The problem with this book is not that it is incorrect. In fact, approximately 75% of it is accurate regarding the craft of directing. However, the issue lies in the implication (I would even say it explicitly states) that there is nothing more to learn. It suggests that the content within this book represents the essential techniques of directing. But frankly, it is really discussing the craft of writing and how it relates to directing, rather than focusing solely on directing itself.

If you were in a pottery class and the teacher demonstrated how to make a bowl and then said, "And that's it," would they be considered a great teacher? The answer is no.

David Mamet, at this stage of his life, after his second film, had uncovered what makes bad films repulsive (whether they are big studio productions or art films), and it is the failure to adhere to the simple principle of understanding what a scene is about and choosing shots based on the simplest way to convey the idea. He is correct in this regard. But that is not the most advanced technique one can master; it is merely the basic requirement for making a film, just as creating a rough bowl shape is sort of the minimum standard for pottery. It is after meeting this basic requirement of your craft that you must become creative and take risks by venturing into the unknown.

To roughly paraphrase a quote from memory from Your Screenplay Sucks by William M. Akers: "There ain't a sucker alive knows what's gonna hit."

I've never directed a film before, so I can't speak from experience. However, my feelings towards Mamet's techniques and philosophical insights about filmmaking are very mixed.

On one hand, I find his concept of films as "a succession of images juxtaposed" quite interesting. Whenever he refers to montage theory or approaches films as dreams in the psychoanalytic tradition, I'm intrigued. His story about Bogart on the set of Casablanca being told only to "nod" without any context about the Marseilles scene is captivating (it reminds me of Lynch's direction to Phoebe Augustine in Twin Peaks to "walk like a broken doll"). Sometimes, I even buy into the idea that filmmaking is a craft like shoemaking, simple, straightforward, and something that can be done correctly or incorrectly.

On the other hand, I really struggle with the self-indulgent conservatism that his views on filmmaking embody. He criticizes people like Herzog for being "bad storytellers" and suggests that dramatic art should just tell stories and not attempt to change lives, comment on the world, or influence anything. He claims that contemporary films are too exposition-heavy (which I partly agree with) and too experimental (which I strongly disagree with). He also argues that films that lack a clear direction or fail to convey it effectively to the audience have to rely on shock and awe and insanity to hold the audience's attention, and that this tendency has led to a decline in culture. I see some of my favorite films and filmmakers in this comment, and I firmly oppose "narrative supremacy". Movies are not just about getting from point A to point B and "completing the syllogism" - they can be, but to suggest that's all they are is a form of willful ignorance.

Ultimately, I think Mamet takes a rather strange analytic, scientific approach to filmmaking. While this may work for many films, his assumption that all films should be made in exactly the same way leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe I'm still too idealistic, but I truly believe that films can and should have the power to change lives, influence culture and politics, and make a difference in the world we live in, even if it's on a small scale. I also believe that there are amazing non-narrative films that break all the rules he sets forth.

Platonic love is a concept that has intrigued and fascinated people for centuries. It refers to a deep, non-sexual friendship or connection between two individuals.

This type of love is often characterized by mutual respect, understanding, and a shared sense of values. It goes beyond physical attraction and delves into the realm of the spirit and the intellect.

Platonic relationships can be incredibly fulfilling and enriching. They allow us to form deep bonds with others without the complications and expectations that often come with romantic or sexual relationships.

However, platonic love is not always easy to achieve or maintain. It requires trust, communication, and a willingness to be vulnerable with another person.

Despite the challenges, many people find that platonic relationships are some of the most meaningful and lasting connections in their lives. Whether it's a friendship with a coworker, a neighbor, or a childhood acquaintance, platonic love has the power to bring joy, support, and a sense of belonging.

In conclusion, platonic love is a beautiful and complex concept that reminds us that love can take many forms. It encourages us to look beyond the physical and embrace the deeper aspects of our relationships with others.

January 2024.

I have a profound admiration for the way he presents himself. He starts off by saying, "Look, I know I've only directed two movies, so take this with a grain of salt." But then, he proceeds to unleash an absolute masterclass on how to unlock your creativity using foundational principles. What's truly remarkable is how simple and effortless these principles seem. They just sink into your bones, and you know that they were meant to be.

I don't believe that one single book can have all the answers to the creative process. However, this book comes pretty close. It contains a wealth of valuable insights that are like gold. And to top it off, he's also quite funny! There's a bit of an elitist streak in him, but I'm willing to overlook that because this book is filled with pure artistic wisdom.

Mamet, you brilliant bastard, thank you! Your words have truly inspired me and given me a new perspective on the creative journey. I can't wait to put these principles into practice and see where they take me.

We were required to read this book for our film directing class. So, I had to force myself to get through it even after I began to find it irritating. (I don't usually abandon books unfinished, but these kinds of tool books or textbooks are an exception.) This was my introduction to writer-director David Mamet. Even though I haven't seen any of his films (neither those he wrote nor directed), I'd admit that this made me extremely curious about what his films are like.

On Directing Film consists of excerpts from Mamet's speeches and lectures at Columbia University and includes many of his ideas about what a film should be like. Despite what the title might imply, the contents of this book seem to focus more on screenwriting than on directing. And I'm not surprised by this since that's where Mamet's expertise lies, considering his written works are more highly regarded than his directed ones.

This could be a really good starting point for aspiring filmmakers to understand how they should envision films. There were many great concepts. But in the end, I didn't enjoy Mamet's condescending tone when getting his points across. I understand he was speaking to a group of students, and I'm not sure if my translated edition is the issue here. But a lot of his ideas were too extreme for my taste. I know I shouldn't already have a fixed way of thinking about films and that I should be more open to ideas I don't agree with. But to me, his way of making films takes away a lot from the enjoyment I find in the creative process. And I'm pretty sure most of my favorite films weren't made the way he described.

Many people, including some other filmmakers in the appendix (in my edition), have pointed out how Mamet tends to emphasize the importance of Eisenstein's theory of montage, yet his films don't seem to follow that rule. People praise his films for the detailed portrayal of characters, yet in the book he dismisses the idea of character-driven stories. He also explains that an actor's acting skills aren't crucial to a film and that getting the simplest actions right is what makes old-school films great. But in the 21st century, with high-definition cameras capturing even the tiniest details of an actor's expressions, I think not all the old-school rules are still relevant. Obviously, you shouldn't rely solely on the actors to make your film great, but casting is still an important part of the art of cinema and shouldn't be so carelessly ignored. I feel like a lot of the points in the book still have room for discussion (which I suppose is a good thing). And even though I did learn quite a bit from this book, it wasn't a "fun" read, as I would have expected when reading film books.

(note: this is not the edition I own, but goodreads doesn't have mine listed)

Fascinating shot-gun blast of interesting stuff to think about. Mamet offers some hot takes. It's more a way of thinking about film than the way, but it's valid. The core thought exercise he provides is an amazing way to establish a shot list and a coherent narrative through-line.

The book is adapted from lectures. Mamet admits he's not great with visuals, so it's more of a writing/structural exercise. His technique is to find a scene's objective and convey it through cuts, not just dialogue or overt visuals. The dialogues with students are compelling and exhaustive. He delves deep into "how to convey the goal and when the scene is over," probing the nuances until the idea is in its purest form.

Despite being famous for sharp dialogue, Mamet downplays it here. His exercises don't involve dialogue, suggesting the closer to a silent film, the better. His emphasis on actors just saying the words and doing the movements may rub some the wrong way, but it's a valid filmmaking method.

I had experiences in college film and acting classes that showed the importance of different approaches. Godard's mechanical instructions bewildered actors, but great actors like De Niro are compelling, while others are boring. Mamet's core thesis of not thinking about actors when writing is good as a writer doesn't know the director's direction. His technique is a sort of bulletproofing for a baseline quality.

Overall, it's a great book. The core exercise is amazing. I almost read it in one sitting but split it to digest. It might seem like I'm criticizing his actor technique, but it's valid. Mamet admits he's not a great director compared to his writing, but this is more a writing book that helps with a shot list. I'll definitely read it again.

My first encounter with the concept of directing was truly an eye-opening experience, and I'm extremely glad that I had the opportunity to read his book.

It presented several valuable philosophies that have significantly influenced my perspective. The main take-away for me was the importance of not overcomplicating matters for oneself. One must always remember the objective of the screenplay or story and use it as a guiding line throughout the creative process.

This simple yet profound advice has the potential to streamline the directing process and ensure that the final product remains true to its original vision. Additionally, I found the Platonic dialogue method of teaching to be both cute and immersive. It added an interesting dimension to the learning experience and allowed for a more in-depth exploration of the subject matter. However, I also felt that it could have been shortened to make way for more direct "wisdom" to be bestowed upon us.

Nonetheless, it was a unique and engaging approach that I thoroughly enjoyed. Overall, this introduction to directing has left me with a wealth of knowledge and a newfound appreciation for the art form.

It is a very interesting exploration of what is involved in movie making. Although it is perhaps a little beyond my initial visualization or understanding. This provides a unique opportunity to gain a deeper insight into the complex and fascinating world of filmmaking.

We can expect to learn about the various stages, from pre-production to post-production, and the countless decisions and creative processes that take place along the way. It will be exciting to see how all the elements come together to create a final product that captivates audiences.

Let's keep an open mind and see what unfolds as we delve further into this exploration of movie making. There is sure to be a wealth of knowledge and inspiration to be gained.

There are some really good tips that are hidden within this book, and I will surely take them with me into my work. However, overall, I would have to say that this book could have easily been just six pages long and still managed to be equally effective. There is a significant amount of filler in the form of dialogues with the students in his NYU class.

Mamet: What should the next scene be?

Student: [Wrong answer]

Mamet: You're missing the point. Anyone else?

Student: [Wrong answer]

Mamet: Ah, you're looking at it from the wrong point of view. Anyone else?

Student: [Right answer and the point... dragged out to here.]

Mamet: Correct. Here's me saying the thing and an analogy about the thing and details to go with the thing that I could've just said at the beginning. This kind of drawn-out process seems unnecessary and could have been streamlined to make the book more concise and to the point. While the tips themselves are valuable, the excessive dialogue and drawn-out explanations make the reading experience a bit tedious at times.

Interesting! This article is very helpful and I have gleaned a lot from it. However, simultaneously, I am not sure if I completely agree. I have been constantly trying to apply what the author says to the movies that I like, attempting to figure out whether they work or not.

But I just can't for the life of me figure out how dialogue is supposed to play into this. I truly appreciate the focus on visual implication, yet for most movies, it is not very practical from the perspective of immersion. So, what do you think the guys should say?

Overall, I am glad that I read this article. The takeaways are stronger than my confusions. It has definitely made me think more deeply about the elements of movies and how they interact.

Short, sweet, confusing, and clear.

Mamet has an obvious philosophy that he lays out exceptionally well in this brief paperback.

The audience is smarter than you. This is a crucial point that Mamet emphasizes. He believes that filmmakers should not underestimate the intelligence of the viewers.

Leave your shining artistic light at the door; stories are what move the audience. In other words, it's not about showing off one's artistic skills but rather presenting a compelling story.

Find the superobjective (throughline), break it down into beats, and film those beats with uninflected shots that tell the story through juxtaposition: that's film. Mamet's approach to filmmaking is unique and perhaps a bit radical.

It certainly isn't the way that most filmmakers work - hell, it's confusing to me. However, according to Mamet, whether it should be this way is obvious.

Regardless of whether he's correct, this brief guide takes you through his point of view with speed and clarity. It provides an interesting perspective on filmmaking that is worth considering.

3 1/2 stars

This rating indicates that the subject under review has a certain level of quality and performance. It is not quite a full 4 stars, which would suggest near-perfection, but it is also far from being mediocre. With 3 1/2 stars, it means that there are aspects that are quite good and值得称赞, while there may be a few areas that could use some improvement or refinement. It could be that the product or service has a nice design, good functionality, but perhaps lacks a bit in terms of innovation or user-friendliness. Overall, a 3 1/2-star rating is a respectable one, showing that the item has its merits and is worthy of consideration for those in the market for such a thing. However, it also leaves room for the provider to strive for even better results in the future to reach that elusive 4-star or higher status.