I have spent the last 2 hours or so reading through all Michael's thoughts on acting and rehearsing and so-on. I concur with many of his opinions on what would make the perfect play, but, as Andy infered, we have to live in the real world. Everyone is an individual and will learn scripts as soon as they can and with all the best intent. Maybe some people aren't as good as others, on stage. SSC, in my opinion, has a VERY good acting membership, which anyone directing should be grateful for! In an ideal world I'd know every single play ever written off by heart. If I was self-absorbed I could probably forget any family, financial or personal problems and become the perfect acting drone that appears to be the desire of Mr Clements. If this were possible in my life, as I suspect in many other's, then I would become a professional actor! Maybe if the amateur world is not intense enough for anyone then professional theatre is a more apt field to be "working" in.

The Method sucks - I've tried it and found it of little use. Basically, it means building up a whole other story about your character apart from the one that's in the play - what they've just done before coming on stage, what they did when they were three years old - what their relationships are like with people who aren't even in the play. Sorry, but I don't think that's relevant. A play is a work of fiction, a work of imagination, and more importantly a good play includes pretty much everything that it needs within itself. If a character, for instance, needs motivation to commit a murder, the playwright will usually make that clear within the play - the actor doesn't need to invent some reason from the character's childhood.

Obviously, in some cases, research of the background to the play is necessary – Taming of the Shrew, which I saw recently, has a very curious message to modern ears, and in this instance, the actors would need some background, but not much really. Ultimately, acting is a physical pursuit, where you have to be quick, quick, quick on your toes, where you have to act spontaneously in the moment in response to what is happening at that instant. Method acting can clog up your brain with a lot of stuff, and encourage you to look inwards when you’re on stage – “am I in character?”, “am I feeling the right emotion?” – and looking inwards when you’re on stage is about as wise as looking inwards when a ten-ton truck’s about to run you over.

As David Mamet says, it will not help you in the boxing ring to know the history of boxing. And it won’t help you onstage to have done lots of research. Theatre is not a genteel pursuit, it belongs to the brash. Action is what’s required when you’re on stage. Relating to your fellow actors in the moment – you need all your energies and intellectual resources for that. The great themes of drama are universal, relationships between people timeless – let’s focus on those please.

Many thanks to Mark for a lively and, some would say, controversial starting point for debate!

Although I have to say my side of the debate would be the same as Mark's. There is an awful lot of Stanislavski style nonsense put upon Chekov's plays for a start. Chekov disliked Stanislavski and also felt the man took the fun out of his comedies.

On the flip side I think you need to understand how your character reacts to other charaters that they meet through the course of the play, so a certain amount of understanding is required. How they would react to Jack the Ripper or Adolf Hitler or Dick Emery are pretty much overkill. How far would we have to take method acting if we were performing many Shakespeare plays, killing royalty or family possibly becoming monarchs in our own right, maybe even take over he world! Sorry, got a bit carried away there!

I'm not sure whether I understand the method per se - I mean it sounds a bit like overkill (or if nothing else: a form of contraception). However, I could see a use for it - if you were an actor/ress on loan from one company to the next doing a play in three weeks flat. By creating a load of background data - you're trying to 'click' with all these new people and carve yourself a niche in terms of your character. However this, in the SSC, doesn't seem worthwhile if we've got enough time for the players to drink red wine together and discuss their mutual ideas. Stanislavski will be turning in his grave - causing a slight, but largely irrelevant shift in the gyroscopic rotation of the earth.

However, I do admit that when I'm playing a suitably involved part - aspects of the character imprint on my day-to-day life. It can help/ be a drawback - but I guess it's biofeedback from going through the same situation again and again.

The one thing I do think a great deal about when I act is the movement - where I am, and where I am facing is vital when you've got a hearing problem. I doubt this is a big 'method' thing - but it does help if you think how a character relates to a situation in movement - I hate the 'stand in a line and speak' scenes you can find in some theatre (and no - nowt to do with SSC). And for me - knowing how another player will move when they state their speech - it's my life-line. I can't bear it when a scene gets changed in the final week of rehearsals.

I've just discovered Mike's "Time to act" pieces. A thought did go through my mind, fleetingly, leaving very little trace behind, as happens. The thought was, that the perfect can be the enemy of the good. But then I thought, again, that there are small areas, or perhaps relatively large areas, as large as we want to make them, in our lives where we can aim for and every now and then achieve peerfection. I suppose those areas could come under the label of art. And I'm glad Mike points that out, that we are giving expression to works of art, and hopefully creating fleeting, free-standing works of art ourselves when we go on stage. What we do can be magical. If that's the right word.

Have just come back from a rehearsal where I had quite a bit to do but was unhappy about how I did it. I think I was probably all right, but the characterisation I was doing was not really what I was after - it was very much "silly ass" which is something I do a lot - and I'm not sure I want to be a silly ass really. When you're there in the heat of the moment though and you have to act spontaneously, then the real you comes out. I think my ideal part would involve a lot of brooding - standing there on stage looking menacing, then sitting down in an armchair and eating a jam sandwich, followed by taking my clothes off, then putting some others on, then a glass of wine, engaging in some witty badinage, an outburst of violence, perhaps murder, followed by a rousing chorus of some old rugby song with much backslapping. And I'd look really cool throughout. If anyone knows of such a part then perhaps you could bear me in mind. Thank you.

Mark says - 'when you are there in the heat of the moment and you have to act spontaneously, then the real you comes out'. That is the whole point of knowing your character - so that in the heat of the moment what comes out is the real character - NOT THE REAL YOU! The real you shouldn't be on stage.

Sorry, Jude, old girl, I don't agree widja. What is this "real character" you're talking about? Beats me. And why shouldn't the real me be on stage? He wants to be on stage!! It's why he took up drama in the first place!! Where should the real me be? At home watching telly? Or can he at least watch?

the character you are playing is not you, therefore he shouldn't act/react as you would, he should act/react in his own way. Of course something of you is part of your portrayal of the character and what you bring to it is unique to you, but if it is always 'the real you' up there on the stage then where is the character you have been cast to play?

I actually think characterisation is one of the worst things about acting - what it usually means is doing a funny voice or making a strange gesture. Character in real life is not about such things - it's about the way you behave - what you do - and so it should be on the stage. When we 'play a character', all that should mean is we do what the playwright has set out the character should do. The only character on stage is you, because you have character - an extremely varied and detailed character that can adapt to whatever circumstances the playwright has dreamed up. There is no other character to "become". Malvolio doesn't exist - out there, in the ether somewhere - and if you search for him, you're going to be disappointed. I think that "becoming the character" is impossible, meaningless, unnecessary, and a waste of time.

I was having a conversation with Jack the other night when I said something which he found surprising and controversial. I was delighted about this as I do like to surprise and to be controversial but ordinarily no-one pays much attention. Anyway, what I said was a quote from David Mamet (so I don't know how much credit I can really take) to the effect that as an actor it doesn't matter how you say the lines. What does matter is what you as the character are trying to achieve. You should concentrate on that and then let the words come out any old how. I agree with this.

For instance, "To be or not to be .. etcetera". I'd say the primary (possibly the only) task for an actor making that speech is the debate whether he's going to kill himself or not. If I as an audience member see the character engaging in that debate in a real way then the actor has done his job. The thing is, for someone in such an extreme position (deciding whether they're going to kill themselves), that person wouldn't be thinking about how to say the words, would they? They've got far more important things on their mind.

So, whaddaya think?

My opinion roughly goes along with you Mark. Although I have to say this - is it you as the character or is it the character channelled through you as the actor. On the face of it these two options may not seem too dissimilar, let me clarify. Each character you play is not you, therefore, as an actor you need to find something within the character which makes it possible for you to play the part. I find that I need to work out how my character reacts to all the other characters and work out his reason for saying all the things he does to them and about them. Others find different ways to do it and I respect all actors and the methods they use.

Mark - I dont agree with you at all. It does matter how you say the lines. Verse speaking is an important part of a performance, it is not just about character, or alck of it. The written words are intended to have a certain style and flow to them and you can destroy a part by reading them in the wrong way. Even if you think it is in tune with the character the audience will find bad delivery very grating and unenjoyable.

Well, no, they wouldn't be thinking about how to say the words, but a) nor would the actor; and b) nor would they be standing on the stage trying to engage an audience.

As for a), by the time you get to the stage you've done all the thinking, discussing, preparing, rehearsing: you know what you intend to mean by those words.

Your job with the words then is to respond, in a manner appropriate to your character, to the situation in which the character (as opposed to the actor) finds themself, and deliver your intended meaning(s) - preferably in the playwright's original words, usually. That ought to allow for a degree of spontaneity (if only in inflexion) in response to the mood of the performance and of the cue lines (if any), without compromising the foundations of the play, the route it's intended to take, and the effects of your lines and deeds as cues to others.

Isn't it?

Dear Mark

Why was Jack surprised?

I have found most of your views on acting surprising and controversial. This is because

• (1) They are usually extremely well thought out.
• (2) They are wrong

Suggesting that "it doesn't matter how you say the lines" seems to me to be an excellent example.

(please still be my friend!)

I've got this horrible vision of a Dalek saying "To be or not to be...". Sorry doesn't work. Then again, Daleks aren't well known for getting in touch with their deeper feelings.

From my understanding, when an actor/ actress delivers a speech to the audience - it's not just about how the lines are being said - it's about how the lines are 'emoted' across. In a scene where there's lots of other players on the set, it's an easier business - it's a lot of bouncing/ give and take. So all I can say is that it's pretty important how the lines are said when there's only a player/ audience interaction going on. Unless the audience is already keyed into the issue of audience/ player interaction (Rocky Horror Show for example). Guess what, we're back on suspension of disbelief again ...

Nice to see some new contributions on the conversations page, and nice as always to have people speaking their mind. I usually contribute a) the confused ramblings of a comic(!) mind or b) the drunken tirade of my opinionated side! I read David Johnson's emails with interest, it will always be so that a fair percentage of actors will work better with one director than another and that the same director will work better with one author, or style of play, than another. Even within those boundaries inspiration can strike and an actor or director can thrive in an otherwise alien environment. Some of the above may well have happened on the "wet" performance but I feel the consistency of performance throughout July made it a joy to be involved. Unfortunately my schedule through september makes it impossible for me to be involved with the hoped for performance in Stock. What is "good acting"? Entirely a matter for each individual who ever watches a piece of theatre, and each individuals opinion is just as valid and relevant as the next person!

Good Acting? Phwah. Don't ask me. I joined the group to dribble and drool in public without the risk of being arrested for it! I have to agree with Kevin. Sometimes you do something that half the audience love, and the other half hate it. I got told when I did my stint with the RSC up in Lichfield that my interpretation of Launcelot Gobbo was "not Shakespearean", but frankly the audience loved it. Such fickle punters, appreciating idiocy over fine art. >shrug<

As far as working with "the magic variable" (that is preferred directors, author, style, etc) - I guess my personal one is where I can work in a double act, or act the deranged fool/ psycho/ drunkard; and preferably where I don't have to rhyme my lines. As for directors? Someone who's loud enough to hear, but doesn't shout - and has a clear enough vision of what he/she wants before I try to commit a scene to memory (I can already hear jeering about that last sentence >memory - jez - come on<).

And Kevin. It's a shame that you're not going to reprise your role of Sir Toby for us, but it does give me more of a break to get over a lung infection and learn my next play.

Can I point everyone who is interested in the history of British theatre acting, or anyone with an interest in actors and their craft, inthe direction of the following book - Thunder In The Air, Great Actors In Great Roles by Brian Masters. This book is both informative and enlightening.