James at 2010-03-31 15:12:31:
I also think what Mamet is describing is something that is more of a burden in television.

Every episode needs to be about something. Every episode needs to lay out X amount of pipe every week just so people understand what is going on. And ultimately, execs want people to understand what the episode was about. TV tends to favor clarity over artistry.

Due to time constraints and extremely short deadlines getting exposition "artistically" on the page tends to not happen.

I think it's a different mentality between what the execs want and what the writer wants. If the writers always cave in to the demands of the execs TV gets stale.

On the flipside, the Richard Alpert LOST a few weeks ago was awesome. There was a ton of exposition and ANSWERS (omg, answers in Lost?) to many long time running questions -- and none of it felt like exposition. It was told through the drama of Richard's plight and backstory. (And note: it was ALSO told almost entirely through flashback -- and yet it was utterly compelling).

TV is completely capable of solid drama and conflict. The more execs have faith in their writers, the better TV will be imo.
Richard Cosgrove at 2010-03-31 15:20:40:
Here are a couple of guidelines.

1. If you've written a scene where a character could turn to the camera at the end and say to the audience: "Did you all get all of that out there?", pause for everyone to nod in agreement and then say, "OK. Let's carry on then," it's a crock-of-shit scene.

2. Any scene you write that makes any of the dialogue in The Phantom Menace seem tolerable in comparison (and bear in mind, Phantom Menace can lead to you attempting to chew your own ears off in order for the pain to stop), you can be sure the scene is a crock of shit.
Richard Cosgrove at 2010-03-31 15:29:15:
@James: What Mamet described isn't just a burden in TV, but it does happen in film. And not just in early drafts of screenplays (see The Phantom Menace).

And it's not just every episode in TV that has to be about something - every scene has to be about something. Even every line - spoken or not.

And the same applies to film. If a scene doesn't carry some meaning; doesn't advance the story or a character's development in some way, it shouldn't be there.

"The more execs have faith in their writers, the better TV will be."
I think the more writers become execs, the better TV will be.
nicola at 2010-03-31 17:33:54:
@Richard: I think the better writers write, the better TV will be :)
Emily Blake at 2010-03-31 17:40:45:
I like to do exposition on the run. Like people are shooting at my characters and the one guy wants to know why the hell people are shooting at us and the other guy's like "Because my ex girlfriend's dad is in the mafia! Duck!"

Or something like that.

What I never, ever do is have people explain the exposition while sitting in a living room drinking tea.
Scott at 2010-03-31 18:53:14:
@Emily: "What I never, ever do is have people explain the exposition while sitting in a living room drinking tea."

There's a name for that: "talking heads." And your instincts are sound: sometimes a scene can come to life just by getting it up on its feet and running.

Screaming exposition? That's what producer Larry Gordon would suggest: "If you've got to lay out some exposition, get the characters into an argument so they're yelling at each other."
Ryan Mullaney at 2010-03-31 20:24:02:
Don't tell me now because I have to know...tell me later when I WANT to know.
FanGirl at 2010-03-31 21:19:46:
i think a lot of it depends on the mood of the work. The lots of talking in Shawshank works because there's not much else for these guys to do but talk. So it fits. In police procedural shows, hashing out what you know and what you've discovered is an accepted part of the game. The choice of character involved never hurts either. Someone mentioned Lost. Last season there was a wonderful moment where a character did a 50 second recap of 4 seasons of stuff. But it's not just an 'as you know' cause as a character he's confessing to a lie that has been bugging him for years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZErJDc6978
DS at 2010-04-01 00:26:25:
Exposition scene in the context of another scene.

Raiders of the Lost Ark: Indy meets the Priest to discuss the hiding place of the ark, but we are more concerned that INDY may eat the poison date -- the scene is charged with suspense whilst giving out exposition. BRILLIANT