The purpose of drama, and its relationship to Cameron Diaz’s ass
Matías from Mallorca, Spain writes in:
I’d really like you to comment on these thoughts by David Mamet:
“People have tried for centuries to use drama to change people’s lives, to influence, to comment, to express themselves. It doesn’t work. It might be nice if it worked for those things, but it doesn’t. The only thing the dramatic form is good for is telling a story.”
I haven’t read Mamet’s full essay on “Countercultural Architecture and Dramatic Structure,”1 but through the wonders of Google Book Search, I was able to look at the quote in context. It’s part of a meandering rant, and not the key thesis of his essay. So I feel safe disassembling it without challenging the authority of a revered playwright.
He doesn’t detail his logic behind why drama doesn’t work for those four specific purposes, but it’s part of a larger criticism of how filmmakers spend too much energy making “statements” and too little effort on making movies. And fair enough.
I don’t have evidence to argue that drama can change people’s lives. I know it can affect them; I’ve got a folder full of emails about Big Fish. But “changing someone’s life” implies a marked and permanent alteration, and given my limited sample size (myself), I haven’t found that any drama has necessarily done that.
Can drama influence or comment? Certainly. We often think of comedy as the preferred means of making a social or political observation (Bulworth, 9 to 5, Borat), but there’s a long history of issue-oriented dramas, many of them top-tier (Reds, Traffic, Hotel Rwanda).
Can writers use drama to express themselves? Well, yes, obviously. Most artistic works, from graffiti to haiku, can be considered self-expression — though to my thinking, anyone who defends his work as self-expression is very likely a hack.
There’s no question that you can write a movie about how shitty your parents were. Mamet isn’t really denying that. He’s saying drama isn’t good for this purpose, the same way you can pound a nail in with a wrench, but it’s not the ideal tool. Maybe drama, with its demands of plot and tension and resolution, is not particularly well-suited to a lot of the tasks put before it.
Ultimately, I agree with his point if not his conviction. The foremost purpose of a movie should be the story itself. If a secondary purpose (such as social commentary, or “telling my journey”) weakens the story, you’ve weakened the movie.
I know this is high talk coming from a guy who co-wrote Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle. But that trainwreck is actually a perfect example of how a movie collapses when nearly every element (wardrobe, choreography, wire-fu) is allowed to trump story.2
WRITER
Why don’t the Angels just sneak onto the boat?
DIRECTOR
We need a striptease number.
WRITER
But what are they doing?
DIRECTOR
It’s going to be sexy -- lace stockings, riding crops and...
WRITER
But why are the Angels doing it?
DIRECTOR
I dunno. They need to get something. Think of something they need to get. You’re the writer.
(Repeat 149 times.)
What Mamet is arguing is that even high-minded goals like social commentary ultimately become Cameron Diaz’s swirling ass — attractive distractions that ultimately lessen a movie. And he’s got a point.
- It’s apparently also in On Directing Film
. ↩
- If you’re bored and curious, the DVD commentary between me and The Wibberleys is an amusing dissection of how Full Throttle got so messed up. ↩
Filed under: Film Industry, QandA, Rant, Story and Plot
Articles
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Although I agree with Mamet on some points, he also seems to be slamming those post-modern anti-narrative aueters who want to defy conventions. The kind of writers who want to ignore structure and craft.
But I do believe drama (and telling good stories) can change the world. Yes, I am that idealistic. The problem is I think its difficult to quantify that type of change.
I know he’s talking about film here, but for the past few decades, methods of social change via inter-active theater has actually changed behavior norms and made a difference in many developing countries (like the work of Augusto Boal). One only need look at the non-profit org Theatre for a Change(www.tfacafrica.com) to see the advocacy and education regarding the AIDs epidemic in parts of Africa. But how again do you quantify if its working? If mortality rates go down, is it because more access to medicine or because of more prevention? How do you say specifically, because this one theatre group did a show, this other person decided to use a condom? That kind of data is hard.
Then on the other hand, take a film like An Inconvenient Truth? How many opinions did it change? It raised awareness, probably, but possibly only reached the people who really cared about that issue. (Of course, if he had a obligatory shot of Cameron Diaz’s ass, that would have helped ticket sales.)
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
If I think of a story as a tool it is good for a great deal of purposes, entertainment being one of them, you also have a unique chance to learn from other peoples (characters) mistakes.
FRIEND
God dammit, I just lost another thousand bucks to friggin pyramid scam!
ME
(smug to an obnoxious degree)
I have never been duped by anything like that.
FRIEND
Oh! You just must be sooooo much smarter than me.
ME
Nope, I´m dumb as a bell. I´ve just read to much Donald Duck to fall for anything like that.
German psychiatrist Bruno Bettelheim wrote a wonderfull book on the role of stories in the upbringing of children, titled “The Uses of Enchantment”. Well worth reading.
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I was profoundly influenced by both the movies Troy and Alexander the Great. Influenced to the point of change much for the better.
Too much to admit…publicly.
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Ah, the old “power of cinema” debate. Let’s ask someone at the top, shall we?
EXT. AWARDS SHOW RED CARPET
INTERVIEWER
Do you think this film changes people’s lives?
PRODUCER
Oh yes, of course. That’s why we made it... I mean, ever since I heard about the struggles of these people, I knew it was a story that could change their situation... and make the world a better place.
CUT TO:INT. MORNING SHOW – DAY
INTERVIEWER
Some argue that violence in movies affects people in a negative way...
PRODUCER
See, it’s lies like these that we must stamp out. Movies don’t change people. My movie didn’t put a gun in that kid’s hand... and it most certainly didn’t pull the trigger!
Sorry, buddy… but you can’t have it both ways. So why don’t we ask the people who foot the bill?
INT. AD AGENCY – DAY
A red-faced MARKETING DIRECTOR faces a table full of creative minds.
MARKETING DIRECTOR
Okay, this ad will be seen right before half-time, so we’re not leaving this room until we come up with a story that will change the way people look at the way they buy cereal!
I’m afraid we have a winner! And yes, I am unapologetically idealistic about the influence of film. Films give people hope. They give people a new perspective. And sometimes they teach them how to use a few new colorful words. Granted, most of the time the effects of cinema are fairly subtle, but a change is a change. And power is power. It must be handled with care. Dare I say responsibility? O the humanity! Not the R-word!
September 23rd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Back when I used to review movies for my local paper I always tried to put myself in the shoes of a teacher or a steelworker who’d had a lousy week at work and was going to spend their hard-earned cash on one movie on Friday night. What did they want from that movie?
I figured above all else they wanted to be entertained. That’s what they’re paying for. This has been my key question for grading movies ever since. Was it entertaining? And that comes with good story. You can have all the special effects and stunts you want but if the story makes no sense audiences will struggle with it.
And I don’t mind movies that want to send a message IF – and it’s a big if – they entertain me first and foremost. Otherwise the old line about using Western Union rings true for me. Most people can get lectured to in plenty of places other than the multiplex. It’s not what they go there for. It’s why a lot of “critically acclaimed, powerful” films bomb at the box office.
September 23rd, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Ummm… The Miracle Worker, Malcom X, American History X, Seven Years In Tibet, Kundun, Girl Interrupted, Earthlings, Colors, Roots, Daughters Of The Dust, Gandhi, Gorillas In The Mist, Mona Lisa Smile, Instinct, Mighty Joe Young, Niagara Niagara, Blood Diamond, Children Of A Lesser God.
Really… I’ve been banned in three countries and asked to speak at the UN over the concern of my films potential “influence”. Its real. – People join the peace corps after watching Babel, and give up hunting after watching the deer scene in Powder. And even if you don’t think what Morgan Spurlock does is dramatization… it is.
In fact… skilled dramatization influences the public SO massively that: 1- Your entire election process has chosen it as their weapon to GARNER influence. 2- The largest budgeted video game this year will be a dramatization of American military operations for purposes of early recruitment. and 3- You most likely know at least one nut job who became ABSOLUTELY sure of what Mozart’s laugh sounded like after seeing Amadeous.
We see heroes and villains. We want to believe.
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
The title of Mamet’s essay refers to how Countercultural Architecture was a movement wherein architects designed buildings that reflected something about their personality – that were completely unlivable houses. The thesis is not that a movie has to entertain first – his thesis is that a movie has to entertain only.
There’s also a fantastic essay somewhere about the failure of the “Problem Play” – a play that’s written to bring to the light the poverty of Calcutta, the wrongness of suffrage, etc. But reading his writing, you can tell that he’s been fantastically moved by many movies, and believes that they can ‘change’ or inspire people. But in those cases, those exterior response are the happy side effects of a well-told drama.
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I can attest – a film did change my life. It really did change how I view the world and how I make my own fiction. A couple of others also helped me along through an existential crisis a while back as well. However, I do believe it’s rare for films to create real, lasting, personal change. How much affect do “issue” films have? I don’t know, but when they come out they get the media shining a little more light on whatever “issue” it is. Does that light attract the attention of people in a position to make actual change? Or does everybody just wiki it, learn a bit of skewed history and move on to the next interesting tidbit? Dunno. Somebody get some numbers on this.
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:35 pm
I loved On Directing Film. While I find some points don’t really apply to my view on drama anymore, Mamet’s book was the scaffolding that held me during those early attempts.
As far as drama changing people, that’s not its basic purpose, but yes, of course it can. Plenty of people have had their lives changed by good stories. People have had their lives changed by subway trains and malfunctioning airbags, too. You cannot guess what will change people, you can only tell your story and move on.
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:16 pm
A movie is a storytelling form—to say that a movie should focus on story is like saying that a symphony should focus on being musical. The question is, What does a story do? Is it a pleasant distraction from the daily grind? Is it an emotional release that relies on the suspension of the intellect? Or, could it be that we understand our identities in terms of narrative, and so by placing ourselves in the context of other narratives we can test our boundaries as people and challenge our place in the world?
I haven’t read Mamet’s book, but I imagine he’s referring to the work of those filmmakers who haven’t figured out that stories always communicate. But if you force a movie to try to communicate just one thing, encapsulate one and only one idea, you’re making an essay, not a story. If you dress it up like a story, it’s going to be preachy and painful.
A little like this post. This is all easy for me to say, just a dabbler in short films. But it’s a subject close to my heart. Thanks for an interesting post, Mr. August.
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:24 pm
I don’t think watching Hotel Rwanda made people who didn’t care much about what’s going on in Africa suddenly have a change of heart. But I think films and tv effect culture in much more subtle ways.
Seeing gay couple’s on tv regularly can make people more accepting of it even if they don’t know anyone gay personally. Same goes with Blacks or Mexicans or any other minority. It’s much easier to believe racist remarks when you don’t know anybody of that race. Look what people think about Islam. Also, it can inspire people like a kid who wants to be a doctor after watching Grey’s Anatomy or a girl in Iran believing women can do more after watching The Sarah Conner Chronicles. That’s one of the reason’s I love movies and tv so much.
As for a filmmaker making some sort of statement, I really don’t think it changes most people who weren’t ready for the change to begin with.
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Uncle Tom’s Cabin.
The Bible.
I like Mamet. But he’s turning into a real blowhard.
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
S.A.M, you’re hilarious.
I agree with John to a great extent. A script is meant to tell a story. The story should be straightforward from the get-go, but should include elements of morality, lessons to be learned, and IF the striptease helped in those lessons and elements getting GELLED to the story, then it should have been included.
That said, Lucy’s swirling ass was much more in-my-face than Cameron’s.
In addition, I’m going to be idealistic too and say that films change people. But only the ones that really leave an impact. I’m not going to lie and say “The Transporter” or “The Fast and the Furious” changed my life. But after watching “Last Holiday” and “Cold Mountain”, I was really drained emotionally and mentally, and that impact would be the ‘thing’ that would make me look at the world differently, even if it is only a slight difference.
Who knows, if you watch enough films and shows, all those slight differences might add up to an immense CHANGE that would allow you to “Save the cheerleader, save the world!”
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:18 pm
This is kinda sorta a followup question – not really for it is way off topic. Does a writer need to be at all concerned about repercussions when talking smack about a project he/she’s worked on? I’m sure you have many a egg in the basket and can – literally – afford not to work with/for certain producing entities. But the idea of only the rich can bitch doesn’t sit well, for obvious reasons. Angels2 made big bucks. It didn’t hurt your career. Yet you seem quite outspoken about your dislikes about the picture. Don’t get me wrong… I think honesty is a rare and noble trait. I was just wondering what your thoughts were on when to aim the flamethrower at the bridge?
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:22 pm
I donno, seeing Baraka sure felt life changing to me.
The basic structure of my personality has been hugely effected by films. My ability to understand the world too has been altered by the narrative structure of cinema.
September 24th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Mamet says, “The only thing dramatic form is good for is telling a story.”
August says, “The foremost purpose of a movie should be the story itself. If a secondary purpose… weakens the story, you’ve weakened the movie.
Of those two statements, John’s obviously trumps David’s simply because it doesn’t sound like the unsupported ranting of someone who’s read one too many didactic screenplays by bad writers with “something to say.” I think Mamet should watch “Dead Man Walking” again. Robbins had an agenda with that film, but it didn’t get in the way of the story. “Cider House Rules” is another example, albeit slightly more one-sided.
But here’s the underlying issue at hand:
As John’s bootylicious example shows, screenwriting isn’t only about story… it’s also about MONEY. Yes, Full Throttle could’ve been a better movie without the obligatory pole dances, but how would that have effected opening weekend? We’ll never know.
I’m personally of the opinion that filmmakers should take the high road and reap the (supposedly) smaller paycheck, but unfortunately the people cutting the checks don’t share that opinion. In trying to create a blockbuster payout, the studios will sell their souls, give you a lap-dance, and pimp out their daughters, but then along comes The Dark Knight with none of that gimmicky sellout crap… only a (gasp) good story told in a compelling and original way by great actors and a great writer/director… and cha-ching!
Whether the studios “sell out” or not, some movies will hit it big and some will lose big (but enough of them will make a profit), so why can’t they just focus on telling good stories? Instead of being proud of the occasional success and ashamed of their failed sellouts, wouldn’t they rather be proud of ALL their products, even the financially unsuccessful ones?
September 24th, 2008 at 8:34 am
I don’t know what the hell Mamet is talking about. Is he trying to refer to how movies have failed in causing a “cultural revolution” like music have? (example: see gangster rap, punk rock, rock ‘n’ roll, hip hop, Motown), or is he talking about how movies have failed to change the course of political and social issues? I don’t get it.
Hollywood, for a long time, have been ahead in preaching racial tolerance, gender equality, rights for gays/queers, and anything else “progressive”, etc. “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” came out in 1967 and explored an interracial relationship between a white woman and a black man. “Brokeback Mountain” came out barely 3 years ago and looks at gay love in a very loving, humane way. Movies CAN and HAVE affected people’s outlook on life, politics, social issues, relationships and love.
Yes, movies are there to entertain us, but they also teach us little random messages about various issues, too.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:11 am
John: 1) Did you consider taking your name off of Charlie’s Angels? If yes, why did you not do it? 2) I watch most movies right up until the end — couldn’t finish Charlie’s. In fact, it was one of the most memorable movie going experiences of my life. I hate pharmaceuticals but I had to take a painkiller to ease the headache and a metaphorical prozac to make me happy about you again. 3) I will never see any McG ever again. 4) Thank God for your subsequent films: restored my faith in you. 5) Thank you for that nimble scene between you + director re: Charlie’s Angels. It makes me feel better about you.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:41 am
By all means, read all of Mamet’s book: it’s notoriously bad. In the directing classes I took at film school more than one teacher specifically enjoined us to read that book and then do the OPPOSITE of everything he recommends.
Mamet is a great playwright and a so-so screenwriter, but he’s terrible at, oh, let’s see: directing, TV writing, non-fiction writing, punditry… the list goes on and on.
September 24th, 2008 at 10:04 am
I actually like Mamet’s books about writing/directing. I think he so bull-headedly plows forward with his points that you almost have to disagree because of how vehemently he sticks to his guns about debateable things. He even contradicts himself several times throughout his books. But, i think he’s getting at a style to provoke the reader into thinking for themselves, not necessarily a “Do What I Say” type a deal…
Anyway, this is a prime example: He’s making a point about TRYING to change lives. He’s saying that, as artists, we can’t sit down and say, “I’m going to write something that changes the world.” Won’t work, he says. What you can do is sit down and tell a damn good story…and maybe, just maybe, people will be permanently affected by it.
September 24th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Wow, a lot of Mamet hate going around. I think he’s making a point about the writer’s intentions. If you try to use drama to influence, you won’t; if you don’t try, you might.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I think a good story can do any of the above.
The problem happens when you try to do any of the above before you entertain. Entertainment should be the first priority of any story. If you can entertain someone, you can make them listen.
For instance, if you were a kid, and I told you to build your house out of brick even though it was easier to use straw, would you listen? Doubtful. If I tell you the story of the three little pigs — much better chances.
Every movie says something, the difference is in the priority. Aliens can be compared to Vietnam, Ghostbusters was about facing your fears, that they might not be as big as you think, Face/Off was about family more than it was about blowing people up. Three entertaining films — all with messages.
It’s fine to have a message, just remember that you can’t sacrifice story for the message. People may not consciously know what message you’re going for — but they know characters, and as soon as your character violates the story for the message — the spell is broken.
September 24th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
But shouldn’t the purpose of a story be to say something about the world?
I don’t see Bulworth as a story with some social/political commentary in there, I see it as a social/political commentary told through that particular story. The Dark Knight’s story is amazing, but it’s partly amazing because of what it’s saying about the world we live in, and about us as people.
Done well, shouldn’t the commentary/self-expression of the artist and the story be indistinguishable?
September 25th, 2008 at 6:09 am
Were you watching a different Batman film than me, Nima? I don’t see any great social comment in ‘The Dark Knight’ other than as a way for it’s main character to blow more shit up and perform highly improbable stunts. I enjoyed the film itself but that’s reading way too much into it’s dark tone.
September 25th, 2008 at 7:16 am
mike-
Many people saw what Nima saw, including me. Seemed rather hard to miss, actually. Gotham’s need for a true hero. The nature of the “freak” in society. Sacrifice vs. self-preservation, and the ways those ideas can be twisted in times of terror. The dangers of breaking rules to achieve a virtuous end result. And those aren’t just things the hero is wrestling with. Every character seems to be wrestling with all the major themes in different ways. It’s really beautiful, actually.
The Dark Knight wasn’t about blowing things up. If that’s all you got from it, go watch it again and listen to the dialogue. It’s one moral dilemma after another. There’s no better “social comment” than putting the audience into a situation where their hero has to make a decision between two less-than-perfect choices.
Anyway, I know the explosions are big and the stunts are crazy, but they are just the pretty decor on a very solid foundation of a good script well-executed.
September 25th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Yeah, what S.A.M. said.
September 25th, 2008 at 10:17 am
I don’t get the post.
Drama is one thing, but expressing myself is another. The later to me is point of view. Diaz’s ass maybe interesting, but only if the director has a particular point of view to how the drama unfolds. Without POV doesn’t the drama become cliche?
September 25th, 2008 at 11:27 am
By drama, does Mamet mean exclusively the genre, or storytelling in general?
Because if he means storytelling, I really can’t disagree with the point more. For better or worse, see: a) The Bible and other assorted religious texts, b) Sci-fi writings and works that have inspired countless people in a variety of ways.
I saw Mamet’s ‘Redbelt’ this weekend, and I enjoyed it until the absurdity at the end took over, in what was otherwise a pretty well crafted and believable setup. Chiwetel Ejiofor gave a pretty good performance throughout too.
Although, I do see and agree with the point about making a too deliberate statement in a film which can tear the whole thing apart.
September 25th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Of course movies can change lives. But define change.
A good movie makes the world just a little bit better by being in it. That is, dare I say, the whole point of any art. Anyone not feel that, having seen a good movie — not to mention a great one — one’s life isn’t at least a little bit better? I’m not talking about making you taller or richer or increasing penis length*. I’m just saying a little bit better. That’s change.
Plus you might learn something. That’s a change, and a positive one. It might make you aware of a perspective you weren’t aware of previously. Not bad. It might even resonate lingeringly on your very character, and in doing so make you a marginally better person. Even if just for a while.
But to get to the point, obviously, and what we’re all really thinking: August vs. Mamet. Mamet’s got the bluster, but August is wiry, and might just have the reach.
* Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle shall remain out of this discussion, or at least my part of it. No one is absolved.
September 25th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Change is something that comes from within. A great dramatic story can elicit the thought that trigger’s change, but it is not solely responsible. Those who write (dramatically) only to provide social commentary or individualistic expression are forgetting the two purposes of dramatic writing/filmmaking – to tell a story and entertain an audience. Sure, one’s ideas aimed at incluenece can be included, but don’t let it strangle your story. If you write with a persuasive agenda, odds are the efforts will be noticeably forced. Let the dialogue and the characters tell the story…just make sure to get your point across.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
John, are you implying that Joseph McGinty Nichol is something less than the shrewdest, most artistically relevant auteur of our time?
How DARE you, sir.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I agree with Pepe: “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” changed the world, or at least helped to change it. I’m sure there are other examples.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
What I don’t get is the distinction between drama being “able” to do something and “not being a good tool” to do something. Good compared to what? Other tools that do the same thing? It’s pretty impossible to compare different media of communication that way.
To say “all the message in the world won’t save you if the story is bad” is obviously true–and kind of like saying all the story in the world won’t help you if you’re shooting with the lens cap on. Story is the vehicle for the message, without the story no one cares about the message.
So “the foremost purpose of a movie should be the story itself?” I don’t think so. A storyteller can design a story to suit whatever purpose she chooses. A good storyteller will, with the right wink from all the poorly-understood gods of timing and luck and inspiration, make it a good story.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:19 am
I agree that it is only a few handful of movies that changes lives, and mostly those who are is – generally speaking – a kind of documentary.
But even, if you want to preach, then you should become a priest, not a film maker (Michael Rabiger), so it is essential that one forgets the ego, and instead write a compelling and intuitive story that will focus on the character’s wisdom through conflicts.
And if your characters represent archetypes, you can get away with most things – even Charlie’s Angels. This because archetypes are part of our collective unconsciousness (Joseph Campbell / Christopher Vogler). And if they even follow some sort of “Hero’s path” (the hero’s mythic journey, replete with roadblocks and life lessons), you are, in my humble opinion, on the right track.
Now pair this with 1% creative magic and you might have something that will, if not change the world, then move people and hopefully give them something to think about. And isn’t this what it’s basically all about? Couldn’t it be that the collective viewing of films is one of our last tribal rituals?
Back to cooking…
October 1st, 2008 at 12:35 am
I watched Gandhi last week – and for the rest of the evening I wanted to go out and change the world (really!). Unfortunately I had to get up at 6.30 the next day and go to work…
On another tack, Ken Loach’s ‘Poor Cow’ so shook Britain in the 1960s that it lead to a change in the law regarding the child protection agencies. A film maker just needs to set his/her sights on an area of life where bad things are happening and an affecting film will make people think about more important things. Of course, someone should explain to Mr Mamet that Hollywood invading a small town to make a film is not exactly going acheive this…
December 19th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Mamet said: “People have tried for centuries to use drama to change people’s lives…”
Maybe drama doesn’t change us, but is there to greet us when we arrive. “When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.”
I think when I have “a-ha” moments watching movies it’s because I had already turned that ideological corner (for instance, I already accepted that there are horrible things going on outside our country that we could affect), and then saw Hotel Rwanda which brought it home for me. If I hadn’t turned that corner already, I might have chosen not to see that movie in the first place, or simply not absorbed the important themes. Therefore, dramatists are preaching to the choir.
It’s one of the reasons I enjoy “The Daily Show” with Jon Stewart and SNL. Those writers articulate ideas from current events that are swimming around in my mind. Their drama gives these concepts mooring for me, and, alas, surcease for my mild anxiety. (It’s weird how writing about drama makes me want to sound literary in a stuffy way!)
This is my first post – thanks for all you for us.
December 30th, 2008 at 4:12 am
I know I’m late on this, and perhaps no one will read it because of that, but I thought I’d throw in my hat as a personal experience–regarding the movie Good Will Hunting. Growing up in a less-than-decent part of San Antonio, I always envisioned I would stay pretty close to the city, eventually going to college there and even staying there afterwards for who-knows-how-long. But yeah, I found a lot of similarities in the movie to my situation. I’m not saying I’m a genius or anything. Even more, I’m not saying my friends are stupid or anything. But after being told I had the chance to go for ivy league/high tier colleges, I went back to Good Will Hunting and remembered Ben Affleck (oh boy) and the speech he gave to Damon’s character. That was what pushed me to take the chance. No one around me affected the decision–if they tried, it was going to be a call to stay.
It feels weird that one of the most important decisions of my life was decided by a movie, and when I tell people that, I get awkward silences–but I’m glad I did. I also end up citing it whenever I’m trying to motivate someone, too, which probably gets annoying very fast.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:35 am
You know, I actually stopped eating junk food after I saw “Super Size Me”.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
In my understanding the root of the problem is in what Roland Barthes called “the Death of the Author”. The problem isn’t the lack of influence of the movie on the movie goer. But rather the lack of influence of the writer on the influence the movie will make. Even a novelist can write a great story but is own view on it will be is reading of the text. In my own view it means that you cant read too much into your own writing – just write and hope that the outcome will please you(be it a poem, a movie, or a comment in a blog ;) ).
January 9th, 2009 at 12:48 am
We write because we think we can make a difference, otherwise, why write? We can find other ways to make money. Surely.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
One of the main purposes of art is to stimulate thought. Whether or not that changes people’s lives is the responsibility of the stimulatee (OK, I know that’s not a word).
January 10th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Nick – I love “Chuck”, by McG, absolutely think it’s brilliant. “Supernatural” also seems like a very well done show (compared to say, Charmed, in it’s genre, it comes out head and shoulders ahead, although I’ve only seen a few eps of each.)
Maybe McG is not good at movies, but his genre series seem to work for me. Just not PC Dolls…
January 12th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I agree and I disagree with Mamet. I agree that a movie will not change people’s lives. However, movies will. Movies, or any mass media for that matter, have a tremendous effect on people. It’s like eating a donut. Eating one donut will not make you fat. Eating hundreds of thousands of donuts over the course of your life probably will.
“There’s no question that you can write a movie about how shitty your parents were. Mamet isn’t really denying that. He’s saying drama isn’t good for this purpose, the same way you can pound a nail in with a wrench, but it’s not the ideal tool.”
Writing a movie about how shitty your parents were is exactly what Mamet says drama is good for. That’s telling the story of your shitty childhood. What drama is bad for, according to Mamet, is making other people into better parents, or hell, even making your own parents better.
And to be honest, Cameron Diaz’s ass doesn’t get in the way of telling a story. It just gets in the way of telling a <i/> good story.
January 16th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
For David Mamet:
“The only thing the dramatic form is good for is telling a story.” Huh? That’s it? Nothing else? Mr. Mamet, doesn’t dramatic form…
…create jobs within the film industry?
…give people a vehicle from which they can examine their own lives and the world around them?
…teach people?
…offer a vehicle for hope?
(Hm, Mr. Mamet, did you write your piece regarding dramatic form just to provoke people?)
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
In 1996, on an airplane from Toronto to LA, I saw the movie “Babe” on a tiny screen. Never ate meat again.