I read this in one sitting, so I must have enjoyed it.

Mamet firmly spurns traditional theatre education and the overly intellectual approaches to the craft. He advocates for a much'simpler' way of dealing with the work. According to him, as long as one can manage to get out of their own way, great things can be achieved. His mantra, "Invent nothing, deny nothing," emphasizes that the actor's task is straightforward. All they need to do is speak the lines with clear intention, a defined objective, and purposeful action. In Mamet's view, courage is the actor's most crucial tool. If an actor can maintain courage and truthfulness in their performance, everything else becomes merely ornamental. It's about stripping away the unnecessary and getting to the essence of the character and the story. This refreshing perspective challenges the traditional notions of acting and offers a new way for actors to approach their craft.

A brilliant demolition of the mumbo-jumbo touchy-feely 'find-the-truth' cobblers that seeks to make acting a myth rather than an art form.

Acting is an art that requires skill, training, and dedication. It is not about some mysterious, intangible 'truth' that can be found through touchy-feely exercises or mumbo-jumbo. The idea that acting is a myth rather than a craft is a fallacy that needs to be debunked.

True acting involves understanding the character, the story, and the emotions that need to be conveyed. It requires the ability to inhabit a role, to bring it to life on stage or screen. This is not something that can be achieved through wishful thinking or airy-fairy notions.

Actors must study, practice, and refine their skills. They need to work hard to develop their voices, bodies, and expressions. They must learn to listen, to respond, and to improvise. Only through years of hard work and dedication can an actor hope to achieve mastery in this demanding art form.

I read this book because Shia Labeouf said it resonated with him on Hot Ones with Sean Evans. He mentioned his penchant for escapism and his view that Stanislavski was a not-so-great actor. This book truly challenged my perspective on how I perceive acting and the techniques I employ in my own acting endeavors.

The first chapter was eye-opening. It was like a wake-up call, telling me that you cannot simply 'become a character' as if it were that easy. It's just words on a page, and I was the one who had to bring them to life. There is no pre-existing character waiting to be inhabited. You just have to say the lines!

I had this thought that if I had to play a cowboy on stage, wearing thick denim for a week before would make me feel and look more natural. But this book made me question that. It emphasized that your scene partner should be your only focus on stage. You have to face your nervousness, timidness, and those moments of hesitation, and build off the magic and chemistry that develops between you and your partner. It's not about battling yourself internally.

David Mamet said in this book that if you're trying to control yourself to cry or give off a particular emotion, you're tricking the audience and manipulating them into thinking the performance was good because you weren't truly present, but rather in your own head. I completely disagree with this. While it's true that the best pianists can play with a certain unconscious ease, like Kobe in the 4th quarter, you can't ignore the importance of things like posture, how you finger the piano, and the presentation of yourself. You can't just live in a fantasy world of ego death and not worry about those details. And yet, Mr Mamet himself also said how important it is to posture yourself and speak loudly and clearly with good mannerisms. So, I'm left a bit confused.

This book has a strong aversion to method acting, but it has opened a new perspective for me. I feel like I've gained something from reading it, and in that sense, I'm smarter for it. After all, knowledge is power!

An entertaining read indeed! It not only kept me engaged but also made me think. Through it, I discovered that I wholeheartedly agree with Mamet's stance on Method acting. Method acting, as it turns out, can be counterproductive. It may seem like a great approach on the surface, but upon closer examination, it has its flaws. Actors who rely too much on Method acting might get so lost in their characters that they forget the essence of the story or the overall performance. They might become too focused on their own emotions and experiences, rather than on bringing the script to life in a way that engages the audience. In my opinion, a more balanced approach to acting is needed, one that combines the best of different techniques and allows the actor to shine while still serving the story.