David Mamet's Master Class Memo to the Writers of The Unit
CBS's drama The Unit, about the lives of the highly trained members of a top-secret military division, was canceled last year, but a memo to its writing staff from its executive producer David Mamet has just surfaced online. (The source appears to be the online writing collective Ink Canada.) If you think you know where this is heading, you might be wrong:
Besides the fact that it's written in all-caps, there's nothing particularly ranty, pejorative or potty-mouthed about it. Rather, Mamet lays down an extremely sensible case for what makes good television, imploring them to avoid expository writing for what he characterizes as authentic "drama." Along the way, he refers repeatedly to the "blue-suited penguins" (probably the copious-note-givers at the network), while passing along some very useful advice ("any time two characters are talking about a third, the scene is a crock of shit") and helpful writing exercises ("pretend the characters can't speak and write a silent movie"). Screenwriters, take note: You may think you knew this already, but there's nothing like Mamet for a good kick-in-the-ass reminder.
"TO THE WRITERS OF THE UNIT
GREETINGS.
AS WE LEARN HOW TO WRITE THIS SHOW, A RECURRING PROBLEM BECOMES CLEAR.
THE PROBLEM IS THIS: TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN DRAMA AND NON-DRAMA. LET ME BREAK-IT-DOWN-NOW.
EVERYONE IN CREATION IS SCREAMING AT US TO MAKE THE SHOW CLEAR. WE ARE TASKED WITH, IT SEEMS, CRAMMING A SHITLOAD OF INFORMATION INTO A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.
OUR FRIENDS. THE PENGUINS, THINK THAT WE, THEREFORE, ARE EMPLOYED TO COMMUNICATE INFORMATION -- AND, SO, AT TIMES, IT SEEMS TO US.
BUT NOTE:THE AUDIENCE WILL NOT TUNE IN TO WATCH INFORMATION. YOU WOULDN'T, I WOULDN'T. NO ONE WOULD OR WILL. THE AUDIENCE WILL ONLY TUNE IN AND STAY TUNED TO WATCH DRAMA.
QUESTION:WHAT IS DRAMA? DRAMA, AGAIN, IS THE QUEST OF THE HERO TO OVERCOME THOSE THINGS WHICH PREVENT HIM FROM ACHIEVING A SPECIFIC, ACUTE GOAL.
SO: WE, THE WRITERS, MUST ASK OURSELVES OF EVERY SCENE THESE THREE QUESTIONS.
1) WHO WANTS WHAT?
2) WHAT HAPPENS IF HER DON'T GET IT?
3) WHY NOW?
THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE LITMUS PAPER. APPLY THEM, AND THEIR ANSWER WILL TELL YOU IF THE SCENE IS DRAMATIC OR NOT.
IF THE SCENE IS NOT DRAMATICALLY WRITTEN, IT WILL NOT BE DRAMATICALLY ACTED.
THERE IS NO MAGIC FAIRY DUST WHICH WILL MAKE A BORING, USELESS, REDUNDANT, OR MERELY INFORMATIVE SCENE AFTER IT LEAVES YOUR TYPEWRITER. YOU THE WRITERS, ARE IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE EVERY SCENE IS DRAMATIC.
THIS MEANS ALL THE "LITTLE" EXPOSITIONAL SCENES OF TWO PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD. THIS BUSHWAH (AND WE ALL TEND TO WRITE IT ON THE FIRST DRAFT) IS LESS THAN USELESS, SHOULD IT FINALLY, GOD FORBID, GET FILMED.
IF THE SCENE BORES YOU WHEN YOU READ IT, REST ASSURED IT WILL BORE THE ACTORS, AND WILL, THEN, BORE THE AUDIENCE, AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE BACK IN THE BREADLINE.
SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE THE SCENE DRAMATIC. IT IS NOT THE ACTORS JOB (THE ACTORS JOB IS TO BE TRUTHFUL). IT IS NOT THE DIRECTORS JOB. HIS OR HER JOB IS TO FILM IT STRAIGHTFORWARDLY AND REMIND THE ACTORS TO TALK FAST. IT IS YOUR JOB.
EVERY SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC. THAT MEANS: THE MAIN CHARACTER MUST HAVE A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, PRESSING NEED WHICH IMPELS HIM OR HER TO SHOW UP IN THE SCENE.
THIS NEED IS WHY THEY CAME. IT IS WHAT THE SCENE IS ABOUT. THEIR ATTEMPT TO GET THIS NEED MET WILL LEAD, AT THE END OF THE SCENE,TO FAILURE - THIS IS HOW THE SCENE IS OVER. IT, THIS FAILURE, WILL, THEN, OF NECESSITY, PROPEL US INTO THE NEXT SCENE.
ALL THESE ATTEMPTS, TAKEN TOGETHER, WILL, OVER THE COURSE OF THE EPISODE, CONSTITUTE THE PLOT.
ANY SCENE, THUS, WHICH DOES NOT BOTH ADVANCE THE PLOT, AND STANDALONE (THAT IS, DRAMATICALLY, BY ITSELF, ON ITS OWN MERITS) IS EITHER SUPERFLUOUS, OR INCORRECTLY WRITTEN.
YES BUT YES BUT YES BUT, YOU SAY: WHAT ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF WRITING IN ALL THAT "INFORMATION?"
AND I RESPOND "FIGURE IT OUT" ANY DICKHEAD WITH A BLUESUIT CAN BE (AND IS) TAUGHT TO SAY "MAKE IT CLEARER", AND "I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT HIM".
WHEN YOU'VE MADE IT SO CLEAR THAT EVEN THIS BLUESUITED PENGUIN IS HAPPY, BOTH YOU AND HE OR SHE WILL BE OUT OF A JOB.
THE JOB OF THE DRAMATIST IS TO MAKE THE AUDIENCE WONDER WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. NOT TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT JUST HAPPENED, OR TO*SUGGEST* TO THEM WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.
ANY DICKHEAD, AS ABOVE, CAN WRITE, "BUT, JIM, IF WE DON'T ASSASSINATE THE PRIME MINISTER IN THE NEXT SCENE, ALL EUROPE WILL BE ENGULFED IN FLAME"
WE ARE NOT GETTING PAID TO REALIZE THAT THE AUDIENCE NEEDS THIS INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND THE NEXT SCENE, BUT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WRITE THE SCENE BEFORE US SUCH THAT THE AUDIENCE WILL BE INTERESTED IN WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.
YES BUT, YES BUT YES BUT YOU REITERATE.
AND I RESPOND FIGURE IT OUT.
HOW DOES ONE STRIKE THE BALANCE BETWEEN WITHHOLDING AND VOUCHSAFING INFORMATION? THAT IS THE ESSENTIAL TASK OF THE DRAMATIST. AND THE ABILITY TO DO THAT IS WHAT SEPARATES YOU FROM THE LESSER SPECIES IN THEIR BLUE SUITS.
FIGURE IT OUT.
START, EVERY TIME, WITH THIS INVIOLABLE RULE: THE SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC. it must start because the hero HAS A PROBLEM, AND IT MUST CULMINATE WITH THE HERO FINDING HIM OR HERSELF EITHER THWARTED OR EDUCATED THAT ANOTHER WAY EXISTS.
LOOK AT YOUR LOG LINES. ANY LOGLINE READING "BOB AND SUE DISCUSS..." IS NOT DESCRIBING A DRAMATIC SCENE.
PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR OUTLINES ARE, GENERALLY, SPECTACULAR. THE DRAMA FLOWS OUT BETWEEN THE OUTLINE AND THE FIRST DRAFT.
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.
DO NOT WRITE A CROCK OF SHIT. WRITE A RIPPING THREE, FOUR, SEVEN MINUTE SCENE WHICH MOVES THE STORY ALONG, AND YOU CAN, VERY SOON, BUY A HOUSE IN BEL AIR AND HIRE SOMEONE TO LIVE THERE FOR YOU.
REMEMBER YOU ARE WRITING FOR A VISUAL MEDIUM. MOST TELEVISION WRITING, OURS INCLUDED, SOUNDS LIKE RADIO. THE CAMERA CAN DO THE EXPLAINING FOR YOU. LET IT. WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERS DOING -*LITERALLY*. WHAT ARE THEY HANDLING, WHAT ARE THEY READING. WHAT ARE THEY WATCHING ON TELEVISION, WHAT ARE THEY SEEING.
IF YOU PRETEND THE CHARACTERS CANT SPEAK, AND WRITE A SILENT MOVIE, YOU WILL BE WRITING GREAT DRAMA.
IF YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF OF THE CRUTCH OF NARRATION, EXPOSITION,INDEED, OF SPEECH. YOU WILL BE FORGED TO WORK IN A NEW MEDIUM - TELLING THE STORY IN PICTURES (ALSO KNOWN AS SCREENWRITING)
THIS IS A NEW SKILL. NO ONE DOES IT NATURALLY. YOU CAN TRAIN YOURSELVES TO DO IT, BUT YOU NEED TO START.
I CLOSE WITH THE ONE THOUGHT: LOOK AT THE SCENE AND ASK YOURSELF "IS IT DRAMATIC? IS IT ESSENTIAL? DOES IT ADVANCE THE PLOT?
ANSWER TRUTHFULLY.
IF THE ANSWER IS "NO" WRITE IT AGAIN OR THROW IT OUT. IF YOU'VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS, CALL ME UP.
LOVE, DAVE MAMET
SANTA MONICA 19 OCTO 05
(IT IS NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW THE ANSWERS, BUT IT IS YOUR, AND MY, RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW AND TO ASK THE RIGHT Questions OVER AND OVER. UNTIL IT BECOMES SECOND NATURE. I BELIEVE THEY ARE LISTED ABOVE.)"
[Photo: Colonel Scrypt]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
Re: "And I'd like to remind the class that his show was canceled."
Arrested Development was canceled. Enough said.
Remember, Mamet was talking to a specific audience in this memo - the writers of The Unit. So, while his points may be directly applicable to that one show - and they are certainly valuable to those of us early in the process of honing our craft - I'm sure Mr. Mamet would admit during a moment of calm that there's more than one way to skin Tabby.
I'm guessing Faulkner had a different set of rules than Steinbeck; that doesn't make one "right" and the other "wrong".
And to suggest as a sacred rule NEVER to be broken that "any time two characters are talking about a third, the scene is a crock of shit" is to say that Waiting for Godot is garbage and Becket was a hack.
That's pretty ripe coming from the guy who wrote The Duck Variations - a play in which two old guys sitting on a bench talk and do... well... nothing. (Come to think of it, "Duck" and "Godot" are very similar.) The characters aren't striving for or against anything so, by his definition above, that entire play is devoid of drama.
I don't think that's any truer than the idea that there's one universal set of rules for "good writing".
Ah... but let's keep it all in the context of screenwriting. This is not about writing your novel or play or whatever else. This is writing a screenplay. Different animal, different rules.
Brilliant. Thank you.
Great stuff. Get me rewrite!!!
Should pass this around to all my writer friends, including myself. In fact, I think I'll do that right now....
RULES ARE BORING.
AND A CROCK OF SHIT.
Let's see if there's drama here.
Situation: David Mamet, writer slash executive producer is having a problem with the Penguins, so David sends memo to his team of writers.
Possible outcome:
1. Writers post copy of memo to the Internet after 5 years.
2. Show is axed.
3. Writer's house in Bel Air is foreclosed ( Where is he going to get the money to pay it?)
4. The highly trained members of a top-secret military division thinks that the show is a crock of shit.
this is great shit. the kind that writers should swallow on a daily basis. everybody forgets the essential questions. mamet rules.
mamet is a pretentious windbag
if he is so wise and able, why are his movies and tv shows so DULL?
mamet wrote 1-2 interesting plays
the rest is arty posturing
I'm not a writer (or involved in writing) but this made me chuckle and think of that other gem, "You just don't get it, do you?" Then proceed to explain the plot or what's just happened in case the dumb audience has missed something. Quite patronising.
I'm not a writer (or involved in writing) but this made me chuckle and think of that other gem, "You just don't get it, do you?" Then proceed to explain the plot or what's just happened in case the dumb audience has missed something. Quite patronising.
The play is devoid of drama? You think the duck variations is devoid of drama? You're missing the device that allows the play to breathe and cycle forward, the reason for the love and the panic and the growth in the play-- it's the damned duck. Mamet's definition of drama, the hero in pursuit of a goal, is just one type of play, of which there are many. You reference Godot and The Duck Variations, and these are cyclical dramas, not episodic or linear dramas (like The Unit). A master author has a grasp on one type of writing, but a virtuoso has mastered many. Indeed there IS a universal set of rules for GOOD writing, and it applies to everything. Do read Glengarry Glen Ross, come back and read this, work it out in your head. Hint: Truth, simplicity, desire. PS. Duck Variations was written in the early 70s, can a person grow and change for god's sake?
Mamet was once a great playwright. (He's now an ideologue.) He knows drama—he knows how it works, structurally:
Need --> Action --> Failure --> Need --> Action --> Failure --> Need --> Action --> Failure -->
And so on, forever.
Art is ALWAYS about failure. It begins with failure, it ends in failure. Art teaches us that failure is the human condition. Any work that suggests otherwise is not art but propaganda.
If the work of art's last failure is terminal (Anna Karenina), the art is tragic.
If it's closing failure is merely the most recent of what we know to be a continuing series of failures (Tristram Shandy), or if it's but a brief reprieve in what will obviously be a life-long parade of subsequent failures (Twelfth Night), the art is comic.
The conviction that plot is structured upon failure points to the essential difference between the artistic temperament and the religious temperament.
The artistic temperament believes that life is failure. Depending circumstances essentially beyond our control, the failure will be comic or tragic.
The religious temperament believes that life is salvation. What happens to us is entirely within our control. Since failure does not exist, comedy and tragedy do not exist. Only justice exists.
Eric, you make a very interesting point. I would just slightly qualify that by saying that maybe in the aesthetic world of a true believer comedy and tragedy don't exist. Many with a "religious" temperament struggle daly, even hourly with their faith. And for them life is a continuous passion play. Which is a very high form of drama, IMO. I offer Graham Green as an example. I think if you substituted the phrase "true believer admitting no doubt" I would agree with your sentiment. Also, I think it is pretty obvious that a religious temperament and a artistic temperament can reside within the same skull.
Mamet's exposition reads like a paraphrase of Mark Twain's Rules for Writing.
He's right, and he is still a great playwright.figure it out.
Exercise for the class: Given that "art is always about failure," explain, with specific examples, how each of the following works of art is about failure (or, alternatively, how it is not about failure and therefore is "not art but propaganda"):
David Copperfield
Beethoven's ninth symphony
Michelangelo's David
Haverwench FTW!
thanks the UPPERCASE was giving me a headache
a show being canceled doesn't mean anything
Thanks wench! I was hoping someone would prick that pretentious prick...Life is seen as a duality by those incapable if understanding anything except dualities. Art is expression, though perhaps Eric's art is always about failure? Perhaps in the eye of the beholder eh?
Haverwench makes a good point. Drama's about failure; art's about beauty. Yes, that can include the beauty of the sordid, the debased too.
I enjoyed Eric's post though.
My next screenplay is either going to be about the beauty of failure, or the failure of beauty...
Mamet is an un disputably brilliant writer, but I do maintain my belief that even though Paul T Anderson has violated every other rule that Mamet has dictated in this letter, "Magnolia" is better than anything Mamet has ever written or filmed.
Next » « Previous