Rating: 
Summary: "It's a good thing the people in Hollywood have no souls..."
Review: "...so they don't have to suffer through the lives they lead."Mamet is always Mamet. Even when talking about directing-- after having directed only two films, HOUSE OF GAMES and THINGS CHANGE. Never heard of 'em, you say? Yes, this book is taken from a series of lectures he gave at Columbia film school in 1990. Since then, Mamet has directed Steve Martin not to be funny (THE SPANISH PRISONER) and Gene Hackman not to be cool (HEIST) as well as other actors not to "inflect." Most people, like me, love Mamet's writing but find his directing stilted and wooden. This book explains why. Written half as rant and half as Socratic dialogue, Mamet lays out his film theory with second-rate Sergei Eisenstein (I think he means Kuleshov) and third-rate Bruno Bettelheim (who wrote about fairy tales, not film). The result is a mixed bag, not too informative about directing, but always entertaining. If you want to know why telling a story on film is like telling a dirty joke, this is your book. If you'd like to read how to construct a movie about a farmer who has to sell a pig, or a student who wants to "get a retraction," this is your book. If you want to know why "[t]he less the hero is described to us, the better off we are," this is your book. It's slim, it reads fast, and it's easier to understand than THE THREE USES FOR A KNIFE. If you want a book about directing by a real director, I recommend Sidney Lumet's MAKING MOVIES.
Rating:
Summary: "It's a good thing the people in Hollywood have no souls..."
Review: "...so they don't have to suffer through the lives they lead." Mamet is always Mamet. Even when talking about directing-- after having directed only two films, HOUSE OF GAMES and THINGS CHANGE. Never heard of 'em, you say? Yes, this book is taken from a series of lectures he gave at Columbia film school in 1990. Since then, Mamet has directed Steve Martin not to be funny (THE SPANISH PRISONER) and Gene Hackman not to be cool (HEIST) as well as other actors not to "inflect." Most people, like me, love Mamet's writing but find his directing stilted and wooden. This book explains why. Written half as rant and half as Socratic dialogue, Mamet lays out his film theory with second-rate Sergei Eisenstein (I think he means Kuleshov) and third-rate Bruno Bettelheim (who wrote about fairy tales, not film). The result is a mixed bag, not too informative about directing, but always entertaining. If you want to know why telling a story on film is like telling a dirty joke, this is your book. If you'd like to read how to construct a movie about a farmer who has to sell a pig, or a student who wants to "get a retraction," this is your book. If you want to know why "[t]he less the hero is described to us, the better off we are," this is your book. It's slim, it reads fast, and it's easier to understand than THE THREE USES FOR A KNIFE. If you want a book about directing by a real director, I recommend Sidney Lumet's MAKING MOVIES.
Rating:
Summary: "It's a good thing the people in Hollywood have no souls..."
Review: "...so they don't have to suffer through the lives they lead." Mamet is always Mamet. Even when talking about directing-- after having directed only two films, HOUSE OF GAMES and THINGS CHANGE. Never heard of 'em, you say? Yes, this book is taken from a series of lectures he gave at Columbia film school in 1990. Since then, Mamet has directed Steve Martin not to be funny (THE SPANISH PRISONER) and Gene Hackman not to be cool (HEIST) as well as other actors not to "inflect." Most people, like me, love Mamet's writing but find his directing stilted and wooden. This book explains why. Written half as rant and half as Socratic dialogue, Mamet lays out his film theory with second-rate Sergei Eisenstein (I think he means Kuleshov) and third-rate Bruno Bettelheim (who wrote about fairy tales, not film). The result is a mixed bag, not too informative about directing, but always entertaining. If you want to know why telling a story on film is like telling a dirty joke, this is your book. If you'd like to read how to construct a movie about a farmer who has to sell a pig, or a student who wants to "get a retraction," this is your book. If you want to know why "[t]he less the hero is described to us, the better off we are," this is your book. It's slim, it reads fast, and it's easier to understand than THE THREE USES FOR A KNIFE. If you want a book about directing by a real director, I recommend Sidney Lumet's MAKING MOVIES.
Rating: 
Summary: David Mamet: On Directing Film ( Clunkily )
Review: David Mamet writing a book on how to direct film is like Vanilli setting himself up as a voice coach. The truth is that great filmmakers, like all great artists, operate purely on instinct, and would never let themselves be weighed down by the cockamamied theories Mamet so zealously espouses here. "On Directing Film" is not a bad book, exactly. It's just that Mamet has no business writing it. As a director, he is an abomination, egregiously over-disciplined and painfully self-conscious. As a writer, he is more in his element, although his plays are only tolerable when they are brought to the screen by better, looser, funkier directors ( such as James Foley, whose film version of Glengarry Glen Ross is definitive. ) Mamet's own film adaptation of Oleanna is so creaky, so wooden, you can actually hear the ellipses ( dot dot dot ) in the characters' speech. This book just proves that he's being held down by a faux-Eisensteinian system of his own devising. Unless you're Mamet himself, "On Directing Film" is useless. For those people with vicarious yearnings to sit in the director's seat, I recommend Sidney Lumet's Making Movies instead. Less pretentious, more illuminating.
Rating: 
Summary: Shows how montage is used to get the maximum effect.
Review: A summary of the russian filmakers beutiful theory of montage. It's low point is that he fails to contradict montage with other styles of cutting due to lack of experience as a director. He basically puts up a fight for the russians on how film should mainly be visual with an understood plot.
Rating:
Summary: rigid, but important
Review: After reading screenplay books for years -- the likes of Syd Field, McKee, Howard, Hunter, etc. -- Mamet is a refreshing change. I realized how the other books, for all intents and purposes, were analyses of scripts, avoiding or skirting the issues of method and process. In other words, it's not hard to look at a huge box office and critically-acclaimed hit (Chinatown being the consensus favorite) and explain what makes it so good. We all know it's good. We've seen the movie. We've read the script. We're all in awe. And we all know the elements. But the actual process of writing, of formulating a story visually, of actually creating instead of merely analyzing, seems to be an afterthough to these folks. I mean, in some way, you've got to ask yourself why these fellas -- McKee, Field, and others -- have never actually written a thing! Mamet espouses a simplicity to the process of storytelling in film, beat by beat. It's a bit repetitive and sterile, as is the man himself. I don't agree with him on everything, and neither will you. He contradicts himself all the time and seems to take delight in his own presence, but he is a great craftsman, and anyone looking to tell stories visually would be mistaken to think this book unimportant or trivial. A must read for aspiring filmmakers, especially those who write.
Rating:
Summary: Challenged my views of film making
Review: Amatuer film makers like myself tend to romanticise the creative process. Mamet in this books enphasises the importance of working through the progression of your plot logically. After a quick introduction to his key film making philosophies we are taken through the process beat by beat and shot by shot in an example from one of Mamet's lectures. It can be rather shocking how formulaic this aproach is but I think it is important to remember that this book is only dealing with the fine technical skill of visualising a script and that the creative mind still has a place in this art form.
Rating:
Summary: Challenged my views of film making
Review: Amatuer film makers like myself tend to romanticise the creative process. Mamet in this books enphasises the importance of working through the progression of your plot logically. After a quick introduction to his key film making philosophies we are taken through the process beat by beat and shot by shot in an example from one of Mamet's lectures. It can be rather shocking how formulaic this aproach is but I think it is important to remember that this book is only dealing with the fine technical skill of visualising a script and that the creative mind still has a place in this art form.
Rating:
Summary: Mamet understands film, but not art
Review: Despite his numerous interesting observations about the nature of film, Mamet seems to lack a central vision of art and all that is beautiful. The contents of this short book are better suited for an essay. The majority of the material, which comes from a lecture or series of lectures at Columbia University, is the redundant reiteration of the importance of "uninflected images" in building a scene. Mamet rejects the desire for "interesting" shot composition and instead fosters an academic technique, logically and heavy-handedly including in his shots only what is necessary. In spite of its weaknesses, "On Directing Film" presents the worthwhile and legitimate opinions of a playwright turned filmmaker.
Rating: 
Summary: Buy this book. It's worth it.
Review: I have found this book to be of great use. I have highlighted much of the text and have been assimilating it since it came out in hardcover. Technology is evolving toward consumer movie making and this book can serve as a point of departure for anyone with a video camera and a desire to tell stories but no pressing desire to become a part of "the industry". His technique is admittedly rigid but is simple to understand. When one honestly and patiently applies the technique in order to conceive a story outline, the results--since the unconscious is employed instead of the ego--can be quite enchanting. This book aims toward a more poetic cinema. I highly recommend it.
| 
