Anything Goes : David Mamet by Stephen Mitchell

Success = Opportunity + Preparation. You were halfway there!

Asleep at the wheel I was... :)

Yoda you were, Yoda you are!

If you have not seen The Spanish Prisoner... you must! Another Mamet writer/director masterpiece.

Mamet is one of my FAVS and "House of Games" and his "Bambi vs Godzilla" essay was AMAZING!! http://davidmamet.com/

Loving these posts and the enthusiasm for Mamet!

Ronin is a great film and so "un-Mamety". I have the Bambi v. Godzilla book in my reading pile. Thanks for the reminder! I shall move it to the top.

Yes, Ronin! :)

What color is the boat house at Hereford?

That is the question! :)

Hahaha!! Great one Michael! How about this one; "Everybody needs Money. that way they call it Money!"

Has anyone read that quote of Mamet's suggesting that all dialogue from a script be removed? Here is is: "A good film script should be able to do completely without dialogue." I lost all respect for Mamet after seeing that quote. If I ever see him, I will be glad to tell him that we had that situation during film's silent-movie era. Thank God that's over!

I found the opening ten minutes of Le Samouraï wherein not a word is spoken to be evry bit as compelling as the rest of the film...

Language is the essence of life and that which differentiates us from creatures of lesser intelligence. I'm sorry, but I will leave the art of the mime for others.

Oh, isn't it ironic that we should be celebrating someone who opposes dialogue, by using our own dialogue?

And what, Stephen, would you say if it was not simply 10 minutes, but 120?

I have had an interest in doing a caper movie without any dialogue except for extraneous conversations and sounds taking place in the vicinity. Though I haven't seen it, I believe All is Lost written and directed by J. C. Chandor with Robert Redford has little or no spoken words. That said, a favorite movie of mine is Sidney Lumet's Network with its extremely articulate script written by Paddy Chayefsky...

1. The Oscars snubbed "All Is Lost". That says a lot about what Hollywood feels about the film, especially considering that Redford is one of Hollywood's favorites. http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/news/2014/feb/13/disc-spotlight-8220all... 2. The film has made only about $2 million dollars so far. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Is_Lost 3. Cat videos and car accidents often go viral on YouTube. That doesn't mean they have great artistic value. Watching someone struggle at sea for 106 minutes? I've got better things to do, and a lot of other movie-goers do as well. (An implication of # 2 above.) 4. The scripts is only 32 pages long, and, truly, there is almost no dialogue in it. http://roadsideawards.com/allislostscreenplay/pdf/ALL_IS_LOST_SCRIPT_FIN... 5. To date, the movie itself has not even been nominated for best picture by any major group; even the Satellite Awards have not named it as a nominee, although it might. (See the Wikipedia story above.) 6. And here's what one critic had to say about it: "the narrative is somewhat static and occasionally plays out like a 'how to fix your boat' instructional video. Chandor [the writer] also steals much of his own thunder with a totally avoidable opening voice-over that gives away far too much way too soon." From: http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/news/2014/feb/13/disc-spotlight-8220all... 7. If a legendary and imminently likable star like Robert Redford can't save something like this, doesn't that say a lot about the importance of great dialogue in a movie?

Now, let's take a look at "Network", which has some truly astounding dialogue, from start to finish: Look at all the awards and nominations it received: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_%28film%29 Note also that the movie made almost $20 million dollars and those are 1976 dollars. Converting that amount into today's dollars, it would be about $122 million! There has also been a lot wider critical acceptance of "Network" compared to "All Is Lost" - compare the "critical reception" sections of each of the Wikipedia articles. And one final note - check back on the "All Is Lost" Wikipedia article on it - not once did the script get nominated for anything! "Network" on the other hand WON the following screenwriting awards: Academy Award (Oscar) for Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen — Paddy Chayefsky Golden Globe for Best Screenplay - Paddy Chayefsky BAFTA Award for Best Screenplay - Paddy Chayefsky Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I rest my case.

Your points are well made and it must be recognized that Network is the high water mark for any aspect of filmmaking. If you like articulate scripts, Paddy's The Hospital with George C. Scott is another. My contemporary favorite is Michael Clayton--articulate, well acted and directed and a bona fide film for grown-ups... I have yet to do a piece of work that wasn't experimental or innovative in one way or another, which means that they don't seek mass appeal. If I could talk with David, I would ask him the intent of his quote as that might render the sentiment understandable.

With regard to the Hollywood snub, I remember reading a book that asked you to guess which film won the Oscar for a particular year from a multiple-choice selection. I was amazed to see how many films won that are poorly regarded today and how many all-time classics were snubbed. Also, it is known that Redford favors films that are of a personal nature and not intended to go wide at the AMCs. I think there's a place for quirky, unusual films that challenge our vision and expectation. I attended a screening last night of Egidio Coccimiglio's Compulsion with Heather Graham, Carrie-Anne Moss, Kevin Dillon and Joe Mantegna. It was just such a film.

I'm not going to hold my breath until "All Is Lost" becomes a classic, but that's just one opinion. My point is that dialogue is an essential point to many, if not most, movies. You don't need raging seas, a car chase, a giant lizard, or anything like that if you have outstanding dialogue. "Before Midnight" is an example, but not the best one; however, it came to mind quickly. Virtually no action; almost all of it is a romantic conversation between two lovers. And look at the critical acclaim and award wins and nominations it has received: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Midnight_%28film%29 That's way beyond what "All Is Lost" has to offer.

And the movie has made over $16 million at the present time! - Eight times what "All Is Lost" has made so far!

I am not saying all is Lost deserves Oscar consideration; merely that it is an interesting offering of a story handled in an unusual fashion. Are you saying it should not have been made?

1. No. I'm just saying that I am offended by David Mamet's quote. I believe that dialogue is an essential element of most movies. 2. I also don't believe that "All Is Lost" will become a classic, but it has received good critical reviews and there is clearly a following for it. 3. Mr. Mamet is a master of word usage, and he ought to know that his quote wouldn't sit right with everyone.

Why don't you write him and ask him what he meant? You seem to be taking the statement literally and I think he was speaking with a degree of irony or exaggeration to make a point. Maybe we can find out. Mamet is a master of words and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in consequence. Neither do I think All is Lost will become a classic but who knows? At least, I think, it is an interesting change of pace.

I may try to find some time and write him a letter. I tend to think, however, an assistant will see it and send a form letter response. And because of his writing skills, I think he should make himself clear at the beginning. If he wanted his words taken other than literally, he should have stated exactly what he meant. I like variety in movies as well. I am just saying that if all movies were like "All Is Lost", I believe the audience would be turned off as soon as the novelty wore off - and I believe that would happen very quickly.

I once wrote a letter addressed only to John Huston, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. Guess who personally wrote back in a hand-written reply? I also received a phone call from his assistant who told me how touched John had been to receive it. Do you know what David said just before or after the quote in question? Context is everything, Maybe he did make himself clear. Journalists make a habit of taking a phrase out of context to stir up the reader...

John Houston's world is a totally different one that we live in today. Things have changed dramatically. I didn't find the quote in an article. It was posted several days ago as the quote of the day by those who run this Web site. And I have checked - it is one of his quotes.

And, by the way, it's on his IMDB page with no explanation as to the context. Do you think a journalist posted on his IMDB page?

Michael Jackson was a great musician. But he seems to have had a lot of personal problems as well. Just because someone is very talented does not excuse them from their own mistakes.

People are still people, James. Some are approachable, others are not. It is my understanding that anyone can add a credit to one's IMDB page. For example, I have never uploaded anything to IMDB and yet credits for Addiction Incorporated, Carrera Panamericnana (1950-54) and Elysée Wednesday: Drive! appear on my page because they were posted by others. Of course, I could remove them if they were inaccurate... Were I you, I would take this opportunity to make the acquaintance of one of the world's great wordsmiths (his actions over the years speak louder to me than the one quote) by sending him a note. You might be surprised at what results...

I'll keep that in mind.

My fond desire is that you will be posting about a dialogue you had with your new buddy David (and that you'll get him to autograph my friend's copy of Oleanna) :)

Another David Mamet quote: "I've been alienating my public since I was 20 years old."

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill

"Arrogance and integrity should never be equated."

"There is no doubt that Satan has plenty of enemies. But exactly what has Satan stood up for that would be of value to humanity?"

"There are plenty of ways to generate enemies, and many of them have nothing to do with either backbone or character."

OK, you win. We should all be offended by a quote that appeared on David Mamet's IMDB page and ignore the excellence of his vast body of work. Is that the point you are making?

I saw Mamet's play 'Race' at the Barrymore summer of 2010. It was fantastic!!

This one I don't know. I'll have to read it. :)

@Mr. Mitchell, this is the second time that you have used a false dichotomy to support your position. It is well known that that technique is used to support an argument when there is no other basis to support the point. (For those unfamiliar with "false dichotomy, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma ) Some people might like baseball, but not every team nor every player. You don't have to either like baseball or hate it. "My country, right or wrong." and "America: Love it or leave it." embody the same specious logic. Intelligent people can be offended by the arrogance and ignorance of Mamet's quotes and still admire his work. I already gave you the example of Michael Jackson - I like most of his music, but I'm concerned about his relations to younger children. He probably was abused by some of his older relatives, but that wouldn't give him the right to abuse kids when he was older. He is dead now, and his secrets (if any) have gone to the grave with him. Lewis Carroll is alleged to have molested children during his lifetime, too. That doesn't mean his writing should be shunned. If you truly believe that people should worship and bow down to everything that Mamet does or says, I pity you. This is not a black-and-white world: there are an infinite number of shades of gray in between. You provided two examples of writers earlier in this thread, if my memory serves me correctly. Instead of simply using my own memory or my opinions and feelings, I did a small amount of research. I compared your example films on three measures of effectiveness for "All Is Lost" and "Network": profit (box office minus final budget), awards nominated or received, and critical acclaim. I used an independent source. All three of those measures show that "Network" (a film loaded with great dialogue) has been much better received than "All Is Lost" (a film almost devoid of dialogue). I don't think there is any justification for Mamet's comment about dialogue, and the critics, the public, and those making awards seem to agree that dialogue is very important to a movie. I never suggested that "All Is Lost" not be made, even though you implied that was my viewpoint (the other false dichotomy you threw in). I realize that you posed these implications as questions; that is a well-known rhetorical device, and most people familiar with sound reasoning principles understand why someone would use that technique. You also threw out that quote from Churchill; it leaves the reader thinking that enemies are always created by individuals who stand up for what they believe in. And I rebutted that, since it cannot hold water any better than a leaky sieve. Even when you admit defeat, you can resist trying to take another jab. When you are beat, the mature way to do that is to say so and put a period after "You win." without trying to sneak something else in. And, in conclusion, the easiest and best way to win an argument is to take the position that can be supported by the facts. By the way, I don't expect you to apologize to me for the use of false dichotomies rather than legitimate arguments, but nevertheless you owe me one. And I hope you don't continue to use such logic to support your views. You will lose your credibility very quickly that way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6aQVErOu7o

"A Man distracted is a Man defeated."

http://youtu.be/7H9hScf9xv0

I'm going to tell you something and I think you know what I mean! GREAT scene! David Paymer and everyone was great in that scene!!! I aspire I aspire!

John, I wasn't aware of having an argument that needed winning but rather a discussion that might lead to interesting developments and insights. I admit to being nonplussed by the vehemence of your reaction to the quote in question and, as you well know, I've not written anywhere in this thread that we should all bow down to Mamet--"Paddy" Chayefsky for Network, Edward Albee for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Rod Serling for Seven Days in May get that nomination from me--but I do think his work is exceptional and worthy of accolades. "Intelligent people can be offended by the arrogance and ignorance of Mamet's quotes and still admire his work." Of course they can, and why not? Perhaps I misunderstood your post but you wrote, "I lost all respect for Mamet after seeing that quote.", which I thought was harsh. Your opinion is as valid as mine on this and there is no argument to win--we merely see things differently. I am certainly not looking to write quod erat demonstrandum at the end of this thread. There are a lot of indicators of a film's value--box office, awards, critical approbation--but a subjective reaction by a viewer is just as important and the phrase 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' comes to mind. One of my favorite movies 'Ripley's Game' with John Malkovich did not even manage theatrical distribution in the US but it is a film I can watch over and over. I do apologize for any offense given but none was intended. A question I would like to ask you is what was your opinion of Mamet before you discovered that quote--how did you rate him?

"A good film script should be able to do completely without dialogue." This is the quote that John found offensive. I perceive, it as a great Zen statement and one that, given Mamet's commitment to and involvement with the written and spoken word, warrants some contemplation and critical analysis asking "In what way is the statement true?" and "In what way is the statement false?" going back and forth and continuing to answer until one has run out of answers or a new truth suddenly dawns as a result of this process. For background and context, I would evaluate Mamet's writings. Is he in the habit of speaking (writing) literally or is he prone to expressing himself in a conceptual fashion. Is he a fan of irony? In the end, we will each come to our own conclusion. Was the statement derisive to writers or was he beckoning us to look closer into the craft and art of writing? Only Mamet knows for certain but we are free to have our conclusions whatever they may be. My own conclusion is that the statement "A good film script should be able to do completely without dialogue" is Mamet's shortest, most succinct play written not in one act, but in one sentence.

My name is not "John". It speaks volumes when you don't even look on the screen before you starting your posts so that you would at least know who you are responding to.

@Cynthia - Here is Mamet's exact quote: "A good film script should be able to do completely without dialogue." Mamet is an exceptionally skilled writer. He either made a horrendous mistake (in which case, his communications ability comes into question) or he means what he said. That sentence is in plain English. It needs no translation whatsoever. It speaks for itself.

We all are free to come to our own conclusions about what Mamet really meant. But with every conclusion, there is also a consequence. If we happen to be right, the consequence is favorable. And if we happen to be wrong, our communications skills come into question.

And that is an excellent suggestion, Mr. Mitchell. We should check into Mamet's writing. Does he use dialogue? Yes. Does he use about as much as any other professional writer. Yes. Given these facts, and really the only ones needed to reach an intelligent conclusion, there is a dramatic inconsistency between his quote and his actions. There's another more blunt word for that, but I'll leave that to readers to determine on their own.

If Mamet ever gets that one sentence "play" produced, Mr. Mitchell, please let me know.

Rather than a Zen statement, I think it is either a classic mistake (or don't you believe Mamet is capable of them?) or an arrogant and ignorant proposition.

@Jean - Was there any dialogue in the scene?

@Mr. Mitchell - I am curious about something. In your initial post, you state: "In the following weeks, I made time to read the play and found it very engrossing. I enjoyed it so much that I re-read it a few times knowing that, at some point, I would need to give it back to Michael. If you haven't had the pleasure of this compelling story of a professor and his female student, I highly recommend that you read it." Yet, you didn't remember that you had it in your car's back seat? It seems to me that if I were that involved in a story, I would remember where it was. Long before Mamet made his comment on dialogue, another more general one was made, and one that I find very insightful: "Actions speak louder than words."

@Mr. Mitchell, there is another point that interests me. You indicated that you had written John Houston at one point in time, and recommended that I contact Mamet about the quote, with a footnote about obtaining an autograph for you. Did you ever think of contacting Mamet yourself and asking him directly? Contact information for him is unbelievably easy to find.

"I always find it best to resolve one point at a time. It's all too easy to find and chase rabbit trails that lead everywhere, make us lose track of our original intent, and lead nowhere."

@Mr . Mitchell - Once again, my name is not "John". I don't know why you are unable to read the name on the screen in front of you. I have a few questions. You stated in a previous message, at its very beginning in fact, that: "“John, I wasn't aware of having an argument that needed winning but rather a discussion that might lead to interesting developments and insights.” If that's a true statement, then why did you say in a post just prior to that last one that: "OK, you win. We should all be offended by a quote that appeared on David Mamet's IMDB page and ignore the excellence of his vast body of work. Is that the point you are making?" Did you forget that you are the one who first mentioned "winning"? And do you characterize the sarcastic false dichotomy that you posed in the last part of your post, as part of "a discussion that might lead to interesting developments and insights”?

@Mr. Mitchell a couple of posts ago you stated: "I do apologize for any offense given but none was intended." 1. Is that your idea of an apology? An apology ends with a period, not a condition, explanation, or excuse. 2. When you use questionable logic tactics to express your points, such as false dichotomies and misleading quotes, how can you state that no offense was intended? Do you expect me to believe that you are so unskilled in the English language that you weren't aware of your use of these rhetorical devices?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADfknTgF1D4

"Because you can't threaten anyone with a squirt gun!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rRH5ZQwAys

Open Question to everyone: Has anyone seen "The Counselor" written by Cormac McCarthy? It has interesting dialogue in it that I see a lot of similarity's. The "Character Backstory" prom videos are really great one on one dialogue between characters in the main story. I see the same "Mamet Rhythm" and tone in the scenes. Have a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNVFopf5iCY

James, you are quite right, I referred to you as John. Possible it comes from the fact that I have more than one friend named James who, for reasons I cannot explain, prefer to go by John. Please accept my apology. We do not see eye-to-eye. I see Zen and you see an arrogant and ignorant proposition... "If Mamet ever gets that one sentence "play" produced, Mr. Mitchell, please let me know." As you well know, I was speaking figuratively. I think his statement fulfilled all that one could ask of a play in spurring thought, discussion and emotional reaction... "Yet, you didn't remember that you had it in your car's back seat? It seems to me that if I were that involved in a story, I would remember where it was." The action of having it near to me does speak loudly though, as I wrote, I was about to visit a friend in the hospital that day and my thoughts were occupied with that reality on the occasion. "Mr. Mitchell, there is another point that interests me. You indicated that you had written John Houston at one point in time, and recommended that I contact Mamet about the quote, with a footnote about obtaining an autograph for you. Did you ever think of contacting Mamet yourself and asking him directly? Contact information for him is unbelievably easy to find." I had given some thought to it but also wondered, owing to the quirkiness of the original encounter, if I might cross paths with him again. Two years earlier, I had seen him in the barber shop at the Brentwood Country Mart. The phenomenon of frequently crossing paths with someone had occurred to me previously with Connie Sellecca and Jamie Lee Curtis and I thought history might repeat itself. It hasn't. If you have no interest in contacting him to resolve the question of the quote personally, perhaps I shall. "If that's a true statement, then why did you say in a post just prior to that last one that: "OK, you win." I think you are taking that a bit too literally--it was just a way of saying that you were correct in demonstrating that quotes can support any point of view and was not advancing the discussion.

A provocative scene, Brad, thanks! I've not seen "The Counselor" but now I think I want to :)

Upon further review and especially because of The Verdict, Wag the Dog and others, I think Mamet ranks up there with "Paddy" Chayefsky for Network, Edward Albee for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Rod Serling for Seven Days in May... :)

Just had an entertaining few minutes reading through this thread. @Stephen. I tip my hat to you for your patience in the face of abuse and ridicule. I'm a fan of Mamets philosophy, and I find the quote which sparked the above discussion very useful in my writing and directing. It is a view espoused by Hitchcock and Eisenstein too, among others. Also summed up by the "show don't tell" paradigm. I have never taken the Mamet quote as literal. His films are often very wordy, and he writes fine dialogue. I always took the quote to be a reminder to evaluate the story, the structure, the visual metaphors and everything else in a script without the dialogue. If the script/film still works, and works well, then you're on the right track. I find it really handy to evaluate, for example, a scene using the question: Does this work without dialogue. Does the scene make sense, does it flow, is it interesting and touching. If yes, then the dialogue will add a layer to the scene rather than just "be" the scene. @John. Seriously? Mate lighten up. You took a post with a pleasant anecdote from someones life and used it to rant and attack the OP. You attack his discussion technique, whilst hopelessly failing yourself. You spend rather a lot of words comparing just two films, and basing the merit of the film as a piece of art on the box office take... wow. Many excellent films make little at the box office and many pieces of poo make millions. So many factors determine cash success that it is a very tenuous metric to use. I'm not saying it isn't a measure worth looking at, just that it needs to be balanced with other factors. The same goes for Award wins and nominations. Don't forget, you started the "argument" with a provocative, simplistic, inflammatory statement, and then proceeded, after some civilised responses from the OP, to attack on a personal level. Please enjoy the irony I intend by referring you to the following link: http://you-win-the-internet.com/.

@Stephen. Ever read a little book called "On directing film" by Mr. Mamet. Hugely enjoyable and informative and invaluable. http://www.amazon.com/On-Directing-Film-David-Mamet/dp/0140127224/

Kristjan, I have not read his "On directing film" but I'll get it and keep it close for the next time we cross paths! :) I think the preface alone makes the book worth the price of admission and if one goes to the link in Kristjan's post and clicks on the blue 'Look Inside" tab on the book, it can be previewed for free. Reading it reminded me of Steve McQueen who was reputed for blue-penciling most of his dialogue to be thrown out or handed off to other actors in the scene. When asked why he did this, he answered, "The others talk, the star reacts". This was confirmed by his son Chad when I spoke with him at a Turner Classic Movies event honoring his father and screening the film Le Mans.

Just walked over to my bookshelves to grab On Directing Film and leaf through it, and lo, 't is not there. Must have lent it to someone at sometime! Just ordered a new copy as it's been a few years since I read it. It was the first book on filmmaking I ever bought, and I had never even heard of David Mamet at the time. Enjoy the read!

If you can Kristjan, also pick up a copy of " True and False: Heresy and Common Sense for the Actor " its GREAT!!!

Good tip Brad, looks interesting :) Best way to learn to direct acting is to study acting!

I agree. This sentiment led me to obtain a S.A.G. card back in the day.

@Kristjan - "To date he has made short films, commercials, corporates, music videos and a full length documentary." I can see how you have benefited from Mamet's quote.

What exactly are you trying to say, James?

Simply that I finally realized I was in the presence of two individuals with vastly superior talent and intelligence. And there is only one thing to say in such a situation: Namaste! "In Hinduism it means 'I bow to the divine in you.'" See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namaste

"Over the years, Stephen has made a dozen independent movies none of which are on IMDB, but that's a story for a blog post."

And, again, your point is?

You appear to have time, perhaps in this thread, to tell that story. I would love to hear it. Namaste!

Good idea. I'll make it it's own thread. Are you a Buddhist?

Why do you ask?

How long will it take you to post that story? I am very curious as to how someone could have made a dozen independent movies and none of them are on IMDB.

Insert picture of man beating a quite dead horse here.

If you don't want to answer, that's fine.

hahahaha! I was going to say the same thing Simon! JDS has some serious issues that I think need to be taken care of with a counselor! hahaha! YIKES!! Hope he dosent chime in when SM talks about Shakespeare next week! hhahahaha!

Probabably in about a week but the story has already been told in the webinar I did for Stage 32. If you are in a hurry to know, click on the Next Level Werbinar archives...

@Mr. Starks - you seem like someone who likes pears. Do you prefer medlars (mespilus germanica) or the poperin (same genus and species)?

@Mr. Starks, you have nothing to worry about. I'm sure whatever Mr. Mitchell has to say about Shakespeare will be way over my head. Namaste!

@James David Sullivan. Again, I reiterate: lighten up. It is now looking a bit silly when all you can do is make personal jibes by looking my bio somewhere and then making a snarky remark. Specially considering you provide no info about yourself. You have no picture, no actual information about who you are or what you do, your IMDB link leads to a weird poem on youtube, and you don't seem to be on IMDb at all. And yet you attack Stephen on the whole IMDb issue, and attack me on my level of experience. On the internets there is a word for this kind of behaviour. Troll. And I'm afraid that is what you are doing right here. Let it go. There is nothing to be won here. And being rude to Brad with obtuse fruit references is seriously low.

As Mamet would say, 'YOU'VE GUMMED THE PLAY AND 'CRACKED OUT OF TURN JAMES! ' Have a look at this when you can as youv'e proved in this thread over the past few days, you're a good Troll : "Online Trolls make offensive comments that are designed to upset others strictly for their own enjoyment. Internet trolls are more likely than others to show signs of sadism, psychopathy and "Machiavellianism": a disregard for morality and tendency to manipulate or exploit others ideas. It is the practice of behaving in a deceptive, destructive, or disruptive manner in a social setting on the Internet with no apparent instrumental purpose. If an unfortunate person falls into their trap, trolling intensifies for further, merciless amusement. This is why novice Internet users are routinely admonished. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS! " My Motherfucker is so cool, when he goes to sleep , Sheep count him! " - Mamet

"People may or may not say what they mean... but they always say something designed to get what they want." David Mamet

BEST STORY ABOUT TV AUDITION WITH DAVID MAMET! WATCH: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAe7OQ4rqxQ

Great video and excellent advice!

Lovely vid indeed. It's always illuminating to experience things from the other side every now and then!

It's what led me to get a S.A.G. card in the early days to get a sense of what actors wanted and needed from a director...