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.

Of course the question begs, why is David Mamet teaching us how to direct? In one instance, aside from the films he has directed, his expertise and notariety is in writing the script or even the play for the theater. On the other hand, when a good writer has control of his craft, it will be written well enough for any director who takes the script and turn out similar products (either to each other, or even to the script writers vision). Yet, Mamet discloses himself as a competent teacher and director. Its a short book, but there is some good practical information that is discussed, and with student dialogue Q&A to give a sort of "interactive understanding" of how to write and direct a film. On the other hand, Mamet is dogmatic about his approach to the craft and the student answers are all wrong unless answered, not only correct, but the way he wants you to answer them, that is, what he knows to be correct. The dilemma I personally have with all books about writing or directing is they are from a single perspective and allow very little intuition or personal style to interfere. This book is, for the most part, no exception when one has to meet Mamet's standards for what is right or wrong. Given the fact that it works for David, it does not mean it will work for everyone. The trick is to take it all with a grain of salt and skim it off the top. Take what appeals to you and what feels good and what can be applicable to your writing. Its a short book that is clear and concise which is based on lectures given at Columbia University. One of the better books on the subject, so if you feel you need a little more study before you write, I would reccomend this one (although not before Lajos Egris book Art of Dramatic Writing).

Mamet's plays have been known for exposing gender miscommunication(Oleanna, Sexual Perversity in Chicago), investigating what drives the common man (Glengarry Glen Ross, American Buffalo) and bringing to light our fears and desires (The Duck Variations, Edmond). He has a style of theatre attributed to him, identified by blue collar, swearing, seedy characters. When NYPD Blue premiered it was referred to, by some, as Mamet TV. It is easy to watch a Mamet play and forget that the playwright is a poet and he, at times, writes in iambic pentameter.

However, he isn't just a playwright. Mamet has directed movies (Things Change, We're No Angels, Oleanna, House of Games), written movies (The Postman Always Rings Twice, 1981), adapted plays (An Enemy of the People, The Cherry Orchard) and has written criticism on the art of the theatre and writing for it.

The title of On Directing Film is misleading. A better title would be, For the Director Who Writes. Mamet spends a great deal of time in the book, it is structured around lectures he gave at Columbia University in 1987, explaining how to trim a script to its core so the best, and most coherent story can be told through film. Often his students will mention camera angles or camera movements to complete an emerging story they are developing, but Mamet is quick to reduce the lecture to the field which he knows well. Writing. He always returns to the script and how that should be structured so an excellent story can be told. Filming the script, the easy part, is for later.

Mamet draws from Hitchcock to Hemingway to Aristotle to explain what makes a good story work and how that can be applied to writing the script. On Directing Film should be mandatory reading for all students, formal or informal, of creative writing.

As much as I enjoy Chekhov, I'm not a big fan of THE CHERRY ORCHARD; it never made much sense to me. However, this adaptation by David Mamet makes the play easier to follow and understand. The play itself is often labeled as a tragedy, but really isn't. As Mamet points out in the introduction to this adaptation, the closest form of drama THE CHERRY ORCHARD's structure resembles is the farce. In fact, if all the characters weren't so depressing, the play would be hilarious. Perhaps that is what Chekhov originally intended, that as we would see the outrageous, pitiful existence of the characters in this play we would laugh at their mopping and folly and strive to make our lives more meaningful. This isn't the best work to introduce one to the genius of Chekhov, but it is a classic and if one can get past all the whining (or to use a more pc term "reminiscing") it's worth the read.

As I read this play, my family is in the process of moving a thousand miles away from the farm where I grew up. Though I am so far away from the Russian culture and time of this play, the themes of place, tradition, and inevitable change resonated inside of me, and I am grateful to Chekhov for the way he has handled them.

The Cherry Orchard is a play about change, and the symbolism is pretty easy to recognize. What makes it stand apart, I think, from a thousand other plays on the same theme is its wonderful sense of comedy, of smiling sadness. Chekhov all his life insisted it was a comedy. As the Cherry Orchard slips away from the Ranevskys, they seem to smile at its going. As they are unable to change their habits -- still lending money they don't have, still spending extravagantly -- they quietly laugh at their own foolishness. The change comes, and they leave, heartbroken -- but embracing the change at the same time, only feebling struggling against it. One feels saddest, in the end, for Lopakhin, the new owner of the Cherry Orchard. He seems to believe he has bought happiness and friends, but is quickly discovering the emptiness of money and possessions, as no one wants to borrow from him, and no one seems to pay him much heed at all.

Chekhov paints with a fine brush, and I appreciate that. There is no thunderstorming, no ranting and raving in this work. There is a fine and subtle, sad and comedic portrayal of a family and a place encountering change. It is a heartbreak with a smile.

The translation, though the only one I've read, seems good. It is easy to follow and rich in simple feeling.

if you'd like to discuss this play with me, or recommend something i might enjoy, or just chat, e-mail me at williekrischke@hotmail.com.

"How should one live?" is the fundamental question driving most of Chekhov's work, and it is very overtly laid bare in The Cherry Orchard. Should the aristocratic family in decline stick to owning their cherry orchard (representative of the grandiose trappings of Russian aristocracy), or give in to modern commercialization in order to survive? What is the value of tradition, and how many trees should one own? Chekhov will not answer these questions for you, but he poses them in most interesting ways. In addition to wise insights into such fundamental dilemmas, Chekhov also provides a lot of witty banter, and a great slice-of-life view at 19th century Russian high culture. But this is not just a Russian play or a 19th century play; its themes, questions, and prospective answers are relevant for individuals coping with society and history in any place, and at any time.

In this play about three low life thugs, Mamet was trying to take a shot at America and its business ethics. The Indian associations of the title was a loose attempt to suggest the fundamental chicanery of a society whose founding act was the dispossession of the former owners of the land. But the problem with this play is that BOB, DON, and TEACH are so 'dumbed down' and their dialogue so impoverished that all Mamet can do is create a moral fog.

America may well be founded on the crime of dispossession and the genocide of the Indians, but a buffalo's head on a coin in a play hardly suggests any of this and is certainly incapable of presenting the rights and wrongs of the case. The logical extension of capitalist drives may indeed be a criminal society, but a few petty criminals mouthing off phrases of capitalist jargon, obviously detached from the comprehensive arguments of capitalist ideology, hardly proves this inherent criminality or reveals the complex processes by which capitalism encourages crime.

In the play TEACH defines 'free enterprise' as: "The freedom of the individual to embark on any course that he sees fit." In dialogue like this Mamet is apparently hoping to link the amoral self-interest of his characters to the principles of the American Revolution.

But the characters' relevance is limited by a number of factors. First, their ignorance and inability to express themselves severely limits any exposition and critique of society. Also, because Mamet is attempting a particularly bleak and stark form of realist drama. There is no opportunity, as with, say, the early plays of Eugene O'Neill, to present us with archetypal characters embodying whole race or class positions. Who does TEACH stand for besides himself?

Because of the 'literalness' of his form, if we want to find a critique of society, we must look for it more directly in the evident relations of the characters to the broader society. Such an avenue, however, remains firmly blocked as the characters are isolated from society. Indeed, they seem to belong to an almost self-contained little universe, centering around "Don's Resale Shop."

If Mamet is attempting in this play to present us with a 'reductio ad absurdum' showing the inherent criminality of American business ethics, then, he has painted himself into a corner. His characters lack consciousness, social relevance, and symbolism, all factors that allow a playwright to tackle social and moral problems. "American Buffalo" is extremely limited in the extent to which it can refer outwards to the greater society. All he can give us, in effect, is the 'absurdum' without the 'reductio', the criminality detached from the social forces that create it.

This play is a failure, but Mamet was able to return more successfully to these themes in "Glengarry Glen Ross." where the greater eloquence of his characters, dishonest land salesmen, allowed him to express more coherently the amorality of American business imperatives.

I am an actress, playwright, and constant theatergoer, so I'd like to think I know when a play is good...and believe me, this play is excellent. It is stark, realistic, and yet has a fantastic quality all its own. The story follows three small time crooks: Donny, the calm vet, Teach, daring and aching for adventure, and Bobby, the slow, amiable kid. Their plot to steal a valuable coin collection is the center of the play, but so much more goes into it. Honor amoung thieves, the busted American dream, and masculinity are at the core of this piece, and Mamet, with his honest style, pulls off what could very easily be a dumb crook spoof. It's a little hard to read at first, as all Mamet is, but if you envision the story, you'll get through it. I recently saw the play in New York at mamet's Atlantic company with Philip Baker Hall, William H. Macy, and Mark Webber, and it was truly great. I suggest owning the play and getting to a local performance asap.

The play was a very smooth and quick read, containing a unique language, but it was much more than what was on the surface. The text drew me into the play and provided a very realistic view of American society and the of the ideal American business in a very raw sense. Great!

As a young aspiring artist of sorts, I found reading Mr.Mamet's stories and reactions to his life at once turbulent, inspiring, and nostalgic. The honest care the author takes in describing the places and people of his long life is so comforting, it is a struggle to believe that one person can live the 'scenes' in his life in such peace. Mamet's occasional extremist opinions give the stories meaningful dynamics, and the stories are recommended to anyone who likes to think about the little things in life, especially those from Chicago, Vermont, or New York. Consumes only a little time but a lot of imagination.

Mamet's mere name has become shorthand for so much - a style, a voice, violence, woman-hating - that it's hard to just read a book of his, and it's hard to disassociate oneself from the stereotyping of his work, even if one doesn't agree with the stereotypes. This is especially true when reading another of his essay books. But the violence of the opening story truly jolted me out of my preconceptions & made me wonder if I could read on. I did, and I'm glad. The matzo ball/bearskin rug story brought a wan smile to my face, & the title essay is a tremendously evocative piece of writing that really sticks with you.

Instead of Luc Tuymans, Anton Chekhov, Vratislav Effenberger, Milton Hatoum, Andrie Platonov, Victor Pelevin, Rebecca Solnit, I found in this issue of Grand Street (no 64) contributions of David Mamet, Suzan Lori Parks, José Saramago, Tony Smith, Tennesse Williams and Pablo Neruda

This play is a lot of fun. It was written for adults to perform for kids, so alot of the humor can be funnier to parents than to their kids. But what good kids' show doesn't add a little subtle adult humor a la Muppet Show variety?

Mamet's wit shines through such characters as Kodiak Prince, The Wonder Dog, who is the canine sidekick of Sargent Preston. This character's entire vocabulary consists of various forms of barking. Not to mention Mamet's integration of slapstick as just about every character in the show manages to throw a cream pie at Auntie Georgie.

"Poet" contains plenty of running gags, interesting characters, strange plot twist. It is a wonderful play. It a much more fun to see it being performed than to sit and read it. What good play isn't?

I would recommend it for a group of kids looking for a challenge or a group of adults just looking for some fun.

Kane has really tapped the pulse of Mamet's works, making this a must for anyone who has read or seen his plays/films. She manages to uncover much of the subtle influences and the not-so-subtle manifestations of ethical codes in our society that have informed Mamet's writing, and she does so in scholarly but accessible language. She also does not stray too far from the texts but supports her theories and arguments with a lot of direct citing, making sure that we don't get lost in a sea of theoretical lingo. A great aid to anyone hoping to get more out of this area of drama.

the bool consists of three plays: Lakeboat- mamet's first play who tells the story of a boat crew who's one of his members is missing. throughout the play, rhe crew is exposed to its weaknesses and desperation, it's a bitter-sweet play, but it lacks the surprise element that can be seen in "glengarry glen ross" etc. The woods- a stoory of an imossible love between an educated yet emotionally cold man and his needy girlfriend, it's a play that floats steadily untill the big burst in the end, for patiant readers only! Edmond- a violent play about a buffled young man who decides to make a journey in search of maening and ends up ruining his life as well as others, it's a merciless look on urban reality

The 3 that I give this collection of essays is due to the fact that some of the essays are a pure delight and would earn the book a 5/5 stars, while others are down right offensive and whiney. I'd like to focus on the positive and say that any fan of Mamet should definitely buy this book. It is a quick read and a pleasure (mostly).

On the positive side, the book consists of 24 short essays, of which a few are among the most wonderful that I have ever read. Of particular interest was a story about gambling in Chicago. It is worded so beautifully, that the reader aches when it finishes. Another story is about his days as a copy editor on a pornographic magazine that is rather entertaining. Finally, there is an essay that all would-be writers will love called 'The Diner' that discusses the craft of writing in relation to where one writes ' as well as a number of takes on screenwriting, etc. I've left out a ton of great essays out, but this at least gives a window into the breadth that this book covers.

On the offensive side, I too am a Jew. However, Mamet becomes so 'Us v. the Christian them' in some of the stories that I was actually turned off to him as a person. One essay criticizes 'Shindler's List' as being a terrible movie as if Mamet has ever written or directed anything as powerful. In another, he talks on the subject of minority rights in such a way that I want to slap him upside the head and tell him to quit his whiney driveling. Finally, in the wake of September 11th, his criticism of the government and their military actions were enough to cause me to put the book down.

As is always the risk in personal essays, some make me value Mamet as a talented writer, and some make me want to see his career come to a bitter end. The only way you too can judge is to buy this book and read it. At the end of the day, I'm happy I went on the journey' but wanted to warn you all about some of the sights.

Mamet writes on a variety of subjects, some "of importance" others meerly ruminations on past events or experiences. This leads to a certain uneven nature, as some essays seem like throw-aways in light of their immediate neighboors in the book. By the same token, some of the lighter subjects are the best in the book.

Overall: very good and required Mamet reading for any fan.

Having been my first Mamet book, I was startled to realize just what an extraordinary talent lay beyond the creation of his play 'Glengarry Glen Ross.' Looking back, it was naive to think that a mere 'hack' could have written such an invective piece (which I first viewed as the popular major motion picture), that talent like that would be present in any endeavor. And that is the case with Mamet's 'Make-Believe Town : Essays and Remembrance.' I urge any fan, casual or dedicated, to read this book for Mamet's insight is spellbinding. It felt like I was actually spending time talking to the guy. Gosh. I really do love this book. -I'm gushing!

I was disappointed in Microsoft Reader's inability to print. I like the concept of near instant availability for e-books, but prefer to read from the printed page instead of staring at a computer screen. Funny, too, how I found out I couldn't print my document until after I had purchased this e-book and installed the Microsoft Reader software (with the additional step of having to "activate" a pc for it). In fact, Microsoft Reader's Help section doesn't make mention of the fact that one can't print its documents. A search in the help topics only produces the result that the word "print" can't be found.

I'll avoid the Microsoft Reader e-book format in the future.

Really Really boring, don't think anyone should waste their time reading this garbage. Horrible!

I have read many versions of Uncle Vanya, but this edition is an up-beat, funny, and, ultimately wonderful version of the excellent story by one of Russias beloved writers. I was looking for the right edition to use in my school for the school play, and this edition the kids could connect to. It dosen't have a lot of that Shakespere mumbo-jumbo that you have to read 50 times. This is accesible and very good. rock on David Mamet.