|
What is right.' In the process, Mamet eschews what is sometimes presented to us as 'drama', in his grumpy and dogmatic way. And thus that 'drama' on stage or screen should reflect and enact the struggle to interpret, to make sense, to synthesise. and the first response is to be affronted, some of us might go on to ask, 'If Mamet is wrong, what do I think. Readers should not expect another 'How To' book here. This slim philosophical essay makes the claim that we are hard-wired, as it were, to interpret our lives as dramatic narratives. If the dogmatism is annoying (is this just a rant).
I don't think it's to teach us." This is especially good advice for young writers who have been coached by public school English courses to see literature as a manifesto to be decoded. This is incompatible with what Mamet sees as the purpose and origin of drama, but it doesn't mean all musicals are equal or that they are a blight on the theatre. Though he falters into occasionally harsh prescriptivism, he offers a look at one way American dramatists can and do communicate their world to an audience--and, in many ways, how they communicate the audience's own world as well.At the heart of Mamet's theory is his claim that all of us make drama out of the ordinary matter of our lives. As he says, "a play is not about nice things happening to nice people. Too many young writers think their work will transform society and remake us as better people. Theatre, in other words, retains its Aristotelian purpose in cleansing the soul.But Mamet broadens the scope of drama, away from stately tragedy and into more humane territory. Plainly we can, since Clifford Odets' agit-prop plays still get produced, and plays that most disdain the audience are often the ones with the biggest endowments. Therefore, easy as it is to agree with his statements about the audience, the problem play, or the MacGuffin, it's tough sledding when he says that we CAN'T commit acts he considers errors.
Or John's mortgage and tenure troubles in Oleanna. In the name of enlightenment they inflict on audiences the dreariest dumbbell harangues mankind can imagine.No, much better to delight first. Yet for those who aim for Mamet's scale of accomplishment, this theory is a confident place from which we can begin our own creative process.In a few places Mamet pitches high and outside. If he did, why bother mentioning Shelly's daughter in Glengarry Glen Ross. If we are to claim the Hero as ourselves, she must have a state, even if a dull disquisition isn't the way to illuminate it.Similarly, his round condemnation of American musicals, packed flippantly in with his excoriation of "problem plays," doesn't fit squarely.
His claim that the forced monologue he disparages as "The Death of My Kitten" interferes with the audience's reception of the play is tough to stomach. And if, in performing the former, it accomplishes the latter, so much the better, but reversing the order will create sterile, unengaging work.Mamet's theory is based on his own works, and the goals he sets for his own writing. This spectacle raises us up as human beings, and purges the emotions we harbor but which are unacceptable in our modern era. It's true that musicals are often plot-driven and suffer with timid characters and pat endings. I don't think its purpose is to enlighten us. It simply means that they subscribe to a different dramaturgical theory.But for all his high-handed pietism, Mamet offers a compelling theory of American drama in the late Twentieth and early Twenty-First Centuries. But for theatre to have Mamet's holy purification role, we must broaden the definition of "delight" to encompass the whole range of human emotion, uplifting or otherwise.
The dramatist simply takes that hunger and constructs a public spectacle around it. A play is about rather terrible things happening to people who are as nice or not nice as we ourselves are." In other words, though theatre still requires that characters have their hard-won pretenses stripped away, it is not only kings who must lose everything.From this it's a short step to Mamet's assertion that "the purpose of art is not to change but to delight. The role of art is to make us feel deeply, not think correctly. In an age when much writing drifts listlessly, with neither audience nor intention visible to the naked eye, Mamet offers badly needed direction, and hope that writers can be about something in the tricky modern world. His vision, though perhaps tinted by his own work, at root makes contemporary the theories that have guided drama since time out of mind. Mamet explicates a compelling theory of drama that links the fine and liberal arts with multifarious forms of American religion and social experience. I don't think it's to change us.
There are reasons why we don't want to sit though maudlin accounts of old news, but Mamet says: "If we are to identify with the Hero, which is to say, to see her story as our own, she can have had no `state' before the beginning of the story."This is palpable nonsense, and surely Mamet himself doesn't believe that.
David Mamet, the master of Drama, gives advice and technique in this GREAT book. Truly a must have for the aspiring writer of drama.
There's SO much in this short book. I read this book every year, and every year I take something new from it. It's FILLED with truth about life, art, and life & art.
My style has started to incorporate Mamet's technique of having characters talk, often to each other, as well as to express themselves through physical acts like gestures and walking. Through studying David Mamet's theories, I came to realise that a character can be understood not only through what they do, but also through what they say. The education in this book has convinced me to abandon my earlier style, where characters have wordless internal monologues while not moving for a play's 2 or 3 hour duration.3 stars.
|
