David Mamet interview (1994)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- Playwright and director David Mamet explains the underlying themes in his controversial movie, "Oleanna," and reflects on his specific treatment of language and dialogue.
Join us on Patreon! / manufacturingintellect
Donate Crypto! commerce.coinb...
Share this video!
![David Mamet: Chicago [CC]](/img/n.gif)
Join us on Patreon! www.patreon.com/ManufacturingIntellect
Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/868d67d2-1628-44a8-b8dc-8f9616d62259
Share this video!
Mamet is just fucking brilliant. True hero for anybody who wants to write. He speaks so truthfully. Gotta love him.
Charlie Rose interviewing Mamet on sexual harassment. Ironic.
I was thinking the very same thing.
omg....
Ironic to say the least that Rose should conduct this interview, given the accusations lodged against him by several women, that led to his dismissal from CBS and PBS.
Good interview, but Charlie begins to fall apart at the end. Sometimes it seems like he is trying to get Mamet to reveal an agenda behind his writing. But most great writers/artists just let their subconscious mind create. In the case of writers they let it pour out onto the page. Only rewriting and editing with their conscience mind when they need too, after the fact.
The creative aspect of art is the unconscious flow state.
Well...this is ironic.
To my shame I never saw that movie.
It's actually his worst. The student is miscast horribly.
For me that was a key experience. A young woman wants to learn math and doesn't understand it. She asks her teacher for tutoring. He would be willing, but wants something in return. Because she has no money he asks for sex. But he shouldn't have done that! In the end nobody has anything. He's losing his job and she still hasn't figured out math. That's how feminism works.
1994
Worst interviewer on earth: Charlie Rose. Let the guest--who has plenty to say--talk.
discussing OJ Simpson, 32:00 Mamet brings up the possibility that anyone could turn out to be a murderer, or a bad person. Over to Charlie Rose....... and he hesitates. "That means our mythic heroes could be......" Mamet finishes it, "Could be human." Oh okay, Rose can settle for being human..... I don't think Mamet meant 'human' as a euphemism for sexual predator.
. . Lessons in Interviewing . . Ask The question and then Shut up and listen to the full answer . . and don't be so full ov yourself . .
The section of the interview where Charlie Rose just starts name dropping other celebrities (Woody Allen, etc.) to see if David Mamet has anything to say about them is, to me, so typical of the way his approach to interviews is completely vapid.
Vapid - good and accurate.
I think he has an incredibly deep style, I don't take away any vapidity.
Mamet has such a fair sense of judgement, I look up to him.
"A protagonist who wants something vehemently, and who's going to set out to get it."
That's not what makes a good play - that's what makes a good STORY.
It’s astounding the number of genuinely interesting and talented individuals Charlie Rose’s had on his show and can’t seem to carry/conduct an interview. What a knob.
I wanted to like him since he brought on the biggest talents of the 20th century, but after just 2 minutes, I can't STAND how he finishes their sentences and cuts them off. LET THEM TALK! Dick Cavett and Ernie Manouse for the win.
Oleanna was soooo far ahead of its time. It really was a period that was the beginning of the end of free thought in academia as well as the infiltration of identity politics well before the phrase came into being.
Exactly. The Carol types has now completely overrun the academic field.
Too bad the movie was so badly miscast.
Did you listen at all to what he said?? Lol
Charlie Rose is such a DB. This faux folksy accent interviewing the true intellectual
@Pierce Smith folksie accent? “Faux” folksie accent ? You think he is manufacturing an accent? You thinkith too much
Rose seems to think that by raising his voice, he will get the interviewee to say something "revealing" or "newsworthy." Doesn't work.
I suspect what upset people in the 90s was the twist involving the student turning out to be part of a radical political group and manipulating the professor to further the group's aims. It's similar to the twist in Mamet's film Homicide, where Joe Mantegna discovers too late that he has been radicalised and manipulated. The premise in Oleanna, that there were subversive far left groups on campuses was quite ahead of its time.
Charlie Rose is probably the worst serious* interviewer ever to capture a national television audience in the US
*those such as Sally Jesse Raphael don't count
Charlie Rose is anembarrassing interviewer - why are journalists generally so lost when talking to people who has a mind of their own?
I read Oleanna and came away , What the Heck?
Evelyn Overcash I'm you right now
if you are a Jew, read Mamet's new book before voting democrat or for any leftist woke candidate, your life may depend on it.
Rose could have taken a page out of Oleana.
Jesus. Never saw him smile before.
This aged well didn't it? Charly? Charly? Buehler?
The interviewed missed to ask:
Who is the protagonist of Oleanna?
I think that's what everyone wanted to figure out in the first place, yet David Mamet disuades us to thinking that he takes sides on his characters.
Macy was the protagonist.
interesting how great hair quality this man had into very late years! one can wonder if is due to him working his intellect so hard and avoiding all the crap most other people end up watching today! ...
interesting consideration
I think I love David Mamet
terribly put but -- what a fascinating conversation holy shit.
Oh the irony as Rose interviews Mamet about sexual politics.
At the end, I think Charlie was seriously flirting with Mamet.
panocasabe seriously. The lip bite and EVERYTHING
Mysagonist is an unfair label- writes a play about sexual herassment that's a response to herassment explicitly and then makes it victem blaming. No, not a mysagonist, never. I mean the other takes show it already, but that's beside the point
David "Blah Blah Blah" Mamet
Mamet is so real and Street that I found strange that is Jewish.
vehement
Charlie Rose! He sure wasn't perfect, but damn if he wasn't a great interviewer of artists.
I think false accusations happen rarely compared to actual real abuse
I totally agree with you, and I'm an asshole guy. I just care about Truth more.
✌💫
So glad Rose is gone. The way he tries to dominate every interview was disgusting.
Love Charlie Rose. I don't think Mamet is an easy interview.
Great Uploads!
Ohhhhh no... this did not age well.
"What was your persona at the time?" "how did you see yourself?"... that's the typical interviewer's ridiculousness, trying to be a psychoanalyst, "probing" into Mamet's past and psychology. Other than that, very interesting interview and Mamet is a blast to listen to.
I read that Charlie Rose smokes a lot of weed, which would explain a lot about his mode of conversation.
Charlie Rose is incapable of finishing a sen...he can’t seem to...uh, here’s what’s interesting...I’m talking about the Mamet persona....we’ll, sexual perversity is what we’re discussing...(long pause) hahahahaha. Seeing as I’ve mastered the Rose interview style, I wonder if I can turn that into a career?
Seems like a genuinely humble guy.
don't count on it
Hearing this makes me see that oleanna is a stupid story and as the writer says story has no point or moral makes the story into a stupid argument amd we dont know what the hell really happened which for a story being showed or told to us makes it pointless and same as we see a paragraph in a newspaper telling us and argument and accusation between student and teacher happened. I thought the end was a mystery as when the girl says yea thats right and the teacher says oh my god as if he realised something i thought mayne it was a prank or student was lying but i guess its not that im disapointed.
This might be the worst comment in TH-cam history.
I agree with that reply. - the comment is crass.
I was lecturing in a UK university at that time on a professionally accredited degree course. I resigned after a similar experience. The woman, a mature student, was lazy and blamed me for not pandering to her incompetence. She played the gender card and I got a written warning. Too many of the minority female students were like that and their spitefulness was demotivating. Fortunately I could afford not to bother any more so I didn’t. I believe female students are now the majority. Good luck with that, guys!
@@adrianrose7703 This is an extremely interesting response... and sort of funny in its way. I am an emphatic critic of Mamet's work and particularly Oleanna (we don't need to get into it), but it seems strange for you - a man whom it could be inferred resigned from a position due to an abstract fear of 20yo women - to leave Oleanna with such a concrete interpretation. From Mamet's own mouth the play is actively unclear on who the "true" protagonist is. We are bombarded with contradictory information in rapid succession. John's assigned course material conflicts with the premise itself. That is intentional. Mamet states at the beginning of this interview that he wholly believes in both perspectives. While I personally find in a little disingenuous that he was surprised his play sparked intense debate between the genders it is consistent with his assertion that Oleanna is about perspective - the "side" you choose is a reflection of your inner mind and subsequently your world view. If we take Mamet at face value, his intention was to foster a discussion about the ways our wires get crossed, that different life experiences create different truths moment to moment. If Rashomon is about framing and the ways individuals build reality around themselves in pursuit of self preservation, or a dissection who stands to lose the most from a publicly accepted truth... Oleanna aims to reflect the absurdity, possibly the irrelevance, of "truth" altogether.
This "crass" comment is essentially a reflection of the tensions which arise from the contradictory nature of Truth - i.e. the literal point. To be clear, I mean "literal" literally here. Being explicitly told by the author that YOUR truth is a misinterpretation is probably pretty frustrating and could very well lead someone to feel their time was wasted. I don't think it's very well articulated but "crass" isn't accurate in any way. In fact I think the expression of discomfort is sort of indicative of a kind of intelligence given Mamet's insistence that "there is no lede, no please don't go digging!". To be clear, I think your comment is funny because of the above interview - not because I think you misinterpreted Mamet's work. In fact I think Oleanna is unintentionally a perfect reflection of Mamet's stated intent - and that you interpreted it the only way it can be. Mamet's truth (to reiterate, his personal bias and worldview) reveals itself in nearly every line. As Mamet says here he is no misogynist.
Charlie, stop being so aggressive!
A real artist. Jordan Peterson would approve.
Jordan Peterson isn't a man who likes nuance, he is the enemy of all art, conservative or otherwise.
Declan Franks bullshit
Peterson is at best a fraud.
Please don't compare that squeaky hack to this man.
so..Would Mamet side up with HARVEY WINSTEIN, KEVIN SPACEY etc NOW?
Just a thought
so hot.
Weirdo