An excellent guide to making entertainment exists, but when these principles are directly applied, they have little connection to spirituality. Piecemeal iteration is contrary to authenticity. For instance, Mamet proposes a scene where a student meets a teacher. If the student's intention is to have his grade changed, once the grade is altered, the scene concludes. However, if he aims to gain respect, the scene holds significance for the film. What Mamet fails to grasp is that character motivation is inherently limited. “Respect” is a condition, so once the character achieves respect or even realizes that his desire for respect was misdirected, the film can end without reaching a spiritual state of infinitude. This is of little consequence when creating simple entertainment that is watched and then forgotten. But it means the film merely becomes an exercise in fulfilling the goals it has set for itself, what he terms the “super-objective.” The film becomes its own MacGuffin.

Rather than directly applying the principles of entertainment, artists must internalize them and make them habitual. Once artists incorporate entertainment into their ways of thinking, the spiritual mode of art—conceptualizing whole scenes as units of infinite depth—will naturally align with the entertaining. This makes it easier to produce art that offers basic engagement, thereby making the spiritual component more palatable. This process likely accounts for the wonderful films like Harakiri, Aguirre, The Wrath of God, and The Hourglass Sanatorium.

People have attempted for centuries to use drama to transform people’s lives… It doesn't work.

If this were a mere oversight, it would be hard to criticize the book. But Mamet soon begins to express his aversion to modern art and “purposeless” filmmaking. Mamet's dislike of modern art is not, as he claims, a distaste for arrogant artists, but rather common reactionaryism. He suggests that Werner Herzog's films are unenjoyable compared to those of Frank Capra. Personally, it's difficult to envision a scenario where I would prefer a Capra film over a Herzog! However, more importantly, the example of Herzog is particularly strange considering his style is classicist compared to other art-house directors. Herzog's experimentation is solely in the service of creating a more beautiful work of art. But like most philistines, Mamet is unable to distinguish between experimentation and transgression. To him, any deviation from the norm is a sign of self-indulgence.

Before concluding this review, it must be mentioned that Mamet's personal style is seriously unappealing. Mamet is extremely arrogant, convinced of the indisputable genius of his very ordinary viewpoints, much like the tipsy uncle who wants to share his “traditional” views with everyone at the Christmas table. He also repeatedly uses sex workers, whom he refers to as “prostitutes” and “whores,” as the basis for his stories. I would not feel comfortable in his classroom, and I can't imagine there is much value in his classes anyway.

The book is a transcription of lectures Mamet gave to film students in the late 1980s.

During these lectures, they do two exercises. One is about "The Man who has to sell the pig", and the other is about "The student who wants to impress the professor".

Mamet leads them through making dramatic decisions and shows why some decisions are better than others. He also demonstrates how good decisions lead to a better story by the end.

In both cases, the protagonist has a problem that he has to solve. The problems become interesting when the audience can identify with the protagonist. This is achieved not by being interesting but by being real.

I think he is tapping into the same vein of thought that led Hemingway to write such pithy short stories.

When I studied acting in college, there was a curiosity about why David Mamet wrote no stage directions into his plays.

People enter and exit just like in Shakespeare's plays. Mamet's plays are all about words. He lets stage directors decide how to put action to those words.

Maybe this is why he has such specific ideas about film direction. Knowing playwriting so well, he understands the differences between the mediums and thus tries to avoid using words to solve the through-line of his movies.

I would guess this is also why he lets others direct his stage plays when they are made into films.

Words are easy for Mamet. Having the constraint of few words makes the medium more interesting because he has to find art outside of his comfort zone.

A good succinct version of his approach can be found on the Internet. It's Mamet's memo to the writers of The Unit, a network television show that he ran for a few seasons.

With much humor and candor, he explains what a challenge screenwriting is and how the writers have to avoid non-dramatic decisions.

Why would a great playwright want to run a network television show? He wanted to see what he could do within the constraints of the form.

Whether we think he created art seems unimportant to Mamet.

Don't let actors try to be interesting. The more unemotional they are, the more the audience can identify with them.

If your protagonist is quirky, it might be funny for a few minutes, but you will eventually grow bored of him. Let the sidekick be quirky in small doses.

He applauds old-time character actors like Edward Arnold and Thelma Ritter who played every scene straight rather than trying to be interesting by playing comedy or drama.

Although he doesn't call him out, I can guess he would have fired James Dean in about 5 minutes into rehearsal.

Isn't magician Ricky Jay good in every Mamet movie? I can't think of any reason other than his honest performance.

Like many, I had wondered what changed Mamet when he wrote The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture.

How could the most heralded playwright of the last forty some years be a conservative? His subject matter of con men and shyster salesmen seems to be an indictment of capitalism, right?

It turns out those characters were interesting to Mamet because they were desperate, and desperate men are more interesting to watch than contented men.

It's human nature that's corrupt, and thus the systems are all as corrupt as his protagonists.

When you add his belief that drama itself is better within constraints, you understand that his approach has always been conservative.

He considered himself a liberal because he was an artist, but once he started reading authors like Thomas Sowell, he reconciled that society has the same constraints.

Anything goes feels good to the novice, but it doesn't work in art nor does it work in civilization.

I think this is a 5-star book because Mamet puts into words things that other directors do instinctually but can't explain.

His explanation also resonates as to why classic movies where people did less acting are more interesting than most of what was made 10 years ago.

Very few people could take this book and make a Mamet-like movie, but any scribe benefits from an approach to writing that trains the avoidance of easy choices that are a temptation to make.

Mamet Ideas I wanted to remember:

Actors think they are performing a story arc when in fact the film creates the performance.

Humphrey Bogart nodding to the orchestra to play Le Marseilles in Casablanca was a great moment because of the editing within the context of the scene, not because of his performance.

“The good actor performs his tasks as simply and as unemotionally as possible.”

“Dumbo is an example of the perfect movie. Cartoons are very good to watch—are much better to watch, for people who want to direct, than movies.”

“The task of the artist is not to learn many, many techniques but to learn the simple technique perfectly.”

As short as it is, this piece still seems somewhat padded and repetitive. It really feels like the leftovers from a period of teaching at film school.

However, there are enough funny direct Mamet-isms to make it worthwhile. It also provides a useful no-bullshit and absolutist summary of the Eisenstein/Bresson approach.

The steadicam, and all it represents - following the action around - is mentioned several times as a symbol of what's wrong with American filmmaking today. After all, movies are made up of shots, and these shots should be of simple clear actions that don't attempt to tell the whole story. Instead, the story only emerges in the totality of the work.

Just as a sail doesn't have to look like a boat, a nail doesn't look like a house, and an actor doesn't have to express everything or do excessive work for the story to be told. They simply perform simple actions, and the film is assembled from these. As the example goes, "A guy says 'that's a lovely dress'. He doesn't say 'I haven't been laid in six weeks.'"

That's really all it amounts to. It's good advice, but that's pretty much the entire content. So, you can skip it now if you like! Nevertheless, it is quite entertaining.

Three stars for the book itself and the dear teacher;

however, the poor translation extremely spoiled the pleasure of reading the book.

It's really a pity that such a good book was affected by the bad translation.

The original content might have been full of charm and vivid descriptions, but due to the inaccurate and clumsy translation, it lost a lot of its luster.

Readers who are looking forward to experiencing the essence of the book through translation are disappointed.

Hopefully, in the future, there will be more professional and responsible translators who can do justice to the original works and bring the real charm of the books to the readers.

It is excellent. Like other wonderful works. The translation is vivid. The book teaches you more than you think.

This sentence describes a certain book, highlighting its excellence and the vividness of its translation. It implies that the book has a lot to offer and can impart knowledge and insights that may exceed the reader's initial expectations.

Perhaps the book contains profound ideas, interesting stories, or useful information that can have a significant impact on the reader's understanding and perspective. The vivid translation further enhances the reading experience, making it easier for the reader to engage with the text and fully appreciate its contents.

Overall, this description gives the impression that the book is a valuable and worthwhile read, capable of providing both entertainment and education.

I had a strong desire to read a book that delved into the nitty-gritty of filmmaking, rather than just more theoretical concepts. Perhaps I was setting myself up for disappointment, but I thought that if this was a staple of film literature, there must be something valuable in it.

However, I really can't tolerate much more of the stubborn filmmaker who is solely focused on images and believes that any form of creativity makes it experimental and "forces the culture to degenerate into depravity."

To be honest, there isn't really a whole lot being taught in this book. It feels more like it's maintaining the status quo rather than providing us with practical guidance on how to make a great movie. And then, he spends the last 10 minutes talking about a pig? It's kind of amusing, but I still feel sorry for his wife.

Overall, my experience with this book has been a bit of a letdown. I was hoping for more hands-on advice and insights into the world of filmmaking, but instead, I got a lot of the author's rather extreme opinions and some strange digressions. Maybe I'll have better luck with my next choice.

I have never been so disappointed in a book before.

It is supposed to be a director's essential, but aside from one or two notes on working with actors, Mamet reveals very little useful insight into filmmaking.

The writing style is derivative of "An Actor Prepares", and the best advice he comes up with is plagiarism of Stanislavsky.

The beauty of "An Actor Prepares" is that it is written from the perspective of a student, and thus engages the reader as a student himself. It is not from the status of a high-strung lecturer who does not see the irony in his own statements.

Instead, he wastes time asserting why his method of directing is proper while at the same time admitting he is more of a writer. His solution for directing a scene is to change the scene entirely, which leads to no true understanding of the mastery of directing.

It is such a waste, except for the footnotes, which taught me more than the text itself.

This book fails to deliver the promised in-depth knowledge and practical guidance for directors, leaving readers frustrated and disappointed.

The book in the category of "The Old Man's Grumbling about How It Was Better Before and How It Should Actually Be Done." There are correct and healthy thoughts present, but only on a basic level, and in the rest, it has gone to hell.

This kind of book seems to be a common phenomenon. On one hand, it acknowledges some valid points about the past and offers certain suggestions for improvement. However, on the other hand, the language used is rather crude and disrespectful.

Maybe the author intended to express his dissatisfaction and frustration in a more direct way, but such language can be off-putting and may not be able to convey the intended message effectively.

In my opinion, when writing a book, it is important to use appropriate language and tone to ensure that the message is received and understood by the readers. At the same time, the author should also strive to present a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis of the topic to provide more valuable insights and suggestions.

I can just tell that this guy is a total asshole to hang out with.

However, he does a great job getting his theories about story and screenwriting across in this book.

The ways of thinking about scenes and dramatic structure as a whole are very helpful and inciteful.

Nevertheless, it is very overly prescriptive, almost like it's David's way or the highway.

Also, the way he stages the book as a conversation between him and his students to echo back to the teachings of Plato or Socrates is a bit melodramatic.

But considering it's only 100 pages, I highly recommend it to every budding screenwriter or director.

It offers valuable insights and perspectives that can enhance one's understanding and approach to the craft of screenwriting and directing.

Despite its flaws, it can serve as a useful guide and source of inspiration for those just starting out in the field.

So, if you're looking for some practical and thought-provoking ideas on story and screenwriting, give this book a try.

You might be surprised at how much you can learn from it.

Fantastic!

Short!

Revolutionary!

These are the words that come to mind when I think about my recent experience with writing a screenplay. However, as much as I might have found it an interesting and perhaps even a bit of a revolutionary process, I hope I never have to do it again.

I simply don't have the mind for it. The process of creating a story that will come to life on the big screen requires a certain type of creativity and attention to detail that I just don't possess.

It's not that I don't appreciate the art of screenwriting. On the contrary, I am in awe of those who can take a simple idea and turn it into a captivating and engaging story. But for me, it's just not something that comes naturally.

I much prefer to leave the screenwriting to the professionals and focus on other aspects of my life. Maybe one day I'll have a change of heart, but for now, I'm more than happy to let someone else take on the challenge.

Mamet's insights are valuable for those in the film industry. While some of what he says may be familiar to experienced filmmakers, he presents concise rules for developing a story on screen that are worth following. His book offers several nuggets of wisdom that make it a good read. It is especially beneficial for film neophytes who are looking to learn the basics. Although I didn't agree with everything he said, Mamet is a director known for his no-nonsense approach and his writing skills are evident in this work. His thoughts on story are generally sound and can provide a useful framework for filmmakers.

One of the key points Mamet makes is the importance of simplicity in storytelling. He believes that a story should have a clear beginning, middle, and end, and that unnecessary complications should be avoided. This is a principle that many successful filmmakers follow, as it helps to keep the audience engaged and focused on the main narrative. Another interesting aspect of Mamet's approach is his emphasis on the power of dialogue. He believes that dialogue should be used sparingly and should serve to advance the story and reveal character. This is a refreshing perspective in an age where many films rely on excessive dialogue to convey information.

Overall, Mamet's book is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in filmmaking. While it may not offer anything revolutionary, it does provide a solid foundation for understanding the basics of story development and screenwriting. Whether you are a seasoned filmmaker or a beginner, there is something to be gained from reading Mamet's thoughts on the subject.

I really enjoyed this short read! It offers a simple yet profound piece of advice.

Figuring out what your character wants is truly the essence of your story. This fundamental concept can serve as a guiding light for any writer.

When you know the desires and goals of your character, it becomes easier to construct a narrative that is engaging and meaningful.

The character's wants drive the plot, create conflict, and lead to character development.

By delving deep into the psyche of your character and understanding their innermost desires, you can bring your story to life in a more vivid and impactful way.

So, the next time you sit down to write, remember this valuable tip: figure out what your character wants, and let that be the foundation of your story.