MAMET

Started by cowboykurtis, April 07, 2003, 02:28:33 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1 2 3 4 5
User actions

cowboykurtis

April 07, 2003, 02:28:33 PM
is anyone else a David Mamet fan? Hes absolutely brilliant in my book. I definately like his writing more than his directing ability. GlenGary Glenn Ross...that's all I have to say.
Have any of you read his book on directing -- its very good. a bit cryptic, but all around,  very well articulate look at mamets process.
...your excuses are your own...

Pwaybloe

#1
April 07, 2003, 03:24:05 PM
Nah... Never heard of the guy.

cowboykurtis

#2
April 07, 2003, 05:24:18 PM
Quote from: PawbloeNah... Never heard of the guy.

Your sarcasm is so witty.
...your excuses are your own...

SoNowThen

#3
April 08, 2003, 01:22:56 PM
Love Mamet's writing (obviously Glengarry, but he also did a great polish on Ronin). As to directing, I would have to say he is the worst director in the history of film. I can't say how many of his own good scripts he has ruined by directing them. Aaarrrgh. I flipped through his book, and the first thing that jumped out at me was that he praised silent films, saying movies nowadays rely too much on dialogue. What? That's all Mamet movies are. Don't get me wrong, I think he writes great dialogue, but if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black...

And another thing, I can't stand his wife. She's the most annoying cunt since Yoko Ono.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Pwaybloe

#4
April 08, 2003, 03:43:54 PM
Quote from: cowboykurtis
Quote from: PawbloeNah... Never heard of the guy.

Your sarcasm is so witty.

Are you coming on to me?

cine

#5
April 08, 2003, 04:33:47 PM
Quote from: Pawbloe
Quote from: cowboykurtis
Quote from: PawbloeNah... Never heard of the guy.

Your sarcasm is so witty.

Are you coming on to me?

Watch out.. pretty soon you might have "an ass in your cock".. (and yes, I HAVE been waiting to use that on here somewhere.)

Anyway I love Mamet.. I just watched "Glengarry" recently and the performances are so dynamic you're forced to watch.. Lemmon, Pacino, and Harris especially (in that order).. absolutely stunning..
My favourite Mamet film has to be "House of Games".. I doubt I'll be alone on this one.

cowboykurtis

#6
April 08, 2003, 05:08:10 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenLove Mamet's writing (obviously Glengarry, but he also did a great polish on Ronin). As to directing, I would have to say he is the worst director in the history of film. I can't say how many of his own good scripts he has ruined by directing them. Aaarrrgh. I flipped through his book, and the first thing that jumped out at me was that he praised silent films, saying movies nowadays rely too much on dialogue. What? That's all Mamet movies are. Don't get me wrong, I think he writes great dialogue, but if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black...

And another thing, I can't stand his wife. She's the most annoying cunt since Yoko Ono.

i think every word you wrote is correct. accept your comment on his directing ability. hes pretty fucking bad, but theres been worse. i also found it amusing that his whole seminar in that book is reffering to the kuleshov experiment and eisenteinian montage -- however all his film are talking talking talking, the second some stops speaking his elequent dialogue, you look at the frame and want to turn it off. and yes his wife if a dirty cunt -- id hate fuck her though.
...your excuses are your own...

MacGuffin

#7
June 02, 2004, 10:36:14 AM
Mamet Helming Will Ferrell's Joan of Bark
Source: Variety

David Mamet (Spartan) will write and direct Joan of Bark: the Dog that Saved France for John Calley to produce and Will Ferrell to star in for Columbia Pictures.

Variety says the film is a contemporary satire about pop culture.

Ferrell is toplining DreamWorks' summer comedy Anchorman as well as next year's Kicking and Screaming at Universal.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Ravi

#8
June 02, 2004, 04:08:34 PM
David Mamet directing Will Ferrell in a film called Joan of Bark?  This is too weird.

RegularKarate

#9
June 02, 2004, 05:06:32 PM
At first, I was fighting it... thought it was strange.

Now it doesn't seem strange...  I do, however, think it won't be that funny.

ThurstonPowell

#10
June 03, 2004, 01:22:51 PM
I'm going to have to disagree that Mamet is a bad director.  

From the beginning of his career, He's taken a character driven approach that is intentionally stylistically drab.  He wants us caught up in the story and the characters, not the shots and the cuts.  

That's not to say that there's something wrong with "cool" shots, cuts, music, etc.  I'm a huge fan of Brian DePalma, Scorsese, Fincher, Gondry, Hitchcock, Argento, and of course PTA.  But to me, Mamet's more 'drab' approach is in it's way just as 'cool', because it comes from him and serves his intent.  

Because Mamet is viewed as a Writer Who Occasionally Directs, he's been able to build a surprisingly large, mature body of work (9 features) basically in secret, so that by the time he's made his most recent several films, the stylistic growth, with more confident camera movement, comes as a pleasant surprise.  Me, I'd put "State and Main", "Heist", and "Spartan" at or near the top of the best recent examples of their respective genres.
Did you tell your friend Bernice I'm some kind of jet pilot?

modage

#11
June 03, 2004, 05:51:21 PM
Quote from: ThurstonPowellMe, I'd put "State and Main", "Heist", and "Spartan" at or near the top of the best recent examples of their respective genres.
only if State and Main's genre is "The Turd Genre".
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

ThurstonPowell

#12
June 03, 2004, 10:25:56 PM
"Turd Genre".  Didn't Pauline Kael coin that one?  Or was it one of the kids from your playgroup?
Did you tell your friend Bernice I'm some kind of jet pilot?

NEON MERCURY

#13
June 03, 2004, 11:12:26 PM
i like the spanish prisoner.  its my super favorite mamet. campbell scott is underrated in a non cliched way

nix

#14
June 06, 2004, 11:51:57 PM
His book, while it includes truth without question, is really pretty one sided. Yes using uninflected images is an effective way to make a movie but for God's sake it's not the only way. He basically says that using long takes is an unpardonable sin, which in my humble opinion, is complete fucking bullshit.
"Sex relieves stress, love causes it."
-Woddy Allen
Print
Go Up Pages1 2 3 4 5
User actions