David Mamet's Writing Advice: "There's No Such Thing As Character" 

During Covid I started writing fiction, then I went to Masterclass and watched David Mamet, four times. My writing got better as I listened to him. I'm going to watch him again...not only for the education, but he is so interesting and has such wide range of knowledge, it's fascinating and elevating. Thank you for highlighting him here.

I love David Mamet! I had a master class subscription for a year but ended up only watching Davis Mamet over and over.

“Played by crack-shot Alec Baldwin.” LMFAO snuck that one in there

Really good summation of this specific part of David's writing approach. ✍️

Yea! Someone showed some love for "The Edge." Great movie, killer soundtrack.😊

Would love more essays from you, you really do a good job on covering topics but keeping it simple and calm.

David, David, David. That style of writing is great if you are a genius at writing dialogue. Most of us are not so lucky, and we may need our brown shoes. And, crack shot.

Wow, that's a really great advice....... Thank you for sharing it in essay!

Finally, a fan of _The Edge._ One of the hardest screenplays I ever had to track down; in fact, it took me years and it was originally called "The Bookworm." This analysis is fucking good, I gotta admit. You deserve _way_ more views. Now analyze _Speed-the-Plow_ !

There’s always a power play between playwrights and actors. Mamet is interested in certain things and not in others. Some things exist more strongly with strong characters than others., It would be hard to justify Peter Sellars in Strangelove for example, playing those 3 parts exactly the same. What’s he doing there, anyway? It’s like music. The oboe is a particular character in a larger context. The woodwinds all come in at their times in the score and add their personalities. You can imagine a complex orchestral piece played on synthesized pure electronic tones. There would be a lot lost. Conversely, there is music which is happily transposed from one instrument or set of instruments to the other. Art of Fugue for example.

Great essay, keep going!

This video sums it all up for me. Thanks man i am gonna write well now.

Superb, clear and helpful.

"There is no more to a character other than what we see them do." I've seen the video 3 times now and that statement still doesn't seem to hold up. But maybe more importantly, it doesn't seem to be supported by what you had to say about it. To me it sounds like the writing advice actually is: "Focus on plot and dialog. The characters don't need a rich life beyond what the audience experiences to do their job." That is good advice in its own way and sounds less pretentious, for lack of a better word.

It took me a few days of thinking about what Mamet said to first get it and then agree with it. When you think about conflict, some conflict is caused by people acting exactly the way you think they're going to act. But conflict also comes from people acting unpredictably. And sometimes when someone does something unpredictable, others say he was acting "out of character." That's when I got it. If you know your plot, if you know all the actions that are going to lead you to your conclusion, then there's no "character," there's only what each of the people in your story must do at that point of the plot. If some thug has to pull a gun and shoot someone, then that's what has to happen. If an honest, upstanding, mild-mannered fellow turns his back on every one of the principles he's lived by in the rest of the book to seduce a woman, then that's what has to happen.

I sum it up as, “What kinda guy would do something like that!”

Dialogue is some of my favorite parts movies but I never knew of this guy I gotta watch this guys’ movies

I thought of this while I auditioned for (and was offered) the part of John in Oleanna at our community theater. I also thought of it when I turned it down. Mamet takes this action motivation thing to an extreme to the detriment of character. If I think of Martin Mcdonaugh or Kenneth Lonergan or Amy Herzog, the illusion of character fees much more flushed out.

Great essay, loved the part where you discussed Drive and Ryan Gosling.

Great video. You got a new subscriber! Can I ask you what's the music you played in the background for the part of "This concept, applied", please? Shazam can't recognize it with your voice. Lol

Redbelt is my personal favorite of his.

What you choose to do is your character. How you do it, as well.

To do is to be- Satre To be is to do- Camus Do be do be do- Sinatra.

The Edge seriously underrated.

So Paul Newman didn't have a character in The Verdict? Nor Sean Connery in Untouch? I don't understand. They reveal their character thru their actions and words.

Yep. I can't recommend his master class enough. His recent book "recessional" is whacky...but also worth a look!

there's the things that people do. Repeatedly.

excellent stuff! and 'crack shot' Alec Baldwin - absolutely hilarious 🙂

I can't afford masterclass. Wish I could.

"Character doesn't exist because you can't point at it". I guess meaning doesn't exist too by that logic. So then what the fuck is the point of writing or creating art? Character is an abstraction, and like many abstractions, it exists.

This explains why all his characters sound like the same person talking.

Let's remember that Mamet studied theater. Theater's rich dramaturgy starts with the Greeks - for Mamet at least. Characterization is not the same as character as action. In the end, a story cannot be about characterization no more than it can be about the set decoration or costuming. Who could grok, much less tolerate, such shit?

I felt very upset with Mamet after watching this video... First, if the video creator's interpretation of Mamet is correct (I don't know whether it is, but hope so!), what Mamet is trying to say can be boiled down to "reveal character through action and dialogue rather than exposition." I believe I said it way simpler right there. And I'm practically a nobody in the storytelling world! There's a lot I could say about Mamet's statement, but I'll settle for this: I know for a fact that many who read novels, watch movies or play certain types of video games, all want to immerse themselves in the stories they engage with. *They want to believe that the characters and worlds they engage with are real.* So what happens to their experience of story if they take Mamet's "advice" to heart? I for one would neither be moved nor excited by a story if I were to think that "I'm just seeing words on a page right now" or "I'm only seeing some images on the screen... No reason to cry or be excited." Suspension of disbelief or immersion in characters and story worlds is absolutely key to our enjoyment of stories (or at least to many of us). But taking Mamet's statement to heart would utterly ruin that experience. Furthermore, how does it improve our storytelling a ability to think that characters do not exist...? As a screenwriter myself, I desire to think of my characters as real people, with the full capacity of human emotions. As I've been planning out scenes for the fantasy series I'm working on and working on the first screenplay, I've many times felt deeply moved or saddened by the fate of the characters throughout the story and by particular character moments. It still remains to be seen how an audience will react to those scenes. But would I really be able to write scenes like that -- even think of those scenes -- if I had the mindset that characters are just "actions and dialogue on the page"? In conclusion, I see nothing valuable in Mamet's statement, whether as a storyteller or as a consumer of stories. I have to wonder whether Mamet has considered the full consequences of taking his statement to heart; what that would do to us as storytellers and story consumers...? He may have meant to say one thing, but he does bear responsibility for all the other possible implications of what he says, upon all those people who listen to his advice without bringing it into question. For those who may be looking for places to learn storytelling, I myself have learned a lot by watching videos on Film Courage (RU-vid channel). A lot of what is said there applies to novel writing as well, and to other story forms. 😊

I don't get the no-character idea. It's true of movies, tv, and plays, but novels and short stories can dig into a character's thoughts and emotions.

He is correct. Actors who perform any play by Mamet sound like they're reading from a script and aren't real characters.

The problem with the advice that character is only what characters say and do is that Mamet's characters, like Sorkin's, all talk alike and act alike. They're stories are often compelling anyway, mainly because they hire good actors who bring something interesting to their characters that isn't on the page.

David Mamet is wrong. Character is NOT simply 'action' that a character does. Character is the inner guide within that informs a person (or character) as to their true nature and what types of 'action' or behaviors they will exhibit.

I like Sky. You perform an important function covering stories that other media won't. But on this matter, you are wrong.

The Edge … needed a much better director.

I love Mamet’s masterclass but when he executes based on his apparently rigid philosophy, his characters come across as readers. House of Games stands out possibly because Joe Mantegna’s most understated performance is still great because of what he projects, seemingly involuntarily. The screen adaptation of Glengarry Glen Ross is possibly his most appealing movie and it’s because dir Foley let the excellent cast give added nuance and naturalism. His dialogue read without inflection from the page, very dissonant, repetitive, staccato makes full emersion into his world nigh impossible for me.. His “characters don’t exist” is the sort of literalism that leads to boring anti metaphysical outcomes 😭

Utter nonsense. Character is the fingerprint of personality, absolutely unique to each individual, who will react to a situation in their own unique way. Write any way you like, but the people in your script will perform only as they know to perform, within the confines of an "identity" contrived by their own limitations.

Man You're Great ty

All well and good, but I don't believe this kind of advice can be considered universal, meaning that it doesn't work for all forms of fiction. There's a gulf between how these things work in screenwriting/playwriting and in literature.

Backstory is overrated.