• 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...
 
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.

Really? I have the opposite experience...it seems most every new script I read is pages and pages of esoteric dialog about some topic near and dear to the writer's heart but with the actors not DOING anything. I think they call it "mumblecore" and I've read enough for two lifetimes.
 
No offense intended toward anyone, but some of this discourse is missing the forest for the trees. I've been doing live theatre for nearly a quarter century now. I'm intimately familiar with Mamet; he was, after all, a much celebrated playwright (and still is) before ever moving into pictures.

In the above memo, Mamet is NOT saying don't use dialogue. Mamet's plays are ENTIRELY dialogue! He is a master at writing dialogue and has a Pulitzer to prove it. What he IS saying is to make sure each character has a stake in the scene, and that the scene moves the story along. This is not new advice. Every dramatist worth a damn has followed this credo since the invention of dramatic performance, whether by the Greeks or whomever.

I can't speak to the Law & Order series as I've never seen it, but my impression from the example is that it's more of a procedural drama - a la Perry Mason - than a character/action drama. (Full disclosure: I've never seen The Unit either...) I'd be willing to bet, though, that even the writers of that series followed this advice within the context of their format.
 
:lol: Love it! Never heard that before. And I've seen plenty of that as well.

I think we can credit/blame Tarantino. Everyone wants to emulate him, but precious few are able to grasp what he does.

No, "mumblecore" is a real thing. Basically, it just means SUPER-LOW-BUDGET feature film production. Budgets being a limitation, these movies tend to focus on relationships and stuff, cuz they can't really shoot much else, effectively. "Baghead" added a little bit of suspense/horror. Definitely not QT-type material, though.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/thepuffychair/
 
I'm currently in film school. To me, film school films (and most no-budget films) tend toward the crappy dialogue driven stuff -- mine included -- that Mr. Mamet is railing against here.

I don't think that pulp fiction or clerks are good examples as I personally feel the main problem with those films is the machine gun dialogue, which I personally hate (I'm allowed to, it's my right as a viewer - you're allowed to love it as much as you like, but I don't). The thing that QT and KS do well in their dialogue is that they don't have their characters talking in an expository manner, they speak about everything else on the planet but the plot... thereby revealing their characters to us... I just hate the auditory aesthetic of it, bugs me - don't like malls or large crowds either.

I think the actual point of this letter is that the writers were beginning to cowtow to the corporate suits rather than staying true to their talents as writers that got them there (it's all in the first paragraph or two of the letter, and reiterated again toward the end)... and I'd much rather watch the Unit than L&O any day... I was much happier with it... until it started to fall prey to too much exposition - which subsequently stopped at some point again, I'll assume around the same time this letter had its impact on the writers.
 
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.

I think what is popular and what is good are two very different things. It's also entirely subjective without an absolute right or wrong.

Personally, I want to see more film and television that isn't expository dialogue driven. I agreed with 100% of what he wrote and it inspired me to want to write better.

To each his own, and may we always be striving for our own best, whatever that might be.
 
the only reason why the whole pulp fiction thing works is because of the camera work that goes along with the dialogue. Also the dialogue is based on funny and interesting things. Not only that the dialogue develops the characters while they move to go somewhere, this way the audience isn't bored. It also gives a bit of tension as the audience realizes that they are talking about their mob boss and figures out that they are also probably on a hit mission.
 
the only reason why the whole pulp fiction thing works is because of the camera work that goes along with the dialogue. Also the dialogue is based on funny and interesting things. Not only that the dialogue develops the characters while they move to go somewhere, this way the audience isn't bored. It also gives a bit of tension as the audience realizes that they are talking about their mob boss and figures out that they are also probably on a hit mission.

The "we should have shotgun's" line gave the hit away. The camera work was great only in that it was impatient as if the camera operator was waiting for them to get to the point and go shoot someone. Stuff like that is what makes Pulp Fiction one of my favorites.

Anyway, my point wasn't that exposition is good or that Mamet is anti dialogue. It's that his letter only works really well in it's specifically intended purpose; Talking to writers who already know what they are doing. As such it's a bad thing to expose someone to while they are new or they could easily misconstrue the lessons.
 
Sonny,

I agree.

The full on info dump can blow, but shows like Law and Order (and others) that are mind numbingly brutal with it CAN also undoubtedly make it work (Good, bad, popular, polka dotted.. whatever sells commercials, it’s TV). It’s easy to extract Mamet’s thoughts on what he wanted for The Unit and agree with him when applying those thoughts in general across the board, but what he is NOT saying is just it, “There is no absolute right or wrong”, expository conversation CAN BE done well. Characters talking about a 3rd person might have been a “crock of shit” for The Unit, but it was okay for Glengarry Glen Ross. You can tell the writers to think like film makers, you can tell the writers to fill a show with all visual story telling, you can tell the writers to have a clown marching up and back beating a bass drum if you want, but you can also be buried by other shows that are simply navigating the terrain with what they have found to work over and over and over again for their audience. His email does have worthwhile points, but to me personally it shouldn’t be taken for 'Exposition = Bad 'as a general rule.

All in all it’s a cool email to see, thanks for sharing it.

-Thanks-
 
After re-reading the e-mail, I'm fortified in my certitude that the message he wanted to get across was "write for the audience and the show, not the network executives." I liked the show and it was very visual - part of the charm for me.
 
Actually, I've seen the writing on tv shows.

I can guarantee you that there are lots of professional tv writers that need to be constantly reminded:
"don't write crap!"
 
Well, I've been reading all the replies since and I still don't get it.

Looking at it gives me the impression that Captain Obvious and Captain CapsLock went to a party and did a few lines (pun intended) together.

I'd be more interested in why he felt he had a need to write it, than what he actually wrote.

What was the drama behind the scenes that made it necessary? I think the letter would make a lot more sense if it was read, in context, with all the many things that we don't know about.
 
Back
Top