• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

David Mamet's Email to the Unit

David Mamet, screenwriter and playwrite, is an executive producer of the TV series THE UNIT. An email he sent to the writers of the show in 2005 has been put out on the web and I found this to be amazingly helpful, no matter how blunt it is. Read:

“TO THE WRITERS OF THE UNIT

GREETINGS.

AS WE LEARN HOW TO WRITE THIS SHOW, A RECURRING PROBLEM BECOMES CLEAR.

THE PROBLEM IS THIS: TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN DRAMA AND NON-DRAMA. LET ME BREAK-IT-DOWN-NOW.

EVERYONE IN CREATION IS SCREAMING AT US TO MAKE THE SHOW CLEAR. WE ARE TASKED WITH, IT SEEMS, CRAMMING A SHITLOAD OF INFORMATION INTO A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.

OUR FRIENDS. THE PENGUINS, THINK THAT WE, THEREFORE, ARE EMPLOYED TO COMMUNICATE INFORMATION — AND, SO, AT TIMES, IT SEEMS TO US.

BUT NOTE:THE AUDIENCE WILL NOT TUNE IN TO WATCH INFORMATION. YOU WOULDN’T, I WOULDN’T. NO ONE WOULD OR WILL. THE AUDIENCE WILL ONLY TUNE IN AND STAY TUNED TO WATCH DRAMA.

QUESTION:WHAT IS DRAMA? DRAMA, AGAIN, IS THE QUEST OF THE HERO TO OVERCOME THOSE THINGS WHICH PREVENT HIM FROM ACHIEVING A SPECIFIC, ACUTE GOAL.

SO: WE, THE WRITERS, MUST ASK OURSELVES OF EVERY SCENE THESE THREE QUESTIONS.

1) WHO WANTS WHAT?
2) WHAT HAPPENS IF HER DON’T GET IT?
3) WHY NOW?

THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE LITMUS PAPER. APPLY THEM, AND THEIR ANSWER WILL TELL YOU IF THE SCENE IS DRAMATIC OR NOT.

IF THE SCENE IS NOT DRAMATICALLY WRITTEN, IT WILL NOT BE DRAMATICALLY ACTED.

THERE IS NO MAGIC FAIRY DUST WHICH WILL MAKE A BORING, USELESS, REDUNDANT, OR MERELY INFORMATIVE SCENE AFTER IT LEAVES YOUR TYPEWRITER. YOU THE WRITERS, ARE IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE EVERY SCENE IS DRAMATIC.

THIS MEANS ALL THE “LITTLE” EXPOSITIONAL SCENES OF TWO PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD. THIS BUSHWAH (AND WE ALL TEND TO WRITE IT ON THE FIRST DRAFT) IS LESS THAN USELESS, SHOULD IT FINALLY, GOD FORBID, GET FILMED.

IF THE SCENE BORES YOU WHEN YOU READ IT, REST ASSURED IT WILL BORE THE ACTORS, AND WILL, THEN, BORE THE AUDIENCE, AND WE’RE ALL GOING TO BE BACK IN THE BREADLINE.

SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE THE SCENE DRAMATIC. IT IS NOT THE ACTORS JOB (THE ACTORS JOB IS TO BE TRUTHFUL). IT IS NOT THE DIRECTORS JOB. HIS OR HER JOB IS TO FILM IT STRAIGHTFORWARDLY AND REMIND THE ACTORS TO TALK FAST. IT IS YOUR JOB.

EVERY SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC. THAT MEANS: THE MAIN CHARACTER MUST HAVE A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, PRESSING NEED WHICH IMPELS HIM OR HER TO SHOW UP IN THE SCENE.

THIS NEED IS WHY THEY CAME. IT IS WHAT THE SCENE IS ABOUT. THEIR ATTEMPT TO GET THIS NEED MET WILL LEAD, AT THE END OF THE SCENE,TO FAILURE - THIS IS HOW THE SCENE IS OVER. IT, THIS FAILURE, WILL, THEN, OF NECESSITY, PROPEL US INTO THE NEXT SCENE.

ALL THESE ATTEMPTS, TAKEN TOGETHER, WILL, OVER THE COURSE OF THE EPISODE, CONSTITUTE THE PLOT.

ANY SCENE, THUS, WHICH DOES NOT BOTH ADVANCE THE PLOT, AND STANDALONE (THAT IS, DRAMATICALLY, BY ITSELF, ON ITS OWN MERITS) IS EITHER SUPERFLUOUS, OR INCORRECTLY WRITTEN.

YES BUT YES BUT YES BUT, YOU SAY: WHAT ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF WRITING IN ALL THAT “INFORMATION?”

AND I RESPOND “FIGURE IT OUT” ANY DICKHEAD WITH A BLUESUIT CAN BE (AND IS) TAUGHT TO SAY “MAKE IT CLEARER”, AND “I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT HIM”.

WHEN YOU’VE MADE IT SO CLEAR THAT EVEN THIS BLUESUITED PENGUIN IS HAPPY, BOTH YOU AND HE OR SHE WILL BE OUT OF A JOB.

THE JOB OF THE DRAMATIST IS TO MAKE THE AUDIENCE WONDER WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. NOT TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT JUST HAPPENED, OR TO*SUGGEST* TO THEM WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

ANY DICKHEAD, AS ABOVE, CAN WRITE, “BUT, JIM, IF WE DON’T ASSASSINATE THE PRIME MINISTER IN THE NEXT SCENE, ALL EUROPE WILL BE ENGULFED IN FLAME”

WE ARE NOT GETTING PAID TO REALIZE THAT THE AUDIENCE NEEDS THIS INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND THE NEXT SCENE, BUT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WRITE THE SCENE BEFORE US SUCH THAT THE AUDIENCE WILL BE INTERESTED IN WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

YES BUT, YES BUT YES BUT YOU REITERATE.

AND I RESPOND FIGURE IT OUT.

HOW DOES ONE STRIKE THE BALANCE BETWEEN WITHHOLDING AND VOUCHSAFING INFORMATION? THAT IS THE ESSENTIAL TASK OF THE DRAMATIST. AND THE ABILITY TO DO THAT IS WHAT SEPARATES YOU FROM THE LESSER SPECIES IN THEIR BLUE SUITS.

FIGURE IT OUT.

START, EVERY TIME, WITH THIS INVIOLABLE RULE: THE SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC. it must start because the hero HAS A PROBLEM, AND IT MUST CULMINATE WITH THE HERO FINDING HIM OR HERSELF EITHER THWARTED OR EDUCATED THAT ANOTHER WAY EXISTS.

LOOK AT YOUR LOG LINES. ANY LOGLINE READING “BOB AND SUE DISCUSS…” IS NOT DESCRIBING A DRAMATIC SCENE.

PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR OUTLINES ARE, GENERALLY, SPECTACULAR. THE DRAMA FLOWS OUT BETWEEN THE OUTLINE AND THE FIRST DRAFT.

THINK LIKE A FILMMAKER RATHER THAN A FUNCTIONARY, BECAUSE, IN TRUTH, YOU ARE MAKING THE FILM. WHAT YOU WRITE, THEY WILL SHOOT.

HERE ARE THE DANGER SIGNALS. ANY TIME TWO CHARACTERS ARE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.

ANY TIME ANY CHARACTER IS SAYING TO ANOTHER “AS YOU KNOW”, THAT IS, TELLING ANOTHER CHARACTER WHAT YOU, THE WRITER, NEED THE AUDIENCE TO KNOW, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.

DO NOT WRITE A CROCK OF SHIT. WRITE A RIPPING THREE, FOUR, SEVEN MINUTE SCENE WHICH MOVES THE STORY ALONG, AND YOU CAN, VERY SOON, BUY A HOUSE IN BEL AIR AND HIRE SOMEONE TO LIVE THERE FOR YOU.

REMEMBER YOU ARE WRITING FOR A VISUAL MEDIUM. MOST TELEVISION WRITING, OURS INCLUDED, SOUNDS LIKE RADIO. THE CAMERA CAN DO THE EXPLAINING FOR YOU. LET IT. WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERS DOING -*LITERALLY*. WHAT ARE THEY HANDLING, WHAT ARE THEY READING. WHAT ARE THEY WATCHING ON TELEVISION, WHAT ARE THEY SEEING.

IF YOU PRETEND THE CHARACTERS CANT SPEAK, AND WRITE A SILENT MOVIE, YOU WILL BE WRITING GREAT DRAMA.

IF YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF OF THE CRUTCH OF NARRATION, EXPOSITION,INDEED, OF SPEECH. YOU WILL BE FORGED TO WORK IN A NEW MEDIUM - TELLING THE STORY IN PICTURES (ALSO KNOWN AS SCREENWRITING)

THIS IS A NEW SKILL. NO ONE DOES IT NATURALLY. YOU CAN TRAIN YOURSELVES TO DO IT, BUT YOU NEED TO START.

I CLOSE WITH THE ONE THOUGHT: LOOK AT THE SCENE AND ASK YOURSELF “IS IT DRAMATIC? IS IT ESSENTIAL? DOES IT ADVANCE THE PLOT?

ANSWER TRUTHFULLY.

IF THE ANSWER IS “NO” WRITE IT AGAIN OR THROW IT OUT. IF YOU’VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS, CALL ME UP.

LOVE, DAVE MAMET
SANTA MONICA 19 OCTO 05

(IT IS NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW THE ANSWERS, BUT IT IS YOUR, AND MY, RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW AND TO ASK THE RIGHT Questions OVER AND OVER. UNTIL IT BECOMES SECOND NATURE. I BELIEVE THEY ARE LISTED ABOVE.)”

I want to print this off and have this near me every time I write a screenplay...
 
Love it (self important use of all caps aside)

As Iv been studying this, reading books and getting help both online and off, some of this has become clear. Particularly exposition. For example, I like creating back story, I like complete ideas, and having reasons for everything. But in my script I can just assume that the viewer can "figure it out" maybe the viewers conclusion wont match the back story as I know it, but so long as they are able to develop a working model of the reality that I'm trying to create, then Iv exposed enough.

As for drama, thats eye opening. Im just starting to get a glimpse of this under the covers. The heroes 1000 faces, his journey etc are all starting to gel in my head. "No scene that doesn't turn!" is starting to become mantra.. thanks for sharing boo
 
Well, he makes more money than I do... but here's what I got from it:

1) Expository writing is poor style.
smiley_golfclap.gif


2) For someone well-versed in writing, his keyboard is missing something. Not quite exactly sure what... :rolleyes:



David Mamet said:
DO NOT WRITE A CROCK OF SHIT.

Regardless of one's writing style, who can argue with that? :huh:


Is this "leaked" email sourced anywhere, btw?
 
Its a great essay, but something smells fishy to me...wouldn't his staff of writers supposedly know this already? I mean, in order to get the gig? As Bird points out, these are fundamentals, rudiments.

It smells like one of those generic screeds on "the oxymorons of modern life" that get e-mailed around and eventually attributed to George Carlin.
 
This is very good. I'll be keeping near at hand when I do script analysis. I could benefit from focusing more on the visual. That stated, I am not a fan of the damn near silent film.

"IF YOU PRETEND THE CHARACTERS CANT SPEAK, AND WRITE A SILENT MOVIE, YOU WILL BE WRITING GREAT DRAMA."

This line of thinking would remove the entire "Royale with cheese" discussion from pulp fiction, the taxidermy discussion from psycho, and the death star contractors debate along with 2/3 of the rest of the movie from Clerks.
 
Is this "leaked" email sourced anywhere, btw?

It is pretty far out in the blogosphere. Just look up DAVID MAMET EMAIL TO WRITERS and you'll find it in a few hundred places with all kinds of commentary and explanation.

"IF YOU PRETEND THE CHARACTERS CANT SPEAK, AND WRITE A SILENT MOVIE, YOU WILL BE WRITING GREAT DRAMA."

This line of thinking would remove the entire "Royale with cheese" discussion from pulp fiction, the taxidermy discussion from psycho, and the death star contractors debate along with 2/3 of the rest of the movie from Clerks.

Yes, but those seemingly mundane discussions tell us a lot about the characters. You can justify that within the confines of what he's saying. Also, the point is more that the story can be told visually. Do you want to hear a character tell us about a fight they had or should we SEE the fight?
 
Mamet = Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright, one of the great American dramatists of all time. Yes, this ought to be boilerplate - we all know exposition is a four-letter word (or should) - but it's easy to fall back on the rote. Thirty lashes from the taskmaster are occasionally in order.
 
noob confusion..

2001, Im confused by your use of the term exposition. Seems all cinema is exposition. Showing action is another way of "exposing" information, isn't it?

(stupid noob, maybe I misunderstand the word)

Expository dialog seems to be the major sin, along with its cousin, visual scenes whose only purpose is exposition. But in contrast, aren't we striving to "expose" as much information is as few words and images as possible?

Deconfuse me please :)

thanks
 
Im confused by your use of the term exposition. Seems all cinema is exposition. Showing action is another way of "exposing" information, isn't it? Expository dialog seems to be the major sin, along with its cousin, visual scenes whose only purpose is exposition.

It's just screenwriter shorthand to refer to expository dialogue as "exposition" (half the syllables, ya'see - it's all about streamlining :) ), but you got the gist.
 
Yes, but those seemingly mundane discussions tell us a lot about the characters. You can justify that within the confines of what he's saying. Also, the point is more that the story can be told visually. Do you want to hear a character tell us about a fight they had or should we SEE the fight?

I get that but I felt that in a forum like this it could use a little clarification since a lot of people on here (myself included) are pretty green.

It seems like every short written now is some silent, film school garbage that focuses only on the visual because this ideology is hammered into every new writers head as gospel. It's important and in principal I agree with it, but it should always be followed up with the disclaimer that this is basic blocking and tackling and it's hard to be great or make a name for yourself by following the rules and sticking to the basics. The questions that linger with the viewer after the credits don't typically come from the visuals. You have got to hang your balls out there once in a while and let the viewer think about things rather than seeing them.

The Tony Rocky Horror bit from Pulp Fiction was 2 guys in a hallway discussing something that happened elsewhere between 3 people who weren't in the scene and I've never heard anyone advocate it's removal from the film.
 
Last edited:
It seems like every short written now is some silent, film school garbage that focuses only on the visual because this ideology is hammered into every new writers head as gospel.

The problem with the type of film to which you are referring is not whether the scene contains dialogue or not, but whether the writer is moving the story forward or not. I know exactly what you're talking about. I've seen far too many shots of a lonely outcast staring mutely into his/her bathroom mirror and/or strolling alone down a sidewalk, lost in contemplation. This would be fine if we knew WHY this person is behaving this way, but too many wannabe filmmakers consider it "arty" to establish character in that manner. It doesn't establish character, just bores the crap out of the audience.

The Tony Rocky Horror bit from Pulp Fiction was 2 guys in a hallway discussing something that happened elsewhere between 3 people who weren't in the scene and I've never heard anyone advocate it's removal from the film.

Those characters were not supplying exposition, which is what Mamet is referring to. They were telling a story within a story, which, as sonnyboo said, is about establishing their characters.

If you can write dialogue like Tarantino (or Mamet), you can get away with that kind of thing. :)
 
There is a pop culture psychology at work as well. Would that scene from PULP FICTION be nearly as affective if it had not been John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson saying them? Alas, the CLERKS answer is there as neither of those guys were famous, but they also had brilliant words to say and a wonderful combination of wit and relatability. So sometimes yes it really works without famous people and other times it doesn't. This is also something that comes in waves, like fads whereas the audience is more willing to try a movie with no name stars and demanding that the cast be recognizable.

Great writing is very hard to come by in filmmaking.
 
I don’t completely disagree with everything he is saying, but I don’t think his words are the best example of the points he is trying to make either.

Exposition if used effectively simply works, it wouldn’t have been around for as long as it has if it didn’t. Sure, it sucks to catch an info dump, but exposition is what you make it.

“..THE AUDIENCE WILL NOT TUNE IN TO WATCH INFORMATION. YOU WOULDN’T, I WOULDN’T. NO ONE WOULD OR WILL. THE AUDIENCE WILL ONLY TUNE IN AND STAY TUNED TO WATCH DRAMA…”

I understand he might be specifically referring to The Unit, but any way you slice it, there are still well over 400 “crock of shit” - “Information” (exposition/back story) laden episodes of Law and Order that seem to have done pretty well for themselves before, during and after The Unit.

He’s undoubtedly a great writer, but for every ounce of “Think like a filmmaker.” put forth, there seems a pound of “Think like a TV writer” missing. When a show goes on to have less episodes before cancellation than Walker Texas Ranger, The A-Team or even Small Wonder, then maybe trying to dictate what drama is instead of taking note of which way the wind blows wasn’t his best idea ever.

-Thanks-
 
Those characters were not supplying exposition, which is what Mamet is referring to. They were telling a story within a story, which, as sonnyboo said, is about establishing their characters.

I completely agree, but when you are green, this kind of disctinction can be very hard to make. Mamet was spot on, but when this is presented to the uninitiated it should have an asterisk right next to the line about silent film that says "*until you know what you are doing."

Bear in mind that my perspective is tainted by my experience. I think film schools are creating an epidemic of zombies to this ideology. In my opinion, that explains why the best two writers and directors of the classic dialogue film today are Tarantino and Smith, neither of whom went to film school.
 
Back
Top