dagblog - Comments for "David Mamet and the Tragedy of the Literary Tough Guy"

Done.

MrSmith1 — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 01:36:43 +0000

In reply to Hey, Mr. Smith... would you

Done.

Hey, Mr. Smith... would you

Michael Maiello — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 23:42:20 +0000

Hey, Mr. Smith... would you mind shooting me an email? I believe you can contact me through the site. I'd like to take some of our discussions offline and perhaps discuss some people we might have in common the 80s performance art scene in the LES.

Yes, I did like the

MrSmith1 — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 17:59:53 +0000

In reply to It's funny because when you

Yes, I did like the Untouchables, even if some of the images were 'borrowed from' ...oops, I mean, an homage to, other films. (Like the Battleship Potemkin 'steps' scene, complete with baby carriage.)

Many years ago, I used to help out a friend who coached actors privately by teaching her students about play structure, and I used 'Speed the Plow' as one of the 'bad examples'.

;-)

It's funny because when you

Michael Maiello — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:49:29 +0000

In reply to "I claim that when a writer

It's funny because when you read Mamet about his own work he thinks he's all about the story. But, I agree... he's not a great storyteller. He's good when he has a puzzle to tell you about (The Spanish Prisoner) and plays like Glengarry & American Buffalo certainly have conflict and secrets but they are not, strictly speaking, well made plays. Sexual Perversity in Chicago is a great romp but not a proper farce or comedy. Glengarry isn't really a tragedy though it is a drama. He can do plot. The guy wrote The Untouchables. But when left to his own devices, he lets character and conversation dominate the structure.

You don't like Speed the Plow? It's one of my favorites. But I bet he doesn't like it anymore. He was satirizing something that he soon after bought into. Last new place I saw by him was Race. Not his best work. But you could just kind of set the outdated, issue-driven plot aside and listen to the actors tick of the lines with alacrity.

"I claim that when a writer

MrSmith1 — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:27:21 +0000

In reply to David Mamet and the Tragedy of the Literary Tough Guy

"I claim that when a writer becomes successful, generally, without giving it too much thought, he assumes another style of living. I don't think you can come out of the Stork Club with your belly full and caviar rolling down your vest, and rush home and write a 'Grapes of Wrath,' In fact, I've argued with John Steinbeck about this, but he says you can, so I must be wrong." - Radio comedian Fred Allen

As someone who likes Mamet's early work like 'A Life in the Theatre' and 'The Water Engine', but finds most of his later work, over-blown and self-indulgent (Speed the Plow, yuck!), I think you're right about his turning Conservative. I think he built his reputation on writing great dialogue. And he was, and is, a great writer of dialogue. He has an incredible ear for street-wise dialogue and tough-talking every day slang. But, I agree, it was all just a pretense. He wasn't really street-wise. He had an ability to replicate street-wise and put great assemblages of tough-talking words in his character's mouths. As he got praise for that, he took it on as his own persona. He enjoyed being the provocateur. But what he didn't possess, in my opinion, was / is the ability, (or perhaps the desire), to construct well-structured plays. As someone once noted, "You don't go to Mamet's plays for the plot, you go for the dialogue." As he has aged, Mamet has become the theater's version of John McCain; a cranky old guy. You're right, Mamet can't replicate his early successes because they were built on a street-wise persona and toughness which was an affectation all along and he doesn't have play structure to fall back on, and so, like McCain, he has to go further and further to the Right to keep up the pretense of being a tough guy. Let's face it, Mamet's plays, even the highly praised ones, are mostly just characters talking at each other. In my opinion, they satisfy our desire to hear great wordplay, but leave us wanting in terms of theatrical catharsis.

I would rather sit through a dozen more performances of Long's Day Journey into Night, than see one more production of Glengarry Glen Ross.

Find me a liberal who can

Ramona — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 12:36:13 +0000

In reply to I knew Harry Truman, Harry

Find me a liberal who can love her--just one. I'll wait patiently until

I knew Harry Truman, Harry

NCD — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 04:06:38 +0000

In reply to @NCD:(With regret) What a

I knew Harry Truman, Harry Truman was my friend. Sarah Palin is no Harry Truman.

I guess she got the VP shot, the 6 figure GOP wardrobe, the 7 figure book contracts, her PAC, TV Show and that multi-year 7 figure job from Murdoch because of her long history as a hard workin' frozen knuckled old salt of an executive experienced Russia watching commercial fisherwoman. Now she doesn't have to fish anymore, so liberals can love her.

Well, I think Hemingway and

Michael Maiello — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 03:32:00 +0000

In reply to I like his work, too. But

Well, I think Hemingway and Mamet are both admirable people.

They are both provocateurs. Even when Mamet was a self described liberal he wrote "Oleanna," which was meant to take on the issue of sexual harassment and gender power from a devil's advocate stance. And... it's a masterpiece of a play (and that's hard to pull off with two characters).

Hemingway did, in fact, put his body on the line for his convictions and, when he could no longer do that but had a name, did the same. His work against the Spanish fascists is the stuff that people at Dag should still be celebrating.

For the most part, when I encounter "the artist vs. the person arguments" I find that the best artists are mostly both right, but not in equal proportions. They're undeniably right as artists while they make a damned better showing as people than others credit them.

Don't get me started on Woody Allen.

Well, I think Hemingway and

Michael Maiello — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 03:31:54 +0000

In reply to I like his work, too. But

Well, I think Hemingway and Mamet are both admirable people.

Don't get me started on Woody Allen.

@NCD:(With regret) What a

jollyroger — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 03:01:20 +0000

In reply to Does the following quote from

@NCD:(With regret) What a putz! . The Wagner dilemma, now repeated ( as per the aphorism) as farce.