awkward dialogue?

David Mamet's book "True and False: Common Sense and Heresy for the Actor" lays out what could be considered 'the Mamet style.' He writes: "The actor is onstage to communicate the play to the audience. That is the beginning and the end of her job. To do so the actor needs a strong voice, superb diction, a supple, well porpotioned body, and a rudimentary understanding of the play" (9).

One assumes these thoughts apply to film and his style of directing. Mamet goes against other schools of thought, like Stanslowski (Sp?), who suggest that an actor contorts himself and tries to guess what the character is feeling. Mamet rejects that, claiming an actor must only read the lines on the page, clearly (and notice all of his actors in his films speak very well. Very few slurred words (with the exception of William H. Macy in "State and Main" but that's a different film).

In one of his last chapters "The Villain and the Hero" Mamet tells us we do the work. Based on the context a speech or an image is presented, and we add characteristics: "Here is what I mean: a young woman across the room at a party is pointed out to us as being worth 500 million. We now beging to look at her a little differently...We will continue to accept it until we are given a reason to disbelieve" (114). Basically, his job, as a writer, is to ascribe characteristics. We will notice them. Susan says "Dog my cats!" and we think she is a sweet innocent secretary. (the joke is really on us, eh?)

Sorry for the long reply. I am just a big Mamet fan. What I think is that Mamet wants us to do the work--to participate in the film we are watching. We can see Susan as sweet for her "Dog my cats!" or we can see her as slightly off kilter when she goes on and on about how you can't trust someone. We have to do the work. Because if you aren't doing the work, that ain't fun. That's entertainment.

Sorry for the length!

Rockamora - Loved Your "Mamet-Style" Response...Abolutely Brilliant!

[deleted]

lol that's hilarious. very clever

genius

[deleted]

Mamet's syle has always been uniquely surreal. Even 'The Untouchables' - which although being a commercial studio film, had some strange moments of dialogue -"It stinks like a whore house at low tide!" etc - however the best example of Mamet's bizarre dialogue is 'Ronin' - Stellan Skaarsgard's character at one point says: "What could have once been conducted in a collegiate atmosphere has now been *ucked into a cocked hat" - 'Ronin' is also interesting because it's so deliberately vague in the dialogue - De Niro's character at one point refers to being "involved in the recent unpleasantness" - this deliberate way of speaking, dancing around specifics and talking in riddles - is Mamet's trademark - i really like it - it tends to create a wonderful feeling of unreality.

I certainly agree that 'Primer' does seem to have a touch of the Mamet to it - but given Shane Carruth's relative inexperience in Film (he had no film schooling whatsoever and taught himself everything he needed to know in order to make the film) and the fact that 'Primer' is actually extremely well thought out and is plausibly constructed (i have friends who have watched it repeatedly and have constructed timelines of the labrynthine plot)it's highly unlikely that he was mimicking Mamet.

All of the talking in parables and metaphors just adds to the deceptive nature of the movie. The entire movie is a deception even the title.

I, too, love Mamet's style. For me it is a combination of his deliberate pacing and a detached quality that I find, at once, engaging and, well, very funny. It amuses me in its self-consciousness and I believe I am encouraged, if not to laugh, at least to grin or to smile in my amusement.

I also imagine that Hal Hartley has been peripherally influenced by Mamet, as well.


"There is nothing but trouble and desire."