David Mamet's Writing Advice: "There's No Such Thing As Character"
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2024
- Some advice from David Mamet on characterisation and character development that I've found really useful.
0:00 - Introduction
1:18 - What is Character?
2:58 - Character is Action
3:58 - Case Studies
7:02 - This Concept, Applied
8:36 - Beyond Character
Let me know if you find this useful in the comments!
Next video is a big one - another episode of Overanalysed, this time on There Will Be Blood. It's going to be a bit of a beast and will probably take me about a month. It'll be a miracle if I can finish it before March, but I will try. If you're interested, please subscribe! - Krátké a kreslené filmy
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
“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
Yea! Someone showed some love for "The Edge." Great movie, killer soundtrack.😊
So underrated
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
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
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.
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.
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
I sum it up as, “What kinda guy would do something like that!”
Great essay, keep going!
thank you
This video sums it all up for me. Thanks man i am gonna write well now.
haha
Superb, clear and helpful.
thanks Niall
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
"There is no more to a character other than what we see them do."
I've seen the video 3 times now and that statement still doesn't seem to hold up.
But maybe more importantly, it doesn't seem to be supported by what you had to say about it.
To me it sounds like the writing advice actually is:
"Focus on plot and dialog. The characters don't need a rich life beyond what the audience experiences to do their job."
That is good advice in its own way and sounds less pretentious, for lack of a better word.
To me the essence of Mamet’s advice here is to focus on what your characters do, not to worry about where they went to school. The way he phrases it is almost certainly deliberately hyperbolic to make that point. But fundamentally he’s right that what matters about a character to the audience is how they behave
@@rmacfarlane That is character though.
This is because you misunderstand the Greek way of storytelling. "Character" is linked to ethics. Ethics is not what you say or feel or think. It's what you do. Therefore a story is the portrayal of an action. This is how a story is intelligble. Characters don't have a "rich life" because a character is no more a real human being than Mona Lisa is a real woman.
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. 😂
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 essay, loved the part where you discussed Drive and Ryan Gosling.
thanks!
What you choose to do is your character. How you do it, as well.
Well said
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
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 😐
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.
there's the things that people do. Repeatedly.
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.
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
excellent stuff! and 'crack shot' Alec Baldwin - absolutely hilarious 🙂
thank you!
"Character doesn't exist because you can't point at it".
I guess meaning doesn't exist too by that logic. So then what the fuck is the point of writing or creating art?
Character is an abstraction, and like many abstractions, it exists.
Well sure, he’s being hyperbolic. But I think it’s a helpful way to approach it. Same thing with art - you can’t make art, but you can paint, write, film, etc
@@rmacfarlane But as far as I can tell, doing that IS creating art. Art being the category, abstract though it may be, that all of those fit into.
@@immanuelcunt7296 well yes
@@rmacfarlane So then your statement that you can't make art, but you can paint, write, etc isn't true... Because you can make art, via those mediums.
I think you're missing the point. What's more important, the idea of a character, or the actual things they DO and SAY? Especially for a writer?
Let's remember that Mamet studied theater. Theater's rich dramaturgy starts with the Greeks - for Mamet at least. Characterization is not the same as character as action. In the end, a story cannot be about characterization no more than it can be about the set decoration or costuming. Who could grok, much less tolerate, such shit?
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
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 (CZcams 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
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
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 Edge … needed a much better director.
Aw I dunno. I still love it. Generally I think it’s pretty well done
I like Sky. You perform an important function covering stories that other media won't.
But on this matter, you are wrong.
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.
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.
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.
Man
You're
Great
ty
you're better