The genius of David Mamet - what writers can learn from a brilliant movie
October 13th 2008 00:49
I have a thing for smart Jewish men. Jerry Seinfeld. Steven Spielberg. Steve Toltz. Jackie Mason. Not Woody Allen. I think I grew up with too many neurotic Jewish men around me and that whiney anxiety spurs me to silent contempt. Not to mention the small indiscretion involving his step-daughter.
My latest discovery is probably old news to people who know movies, but I was only introduced to David Mamet in the past few weeks. My father recently came to visit and he and I conducted some ‘write and illustrate your own story’ workshops for Bowen library over the school holidays (he’s a cartoonist). In preparation for our joint venture, my dad brought me a copy of David Mamet’s book On Directing Film and said ‘read the first chapter.’
A writer can learn so much from well made movies, because the key to good storytelling is ‘show don’t tell,’ which is the essence of filmmaking.
In this book Mamet says some brilliant things. Firstly he quotes Hemingway who said ‘Write the story, take out all the good lines and see if it still works.’ On this Mamet comments, ‘my experience as a director and as a dramatist is this: the piece is moving in proportion to how much the author can leave out… A good writer only gets better by learning to cut, to remove the ornamental, the descriptive, the narrative and especially the deeply felt and meaningful. What remains? The story remains. What is the story? The story is the essential progression of incidents that occur to the hero in pursuit of his one goal.’
I have written a post previously on the art of beautiful compression, and how as writers we are always striving to say what we want to say in less, not more, but I guess I keep learning that you can still cut even more, and leave spaces for the reader to fill in, to imagine, not to overstate, though the trick is making sure we don’t leave so much space as to become obscure.
Mamet also talks about ‘telling the story in cuts … through a juxtaposition of images that are basically uninflected… a shot of a teacup. A shot of a spoon. A shot of a fork. A shot of a door. Let the cut tell the story. Because otherwise you have not got dramatic action, you have narration. If you slip into narration, you are saying, ‘you’ll never guess why what I just told you is important to the story.’ It’s unimportant that the audience should guess why it’s important to the story. It’s important simply to tell the story. Let the audience be surprised.’
My father then insisted I take out Glengarry Glen Ross, the 1992 movie based on Mamet’s Pulitzer Prize-winning play with Al Pacino, Kevin Spacey, Jack Lemmon, Alec Baldwin, Alan Arkin and Ed Harris. When I found out it was about a group of men trying to sell real estate I thought, ‘how dull. How Sydney.’
How naive. I have three words to say about this movie: Oh. My. God.
The characterization, dialogue and shifting power relationships in this gem of a film are so masterfully handled, I watched the movie again the next day, just marveling at the sheer genius of it.
A line like ‘Will you go to lunch?’ uttered by Kevin Spacey and Al Pacino’s performance when he’s wooing a potential depressed James Link played by Jonathan Pryce is one of the best bits of acting and scripting I have ever seen. Alec Baldwin is bad, but stunning in a cameo performance that gets your attention at the beginning. (Watch it on youtube here Baldwin's speech in Glengarry Glen Ross)
And Jack Lemon will make you squirm with his ingratiating sales talk, but bleed your heart too. There is also a scene of dialogue between Ed Harris and Alan Arkin which has the pace and power of Tarantino (I wonder if Tarantino was influenced by Mamet?) and really nails Mamet’s brilliance, not to mention James Foley, who directed it.
I think the idea of writing in cuts, in uninflected images is a really helpful way of keeping us moving the action forward with every sentence. I have learned so much from this movie and will be sure to track down Mamet’s other movies and works.
www.joannefedler.com
My latest discovery is probably old news to people who know movies, but I was only introduced to David Mamet in the past few weeks. My father recently came to visit and he and I conducted some ‘write and illustrate your own story’ workshops for Bowen library over the school holidays (he’s a cartoonist). In preparation for our joint venture, my dad brought me a copy of David Mamet’s book On Directing Film and said ‘read the first chapter.’
David Mamet
A writer can learn so much from well made movies, because the key to good storytelling is ‘show don’t tell,’ which is the essence of filmmaking.
In this book Mamet says some brilliant things. Firstly he quotes Hemingway who said ‘Write the story, take out all the good lines and see if it still works.’ On this Mamet comments, ‘my experience as a director and as a dramatist is this: the piece is moving in proportion to how much the author can leave out… A good writer only gets better by learning to cut, to remove the ornamental, the descriptive, the narrative and especially the deeply felt and meaningful. What remains? The story remains. What is the story? The story is the essential progression of incidents that occur to the hero in pursuit of his one goal.’
I have written a post previously on the art of beautiful compression, and how as writers we are always striving to say what we want to say in less, not more, but I guess I keep learning that you can still cut even more, and leave spaces for the reader to fill in, to imagine, not to overstate, though the trick is making sure we don’t leave so much space as to become obscure.
Mamet also talks about ‘telling the story in cuts … through a juxtaposition of images that are basically uninflected… a shot of a teacup. A shot of a spoon. A shot of a fork. A shot of a door. Let the cut tell the story. Because otherwise you have not got dramatic action, you have narration. If you slip into narration, you are saying, ‘you’ll never guess why what I just told you is important to the story.’ It’s unimportant that the audience should guess why it’s important to the story. It’s important simply to tell the story. Let the audience be surprised.’
My father then insisted I take out Glengarry Glen Ross, the 1992 movie based on Mamet’s Pulitzer Prize-winning play with Al Pacino, Kevin Spacey, Jack Lemmon, Alec Baldwin, Alan Arkin and Ed Harris. When I found out it was about a group of men trying to sell real estate I thought, ‘how dull. How Sydney.’
How naive. I have three words to say about this movie: Oh. My. God.
Glengarry GlenRoss
The characterization, dialogue and shifting power relationships in this gem of a film are so masterfully handled, I watched the movie again the next day, just marveling at the sheer genius of it.
A line like ‘Will you go to lunch?’ uttered by Kevin Spacey and Al Pacino’s performance when he’s wooing a potential depressed James Link played by Jonathan Pryce is one of the best bits of acting and scripting I have ever seen. Alec Baldwin is bad, but stunning in a cameo performance that gets your attention at the beginning. (Watch it on youtube here Baldwin's speech in Glengarry Glen Ross)
And Jack Lemon will make you squirm with his ingratiating sales talk, but bleed your heart too. There is also a scene of dialogue between Ed Harris and Alan Arkin which has the pace and power of Tarantino (I wonder if Tarantino was influenced by Mamet?) and really nails Mamet’s brilliance, not to mention James Foley, who directed it.
I think the idea of writing in cuts, in uninflected images is a really helpful way of keeping us moving the action forward with every sentence. I have learned so much from this movie and will be sure to track down Mamet’s other movies and works.
www.joannefedler.com
| 81 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
No Woody Allen? Too bad - he's one of my favourites!
Comment by Joanne Fedler
Secret Writers Business
Comment by David O'Connell
Screen Fanatic
I'm a huge Mamet fan. I recently saw his latest film Redbelt and even got to see one of his plays performed live here in Melbourne not so long ago as well, a comedy called A Boston Marriage.
Glengarry Glen Ross is my absolute favourite work of his though, a searing and ruthless film - I think it has one of Jack Lemmon's finest performances ever.
As far as Mamet directed films go, I'd highly recommend House of Games, The Spanish Prisoner and Homicide for starters, but nearly all of them are worth watching, even something like The Winslow Boy which was a real change of pace........................I could go on here!!! (;
He's a brilliant and unique writer though his style tends to rub a lot of people up the wrong way.
Comment by Joanne Fedler
Secret Writers Business
I feel like I've missed out on something special all this time, fancy only discovering Mamet now... jeez. Do you know if Tarantino has been a fan of him or been influenced by him at all? Thanks for your suggestions and leads, I am excited about having a whole Mamet world to explore.
Jo
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
I like the Hemingway quote:
And Mamet's response:
I went a step further than Hemingway suggests. I wrote an entire feauture-length screenplay without any lines of dialogue. When I was happy with the story itself, I added the dialogue in, with a view to keeping it as minimalist as possible. It was blatantly obvious where dialogue was needed and where it wasn't.
It wasn't an easy task, because lines of dialogue would occur to me as I was writing each scene, but I resisted the temptation to add them in, or even jot them down for future reference, and think the screenplay is better for it.
I consider writing a screenplay without any dialogue at all is a more-than worthwhile exercise for anyone wishing to apply and master the advice Hemingway and Mamet are referring to in regards to the show don't tell principle.
Great post. Great advice in it.
And I loved Glengarry Glen Ross.
Comment by Joanne Fedler
Secret Writers Business
Your script without dialogue sound brilliant - and such excellent discipline in showing, not telling. The advice I sometimes give when I'm editing someone's manuscript that is bogged down or overtold is 'storyboard each chapter,' if the action doesn't move forward chapter by chapter, you can probably cut it out. I used to get a pain in my chest everytime I had to cut something, but I've gotten quite ruthless and I know that a manuscript only gets better the more you can let go.
It's genius, Glengarry, isn't it?
J
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
I found that by crossing disciplines, as in writing both novels and screenplays, is quite beneficial. Techniques you learn from writing screenplays can be applied to novel writing, and vice-versa.
I gather that's what you're referring to. The manuscript is a novel manuscript?
I was fortunate enought to spend quite a bit of time with two of Australia's best known writer/directors and script editors. The writer/director uses a card system (which is really like storyboards without pictures). He just lays them out on a table. He can add cards at any time, or rearrange the existing cards. The script editor covers his wall with paper and plots out the film and characters' journeys. Understanding it fully takes some time. It's like learning shorthand. In both methods the entire story is before their eyes at one glance. No scrolling back and forth. I think both of these techniques can aid novel writing.
As to editing? Brutality or ruthlessness is the only way to go. If the writer can't handle it, theyr'e not going to be much of a writer.
And, Mamet is definitely in the genius category.
Comment by Chris Champion
moneywhither
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
NewlyOld
The Blog of Lists
Comment by Mrs M
Mum's Word
I couldn't go past this post. Mr M absolutes loves Glengarry. He always quotes it. "Who told you, you could work with men?"
He's also a Pacino lover.
Jack Lemmon's character is the sort where you want to look away because you can see the train wreck that's about to happen but you just can't.
When I watched Glengarry the first thing that struck me was the set location. An office, a bar and a hand full of minor places. This movie is definitely driven by words and story and not location and stunts.
The difference between a screenplay for theatre and one specifically written for film.
Love & stuff
Mrs M
Comment by Mister Smith
FILMENATOR
CRIME in BOOKS