Yeah I agree, the second piece of advice is easier to understand for me. Like you said, without a backstory I though it may confuse the audience, but it would be interesting to see his theory.

hmm. I know what you mean, loctaipham, actually it's usu. not like "be jealous" but something more like "defend," "retaliate," "protect," etc. for you and burnalive, the main idea is that David Mamet is funny in the way he is trying to throw all the basics out the window. i don't think anyone agreed with him really, but it was kind of an interesting thought, and I could picture how it could work. I mean, I got the idea that his point was, just make a fascinating film by sort of unpredictably going from scene to scene.

Pssst, have you tried reading "Directing Actors..."

Something about using action adverbs or something...argh, my brain is not working right now...I'll get back to you on this later...

Though, in order to "get" the "result" you must give the actor some kind of "internal" action the person can "Do" rather than focus on the end result...kinda like...not "physical" action per se...more like..."emotional content"...kinda like...be Jealous...some kind of emotional connotation...be humourous...be depressed...etc...etc...It's very...tough...haha, I never realized how delicate an actor's sensibilities were until reading this book...and seeing firsthand how even an A-List "star" could falter when "taken" out of his element...

*shrugs* I don't know...was Mamet the one who directed "Edmund"? Man, now THAT was one disturbing piece of Cinema...to this day I don't think my family can handle watching William H. Macy and see him the same way...hah...

Mamet's either a genius who's just describing his own personal experience...or just what works for him...I suppose...but this also goes to show how he directs and what kind of "Filmmaker" he is...I guess he just "Goes" for the jugular in his movies, no? heh...

Scary indeed...Fun, but yeas...

You may also wanna find out how he feels about the Script...if he's dedicated to the written word, or would he as easily throw out the script and allow the actors to improvise their lines? Sounds as though Mamet's really open-minded in this arena, but I suppose this may just be another "Feeling"...

In any case, good luck with your studies...

Was it "Redbelt"? If so...hmmm, interesting cuz then he'd have access to highly Versatile character actors who are more than likely good at improvisational acting...Chiwetel Ejiofor (sp?) is excellent...simply...Effervescent...

Is he talking about feature films or shorts? Backstories don't have to exist in the film itself. But you should be able to see it in the character, or else they'll become one dimensional. It helps the actors a lot if they know what's happened to the past to the character they're portraying, they can prepare mentally for that.

Whereas, it's even more important for us writers to know about the backstory of our characters. Everyone has a past. So do the characters we create. It determines the decisions they'll make in the events to come.

If David Mamet did not talk about that, then I claim BS!

hmm makes sense..

i think backstories for movies are hard to follow.. its like the audience has to wrap their mind and figure out the character before hand.. which leads them to focus their attention elsewhere.. unless its like Lost and you have flashbacks, its fine.. but thats a tv show..

the second one makes sense also.. ive been hearing from a bunch of my AP and English teachers that they dont want someone to write a bunch of bull crap to make their essay more flowery and beautiful, just cut to the chase and state that you know whats going on.

It must have been an interesting lecture as i guess he "cut through the bs"  i like them kind of people ( but only in small doses though) but even if you don't agree it is good to listen to different ideas and concepts.

Speaking of David Mamet ..... makes me wanna watch Wag the Dog and Glengarry Glenross again ....

One of my fav movie lines ever from Glengarry which he wrote .... Al Pacino's character to Kevin Spacey (playing his boss) .... "you ... you .. fcuking child!" ....

Yea, it's weird how in the cut of the film we saw, I could see how there might not have been much backstory - which made the sudden changes that happened sort of strange - but definitely interesting. I'd be more inclined to take the second piece of advice when all else fails.

hmm It's definitely an interesting concept he takes. I don't know if I would take his action, I do tend to use backstory a lot.

No. That is only one person opinion...Think of great Movies  such as "Citizen Kane", God father I & II, Taxi Driver; Infernal Affair, etc.

"1. There's no such thing as backstory for characters. Forget backstory. It's pointless. "

I think In some cases this is pretty true, but not all the time.

With all due respect to Mr. Mamet, I'm not sure that I agree with him.  Was he speaking in generalizations or in regard to a specific work of his?

That's interesting - I didn't know that about Mamet.  Very cool you got to attend one of his lectures.

hehe i like this Wendy. Reminds me of b-plan presos...

get to the point fast and sell it well...and tell a good story

Hi Jane,
Sorry, I'm kind of talking director-actor talk. Most people who've studied drama study some basic things about 'motivation,' etc as a way to guide the acting (as a focus). And most writers create an entire backstory for a character, like a whole life that happened before him/her, to explain what's happening in the scene - but Mamet is really interesting b/c he goes against all of that theory and says forget it, just shoot something interesting.

sounds very straightforward.... but hmm... I don't really get it... o.O  *uh oh*