2 ms·
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). Her
by gcv 17y ago
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 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.
- celoyd 17y agoJust 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.