David Mamet on storytelling and directing.
How many passes does it take to create perfect dialogue?
That’s a really good question. I’m not sure I know the answer. I do it fairly spontaneously, and then sometimes, for various reasons, it has to be recrafted. I used to be really good at that, but it gets more difficult as I get older just because my brain is failing. I have less brain cells because long before any of you guys were born, there was something called the ‘60s. That’s where the brain cells were. —The Writer’s Craft: A David Mamet Interview

Previously on Cinephilia and Beyond:
- Creative Screenwriting interview
- David Mamet’s hand-written outline for his 1991 crime drama “Homicide”
- The Paris Review interview
- Mamet’s guidelines for screenwriting
- Glengarry Glen Ross LaserDisc commentary with director James Foley
(via cinephilearchive)
David Mamet on storytelling and directing.
How many passes does it take to create perfect dialogue?
That’s a really good question. I’m not sure I know the answer. I do it fairly spontaneously, and then sometimes, for various reasons, it has to be recrafted. I used to be really good at that, but it gets more difficult as I get older just because my brain is failing. I have less brain cells because long before any of you guys were born, there was something called the ‘60s. That’s where the brain cells were. —The Writer’s Craft: A David Mamet Interview
Previously on Cinephilia and Beyond:
- Creative Screenwriting interview
- David Mamet’s hand-written outline for his 1991 crime drama “Homicide”
- The Paris Review interview
- Mamet’s guidelines for screenwriting
- Glengarry Glen Ross LaserDisc commentary with director James Foley
David Mamet’s guidelines for screenwriting: In a memo to the writers of The Unit, Mamet (the show’s executive producer) provides a short but master class in writing for television.
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.
Is there a moment in one of your plays that you really didn’t know was there?
Yes. I wrote this play called Bobby Gould in Hell. Greg Mosher did it on a double bill with a play by Shel Silverstein over at Lincoln Center. Bobby Gould is consigned to Hell, and he has to be interviewed to find out how long he’s going to spend there. The Devil is called back from a fishing trip to interview Bobby Gould. And so the Devil is there, the Assistant Devil is there and Bobby Gould. And the Devil finally says to Bobby Gould, “You’re a very bad man.” And Bobby Gould says, “Nothing’s black and white.” And the Devil says, “Nothing’s black and white, nothing’s black and white—what about a panda? What about a panda, you dumb fuck! What about a fucking panda!” And when Greg directed it, he had the assistant hold up a picture of a panda, kind of pan it a hundred and eighty degrees to the audience at the Vivian Beaumont Theater. That was the best moment I’ve ever seen in any of my plays”. —David Mamet
David Mamet turns 65 today.
David Mamet continues to be one of Hollywood’s greatest and most prolific writers. Beginning his screenwriting career with the remake The Postman Always Rings Twice, Mamet has gone on to script the following movies: The Verdict, About Last Night (based on his play Sexual Perversity in Chicago), The Untouchables, House of Games (also his directorial debut), Things Change, We’re No Angels, Homicide, Glengarry Glen Ross (based on his Pulitzer Prize-winning play), Hoffa, Vanya on 42nd Street, Texan, Oleanna (based on his play), American Buffalo (based on his play), The Edge, The Spanish Prisoner, Wag the Dog, Ronin, Lansky, The Winslow Boy, State and Main, Hannibal, Heist, and Spartan.
MAMET’S THEATRICAL ROOTS
“You gotta put your ass on the line and use the audience. Period. The reason that theatre evolved that way was because the progress of the theatre on the stage aped and recapitulated the mechanism of human understanding, which is: thesis, antithesis and synthesis. And one learns to lead the audience ahead by giving them just enough information to make them interested, but not enough information so that they warrant surprise and punchline. Which is the way a joke is structured.”
MAMET ON DIRECTING
“Your chances of making a living or making a better living are increased by writing something that you would want to write badly enough that you would actually go out and raise the money to direct it. You’re much better to do that because otherwise you’re just going to waste twenty years waiting for the good will of your inferiors. If you really, really want to make a film—go film it for God’s sake, go steal a camera and get it done rather than trying to interest some second-class mind to help make your script a little bit worse.”
MAMET ON EXPOSITION
“The trick is—never write exposition. That’s absolutely the trick. Never write it. The audience needs to understand what the story is, and if the hero understands what he or she is after then the audience will follow it. The ancient joke about exposition used to be in radio writing when they’d say, ‘Come and sit down in that blue chair.’ So, that to me is the paradigm of why it’s an error to write exposition. Then exposition came out of television, ‘I’m good, Jim, I’m good. There’s no wonder why they call me the best orthopedic surgeon in town.’ Right? And now the exposition has migrated or metastasized into the fucking stage direction. ‘He comes into the room and you can just see he’s the kind of guy who fought in the Vietnam War.’ So the error of writing exposition exists absent even the most miniscule understanding of the dramatic process. You gotta take out the exposition. The audience doesn’t care. How do we know they don’t care? Anybody ever come into the living room and see a television drama that was halfway through? Did you have any difficulty understanding what was going on? No. The trick is to leave the exposition out and to always leave out the ‘obligatory scene.’ The obligatory scene is always the audition scene, so when you see the movie, not only is it the worst scene in the movie—it’s also the worst acted scene in the movie. Because the star has to do their worst, most expository acting to get the job. Leave out the exposition; we want to know what’s happening next. All our little friends…will say to you at one point, ‘You know, we want to know more about her.’ And that’s when you say, ‘Well, that’s what you paid me for—so that you would want to know more about her.’”
MAMET ON CON-ARTIST TALES
“In every generation the cunning rediscover that they can manipulate the trustful and they count this as the great, great wisdom of all time.”
PROFESSOR MAMET’S READING ASSIGNMENT
“I suggest that everyone get Francis Ferguson’s edition of Aristotle’s Poetics. Read it once—it’ll make the point—and then retire to your typewriters. [Screenwriting’s] all about working on it and working on it until it comes out even. There’s really no magic to it. There really isn’t. They say that Bach could improvise a toccata and I’m sure he could, but I don’t think anybody can improvise a screenplay. Joseph Campbell’s Hero of a Thousand Faces is another great book where he goes through the “Hero’s Journey” and explains that all Heroes Journeys are alike whether it’s Jesus or Moses or Ghandi or Martin Luther King, Jr. or Dumbo. Every Hero’s Journey is exactly alike because that’s the way that we understand our own Hero’s Journey—which is the story of our own life. We’re given a problem, we disregard the problem, it’s given to us again, and finally we’re called to an adventure and we find ourselves unprepared and we find ourselves in the belly of the beast like Jonah, who’s eventually spewed onto a foreign land in the second act and little friends come and help. It’s true. Whether it’s Mickey the Mouse or whether it’s John the Baptist or whether its Joshua—it’s the same thing according to Joseph Campbell. The little friends come and eventually the problems of the second act rectify themselves so that the third act is a reiteration of the first problem in a new form. Not how do I live with the fact that the taskmaster is killing the Jew, but how do I bring the Torah to the Jewish people? So the third act becomes the quest for the goal and eventually the hero achieves his or her goal and that’s the end of the movie that started since frame one.”
INTERVIEWED BY JEFF GOLDSMITH
Creative Screenwriting, VOLUME 11, #2 (MARCH/APRIL 2004)
- David Mamet’s hand-written outline for his 1991 crime drama “Homicide”
- The Paris Review Interview
A gift from The Paris Review to everyone who cares about writing: all its past interviews with free public access.
- Billy Wilder, The Art of Screenwriting
- John Gregory Dunne, The Art of Screenwriting
- Bret Easton Ellis
- William Gibson
- Paul Auster
- James Ellroy
- Stephen King
- Hunter S. Thompson
- Woody Allen
- Ken Kesey
- David Mamet
- Sam Shepard
- J. G. Ballard
- Raymond Carver
- Philip Roth
- Kurt Vonnegut
- Jack Kerouac
- Harold Pinter
- Truman Capote
- Ernest Hemingway

Source: twitter.com
David Mamet’s hand-written outline for his 1991 crime drama “Homicide”.





- 164 Plays
- Glengarry Glen Ross LaserDisc commentary with director James Foley
Download External AudioGlengarry Glen Ross screenplay [txt].
David Mamet on storytelling and directing: