The End of Acting

My only minor criticism of this book would not be regarding acting per se, but aspects of the psychological mode/explanations he offers; the "oceanic" bliss etc. that we supposedly experienced in earliest childhood is outdated and confused. None the less, it is of great use that he inquires into and explains GENUINE Freud in his theoretical fullness in this study -not by accident, of course, as pseudo-Freudian notions have quite plagued the American acting world for far, far too long. What is really needed for actors and acting theory is something which even remotely resembles a CONTEMPORARY psychology . . . few take much of Freud very seriously any more, nor have for decades, but somehow American actors and acting theory remain stuck a good 100 years behind the times. (Perhaps - because actors and acting teachers really aren't psychologists . . . ? Remember this all students of acting.) Hornby's examination of Freud's ideas of primary-process thinking and secondary-process thinking is important and useful, but the reality of these things relevant to the actor is much better handled by cognitive psychology not psycho-analysis. (See for example "The Nature of Expertise in Professional Acting" by Tony Noice for a relevant study.) Aside from that this is an outstanding book. Hornby offers a voice and perspective of clarity -well studied on every subject he deals with -and on nearly every subject relevant to acting in a general, down to earth and reasonable sense. His use of photographs (in agreement with other reviewers) is outstanding. His history, examination of Shakespeare in his day and age and "How we got here from there" is another highlight and should be read and considered by all. It should be noted that his chapter on Strausberg is outstanding too. "All actors should learn the Strasberg affective memory exercise." (That quote is from memory.) He isn't even really anti-Strasbeg; he is inclusive and acknowledging of his contribution and it's usefulness. But he is anti the prevailing ideas that have taken over American acting theory and approach since the 1950s and 60s. He also takes the time to look into semiotics, as with other subjects he seems to keep it as accessible as possible, but it is important that acting especially and theatre-making theory in general begin incorporating a semiotic view. The progress of theatre semiotics is phenomenal and dates back to the 1930s. Yet, this important work has been terribly neglected within the theatre-making and acting world itself. The final chapter on the state of American university training is powerful . . . and makes me glad that I did not go to college for training as an actor. That is an unfortunate thing to have to say but it is true. If acting and theatre studies were treated AS AN ART in American universities the entire cultural landscape would change. Rather than being set up and educated to be out of work for the rest of your life, universities could turn out artists, and the HOM

Acting has always been an enjoyable activity for me. That is, until I got to college, where I took my first acting class. It was also my last. As one actor quoted in this book calls it, it was "method bulls**t." The class was very demeaning, very preachy, full of doublespeak and pretentiousness, and, worst of all, it has affected my enjoyment of any play I've done since, as I've had to work with mediocre actors who think they will improve by treating this teacher's words as gospel truth, and so can't rehearse a scene without a lot of pointless exercises.This book reiterates everything I have picked up through the years about acting, before I had "training."

So why are the Brits, pound for pound, far better actors than their American cousins? Over a hundred years ago Edwin Booth and other greats toured England performing Shakespeare. The idea of American actors touring England these days, performing Shakespeare--or any of the classics---is about as far fetched as as a rap group, a mariachi band or The Dixie Chicks touring Rome performing Verdi.What went wrong?Why did critics give James Earl Jones good reviews as the judge in an Ibsen play but felt compelled to inform you that, just in case you didn't know it, there were no black judges in 19th century Norway---and yet felt no need whatever to point out that, just in case you didn't know it, they spoke (unlike Jones and the other actors in the play) Norwegian, not English?-----------------------------------------------------------------Hornby examines conventions so ingrained in American acting training, that we're not even aware they're conventions any longer. His main target is the indubitable Lee Strasberg and his followers. Hornby is not so much anti-Method as he is pro-Stanislavsky. Using examples and photos from actors as varied as Marlon Brando, Humphrey Bogart and W.C. Fields; his section on 'Stanislavsky's Basic Theories' is worth the price of the book alone.Hornby's critique against Lee's guru/teacher offsprings is that among many sins, they 'train' actors in the manner of a football coach who runs all sorts of endless exercises but never actually lets the team play in a real game. If they did reality would set in and the con-job would be over. Actors are of course equally guilty in perpetuating the con out of their own fear--if they actually had to audition, get hired and depend upon the audience's pleasure to earn a living in the theater--Gee, they'd be rather like the English wouldn't they?As it is they can stay in the sidelines and talk forever as they examine all their 'flaws' in labs/studio/workshops, but do not have to dirty their hands battling in the arena.Equally guilty, in his eyes, are the pundits that run American Theater Arts departments at universities. Even those who are not the offspring of Lee & co, encourage actors to 'play themselves' to such an absurd degree that Hornby notes that the late Peter Sellers could not have passsed the audition for an entrance exam. he could not 'play himself'. Olivier would have probably fared equally badly, and of course Meryl Streep regularly gets put down for using accents, i.e; for ACTING. Even if the accent is required in the role.The book begins with a section entitled the psycho-sexual basis of acting, which quotes Freud extensively and is a bit long winded. Not badly written by any means, just that the points that acting is fun because the lines of ego are not so rigidly drawn as one thinks, that actors are considered 'childish' by those who hate their own jobs (Oh, 90% of the public), The common distrust towards people who pretend to be someone else--all this was better st

Richard Hornby sheds a much-needed light on the strangle-hold of the "method" on today's actors, directors, writers and the theater community-at-large. This book is at once provocative and enlightening, if read with an open mind and a desire to know where we are and where we need to go. Buy it now.

Richard Hornby's "The End of Acting" is, quite simply one of the finest books on the subject of acting that I have ever read. He combines profound scholarship with deep insight to provide the reader with a revelatory insight into the process of acting. For the serious student or professional, or for the interested theatre buff there is not a better book available. The critical bibliography in the appendix is worth the price of the book by itself.