During Covid I started writing fiction, then I went to Masterclass and watched David Mamet, four times. My writing got better as I listened to him. I'm going to watch him again...not only for the education, but he is so interesting and has such wide range of knowledge, it's fascinating and elevating. Thank you for highlighting him here.
This is great. Character is action is a great key line that can unlock so much. But again, this is perhaps an aside, but I couldn't help noticing a bias that exist in such videos - videos after videos. Not a single woman character was examined, or shown in this video who meet these requirements. A societal bias that reflects in most of us as 'characters' n our actions - even sensitive film critics such as you-
Finally, a fan of _The Edge._ One of the hardest screenplays I ever had to track down; in fact, it took me years and it was originally called "The Bookworm." This analysis is fucking good, I gotta admit. You deserve _way_ more views. Now analyze _Speed-the-Plow_ !
Wow where did you find it? I’d love to read that. A truly underrated film. I have not seen speed the plow. One of the many Mamet films I’m yet to watch
I thought of this while I auditioned for (and was offered) the part of John in Oleanna at our community theater. I also thought of it when I turned it down. Mamet takes this action motivation thing to an extreme to the detriment of character. If I think of Martin Mcdonaugh or Kenneth Lonergan or Amy Herzog, the illusion of character fees much more flushed out.
Thanks very much. I’m working on a big one that should be out before the end of the year. Planning to do more about screenwriting as well. Thanks for your kind words
There’s always a power play between playwrights and actors. Mamet is interested in certain things and not in others. Some things exist more strongly with strong characters than others., It would be hard to justify Peter Sellars in Strangelove for example, playing those 3 parts exactly the same. What’s he doing there, anyway? It’s like music. The oboe is a particular character in a larger context. The woodwinds all come in at their times in the score and add their personalities. You can imagine a complex orchestral piece played on synthesized pure electronic tones. There would be a lot lost. Conversely, there is music which is happily transposed from one instrument or set of instruments to the other. Art of Fugue for example.
I don't think the point is that every character should be played the same, but maybe it's an easy thing to infer because Mamet's maybe being kind of sensationalistically hyperbolic in how he phrases this. The point, as far as I can tell is that if you think of characters as monolithic, a set of definable qualities independent of relationships, it doesn't get you anywhere dramatically. The first thing is think about what they want/need materially and how that leads them to interact with the world, including the other characters. The qualities, in the hands of an actor, will flow from that. Prior to that, this understanding will anyway inform not just the content but the tone of the dialogue one writes. That's action, so doesn't contradict Mamet's point. Terry Southern can convey the sanity and anxiety of Sellers' English character as he tries to rein in a madman in Strangelove through dialogue and action without having to tell Sellers to play it like that.
It took me a few days of thinking about what Mamet said to first get it and then agree with it. When you think about conflict, some conflict is caused by people acting exactly the way you think they're going to act. But conflict also comes from people acting unpredictably. And sometimes when someone does something unpredictable, others say he was acting "out of character." That's when I got it. If you know your plot, if you know all the actions that are going to lead you to your conclusion, then there's no "character," there's only what each of the people in your story must do at that point of the plot. If some thug has to pull a gun and shoot someone, then that's what has to happen. If an honest, upstanding, mild-mannered fellow turns his back on every one of the principles he's lived by in the rest of the book to seduce a woman, then that's what has to happen.
With respect, I don't think it's that simple. 'Has to happen' why? If 'character' is not the rationale for a character's unpredictable actions, as I agree it's not, what is? A specific goal the character hold, and maybe the story's overall theme or 'what's it about'. In the former instance, what makes it interesting and plausible if, for instance, a mild-mannered person suddenly turns to violence? A choice they've had to make in pursuit of a compelling goal. Perhaps they have to forsake an avowed adherence to nonviolence in order to save a loved on, or themselves. Or perhaps they calculate that violence now will give them the power they need to impose their non-violent ideals at scale later on. The latter motivation especially would likely reflect on theme: what immoral actions are justifiable in the service of imposing morality systematically?
Glengarry Glen Ross, The Verdict and House of Games (which he directed) are his classics. I would also check out The Spanish Prisoner, Heist and State and Main. He's one of my favorites.
Great video. You got a new subscriber! Can I ask you what's the music you played in the background for the part of "This concept, applied", please? Shazam can't recognize it with your voice. Lol
When I wrote my film Amy's Baby, I needed to know the characters. I knew Kristen was smart and tightly wound, and Amy was a party girl, not as bright, more emotional. I decided where they went to college, what their families were like, these things made the characters more real, more concrete. I can't write without knowing who they were. When I've acted, I needed to know who my character was, flesh him out. Otherwise, I couldn't know his motivation, how he would act/react.
David Mamet and you missed something. You and David might want to read Umberto Eco's "Lector in Fabula". There's something called the world, and the possible worlds. The reader of a novel, the watcher of a play or a movie, create the characters not only with what the characters say or do, but also with their experience: what they know about the world, and what they know about people. You have a horrible boss? Kevin Spacey becomes that horrible boss. You know a loser? Jack Lemon becomes that loser. You know a crook? Al Pacino becomes that crook. Stories don't have two, five, ten characters. They have as many characters as there are readers.
David, David, David. That style of writing is great if you are a genius at writing dialogue. Most of us are not so lucky, and we may need our brown shoes. And, crack shot.
So Paul Newman didn't have a character in The Verdict? Nor Sean Connery in Untouch? I don't understand. They reveal their character thru their actions and words.
David Mamet is wrong. Character is NOT simply 'action' that a character does. Character is the inner guide within that informs a person (or character) as to their true nature and what types of 'action' or behaviors they will exhibit.
@@dogstick12 To clarify the use of the term Character then is a stand-in for 'morals' or 'ethics'. As in the statement: "Sports does not built character, it reveals it". That is the connotation I meant.
The problem with the advice that character is only what characters say and do is that Mamet's characters, like Sorkin's, all talk alike and act alike. They're stories are often compelling anyway, mainly because they hire good actors who bring something interesting to their characters that isn't on the page.
When it comes to Mamet, I certainly don’t agree. He has a style, but his characters don’t all act alike or even sound the same. Sorkin’s often sound the same but his characters actions are, I think, unique. He does like a certain style of story, but I wouldn’t conflate the rhythm of his characters speech with a lack of individuality in how the characters behave
Do not ask yourself what you would do in the situation. All of your characters will be the same if you do that. Your character should have very idiosyncratic reactions.
I felt very upset with Mamet after watching this video... First, if the video creator's interpretation of Mamet is correct (I don't know whether it is, but hope so!), what Mamet is trying to say can be boiled down to "reveal character through action and dialogue rather than exposition." I believe I said it way simpler right there. And I'm practically a nobody in the storytelling world! There's a lot I could say about Mamet's statement, but I'll settle for this: I know for a fact that many who read novels, watch movies or play certain types of video games, all want to immerse themselves in the stories they engage with. *They want to believe that the characters and worlds they engage with are real.* So what happens to their experience of story if they take Mamet's "advice" to heart? I for one would neither be moved nor excited by a story if I were to think that "I'm just seeing words on a page right now" or "I'm only seeing some images on the screen... No reason to cry or be excited." Suspension of disbelief or immersion in characters and story worlds is absolutely key to our enjoyment of stories (or at least to many of us). But taking Mamet's statement to heart would utterly ruin that experience. Furthermore, how does it improve our storytelling a ability to think that characters do not exist...? As a screenwriter myself, I desire to think of my characters as real people, with the full capacity of human emotions. As I've been planning out scenes for the fantasy series I'm working on and working on the first screenplay, I've many times felt deeply moved or saddened by the fate of the characters throughout the story and by particular character moments. It still remains to be seen how an audience will react to those scenes. But would I really be able to write scenes like that -- even think of those scenes -- if I had the mindset that characters are just "actions and dialogue on the page"? In conclusion, I see nothing valuable in Mamet's statement, whether as a storyteller or as a consumer of stories. I have to wonder whether Mamet has considered the full consequences of taking his statement to heart; what that would do to us as storytellers and story consumers...? He may have meant to say one thing, but he does bear responsibility for all the other possible implications of what he says, upon all those people who listen to his advice without bringing it into question. For those who may be looking for places to learn storytelling, I myself have learned a lot by watching videos on Film Courage (TH-cam channel). A lot of what is said there applies to novel writing as well, and to other story forms. 😊
But on the page they are just actions and dialogue. What else? Screenwriters, in particular, don't get to do interiority. But action and dialogue can move you to tears.
I love Mamet’s masterclass but when he executes based on his apparently rigid philosophy, his characters come across as readers. House of Games stands out possibly because Joe Mantegna’s most understated performance is still great because of what he projects, seemingly involuntarily. The screen adaptation of Glengarry Glen Ross is possibly his most appealing movie and it’s because dir Foley let the excellent cast give added nuance and naturalism. His dialogue read without inflection from the page, very dissonant, repetitive, staccato makes full emersion into his world nigh impossible for me.. His “characters don’t exist” is the sort of literalism that leads to boring anti metaphysical outcomes 😭
Utter nonsense. Character is the fingerprint of personality, absolutely unique to each individual, who will react to a situation in their own unique way. Write any way you like, but the people in your script will perform only as they know to perform, within the confines of an "identity" contrived by their own limitations.
Mamet isn’t looking deep enough, *why* do characters act? If your story is poorly written, to serve the plot. If it’s well written, character creates the plot.
Yeah, they do not. If you think that, you're not listening. Go back and watch Glengarry again and tell me honestly that you think Pacino's character sounds the same as Lemon's.
All well and good, but I don't believe this kind of advice can be considered universal, meaning that it doesn't work for all forms of fiction. There's a gulf between how these things work in screenwriting/playwriting and in literature.
What he said isn't wisdom, what he said is idiocy and it's intended to make you and others incapable of making things so that people don't come and supplant him in a position while he's still alive. The idiocy of saying something as baseless as "there is no such thing as character" is astronomical and on the level of literary abuse the likes of which isn't seen much. It's absolutely wrong to call him good, he's evil pure and simple and you can tell that from the abysmal glasses he wears.
During Covid I started writing fiction, then I went to Masterclass and watched David Mamet, four times. My writing got better as I listened to him. I'm going to watch him again...not only for the education, but he is so interesting and has such wide range of knowledge, it's fascinating and elevating.
Thank you for highlighting him here.
I love David Mamet! I had a master class subscription for a year but ended up only watching Davis Mamet over and over.
it's a suprisingly insightful class. I bought it before they had a subscription model and revisit it pretty frequently
Me too! I did watch some other authors etc. too.
I sum it up as, “What kinda guy would do something like that!”
This is great. Character is action is a great key line that can unlock so much. But again, this is perhaps an aside, but I couldn't help noticing a bias that exist in such videos - videos after videos. Not a single woman character was examined, or shown in this video who meet these requirements. A societal bias that reflects in most of us as 'characters' n our actions - even sensitive film critics such as you-
“Played by crack-shot Alec Baldwin.” LMFAO snuck that one in there
had to
lmao
Really good summation of this specific part of David's writing approach. ✍️
Thanks
The edge is an underrated masterpiece. In the hands of another director, it would be deemed a classic like a few good men today.
Finally, a fan of _The Edge._ One of the hardest screenplays I ever had to track down; in fact, it took me years and it was originally called "The Bookworm."
This analysis is fucking good, I gotta admit. You deserve _way_ more views.
Now analyze _Speed-the-Plow_ !
Wow where did you find it? I’d love to read that. A truly underrated film.
I have not seen speed the plow. One of the many Mamet films I’m yet to watch
@@rmacfarlane I second this. I have been searching for long time, and so far I come up empty.
It was a hard find for sure but worth it
Yea! Someone showed some love for "The Edge." Great movie, killer soundtrack.😊
So underrated
I thought of this while I auditioned for (and was offered) the part of John in Oleanna at our community theater. I also thought of it when I turned it down. Mamet takes this action motivation thing to an extreme to the detriment of character. If I think of Martin Mcdonaugh or Kenneth Lonergan or Amy Herzog, the illusion of character fees much more flushed out.
Well I think it’s nice that he lets the actors figure out the rest of it. He only puts on the page what absolutely needs to be there
Wow, that's a really great advice....... Thank you for sharing it in essay!
you're very welcome
Would love more essays from you, you really do a good job on covering topics but keeping it simple and calm.
Thanks very much. I’m working on a big one that should be out before the end of the year. Planning to do more about screenwriting as well. Thanks for your kind words
There’s always a power play between playwrights and actors. Mamet is interested in certain things and not in others. Some things exist more strongly with strong characters than others., It would be hard to justify Peter Sellars in Strangelove for example, playing those 3 parts exactly the same. What’s he doing there, anyway? It’s like music. The oboe is a particular character in a larger context. The woodwinds all come in at their times in the score and add their personalities. You can imagine a complex orchestral piece played on synthesized pure electronic tones. There would be a lot lost. Conversely, there is music which is happily transposed from one instrument or set of instruments to the other. Art of Fugue for example.
I don't think the point is that every character should be played the same, but maybe it's an easy thing to infer because Mamet's maybe being kind of sensationalistically hyperbolic in how he phrases this. The point, as far as I can tell is that if you think of characters as monolithic, a set of definable qualities independent of relationships, it doesn't get you anywhere dramatically. The first thing is think about what they want/need materially and how that leads them to interact with the world, including the other characters. The qualities, in the hands of an actor, will flow from that. Prior to that, this understanding will anyway inform not just the content but the tone of the dialogue one writes. That's action, so doesn't contradict Mamet's point. Terry Southern can convey the sanity and anxiety of Sellers' English character as he tries to rein in a madman in Strangelove through dialogue and action without having to tell Sellers to play it like that.
This video sums it all up for me. Thanks man i am gonna write well now.
haha
Great essay, keep going!
thank you
It took me a few days of thinking about what Mamet said to first get it and then agree with it.
When you think about conflict, some conflict is caused by people acting exactly the way you think they're going to act. But conflict also comes from people acting unpredictably. And sometimes when someone does something unpredictable, others say he was acting "out of character."
That's when I got it. If you know your plot, if you know all the actions that are going to lead you to your conclusion, then there's no "character," there's only what each of the people in your story must do at that point of the plot. If some thug has to pull a gun and shoot someone, then that's what has to happen. If an honest, upstanding, mild-mannered fellow turns his back on every one of the principles he's lived by in the rest of the book to seduce a woman, then that's what has to happen.
Plot is what characters do, in a particular situation.
With respect, I don't think it's that simple. 'Has to happen' why? If 'character' is not the rationale for a character's unpredictable actions, as I agree it's not, what is? A specific goal the character hold, and maybe the story's overall theme or 'what's it about'.
In the former instance, what makes it interesting and plausible if, for instance, a mild-mannered person suddenly turns to violence? A choice they've had to make in pursuit of a compelling goal. Perhaps they have to forsake an avowed adherence to nonviolence in order to save a loved on, or themselves. Or perhaps they calculate that violence now will give them the power they need to impose their non-violent ideals at scale later on. The latter motivation especially would likely reflect on theme: what immoral actions are justifiable in the service of imposing morality systematically?
Superb, clear and helpful.
thanks Niall
Dialogue is some of my favorite parts movies but I never knew of this guy I gotta watch this guys’ movies
Oh they’re great. Glengarry Glen Ross is the one
Glengarry Glen Ross, The Verdict and House of Games (which he directed) are his classics. I would also check out The Spanish Prisoner, Heist and State and Main. He's one of my favorites.
Great video. You got a new subscriber! Can I ask you what's the music you played in the background for the part of "This concept, applied", please? Shazam can't recognize it with your voice. Lol
Gymnopédie No. 1 by Erik Satie
@@PolarisBanks thank you!! 🙏
thanks! yes i think its a jazz version of the satie piece from Artlist
When I wrote my film Amy's Baby, I needed to know the characters. I knew Kristen was smart and tightly wound, and Amy was a party girl, not as bright, more emotional. I decided where they went to college, what their families were like, these things made the characters more real, more concrete. I can't write without knowing who they were.
When I've acted, I needed to know who my character was, flesh him out. Otherwise, I couldn't know his motivation, how he would act/react.
whatever helps get across meaning to the audience is fine with me
Great essay, loved the part where you discussed Drive and Ryan Gosling.
thanks!
To do is to be- Satre
To be is to do- Camus
Do be do be do- Sinatra.
That was written on the wall in the ladies' bathroom in my college bar. 😂
i think you have to attribute the author, if anyone knows who wrote this ridiculous joke
What you choose to do is your character. How you do it, as well.
Well said
Redbelt is my personal favorite of his.
never even heard of it!
David Mamet and you missed something. You and David might want to read Umberto Eco's "Lector in Fabula". There's something called the world, and the possible worlds. The reader of a novel, the watcher of a play or a movie, create the characters not only with what the characters say or do, but also with their experience: what they know about the world, and what they know about people. You have a horrible boss? Kevin Spacey becomes that horrible boss. You know a loser? Jack Lemon becomes that loser. You know a crook? Al Pacino becomes that crook. Stories don't have two, five, ten characters. They have as many characters as there are readers.
David, David, David. That style of writing is great if you are a genius at writing dialogue. Most of us are not so lucky, and we may need our brown shoes. And, crack shot.
Yes it certainly helps. Doesn’t seem to easy to study dialogue either
@@rmacfarlane What do you mean when you say it's not easy to study dialogue?
The Edge seriously underrated.
yeah an excellent film
I skipped that part of the video because I haven’t seen it yet.
@@MarcosElMalo2 I think I’ll watch it this afternoon.
WHAT ONE MAN CAN DO ANOTHER CAN DO!
there's the things that people do. Repeatedly.
He is correct. Actors who perform any play by Mamet sound like they're reading from a script and aren't real characters.
Best Mamet movies aren’t directed by him.. but I still enjoy them stiff as they are 😐
When the actors are bad, or are stage actors,
@@wbjr6715Rebecca Pidgeon in Spanish Prisoner seems like the most faithful deadpan performer. Recommended!
Yep. I can't recommend his master class enough. His recent book "recessional" is whacky...but also worth a look!
ill have to check the book out
wish i could hear anything over the band
So Paul Newman didn't have a character in The Verdict? Nor Sean Connery in Untouch? I don't understand. They reveal their character thru their actions and words.
sounds like you understand it just fine
I don't get the no-character idea. It's true of movies, tv, and plays, but novels and short stories can dig into a character's thoughts and emotions.
Char ACT er
Taking Action needs to drive or be a result of thoughts and feelings
excellent stuff! and 'crack shot' Alec Baldwin - absolutely hilarious 🙂
thank you!
But why do people act the way they do? Because of their character.
David Mamet is wrong. Character is NOT simply 'action' that a character does. Character is the inner guide within that informs a person (or character) as to their true nature and what types of 'action' or behaviors they will exhibit.
You are describing ethics
A char act er is guided by ethics and morals
@@dogstick12 To clarify the use of the term Character then is a stand-in for 'morals' or 'ethics'. As in the statement:
"Sports does not built character, it reveals it". That is the connotation I meant.
The problem with the advice that character is only what characters say and do is that Mamet's characters, like Sorkin's, all talk alike and act alike. They're stories are often compelling anyway, mainly because they hire good actors who bring something interesting to their characters that isn't on the page.
When it comes to Mamet, I certainly don’t agree. He has a style, but his characters don’t all act alike or even sound the same. Sorkin’s often sound the same but his characters actions are, I think, unique. He does like a certain style of story, but I wouldn’t conflate the rhythm of his characters speech with a lack of individuality in how the characters behave
The characters played by Spacey, Pacino, Baldwin and Lemon in Glengarry all seem to me very distinct, as do all the side characters.
I can't afford masterclass. Wish I could.
i'm sure mcdonalds are hiring
@@rmacfarlane Why be an asshole. Or is it just a mental illness?
I paid £80 for the Mamet class when I was a broke student. Do ten hours of work at minimum wage and you will be able to buy it
Why don't schools produce good writers? Because at school they get you to show _and_ tell, not show don't tell.
What and how are boring questions. People only really get excited for why.
what fortune cookie did you get that from
Do not ask yourself what you would do in the situation. All of your characters will be the same if you do that. Your character should have very idiosyncratic reactions.
I like Sky. You perform an important function covering stories that other media won't.
But on this matter, you are wrong.
I felt very upset with Mamet after watching this video...
First, if the video creator's interpretation of Mamet is correct (I don't know whether it is, but hope so!), what Mamet is trying to say can be boiled down to "reveal character through action and dialogue rather than exposition." I believe I said it way simpler right there. And I'm practically a nobody in the storytelling world!
There's a lot I could say about Mamet's statement, but I'll settle for this:
I know for a fact that many who read novels, watch movies or play certain types of video games, all want to immerse themselves in the stories they engage with. *They want to believe that the characters and worlds they engage with are real.* So what happens to their experience of story if they take Mamet's "advice" to heart?
I for one would neither be moved nor excited by a story if I were to think that "I'm just seeing words on a page right now" or "I'm only seeing some images on the screen... No reason to cry or be excited."
Suspension of disbelief or immersion in characters and story worlds is absolutely key to our enjoyment of stories (or at least to many of us). But taking Mamet's statement to heart would utterly ruin that experience.
Furthermore, how does it improve our storytelling a ability to think that characters do not exist...?
As a screenwriter myself, I desire to think of my characters as real people, with the full capacity of human emotions. As I've been planning out scenes for the fantasy series I'm working on and working on the first screenplay, I've many times felt deeply moved or saddened by the fate of the characters throughout the story and by particular character moments.
It still remains to be seen how an audience will react to those scenes. But would I really be able to write scenes like that -- even think of those scenes -- if I had the mindset that characters are just "actions and dialogue on the page"?
In conclusion, I see nothing valuable in Mamet's statement, whether as a storyteller or as a consumer of stories. I have to wonder whether Mamet has considered the full consequences of taking his statement to heart; what that would do to us as storytellers and story consumers...? He may have meant to say one thing, but he does bear responsibility for all the other possible implications of what he says, upon all those people who listen to his advice without bringing it into question.
For those who may be looking for places to learn storytelling, I myself have learned a lot by watching videos on Film Courage (TH-cam channel). A lot of what is said there applies to novel writing as well, and to other story forms. 😊
The audience doesn't see your characters thoughts or fears
But on the page they are just actions and dialogue. What else? Screenwriters, in particular, don't get to do interiority. But action and dialogue can move you to tears.
I love Mamet’s masterclass but when he executes based on his apparently rigid philosophy, his characters come across as readers. House of Games stands out possibly because Joe Mantegna’s most understated performance is still great because of what he projects, seemingly involuntarily. The screen adaptation of Glengarry Glen Ross is possibly his most appealing movie and it’s because dir Foley let the excellent cast give added nuance and naturalism. His dialogue read without inflection from the page, very dissonant, repetitive, staccato makes full emersion into his world nigh impossible for me..
His “characters don’t exist” is the sort of literalism that leads to boring anti metaphysical outcomes 😭
a take many people have, not one I think reflects reality, but I may be wrong
The Edge … needed a much better director.
Aw I dunno. I still love it. Generally I think it’s pretty well done
Utter nonsense. Character is the fingerprint of personality, absolutely unique to each individual, who will react to a situation in their own unique way. Write any way you like, but the people in your script will perform only as they know to perform, within the confines of an "identity" contrived by their own limitations.
that is the wankiest explanation ever
"Who will react to a situation in their own way...."
Yeah, by _doing_ things. Action. Which is what Mamet said.
Mamet isn’t looking deep enough, *why* do characters act?
If your story is poorly written, to serve the plot.
If it’s well written, character creates the plot.
Ethics is the fingerprint of character
@@MrRa-gk5dm In other words, plot is always function of character, not the other way around.
This explains why all his characters sound like the same person talking.
booo
Yeah, they do not. If you think that, you're not listening. Go back and watch Glengarry again and tell me honestly that you think Pacino's character sounds the same as Lemon's.
All well and good, but I don't believe this kind of advice can be considered universal, meaning that it doesn't work for all forms of fiction. There's a gulf between how these things work in screenwriting/playwriting and in literature.
very possibly, though i think the lessons at least partially transfer to prose
Backstory is overrated.
What he said isn't wisdom, what he said is idiocy and it's intended to make you and others incapable of making things so that people don't come and supplant him in a position while he's still alive.
The idiocy of saying something as baseless as "there is no such thing as character" is astronomical and on the level of literary abuse the likes of which isn't seen much. It's absolutely wrong to call him good, he's evil pure and simple and you can tell that from the abysmal glasses he wears.
Man
You're
Great
ty
you're better