A humorously frank discussion about Mamet's basic principles for directing film. It's truly just a transcript from a lecture, yet it's undoubtedly an interesting book that compelled me to think analytically about the art.

I don't completely concur with the entirety of what he asserts a scene MUST do. I discover that there could be numerous justifications for breaking his rules. However, I do concede that his is a legitimate philosophy for filmmaking.

Mamet's ideas offer a unique perspective on the creative process of directing. While some of his principles may seem rigid, they also provide a framework for filmmakers to consider. By challenging and questioning these principles, we can expand our understanding of the art and develop our own unique approaches.

Overall, this book serves as a valuable resource for anyone interested in the art of filmmaking. It encourages us to think critically and explore new possibilities, ultimately leading to more creative and engaging films.

As with the majority of Mamet's pedagogical writings, this particular piece is composed of two-thirds significant theoretical insights and actionable methodologies. It also includes a third part which consists of histrionic whinging about the aesthetic excesses of modernity and Hollywood's heretical philistinism. However, it must be admitted that even when Mamet comes across as a pompous douchebag, he is an eloquent and entertaining one. His ability to express his thoughts and ideas, even in a somewhat bombastic manner, makes his writing engaging and thought-provoking. One can't help but be drawn into his arguments, regardless of whether one agrees with them or not. Despite his flaws, Mamet's pedagogical writing offers valuable perspectives and can serve as a source of inspiration for those interested in the fields of drama and writing.

I haven't despised a book like this since I was neck-deep in Rushdie, lol. There are three main points to consider:

First, Mamet loathes "modern art." He contends that he knows the sole successful method of storytelling, which is simply "because." Of course, this so-called "basic" approach is the hero's journey and Freytag's pyramid. He believes there's no need to include anything that doesn't advance the plot. However, this isn't wisdom; it's sophistry. Stripping away context isn't necessarily more intelligent. Just because we've done something for thousands of years doesn't mean it's the only可行的 way. The only fundamental aspect of human existence is that we change things. Mamet's principle can be challenged by the simple act of rewatching. Few works of art entice me to revisit them via the plot, but I often return to specific scenes, characters, themes, moods, or image arrangements because they resonate with me. My favorite film, Caravaggio, pays little attention to ordered events, yet we still become invested in the protagonist. The picaresque and pastiche structures draw me in, but according to Mamet, they're "bad art." Another way to undermine his hero's journey is to examine Brechtian drama, which may follow the rules of plot inevitability but doesn't encourage audience identification with the characters.

Second, regarding acting, Mamet believes that good acting is simply doing what's on the page without embellishment, and anyone who goes beyond this fails. He calls this failure "great acting" because we identify with the actor rather than the character. But so what? There's no way to create a "universally relatable" character. Someone will always be excluded. Mamet often uses examples like "the guy getting the girl" to illustrate plot progression, but this is a delusion. Let's take the example of Dunkirk. The film was well-crafted, but I was bored because there was no reason for me to be invested. I always prefer a film with a bad plot and watchable actors to one with a good plot and unengaging actors.

Finally, about screenwriting, Mamet says a screenplay should be a shot list, and dialogue should be the sprinkles on the cake. This may work for some films, but not for others. The screenplay for Jennifer's Body is different from the movie structurally, but the witty dialogue made it into the film because it's fun. Dialogue may not be as lasting as characters, but it's still worthwhile. Also, actors deserve to know what the movie is about. Learning the basic rules of film grammar is important, but teaching this macho nonsense as the only way to make successful art is poisonous. Reactionaries act as if they're speaking truth to power, but everyone learns Freytag's pyramid in sixth grade at the latest. Art has themes and context whether you like it or not. Just make your movie and stop blabbering! (Also, the way he kept bringing up bar stories as the best way to tell a successful story is ridiculous, as not all stories are interesting.)

This has not aged well.

The one solid nugget that I took away from this was a reminder of sorts to get your mind thinking visually. That is, trying to communicate ideas without dialogue.

However, for the most part, it's just the transcripts of conversations that Mamet has with some film students. And it becomes obvious pretty soon that no one is a bigger fan of Mamet than Mamet himself.

There really isn't a whole lot of useful or interesting information to be had here. It seems more like Mamet is just patting himself on the back and showing off his own knowledge and ideas.

Perhaps if the conversations had been more diverse and included different perspectives, it might have been a more valuable read. But as it stands, it's a bit of a disappointment.

Overall, I would not recommend this to anyone looking for in-depth insights into the world of filmmaking or interesting conversations about the art form.