Nick at 2010-03-24 11:06:28:

The one point I don't quite follow is: "When two characters are talking about a third, that scene is a crock of shit."

Does that mean that the first 2/3 of "The Third Man" is a crock of shit?

Isn't it possible to build drama by discussing a character who has not yet appeared, or is otherwise not in the scene?

Lee Matthias at 2010-03-24 11:34:00:

I have to agree with Nick on that point. It also makes the third act of THE VERDICT a crock, because the trial very often has two people, the defense or prosecuting attorney and the witnesses, talking about others. It's a generalization that has LOTS of exceptions, especially in mysteries. Mamet has some strong credits, but he's too sure he's right. We all love things to be simple, but they aren't always. So while there is wisdom there, it ain't "Holy Writ" come down from on high.

cfan at 2010-03-24 14:24:19:

Scott, tying this post to your other one about good books on screenwriters, the memo from Mamet is like a mini version of his vitriolic, hilarious, over-the-top, take-slightly-with-a-grain-of-salt, diatribe "Bambi vs Godzilla: On the Nature, Purpose, and Practice of the Movie Business." Not really a book featuring interviews with a screenwriter, but one that seems to be a brain dump of one great screenwriter. Totally worth the read.

Scott at 2010-03-24 14:48:56:

Re the "When two characters are talking about a third, that scene is a crock of shit" comment: It's an overstatement. My guess is this was probably a specific 'thing' that had been discussed or was an issue with recent scripts for The Unit and Mamet went OTT to drive home the point.

As I noted in a post recently, the ending of "Manon of the Springs" is all exposition -- and it is absolutely riveting in its heartbreaking sorrow. And it's two people talking about a third person.

I'm reminded of the advice Johnny Carson gave about marriage: "Two words which should be legally bound from being used by a husband or wife when talking about their relationship: "always" and "never," as in, "You always do this," or "You never do that."

Similarly with writing, you can save 'always' and 'never' about things you supposedly can / can't do, but that doesn't mean that you actually can't do them -- everything in service to the story. That is your ultimate obligation.

Michelle Lipton at 2010-03-24 19:21:27:

The trouble is of course, when most of us get a note saying "make this clearer" - we can't simply call our producers blue-suited penguins and flounce off.

Even if we think we've written the most delicate and beautiful subtext of our careers, if we get told to "make it clearer", there's not always a lot of choice in the matter - and we'll need to find a way to strike a balance that keeps everyone happy in the end.

I guess that's the difference between being a writer just starting out on your first few commissions and being David Mamet though, eh?

Michelle Lipton at 2010-03-24 19:26:20:

And yes, I know that's essentially what he's said - strike a balance, figure it out - but it's kind of not what he's said is it?

He's said, don't give in to the note and do it the way you know will be better.

Or maybe I've read too much into it.

He should have made it clearer.

:)

meg at 2010-03-25 14:21:42:

“BOB AND SUE DISCUSS…” this made me laugh. It's also a handy check for me to keep in mind when i ask myself if what i wrote is too passive.

I've printed this out so i can read it again later because it seems to be a useful reminder for someone still learning like me. Of course, I realize there are exceptions but to pull a quote from a post from yesterday "There are those movies, I don't suggest you write them."

But what surprised me is that I'd expect these writers, who've achieved what others are hoping for, needed to be reminded of this.