David Mamet both writes and directs his own films but the strength of Mamet's film comes from his writing. "The Spanish Prisoner" and "The Winslow Boy" are both examples of Mamet's best screenwriting. The dialogue alone is legendary. One of the knocks against Mamet's work has been a disregard for the female characters in his work but "The Winslow Boy" has a vital and strong role that was brought to the screen very well by Rebecca Pidegon. These screenplays exemplify what is good with today's cinema and are essential reading for any one interested in viewing the art of the screenplay.

I first got into films because of David Mamet. Back in 1995, three years after its theatrical release, I saw 'Glengarry Glen Ross,' I was all of 13 at the time, and I've been interested in movies ever since. David Mamet is the genius responsible for my undying love of the cinema. Every word he writes is the English language at its best. So lyrical are the cadences of his dialogue that its not like he writes, but more accurately paints with words. Look at his work and you realize you're not dealing with an ordinary playwright, you are dealing with a modern Shakespeare. Such is the quality that he brings to 'State and Main,' an endlessly funny and beautifully crafted satire that I rank right up there with 'Glengarry.' Mamet brings a depth to his characters that transcends the satire, the people in the screenplay aren't ducks to be shot down for the sake of humor, we care about them, and thus sympathize through the laughter. The plot, which seems unoriginal at first look is given a unique life thanks to Mamet, and it seems so carefully crafted as to bypass the inherent feeling that this isn't the first screenplay of its kind. 'State and Main' brings us a unique world, just a little off center for satire's sake but filled with characters that are more than the sum of their quirks, and the fact that it works is a testament to Mamet's genius.

...The book is essentially a collection of notes and essays combining several of his earlier books into one volume. WRITING IN RESTAURANTS, SOME FREAKS, ON DIRECTING FILM, and THE CABIN are represented in their entirety.
As always with Mamet, you get his opinions loudly, clearly, and entertainingly. He is a very percise writer and often nostalgiac, often humourous. His observations on Life in the Theatre are world-weary and wise. Whether you agree with him or not (and I often don't) you have to admit that the man is not ever afraid to speak his mind, and moreover, back up his thoughts.
If it makes it's way back into print, A WHORE'S PROFESSION is an excellent addition to any Mamet fan's library.

Before movies like "Wall Street" and real-life scandals with Enron and WorldCom, there was this play. Mamet's signature dialogue, rife with profanity and ascerbic edge, exposes the bitter side of the business world: shady, insecure businessmen stabbing each other in the back for a shot at selling real estate to naive customers.

Using a minimum of setting and timeline, Mamet unmercifully chronicles the undoing of his characters in the office place. The reader is left, quite honestly, without a single shred of hope for anyone, which is one of the most souring aspects of this drama. However, to expose a silver lining is not Mamet's aim. Dark, depressing, and ultimately unsalvageable in its tragedy, "Glengarry Glen Ross" is a masterful portrayal of inhumanity in the same tradition of "Long Day's Journey Into Night" and "A Raisin in the Sun."

The book is a sadistically dark comedy which made me laugh even though I knew that it was supposed to make me think. Mamet takes a regular setting of everyday men and turns it into a mob-like atmosphere. He sarcastically talks about the capitalistic system, emphasizing on every single perversion of it. The play begins by introducing the reader to the characters, and by establishing their places in society. Just like any other auspicious play Glengarry Glen Ross follows a specific success formula. It contains its favorites, and it's losers. Even though from the begging you can't really decide what's going on, you see by the middle of the play to which you relate best.

After a crime is committed, and a detective is called on the scene, every man is trying to save himself while still trying to make a buck. While trying to revolt against a cruel and hostile boss the characters find themselves in a world that consists of lies and deceit, where cruelty and heartlessness are necessities to survive. I really can not say anything bad about the play. It delivers on its promise providing you with every detail, starting from the charged vulgarity in its dialogue and finishing by the pure business relations that take place in this capitalistic society. It shows men turning their backs on their fathers in law for the good of the company (Levene and Williamson). This play is more then just a sarcastic tribute to the capitalism. It is an attempt to laugh off the dirt of the human kind. Just like little kids who try to laugh when they are scared in order to make it easier to bear the truth, this play was intended for those of us who seem to have lost the faith in the society.

"Glengarry Glen Ross" shows off to great effect the power of Mamet's language. Some readers may focus on the profanity -- and there is plenty of it -- but the profanity only serves to underscore the overwhelming anger that drives the characters in the play. Mamet's characters are bit players on a stage dominated by cockroach capitalism. It's a world that measures a man's worth solely by his ability to turn a buck, and if he can't do it, he's worthless. The characters know this, and they rail against this knowledge in venom-filled, machine-gun bursts of words.

Beyond the anger, however, the language derives its power from Mamet's much-discussed use of everyday rhythmic patterns of speech. Characters interrupt one another, leave thoughts unsaid, toss out cryptic ideas, and finish one another's sentences. It all sounds and feels absolutely real, and if you've ever tried to do it yourself, you know how difficult it is for a playwright to accomplish it.

In the end, Mamet's play presents a bleak world, yet it's a refreshing antidote to the cheerleading from the press and elsewhere that American business generally enjoys today. Mamet reveals the dark corners of small-time business, the petty jealousies, the insincere work relationships, the undisguised chauvanism, the phony macho posturing, and most of all the clear understanding among all concerned that the only measure of worth is the mark in the ledgerbook that says you made a sale. If most of the characters sound unsatisfied, it's because they are. Selling, the play says, is a hard way to make a living, and it comes at enormous spiritual cost.

I found the play's ending (which I won't give away) a bit unsatisfying and I can imagine that some readers might find the repitition in the dialogue tedious. Still, there is no denying, in my mind, the power of Mamet's vision and his devotion to his technique.

As an aspiring playwright currently developing a script, I found Mamet's book to be a pithy, incisive, and invigorating investigation of the true function of drama ("The theater exists to deal with the problems of the soul, with the mysteries of human life, not with its quotidian calamities."). He cites Aristotle in delineating a protagonist/hero's essential and single-minded pursuit of a goal in a play, and, in doing so, demonstrates Occam's Razor-clarity and brevity.

I would disagree with those former reviewers of "Knife" who state that the book is "vigorous polemic" and provides a "structure for social criticism. Indeed, Mamet himself states that ". . . the purpose of the theater is not to fix the social fabric, not to incite the less perceptive to wake up and smell the coffee . . ." etc.

"Knife" is an elegant must-read, and left me hungry for more.

Mr. Mamet cuts and exposes the grooves that we both claim and deny. Three Uses of the Knife is much more than the subtitle "On the Nature and Purpose of Drama" would lead you to believe. (In fact, I am not quite sure that the Vanity Fair review that appears on the cover could have been written by someone who really read this book. It seems banal and patronizing = "[Mamet] brings his usual passion and provocation to his treatise on what makes good drama.")

Anyway..far from a "treatise on...good drama", this is a book that calls for honest introspection and critical consideration of the pop drama of daily living (sports, politics, race, etc.). A case in point: I dare you to lay the current drama of internet madness in the context of this book -- It will be most revealing and this will become the best internet book you have read.

O.K., nuff hyperbole -- the book is simply on target as a structure for social criticism. Whether you agree with his opinions or not, you can't shirk the debate and keep your integrity.

It is a very short book well worth reading and re-reading.

While Mamet's booklet is essentially an exposition of opinions with little or no discourse, it is extremely thought provoking and provides ample fuel for thinking about drama - and art in general - as lying at the edge of reason.

In a treatise that mirrors the three act structure he discusses, Mamet eloquently puts forth the idea that much of political drama, by instructing us what to think and feel, is mere melodrama and that "the theatre exists to deal with problems of the soul, with the mysteries of human life, not with its quotidian calamities." He assails avant-garde artists for taking "refuge in nonsense" and electing themselves "superior to reason," yet also criticizes the "hard-bitten rationalist who rails against religious tradition, against the historical niceties, against ritual large and small."

"Three Uses of the Knife" is a book that will be read quickly, but will stick to the back of your mind for sometime afterwards.

Henrietta is a good example of the saying, "don't judge a book by it's cover", because I think this book is an adult book in a children's storybook format. The story of Henrietta is about an intelligent pig who lives in Cape Cod and dreams of becoming a lawyer and going through college at Harvard Law School. When she finally becomes old enough to go to college, she is rejected simply because of the fact that she is a pig. Time passes, and Henrietta is found wandering around the city with nowhere to go. She has been unable to find lodging, and has been forced to sleep on the streets. One day, Henrietta was wandering about the city as usual, when she found an old man searching for his glasses under a park bench. Henrietta decided to help the poor man find his glasses. Even though the glasses remained unfound, the man thanked Henrietta for her kindness and took her to his house. I will not say the rest because it will spoil the ending. I thought that this book was very unique and that, as I said before, this book is an adult's book in a storybook format. I liked the fact that this book is more like an adult's book because some children's books, in my opinion, can be slightly irritating. I really enjoyed the moral (or what I think the moral is). The moral that I perceived was: believe in yourself. This moral is shown when Henrietta tries to enter Harvard. I think that people should read this book and see for themselves that this is much more than a children's book.

How can you not be appealed when you read a literate children's book from a man who's works are very testosterone-laden and profanity filled? But his gift fills the pages with a story of a pig who overcomes adversity and discrimination to become a lawyer. I buy this gift for friends who are in law school to put smiles on their faces.

Henrietta is an endearing story of a young pig who wants an education very badly. She specifically wants to study law at a good institution. In her pursuit of learning, she attempts to use libraries and tries to attend lectures, but is often thrown out of those places of discovery because, after all, she is just a pig. This is a new look at prejudice!

This story is presented as a story for children and I really liked the fact that the vocabulary chosen by David Mamet is not the usual fare. Some of the words will need an explnation which adds another dimension to the book. The little fable is greatly enhanced by the illustrations of Elizabeth Dahlie who makes Henrietta real and shows how she looks in good times and in bad. One drawing in particular made me laugh out loud and the image has remained in my mind. The book has general appeal and could even be a "coffee table" book.

This is probably Mamet's best work, in my opinion, since he focuses on truthful characters without the rather contrived repartee of many of his other plays in which he seems to attempt to develop some metrical dramturgical quirkiness to provide the viewer/reader with a sense of originality. I find Mamet's screenplays usually better than his plays, try The Spanish Prisoner for example. But in Speed the Plow, he provides us with fully fleshed characters who speak like real people (with the necessary artistic license and not so hung up about verbal pyrotechnics. By the way, his style is obviously influenced by studies with Sandy Meisner from the Neighborhood Playhouse. Read the book in the the year of the life of Sandy Meisner "Meisner on Acting" and you'll see the acting exercises that influenced Mamet's writings.

Mamet gives us blinding pace in this spare play, a mere 82 pages in print. It can easily be read in an hour. The rapid-fire exchanges between characters put the reader in the position of a rubber-necked viewer at a tennis match between serve-and-volley powerhouses. If merely keeping the reader/viewer engaged is the goal of good theater, Mamet succeeds, in spades.

But truly great theater resonates after the reader has laid the play aside or exited the playhouse. In this regard, "Speed-the-Plow," superior work though it may be, falls just a bit short for me, although I confess I have not seen it performed on stage, and would jump at the chance to do so. In any event, as a piece of reading, the play is too slight in its ideas for me to classify it as top-notch.

The play is built on a simple idea. Two movie execs, Charlie Fox and Bobby Gould, meet in Gould's office. Fox has brought Gould, his superior, a sure-fire hit, which from all we can gather will be a typical piece of Hollywood pap sure to please the masses. Fox has sold the script idea to a big-time Hollywood performer who has given them a short-time to put the deal together.

Enter Karen, Gould's temporary office assistant. Gould has been giving an obtuse, esoteric novel a "courtesy read," and as a ploy to seduce her, Gould asks Karen to read the novel and give him a report on it. Fox offers Gould a friendly bet that he won't succeed with Karen. Somehow -- and this is a key weakness in the play -- Karen manages in the second act to convince the hard-boiled Gould to produce the film of the novel, at the expense of Fox's project. When Fox learns of this, the following day, he is of course outraged and manages in the end to convince Gould that the seemingly idealistic Karen is in fact no different than either of them and has used Gould sexually in return for the promise to produce the "art" film.

Much of the play's power derives from Mamet's undeniable gift with language. Fox and Gould sound absolutely real as Hollywood types: borderline slimeball, jaded, absolutely devoid of idealism, but very funny, precisely because of all these things.

Language, however, is only one element of successful theater. The motivations of Karen are obscure, but more importantly one is hard-pressed to believe that Gould, who spends much of the play developing in different ways the idea that he's not paid to produce art, would even momentarily be convinced to dump a sure box office smash and endure the humiliation that Fox heaps on him. All I could think of was, That Karen must have been some dame. Trouble is, I didn't get enough of her through Mamet's development to buy that.

I'm a big Mamet fan, and even work that is not his best is for me worth reading. "Speed-the-Plow" was, simply put, intoxicating the first time I read it because of its rhythmic intensity. Even if its intoxication fades a bit in the aftermath of reading, enough of a glow lingers to make the time spent worthwhile.

This is an interesting play, written in a style of short, "clipped" dialogue. It is mainly a story about the ugliness of the movie industry. Interestingly enough, Madonna played the character Karen in the broadway production.

If you enjoy David Mamet (Glengarry Glen Ross / American Buffalo / The Spanish Prisoner / Wag the Dog), then you should enjoy this play.

(Side note: the language isn't as bad as Glengarry Glen Ross).

There are some really great essays in this book, especially if you're a person who loves the theater. Much like "True and False", this book takes aim at problems plaguing America's theater. His best essays in here are for actors - they inspire and reclaim some of the art's dignity.

Also, if you're like me, you can appreciate his essay in here on pool halls. I've never seen anyone nail why they're such great places to visit like he does in this book.

This isn't his best work. But it's a pleasant read nonetheless. Worth the time.

This book's strength was that it made me challenge my own beliefs. As a filmmaker and writer, I have developed a sense for writing crap that appeals to the lowest common denominator. Mamet made me re-evaluate what made me become a writer, and the importance of the theater. I find his writing very interesting from the standpoint that he is very much of the theater, and an elitist as a result, but he is very favorable when discussing Hollywood. I think everyone should read his section on the Oscars in this book. Overall, I was very pleased I read the book, and would have to ultimately recommend it to others.

David Mamets "Writing In Restaraunts" is a perfect execution of playwriting technique guidance and education. When Mamet, the pulitzer prize winning author, combines his know how of writing business and his suave writing style, you get "the goods". Do yourself a favor, and purchase this book.

"Oleanna," the gripping tale of a teacher-student relationship gone awry, raises multiple social issues in education. Perhaps the most noted issue is of the preasence of sexual harassment in education. While the play bases this idea for a plot, the main idea of the play does not deal with sexual harassment, but with issues of power in the heirarchal power structure of education. While many felt that Mamet's original production of this piece heavily "stacked the deck" against Carol (the student), the film version of the play tends to even the odds a little bit more. Bottom line, read this play and share it with multiple people. This piece invokes some of the greatest discussion amongst it's readers. The issues of character development, gender bias, and power make for a supremely thought provoking piece. Well written, and well developed, "Oleanna" aides in securing Mamet his place among the greatest modern playwrights.

I am a college student. I just finished Oleanna by David Mamet. I'll never ever ever sit in a meeting with another teacher again. Enough said. Or is it.... This play is so original and thought provoking that I was screaming at the characters out loud as I read. The most interesting thing about this work is the fact that of the two characters, EACH ARE RIGHT IN THEIR OWN WAY, AND EACH ARE WRONG IN THEIR OWN WAY. the question remains: WHOM DO YOU FEEL PITY FOR? Who is right and who is wrong? THE BREAKDOWN OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION IS THE SADDEST THING TO COME OF OUR NEW AGE SOCIETY. Read this play, it will change how you view a lot of things. Kinda scary.

Oleanna was the first David Mamet play I read, and I was very impressed. Oleanna is fast, harsh, and a real jolt. The two characters in the play are a teacher and a student, both with weaknesses and issues. No side is innocent in this play, and that adds to the realism. Neither character is a protagonist, and sections where you think one may be correct are just illusions. Oleanna harshly but craftly shows the faults of the educational system. However, I think this book demonstrates an exchange of power between teacher and student. Without giving the plot away, this power struggle shifts radically in the story and ends with amazing results. I highly recommend this book to anyone and I think it is a great topic for debate!

All the years I spent in acting schools did not prepare me for this much-maligned book. In True and False : Heresy and Common Sense for the Actor, David Mamet takes down the establishment (so to speak) and lays bare his common sense approach to acting. In doing so, he also makes his love for actors and acting clear. The playwright/director/novelist attacks acting schools, casting directors and "the method" among other institutions in his tirade against all the counter-productive, anti-creative issues that American actors have been plagued with for decades. There are things in this book that may send you screaming from the room, but it is beneficial for any actor to read what this prolific theatre artist has to say about our profession, our craft, and us as artists. A must read for all actors, especially those pursuing a professional career.

David Mamet's book is a fierce attack upon Lee Strasberg's Method approach to acting. In addition, it contains his notions on the professional and personal lives of actors. Mamet believes that actors should merely deliver dialogue, perform blocking, and keep a single intention in mind during performance. Disregarding characterization as a "truthful" form of performance, Mamet believes that the Method creates "fake" acting. Though "Ham-It-Up" acting may result from the Method, the proper and temperamental utilization of the Method simply (and undeniably) stimulates the minds of the audience and makes the delivery of the author's plot more interesting, thought-provoking, and emotionally impacting. In short, David Mamet's book is a must-read for all serious actors. And though its content should be processed , pondered, and intellectualized, its tenets should not be wholly taken as facts. For the beginning actor, be very wary of following his directions to the "T." Though many things he says about actors and acting holds true, amateurs following his style of acting can gain very little fulfillment both professionally, and most important, emotionally. I recommend studying both Mamet and Strasberg's acting methods, practice, practice, practice, and find a median that works for you.

Engaging. Insightful. Funny. Deadly serious. Most of all, True.

My brother is a professional repetoiry actor in Ft. Worth, Texas. When we met for Christmas two years ago, he couldn't stop talking about this book. I honestly regret not rushing out and buying it then and there. This is useful, actual information about the process of good acting. If you act, buy this book and read it now.

I haven't done traditional theater in over a decade, but even as a slam poet and improvisational comedian, I found what Mamet shares in "True and False" invaluable in approaching my work as a live performer. If you do anything involving words, a stage and an audience, you'll find something useful here. Simply put, what he says works.

The writing is short, eloquent, and straight to the point. The topics he touches on by way of analogy and example make this a great read for actors and non-actors, alike. You can plough through this book in an afternoon, but you'll ponder it and reconsider it for the rest of your professional life. At least, you should, if you want to benefit from it.

He says it best... The audience will teach you to act. They will show you what works and what doesn't. If your job onstage becomes anything more or less than to communicate what the audience has come to see, you may be brilliant, but you're not acting anymore. Chasing emotions you don't feel about a situation you're not actually in is the job of the writer, not the performer.

You probably won't agree with 100% of what he has to say. Scratch that, you *won't* agree with everything here, but even then, he will force you to reconsider what you do believe. And, just what is the jist of what his supposedly "heretical" views on acting?

Speak clearly. Find a simple, realistic objective for the scene. Let the words have their meaning without adding your own spin to them. Your own effective performance in their service will add anything of value that the audience couldn't have gotten from reading them off the page.

Now, what's so false about that?