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]
Comments
[…] Read it here: http://movieline.com/2010/03/23/david-mamets-memo-to-the-writers-of-the-unit/ […]
[…] builds up online, you need increasingly professional messages to cut through the dull roar. Mamet’s definition of drama is very useful: Drama, again, is the quest of the hero to overcome those things that prevent […]
[…] useful writing link: David Mamet’s Master Class Memo to the Writers of The Unit. Originally written in 2005, it remains as concise a discussion of dramatic writing as I’ve […]
David brings up some decent points, but it really sounds like he's overly interested in presenting entertainment that has frustratingly specific thematic boundaries. And that is meant, above all to convince the audience that these pretend people are worth caring about. Oh, and be rollicking and ever-so-enjoyable, because that's what all art should be like. Clearly, this master of dramatic writing for television is an incredible source of inspiration and insight for people who consider themselves to be creative thinkers, and all of his advice is of the highest quality and relevance to all artists. Some may celebrate his points as revelations, but do not count me among you. I have yet to watch an episode of the show this memo was related to, and I doubt I would enjoy reading anything else he has written.
" I have yet to watch an episode of the show this memo was related to, and I doubt I would enjoy reading anything else he has written."
In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about and have no interest in learning anything further.
It should be noted that David Mamet used to write great plays. He stopped doing that about twenty years ago and has since specialized in a.) lousy movies and TV shows b.) REALLY lousy plays c.) right-wing crank books and d.) silly all-caps memos to fellow writers saying obvious shit like "EVERY SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC," as if this fact had never occurred to anyone but his formerly talented self. If he was practicing what he preached, he wouldn't be writing this Screenwriting 101 crap for the other writers of some forgettable and now-cancelled TV show. He'd be writing another "Glengarry Glen Ross." It's a sad thing to say because Mamet used to be a hero of mine, but the man's a cranky washed-up has-been. He ought to retire and shut up.
[…] David Mamet’s Master Class Memo to the Writers of The Unit – Movieline […]
[…] screenplays, books and televisi on shows. He’s also a director and he has a quite famous rant in the form of a letter that he wrote to writers of The Unit, a TV show since […]
[…] David Mamet’s Master Class Memo to the Writers of The Unit- This is a couple years old but the advice this senior writer gives is timeless in scope. […]
[…] tip: Movieline/Ink […]
[…] Her er et link til den oprindelige artikel: MovieOnline.com […]
As theycomplain about Mamet, they these clowns belly up to the welfare office as they pass the Food Stamp (SNAP ) OFFICE. Then get thier unemployment check for being so clever.
[…] David Mamet’s ALL CAPS suggestions for the writers of The Unit is the following […]
[…] Fuentes: http://movieline.com/2010/03/23/david-mamets-memo-to-the-writers-of-the-unit/ […]
[…] 1) David Mamet’s Memo 2) Terry Rossio’s 23 Steps to A Feature Film Sale 3) Christopher Lockhart’s post The “A” List on his The Inside Pitch blog 4) Mystery Man on Film’s The Raiders Story Conference (Spielberg, Lucas, Kaszan) 5) The 99% Focus Rule (Yeah, it’s a post from me, but I’m just a conduit for Michael Arndt’s words) […]
[…] 1) David Mamet’s Memo 2) Terry Rossio’s 23 Steps to A Feature Film Sale 3) Christopher Lockhart’s post The “A” List on his The Inside Pitch blog 4) Mystery Man on Film’s The Raiders Story Conference (Spielberg, Lucas, Kasdan) 5) The 99% Focus Rule (Yeah, it’s a post from me, but I’m just a conduit for Michael Arndt’s words) […]
[…] (source) […]
Listen to this man. He has just educated me. Open your ears and learn to listen.
[…] Mamet wrote a “Master [writing] Class Memo” to his writers on the show The Unit a few years back. […]
[…] First, you should read this entire piece by David Mamet even though it’s in all caps. I’ll spare you the caps in the section I’m requoting below. […]
[…] http://movieline.com/2010/03/23/david-mamets-memo-to-the-writers-of-the-unit/ […]
[…] komplette Memo kann man sich auf Englisch hier […]
[…] One of the bigger drawbacks to the spec scripts that I read (whether it be for the Red Planet Prize or individual notes, or whoever), is that when the action cuts to a subplot, and the protagonist isn’t present, the scenes lack a decent narrative POV. They deliver exposition with no real purpose, or talk about another character to push the exposition/story along (something David Mamet famously warned against in his writing memo to his TV staff: “LITTLE” EXPOSITIONAL SCENES OF TWO PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD). […]
Hello there, I found your site by way of Google while looking for a comparable topic, your website came
up, it appears great. I've bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.
Hi there, just become aware of your weblog thru Google,
and found that it is truly informative. I am going to watch out for brussels.
I'll be grateful in the event you proceed this in future.
Numerous folks will be benefited out of your writing. Cheers!
[…] One of many greater drawbacks to the spec scripts that I learn (whether or not it’s for the Red Planet Prize or individual notes, or whoever), is that when the motion cuts to a subplot, and the protagonist is not current, the scenes lack an honest narrative POV. They ship exposition with no actual objective, or speak about one other character to push the exposition/story alongside (one thing David Mamet famously warned towards in his writing memo to his TV employees: “LITTLE” EXPOSITIONAL SCENES OF TWO PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD). […]
[…] One of many greater drawbacks to the spec scripts that I learn (whether or not it’s for the Red Planet Prize or individual notes, or whoever), is that when the motion cuts to a subplot, and the protagonist is not current, the scenes lack an honest narrative POV. They ship exposition with no actual objective, or speak about one other character to push the exposition/story alongside (one thing David Mamet famously warned towards in his writing memo to his TV employees: “LITTLE” EXPOSITIONAL SCENES OF TWO PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD). […]
Next » « Previous