Oh, Mamet, how do we love thee...Let us count the ways...

There was a memo recently (or a letter or email or some other form of vitriol from David Mamet, world renowned playwright, film-maker, TV show producer/writer and man about town).  

Mamet wrote it as a “guide” for the writers of THE UNIT.  

It is pure Mamet and though I sometimes think that Mamet is Mamet’s biggest fan, he is also 98% on target with his thoughts about dramatic writing and action (especially for TV).  

But his advice goes for writers of any dramatic form, whether it’s TV, film, or plays. 

Does it apply to experimental or movement-based works? There’s the question, right?  I don’t know how the works of Richard Maxwell, Robert Wilson or Young Jean Lee would stack up in his estimation, but the memo has sparked a lot of debate.

And since everyone else has seemed to put it up on the web, here it is for those of you who haven’t sent it.

FYI, Mamet is responsible for those caps and asterisks.  And fair warning, he swears a lot.  It IS Mamet and that's his thing.

TO THE WRITERS OF THE UNIT

GREETINGS.

AS WE LEARN HOW TO WRITE THIS SHOW, A RECURRING PROBLEM BECOMES CLEAR.

THE PROBLEM IS THIS: TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN *DRAMA* AND NON-DRAMA. LET ME BREAK-IT-DOWN-NOW.

EVERYONE IN CREATION IS SCREAMING AT US TO MAKE THE SHOW CLEAR. WE ARE TASKED WITH, IT SEEMS, CRAMMING A SHITLOAD OF *INFORMATION* INTO A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.

OUR FRIENDS. THE PENGUINS, THINK THAT WE, THEREFORE, ARE EMPLOYED TO COMMUNICATE *INFORMATION* — AND, SO, AT TIMES, IT SEEMS TO US.

BUT NOTE:THE AUDIENCE WILL NOT TUNE IN TO WATCH INFORMATION. YOU WOULDN’T, I WOULDN’T. NO ONE WOULD OR WILL. THE AUDIENCE WILL ONLY TUNE IN AND STAY TUNED TO WATCH DRAMA.

QUESTION:WHAT IS DRAMA? DRAMA, AGAIN, IS THE QUEST OF THE HERO TO OVERCOME THOSE THINGS WHICH PREVENT HIM FROM ACHIEVING A SPECIFIC, *ACUTE* GOAL.

SO: WE, THE WRITERS, MUST ASK OURSELVES *OF EVERY SCENE* THESE THREE QUESTIONS.

1) WHO WANTS WHAT?
2) WHAT HAPPENS IF HER DON’T GET IT?
3) WHY NOW?

THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE LITMUS PAPER. APPLY THEM, AND THEIR ANSWER WILL TELL YOU IF THE SCENE IS DRAMATIC OR NOT.

IF THE SCENE IS NOT DRAMATICALLY WRITTEN, IT WILL NOT BE DRAMATICALLY ACTED.

THERE IS NO MAGIC FAIRY DUST WHICH WILL MAKE A BORING, USELESS, REDUNDANT, OR MERELY INFORMATIVE SCENE AFTER IT LEAVES YOUR TYPEWRITER. *YOU* THE WRITERS, ARE IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE *EVERY* SCENE IS DRAMATIC.

THIS MEANS ALL THE “LITTLE” EXPOSITIONAL SCENES OF TWO PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD. THIS BUSHWAH (AND WE ALL TEND TO WRITE IT ON THE FIRST DRAFT) IS LESS THAN USELESS, SHOULD IT FINALLY, GOD FORBID, GET FILMED.

IF THE SCENE BORES YOU WHEN YOU READ IT, REST ASSURED IT *WILL* BORE THE ACTORS, AND WILL, THEN, BORE THE AUDIENCE, AND WE’RE ALL GOING TO BE BACK IN THE BREADLINE.

SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE THE SCENE DRAMATIC. IT IS NOT THE ACTORS JOB (THE ACTORS JOB IS TO BE TRUTHFUL). IT IS NOT THE DIRECTORS JOB. HIS OR HER JOB IS TO FILM IT STRAIGHTFORWARDLY AND REMIND THE ACTORS TO TALK FAST. IT IS *YOUR* JOB.

EVERY SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC. THAT MEANS: THE MAIN CHARACTER MUST HAVE A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, PRESSING NEED WHICH IMPELS HIM OR HER TO SHOW UP IN THE SCENE.

THIS NEED IS WHY THEY *CAME*. IT IS WHAT THE SCENE IS ABOUT. THEIR ATTEMPT TO GET THIS NEED MET *WILL* LEAD, AT THE END OF THE SCENE,TO *FAILURE* – THIS IS HOW THE SCENE IS *OVER*. IT, THIS FAILURE, WILL, THEN, OF NECESSITY, PROPEL US INTO THE *NEXT* SCENE.

ALL THESE ATTEMPTS, TAKEN TOGETHER, WILL, OVER THE COURSE OF THE EPISODE, CONSTITUTE THE *PLOT*.

ANY SCENE, THUS, WHICH DOES NOT BOTH ADVANCE THE PLOT, AND STANDALONE (THAT IS, DRAMATICALLY, BY ITSELF, ON ITS OWN MERITS) IS EITHER SUPERFLUOUS, OR INCORRECTLY WRITTEN.

YES BUT YES BUT YES BUT, YOU SAY: WHAT ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF WRITING IN ALL THAT “INFORMATION?”

AND I RESPOND “*FIGURE IT OUT*” ANY DICKHEAD WITH A BLUESUIT CAN BE (AND IS) TAUGHT TO SAY “MAKE IT CLEARER”, AND “I WANT TO KNOW MORE *ABOUT* HIM”.

WHEN YOU’VE MADE IT SO CLEAR THAT EVEN THIS BLUESUITED PENGUIN IS HAPPY, BOTH YOU AND HE OR SHE *WILL* BE OUT OF A JOB.

THE JOB OF THE DRAMATIST IS TO MAKE THE AUDIENCE WONDER WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. *NOT* TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT JUST HAPPENED, OR TO*SUGGEST* TO THEM WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

ANY DICKHEAD, AS ABOVE, CAN WRITE, “BUT, JIM, IF WE DON’T ASSASSINATE THE PRIME MINISTER IN THE NEXT SCENE, ALL EUROPE WILL BE ENGULFED IN FLAME”

WE ARE NOT GETTING PAID TO *REALIZE* THAT THE AUDIENCE NEEDS THIS INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND THE NEXT SCENE, BUT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WRITE THE SCENE BEFORE US SUCH THAT THE AUDIENCE WILL BE INTERESTED IN WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

YES BUT, YES BUT YES *BUT* YOU REITERATE.

AND I RESPOND *FIGURE IT OUT*.

*HOW* DOES ONE STRIKE THE BALANCE BETWEEN WITHHOLDING AND VOUCHSAFING INFORMATION? *THAT* IS THE ESSENTIAL TASK OF THE DRAMATIST. AND THE ABILITY TO *DO* THAT IS WHAT SEPARATES YOU FROM THE LESSER SPECIES IN THEIR BLUE SUITS.

FIGURE IT OUT.

START, EVERY TIME, WITH THIS INVIOLABLE RULE: THE *SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC*. it must start because the hero HAS A PROBLEM, AND IT MUST CULMINATE WITH THE HERO FINDING HIM OR HERSELF EITHER THWARTED OR EDUCATED THAT ANOTHER WAY EXISTS.

LOOK AT YOUR LOG LINES. ANY LOGLINE READING “BOB AND SUE DISCUSS…” IS NOT DESCRIBING A DRAMATIC SCENE.

PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR OUTLINES ARE, GENERALLY, SPECTACULAR. THE DRAMA FLOWS OUT BETWEEN THE OUTLINE AND THE FIRST DRAFT.

THINK LIKE A FILMMAKER RATHER THAN A FUNCTIONARY, BECAUSE, IN TRUTH, *YOU* ARE MAKING THE FILM. WHAT YOU WRITE, THEY WILL SHOOT.

HERE ARE THE DANGER SIGNALS. ANY TIME TWO CHARACTERS ARE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.

ANY TIME ANY CHARACTER IS SAYING TO ANOTHER “AS YOU KNOW”, THAT IS, TELLING ANOTHER CHARACTER WHAT YOU, THE WRITER, NEED THE AUDIENCE TO KNOW, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.

DO *NOT* WRITE A CROCK OF SHIT. WRITE A RIPPING THREE, FOUR, SEVEN MINUTE SCENE WHICH MOVES THE STORY ALONG, AND YOU CAN, VERY SOON, BUY A HOUSE IN BEL AIR *AND* HIRE SOMEONE TO LIVE THERE FOR YOU.

REMEMBER YOU ARE WRITING FOR A VISUAL MEDIUM. *MOST* TELEVISION WRITING, OURS INCLUDED, SOUNDS LIKE *RADIO*. THE *CAMERA* CAN DO THE EXPLAINING FOR YOU. *LET* IT. WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERS *DOING* -*LITERALLY*. WHAT ARE THEY HANDLING, WHAT ARE THEY READING. WHAT ARE THEY WATCHING ON TELEVISION, WHAT ARE THEY *SEEING*.

IF YOU PRETEND THE CHARACTERS CANT SPEAK, AND WRITE A SILENT MOVIE, YOU WILL BE WRITING GREAT DRAMA.

IF YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF OF THE CRUTCH OF NARRATION, EXPOSITION, INDEED, OF *SPEECH*. YOU WILL BE FORCED TO WORK IN A NEW MEDIUM – TELLING THE STORY IN PICTURES (ALSO KNOWN AS SCREENWRITING)

THIS IS A NEW SKILL. NO ONE DOES IT NATURALLY. YOU CAN TRAIN YOURSELVES TO DO IT, BUT YOU NEED TO *START*.

I CLOSE WITH THE ONE THOUGHT: LOOK AT THE *SCENE* AND ASK YOURSELF “IS IT DRAMATIC? IS IT *ESSENTIAL*? DOES IT ADVANCE THE PLOT?

ANSWER TRUTHFULLY.

IF THE ANSWER IS “NO” WRITE IT AGAIN OR THROW IT OUT. IF YOU’VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS, CALL ME UP.

LOVE, DAVE MAMET
SANTA MONICA 19 OCTO 05

(IT IS *NOT* YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW THE ANSWERS, BUT IT IS YOUR, AND MY, RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW AND TO *ASK THE RIGHT Questions* OVER AND OVER. UNTIL IT BECOMES SECOND NATURE. I BELIEVE THEY ARE LISTED ABOVE.)

30 Rock Rocks!

Is it Tina?

Seriously, this show is the funniest thing on television I've ever seen.

We just started watching the episodes from Netflix and are working our way through the first series.

We are addicted. It's like crack cocaine...

(If I knew what it felt like to be on crack, that is...)

I feel like I've emerged from the dark cave of an unfunny world and suddenly beenb blinded by a great big burning ball of funny in the sky.

I've never really wanted to write for TV--just not my thing...but this show seriously makes me want to work on staff.

Is it just because I hardly ever watch TV that it just seems so intelligent, clever and fun? Or is it because it's set in NYC, which is an added plus?

Considering that Tina is such a damn good writer AND she created the show AND she stars in it...

It must be her.

I've always had a weakness for smart, beautiful and funny women...(which is why I married one).

I need more!

P.S.--I was going to put a clip of the show embedded from the NBC website in here but then realized that those bastard NBC people (run by mega-corp GE) are running ads with their clips, which means they're making money on those clips, but they're not paying the writers because you remember that strike thing? Yeah, well, it's still on...And it's gonna get harder to justify the "we won't make money on the internet, oh woe is us wealthy producers!" after six major studios signed an agreement with itunes in which they will make a ton of $$$...duh! End it you evil AMPTP! Bring back the funny!

Slings & Arrows

“Everyone cries when they get stabbed. There’s no shame in that.”

Last night Lisa and I finished watching the first season of “Slings & Arrows” (courtesy of Netflix, of course).

We have become completely enthralled and delighted by this Canadian show about the ups and downs of backstage life and interior administrative drama of the fictional New Burbage Theater (based obviously on the Stratford Shakespeare Festival located outside Ontario). The show was co-created and stars Mark McKinney, from Kids in the Hall and SNL, as well as Bob Martin and Susan Coyne, the ones behind the Tony award winning The Drowsy Chaperone.

The premise is a simple play within a play, but the complexities of staging Shakespeare in this time of arts funding (do we sell out or remain true to our vision?) weave nicely into the melodramatic antics of the actors and director. Geoffrey Tennant (played by actor Paul Gross) reluctantly takes over the theater as Artistic Director after his mentor Oliver gets run over by a pork truck. Everyone questions Geoffrey’s sanity ever since he had a nervous breakdown seven years ago and walked offstage in the middle of their production of Hamlet. Coincidentally, the play about the Dane is also their heavy hitter they’re doing this year, as directed by a pyrotechnic maniac and post-Brechtian madman director. Geoffrey has to deal with not just that, but also his ex-flame is the diva Ellen, who plays Gertrude. There is also a subplot as Martin, the Executive Director, conspires with a vicious American woman on the Board of Directors, who want to revision the festival as a showcase for Broadway musicals. To make matters worse, the ghost of Oliver haunts Geoffrey throughout prodding him with advice and commentary about the state of affairs.

I love the show for several reasons, mainly because it illuminates many of the foibles of actors and performances, but does so in way that doesn’t mock the process or belittle it. The actors here are not just insecure babies (well, some are) but are real people with hopes and dreams and some kind of substance (well, most have substance). Also, it doesn’t show merely the rehearsals and backstage stuff but also some of the administrative actions and office politics, ie the business side. Rarely do we see that onscreen, and if so, it’s never shown in such an understanding and developed way.

There’s an endearing scene when Geoffrey is asked to lead a corporate session on “Using Shakespeare as Management Models” or something like that, basically trying to teach corporate types leadership styles from the canon. Geoffrey tosses out the whole idea, saying, “you want to take leadership cues from people like Richard III and Julius Caesar?” Instead he teaches them acting and sees one or two of them really blossom and find a new love for Shakespeare. And that kind of idealism and hope is what our art is about.

I won’t divulge too much. I will say that the final show of the first series ends with a triumphant production of Hamlet, showing that even when all the odds are against us, sometimes we can still pull off brilliance. The show left me with hope and joy, and a renewed fervor for that old dramatist we call Shakespeare. I can’t wait to see more.

So to the show’s creators, writers, actors, and directors, I say: Bravo!