“We [the audience] know we cannot approach him [the character], and not because it is not done but because nothing would count as doing it. Put another way, they and we do not occupy the same space; there is no path from my location to his…We do, however, occupy the same time.” – Cavell (Ed. Stephen Mulhall), The Cavell Reader (p. 150)
vs.
“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 supple, well-proportioned body, and a rudimentary understanding of the play. 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. They 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 illusion of a character upon the stage.” –David Mamet, True and False: Heresy and Common Sense for the Actor (p. 9)
Decision: Mamet (Cavell’s oversight of the performer’s corporeal presence undermines his argument, giving Mamet the edge in this bout to define character.)
hoopdedoo 