft to the ultimate test of audience acceptance or rejection, will an actor really grow, is beyond dispute. Overall, this is a useful and entertaining analysis. But it's really only partly about how to act, and if you're buying it as a how-to guide, you're going to be disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: Understanding is more meaningful than respect
Review: We actors (and directors and writers) need to be shaken up once and a while, and that's one of the things Mamet does well. If you commit to the book as you do our craft, you will come out with a much better understanding of what this acting thing is all about. If you're looking for feel-good puffery, don't get this book. If you're serious, get this book. You don't need to swallow it whole, but it will definitely get you thinking about what is truly meaningful and important in theatre.
Rating:
Summary: A Must Read for Aspiring Actors
Review: Wow! I now know that all of my professors in college didn't know what they were talking about! Mamet speaks to the ACTOR in words that we all know and can giggle knowingly about. He teaches a lesson of self. Act for yourself, don't believe any of that mumbo-jumbo you learn in school. I highly recommend this to any theatre student!!
| 
