Actor Training Limits the Narrative Process - Dissertation Example

?David Mamet's Claim that Actor Training Limits the Narrative Process is Undermined by his own Work By David Mamet was opposed to method acting and maintained that actors trained in method acting became organic and as such limits the narrative process. However, Mamet who held himself out as a realist should have been amenable to method acting since it called for character credibility by virtue of the actor’s delivery and representation. This too is an important aspect of narrative and in particular beat narrative. Mamet’s works reflects a minimalist approach and it would appear that, given the meaning and elements of narrative in the performing arts, Mamet’s minimalist approach was demonstratively more inconsistent with the narrative process. This research study analyses Mamet’s contention that actor training limits the narrative process is undermined by his work. It is concluded that Mamet’s approach to acting is formalistic and although his approach to acting is interesting, actor training helps to create academy award winners none of whom can be accused of letting their acting techniques limit the narrative process. In fact, actor training is a more certain way of ensuring that the narrative process flows fluidly. Table of Contents Abstract 2 Introduction 5 Narrative in Film and the Visual Arts 5 Definitions 5 Narrative in Film and the Visual Arts 6 Actor Training and Acting Styles and Techniques 8 Mamet’s Works and The Narrative Process 10 Conclusion 20 Bibliography 21 Certification I certify that this dissertation is original and any ideas or material that are not the authors is properly cited and credited using Chicago referencing format. Introduction The fact that David Mamet’s claim that actor training limits the narrative process is undermined by his own work, is not surprising. As both a writer and director, Mamet’s works often contradict his style and philosophies. For example, Mamet’s writing is replete with realism, however, his directing produces minimalist styles rather than realism.1 This dissertation focuses on the contradiction between Mamet’s claim that actor training limits the narrative and his own work. It is hypothesized that Mamet’s claim is limited by his understanding of the narrative process as a screenwriter and playwright, yet his work reflects a directing style that understands that acting, directing, choreography and the ensemble of scenes and sounds produce a seamless narrative. In order to explore and test this hypothesis this dissertation is divided into three main parts. The first part of this dissertation describes and analyses narrative in the film and visual arts. The second part of this dissertation analysing actor training and the styles contemplated by actor training. The third part of this dissertation demonstrates how Mamet’s claim is undermined by his claim. Narrative in Film and the Visual Arts Definitions According to action theory, narrative is story telling that moves the plot along. Thus narrative is action within a story that moves the plot along and this is usually driven by action and character.2 The theory of narratology of drams is represented in two ways. Prior to the 20th century, narratology of drams limited the concept and definition of drama to “the verbal transmission of fictional stories”.3 However, as the landscape of fiction changed, there was an increasing interest in narrative in all forms, including paintings. Thus the theory of narratology of drama took into account the fact that there were “extranarrative” forms that not only helped to tell a story, but was a manifestation of the story itself.4 The theory of narratology of drama is now connected more firmly with the idea that narrative is any text that tells a story and narrative is therefore comprised of “temporal structure, a set of characters, and a setting.”5 Depending on the discipline, narrative can have a restrictive or very broad meaning. For example in psychology, narrative narrowly contemplates recalling events verbally.6 Therefore, in film and the visual arts, narrative is an entirely broader concepts. Narrative in Film and the Visual Arts Narratives in film and the visual arts refer to those things that are put together on the stage or in a film that makes the production work. Narrative is about how stories are told and how they unfold. In this regard, every frame and every sound contributes to the narrative and the way that it moves the audience and makes the audience think is important to the narrative technique.7 Thus, it can be argue that narrative in film and the visual arts fits both the action theory of narrative and the theory of narratology of drama as both permit an analysis of anything that moves the plot or the character along or contributes to dramatic effect and engages the audience. While narrative in the performing arts usually conjures up images of story-telling and plots8 this is not an accurate description of what narrative is and how it works in film and the visual arts. Narratives in film and the visual arts go beyond stories and plots that are told by characters and their actions. Narratives in this particular medium do not function as a detached element removed from sound and visual effects. According to Hug, sounds and scenes are much more than complimentary parts of the narrative. Sound and scenes can not only be a part of the narrative but can at times be the narrative itself.9 One only need remember silent films that depended entirely on scenes to tell stories and engage the audience. Therefore as Wolf informs, narratives are everywhere in film and the performing arts including background scenes, actors’ dialogue, non-verbal cues, frames, sound, even pauses, music and much more.10 Narrative in the performing arts is therefore the culmination of dramatic techniques that brings together the skills as writing, directing, acting and editing.11 Narrative beats are an important technique used by directors and editors to draw attention to plot twists, or plot direction or to communicate emphasis. In this regard, narrative beats necessarily involve everything from the actor to the camera and to the editor.12 Acting does not have to compromised to support the narrative process. Rather, acting is a technique that contributes to the narrative and once the actor plays his or her role which is tailored to the narrative, whatever training the actor had should be complimentary to the narrative process. Actor Training and Acting Styles and Techniques According to Mamet, acting is about connecting with and communicating with the audience. Mamet goes farther to state that since the “purpose of the theatre” is to communicate and commune, there is no “wall between the actor and the audience”. In all actor training, “respect for the audience” is a fundamental acting technique. The actor must, “speak up, speak clearly” and at the same time relax.13 This was a prelude to Mamet’s criticism of method acting and the actor training meant to accomplish it. Mamet was not shy about this dislike of method acting as promoted by Konstantin Stanislavski. Stanislavski was a 20th century Russian actor and writer whose Stanislavski system continues to influence Western acting today. Stanislavski’s approach to the performing arts was to determine means and methods for recreating and transforming life on stage.14 The Stanislavski system of acting focused on experiencing the part bring real emotions and feeling into the part and deliver those emotional experiences physically and vocally.15 Mamet’s claim that actor training limits the narrative process is obviously informed by his disapproval of method acting and the acting training behind it. Mamet wrote: The Stanislavsky “Method,” and the technique of the schools derived from it, is nonsense. It is not a technique out of the practice of which one develops a skill – it is a cult.16 Mamet’s criticism therefore extended to those who followed in Stanislavsky’s footsteps and modelled actor training after his method model. For instance, Lee Strasberg, a 20th century acting teacher who was born in Israel, but lived in the US, is known as the founder of Method Acting in the US. Strasberg’s Method acting focused on affective memory while the Stanislavski system focused on emotion memory. Nevertheless, Strasberg claims to have built on and developed Stanislavski’s acting techniques.17 Strasberg’s technique was very similar to that of Stanislavski in that Strasberg emphasized getting fully into character as a means of bringing the character to life on the stage.18 Mamet directly attacked emotion memory and affective memory. These techniques according to Mamet have become more about developing a “kind of catatonia” and create “auxiliary stories which are just as difficult to perform as the script but lack the merit of being about anything other than ourselves”.19 Stella Adler may therefore be acceptable to Mamet as she eventually found herself disenchanted with Stanislavski. Adler was an American actor and acting teacher who had previously partnered with Stanislavski, but was eventually put off by the idea of bringing emotional memory into acting. Adler instead went with bringing reality to the stage by learning about and becoming one with the character otherwise, acting would be too much like pretending.20 Mamet, to some extent would agree with Alder’s version of acting technique, except, Mamet was not a believer in technique. According to Brustein, Mamet did not subscribe to the notion of “technique or character acting” and worked “very hard” to “erase all signs of histrionic distinctiveness from his theatre”.21 Nevertheless, Mamet appeared to be in the minority and it would also appear that his attitude toward appropriate acting may contain the narrative process much more than actor training, particularly those trained in method acting and variations of method acting techniques. Uta Hagen, an American acting teacher also supported Method acting. According to Hagen, the Method acting technique is compatible with “any theatrical style”.22 For Hagen, Method acting was a psychological technique and as such is an instrument for the actor to expose the setting and the meaning. The actor follows a psychological process allowing the character to be credible.23 The actor trained to bring this psychological process not only supports the narrative, but also brings the narrative and can arguably be the narrative requiring nothing more than narrative beats to support it. Mamet’s Works and The Narrative Process Mamet’s 1992 play Oleanna which he both wrote and produced on the stage has been criticised in a way that indicates that his realist approach minimalized the narrative. For instance, Sauer maintains that if realism requires delivery that allows the audience to be objective, yet, Mamet’s Oleanna managed to invoke subjective reactions from the audience. Objectivity is accomplished by ambiguity in content which should lead to clarity at the end of the work. Oleanna is about a school teacher is accused of sexual assault by a female student.24 The ambiguity occurs because sexual assault is never as clear cut as the accuser seems to think. However, Mamet’s limits the ambiguity by presenting a female accuser who is decidedly one-dimensional and does not invoke sympathy from the audience and how instead invokes hatred. Therefore, the plot moves along to a flat finish because the audience neither cares or is interested in whether this hateful woman was sexually assaulted by this kind mind. As Macleod puts it, the entire narrative is captured by a confrontation between the accused and the accuser as it reflects that the play is nothing more than an attack on feminism and takes sides in the battle of the sexes.25 Mamet’s Oleanna demonstrates that the producer/director and the playwright may undermine the narrative and how it is delivered. Actors can be used, regardless of actor training to further the narrative and to move it along. Since the story was about a sexual assault, it was Mamet’s responsibility to decide what it narrative was and how he wanted it to be delivered. It is not the actors’ fault that the narrative fell flat. It was Mamet’s decision to create a one-dimensional character and the actor delivered on his creation. It was also Mamet’s decision to minimalize his characters. Perhaps Mamet’s position against Method acting is that it might be impossible for an actress to become one with the female accuser he created. It is more certain however, that the narrative was lost on the audience and it was related to character as opposed to acting. Mamet however, was successful in his approach to theatre. His emphasis was on language as a means of narrative. However, for an actor to deliver language/dialogue in a meaningful way that contributes to the dialogue, the actor must be necessity be a trained actor in some technique or another and therefore cannot be said to be limiting narrative because of that training. On the contrary, it is because of the actor’s training that the actor can adopt to any character and any dialogue and thus move the narrative along. Although defined as a “language playwright”, Mamet also used rhythm and frame movements to compliment language and dialogue as a means of moving narrative along for dramatic effect.26 The use of rhythm and movement compliments the dialogue making the dialogue the most important part of the narrative. Mamet’s Sexual Perversity in Chicago which premiered in 1974 in the theatre and was subsequently produced for the screen demonstrates the power of dialogue, rhythm and frames in delivering the dialogue. Sexual Perversity in Chicago’s plot centers on the sexual relations of two men and two women in Chicago during the 1970s. There is significant obscenity in the play reflecting the lifestyles and linguistics of Chicago’s working class. The profane language used by the characters disrupts their relationships as they come across insulting, crude and argumentative. Mixed in with the obscene dialogue are short scenes. According to Dean, the short clips were meant to indicate that that characters had attention problems and were incapable of sustaining an interest in anything that was not a part of the moment.27As Dean explains: …because of the fear of incipient boredom, their sentences are short and pithy, and so too are the scenes Mamet creates to accommodate them. The play gains its energetic pace not by any overt stage action, but by the speed of the dialogue.28 It can also be argued, that from Mamet’s perspective, the story can be told by filming and stage direction techniques with actors moving the plot along in ways that do not necessarily require emotional or psychological acting techniques. Mamet apparently used limited acting in connection with technical techniques to move the narrative along. As Dean observed, The characters came across as eager to speak as it not only articulated a need to validate or prove how important they were, but also reflected their fears. It was also apparent via dialogue and fast moving frames that the characters were desperate for something more in their lives. These desires were expressed in brutal terms, but yet came across as genuine. Dean goes on to observe: …Mamet carves his dialogue, establishes mood and character and imbues his work with tension and movement. With apparently so little, he achieves so much.29 Dean also states that Mamet uses every element of language and dialogue to move the plat along and to illuminate the character. Moreover, action to Mamet means rhythm. Mamet took the position that there were only two things necessary for creating narrative: action and rhythm. Language and dialogue however, influences action. Together they told the story that the play or film intends to tell. Although, Mamet criticised Stanislavski and Method acting he credits Stanislavski and Method acting for his resort to rhythm and action. According to Mamet, it was Stanislavski and his theory of Method acting influenced his writing style which emphasized the rhythm of dialogue and language.30 In other words, in writing for the stage and/or film, Mamet foresaw that actors trained in Method acting would use their Method acting technique in which he would focus on dialogue and moving frames to produce a narrative. For him to state that actor training limits the dialogue is a misrepresentation of his view of actor training and how it can be used in combination with technical aspects of production to move the narrative along. Mamet used the rhythm of language and dialogue in a number of his works, and if as he states, this style was influenced by Stanislavski’s theory of Method acting, he obviously did not always thing that actor training limited the narrative process. He depended on his actor’s training to deliver coarse language dramatically and believably and used this language to produce narratives together with technical cues. Lakeboat, which was written by Mamet in 1970 and later produced into a film is heavily themed by obscene language. The film required at the very least some acting technique that helped the actors become engaged and to remain engaged as a majority of the film is shot on a merchant marine freighter on the Great Lakes with 45 men and the dialogue is obscene and often degrading to women. Through the dialogue the audience learns a number of things about the plot. The men are bored and in order to pass the time away they exchange fanciful stories using coarse language. It is also learned via this dialogue and the stories told that this group of men would rather be inconvenienced by living abroad than return to a life of certainty ashore. The crude male connections appear to be more important. It is also learned that the main plot line is a missing night cook Even so, as the narrative moves along, it is not altogether certain that the missing cook is the main object of the film. According to Petite, Mamet may have overplayed his hand with the obscene language in Lakeboat. The coarse language is intended to provide some indication of the characters’ anxiety and boredom. Obscene language is so over-used in this particular work that it loses its power to have dramatic affect. In this regard, the characters loses any connection they may have had with the audience as the narrative progresses.31 It would therefore appear that it is neither acting technique nor delivery nor believability that limits the narrative, but rather the choice of language assigned to the actors. It is the repetitious, insulting and obscene language that limited the narrative’s dramatic effect. Nevertheless, Mamet’s philosophy of stage and film performance and production is informed by a number of sources. Mamet was influenced by Aristototle, as well as film theorists such as Sergei Eisnestein and “theatre practitioners, Stanislavski, Yevegni Vakhtangove, Georgi Tovstonogov, Richach Boleslavsky and Stanford Meisner.32Together these influences helped Mamet to develop his own theories for film and stage writing and production/directing. The main elements of Mamet’s theories are performance, mise-en-scene, set-designing, narrative structure, editing and narration. However, the overriding theme was the centrality of the script which is the “central agent in the process of artistic creation” and the “source from which everything else emanates.”33 Therefore, from Mamet’s perspective, the script itself which focuses primarily on the dialogue delivered by the actor is the most important part of the performing arts. If this was the central narrative element, Mamet put a lot of pressure on the actor to drive narrative with only supplementary frames such as mise-en-scene, changing frames, editing, set-direction and so on to aid in the narrative process. Certainly, Mamet expected the actors to have significant actor training and Method action appears to be consistent with the objective of having the script delivered effectively. The emotional connection contemplated by Method acting would be all the more important in productions that contained dialogue that was entirely replete with profanities. Even casual observers would agree that it might be difficult otherwise, for an actor to repeatedly use obscene language and insult women and not somehow feel detached from the character he or she is portraying. In order to sustain interest in the character, the actor would necessarily have to draw on his or her actor training to become one with the character and to make the obscenity hungry character believable. While the actor is likely unable to do so by drawing on his or her own experiences, the actor may become one with the character. Tzioumakis may have provided support for Mamet’s claim that actor training limits the narrative process. According to Tzioumakis, in American theatre and cinema, the actor’s performance is central to the narrative. The actor in American theatre and cinema is required to become one with the character or to at the very least become emotionally involved with the character in order to give the character credibility. However, many of Mamet’s characters are “alien” to the actors that play them.34 In other words, actor training limits the narrative process in some of Mamet’s works. It is not correct to state that actor training limits the narrative in all stage and film productions. Much depends on the character itself and not so much on the acting. A well-trained actor however, and especially one trained in Method acting or any variation of Method acting, should be able to adopt a character alien to him or her and to make it his or her own. According to Baudy, Mamet took a formalistic approach to acting. The formalistic approach to acting is informed by Mamet’s belief that the character does not exist outside of the action and the action appears on the script. The character develops out of action in the script. The character is “habitual action.”35 According to Mamet, the character is “exactly what the person literally does in pursuit of the suberojective, the objective of the scene”.36 Thus: The actor does not need to become the character. The phrase, in fact, has no meaning. There is no character. There are only lines upon a page. It is therefore possible that Mamet’s formalistic approach to acting limits the narrative process and not the actual actor training. Certainly, Mamet’s approach to screen and stage direction and production has proven to be successful. However, Mamet does not train or teach actors and cannot dismiss their acting styles as problematic to the narrative process since he has had significant success with actors who have been trained. This contention is based on the assumption that actors do train or at least learn some acting techniques and style. Mamet also maintains that the actor is working to get paid and as such has a duty to perform. In this regard, the actor is there to create an illusion in much the same way as a magician. Mamet states: The actor is onstage to communicate the play to the audience. That is the beginning and the end of his and her job. To do so the actor needs a strong voice, superb diction, a supply, well-proportioned body, and a rudimentary understanding of the play…There are lines of dialogue meant to be said by the actor. When he or she says them simply, in an attempt to achieve an object more or less like that suggested by the author, the audience sees an allusion of a character upon the stage.37 Therefore from Mamet’s perspective the actor should not go to acting school. The only thing that the actor needs to do is learn to speak clearly and convincingly and to perform in a way that is consistent with the character that he or she is portraying. Mamet’s formalistic approach to acting may very well be the correct approach to take. However, the Academy Awards have demonstrated that there is a high appreciation for actors who become their characters and in particular actors who have been trained in Method acting. For example academy award winners such as Dustin Hoffman, Marlon Brando, Robert De Nero, Daniel Day Lewis are all actors trained in method acting. Certainly, Mamet would not accuse the acting styles of these actors of limiting the narrative process. These actors have certainly commanded the audience’s attention and would no doubt communicate the character without compromising the narrative. Mamet is a writer and his focus on the author’s creation of the character and the lines of dialogue that the author’s means of communicating who the character is, might be more self-serving than productive. Arguably, the actor’s training is what distinguishes great actors from ordinary actors. Experience informs however, that method actors have not only commanded the stage, but have had command of the audience. If Mamet’s concept of acting is to command the stage, draw attention to the narrative and the action, method acting appears to be a tried and true technique for accomplishing this goal. Mamet apparently prefers for his actors to perform with no emotion. According to Mamet: Great drama, onstage of off, is not the performance of deeds with great emotion, but the performance of great deeds with no emotion whatever.38 It is difficult to imagine a mechanical performance effectively moving the narrative along and even more difficult to imaging an emotionless, mechanical actor connecting with his or her audience. It is also even more difficult to imagine Mamet tolerating an emotionless, mechanical actor delivering the narrative of any of this plays or screenplays. To Mamet’s credit however, he does promote the physical aspects of acting. In doing so, he advocates for actors to speak clearly and simply and to be physical. The physical acting is meant to encapsulate non-verbal cues which effective form a part of the narrative. The actor’s frown, or smile, or trembling or tears are all parts of physical acting and each physical nuance is a part of the narrative as it communicates what a character feels or how a character is responding. This in turn informs the audience of plot direction and is therefore a part of the narrative. Mamet argues that the only thing that should be real to the actor is the script and his or her performance of the script. Nothing else is real. The actor must refrain from assuming the persona of the character and just pretend to be that character. By taking on the persona of the character, the actor is simply distracting himself. The focus should always be on the end result, the objective of the plot and how it turns out. In the meantime the actor simply becomes involved in the narrative, guiding the audience toward the end goal.39 Even if Mamet’s approach to acting is the best acting technique to adopt, there is no evidence that actor training compromises the narrative. However, scripts that fail, fail on the grounds that the narrative was weak or confusing and difficult to follow. It is rarely if ever claimed that the acting was responsible for the script’s failure. It can therefore be argued that regardless of the techniques used to produce a play or a film, unless the script is compelling, the narrative may be in jeopardy and thus the film or play may likewise be in jeopardy. Poorly written scripts can survive, but a poorly acted play or film might undermine the narrative process. In order to avoid poor acting, actors participate in actor training. So far as the evidence suggest, actor training is an effective method for actors to achieve greatness. It can therefore be argued that Mamet’s theory of acting may be appropriate for the plays and films that he puts into production, but it may not be appropriate for all plays and films. Method acting in particular has been demonstratively compatible with the narrative process. These actors in particular have proven that they have the ability to adapt to and sustain roles in character to the satisfaction of the audience and to the satisfaction of the Academy who has persistently awarded method actors for their performances. That is not to say that other acting styles and techniques have not been recognized and rewarded. The reality is, actor training has never hurt a script or the narrative that it unfolds. Instead, actor training has helped actors to become amenable and adaptable to a variety of characters and in doing so has proven to be a successful tool for building and maintaining narratives. Conclusion Mamet’s claim that actor training limits the narrative process is most likely informed by his calling as a writer. For Mamet, the author creates character and it is the actor’s job to deliver the character in a manner consistent with the author’s intentions. The author’s intentions are contained in the script and establishes the dialogue and action of the character. Thus, Mamet appears to be more concerned about preserving the integrity of the author’s work. If actors become one with the character, they are putting their own stamp on the character and are altering the character. In other words, Mamet’s statement can be seen as a veiled attempt to defend the author and to put actors in their proper place: acting and performing. Mamet’s experience with film making and the performing should have demonstrated to him that the actors’ training does not limit the narrative process. Mamet’s work has demonstrated trained actors have not limited the narrative process. Bibliography Textbooks Baudy, Leo. The World in a Frame: What We See in Films. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. Brustein, Robert. Letters to a Young Actor. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2005. Dean, Anne. David Mamet: Language as Dramatic Action. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1990. Fabe, Marilyn. Closely Watched Films: An Introduction to the Art of Narrative Film Technique, Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2004. Gonzalez, Monsterrat. Pragmatic Markers in Oral Narrative: The Case of English and Catalan. The Netherlands: John Benjamins, 2004. Herman, David; Jahn, Manfred and Ryan, Marie-Laurie. Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. Oxfordshire, UK: Rougledge, 2005. Love, Lauren. “Resisting the ‘Organic’: A Feminist Actor’s Approach”. In Zarrilli, P. (Ed.) Acting (Re)Considered: A Theoretical and Practical Guide. London: Routledge, 1995) Ch. 22. Mamet, David. True and False: Heresy and Common Sense for the Actor. New York, NY: Random House, Inc, 1999. Piette, Alain. “The 1980s.” In Christophe Bigsby (Ed.)The Cambridge Companion to David Mamet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Proferes, Nicholas, T. Film Directing Fundamentals: From Script to Screen. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001. Sauer, David and Sauer, Janice, A.“Misreading Mamet: Scholarship and Reviews,” In Bigsby, C.W.E. (Ed.) The Cambridge Companion to David Mamet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004, Ch. 12. Stanislavski, Konstantin. An Actor’s Work: A Student’s Diary. Oxon, UK: Routledge, 2008. Strasberg, Lee and Morphos, Evangeline. A Dream of Passion: The Development of the Method. Penguin Books, 1987. Whyman, Rose. The Stanislavsky System of Acting: Legacy and Influence in Modern Performance in Modern Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Journal Articles Hug, Daniel. ‘Investigating Narrative and Performative Sound Design Strategies for Interactive Commodities.’ (2010) 5954 Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 12-40. MacLead, Christine. “The Politics of Gender, Language and Hierarchy in Mamet’s Oleanna,” Journal of American Studies. 29(2) (August 1995), 199-213. Sauer, David, Kennedy. “Oleanna and The Children’s Hour: Misreading Sexuality on the Post/Modern Realistic Stage.” (Fall 2000) 43(3) Modern Drama, 421-441. Sontag, Susan. ‘Film and Theatre.’ (Autumn 1966) 11(1) The Tulane Drama Review, 24-37. Tzioumakis, Yannis. ‘The Poetics of Performance in the Cinema of David Mamet: Against Embellishment.” (Spring 2006) 39(1) The Journal of Midwest Modern Language Association,88-99. Wolf, Werner. ‘Narrative and Narrativity: A Narratological Reconceptualization and Its Applicability to the Visual Arts.’ (2003) 19(3) Word & Image: A Journal of Verbal/Visual Enquiry, 180-197. Read More