Screenwriting : Rules for screenwriting? David Mament has some for you! by Phillip E. Hardy, "The Real Deal"

... Then every action movie/war movie would be a crock of shit. Soldiers could not talk trategy anymore. Good luck winning the War! From now on just shout "Attack" or use sign lenguage to be sure you're not talking the plot. (Ok, in some war situations sign language saves lives).

When you're talking about a "what just happened" scene it gets more subtle.

Exposition/Talking about a third (party)-- "Pope in the pool" scene?

Matt Farrell : Have you done stuff like that before?

Matt Farrell : Like killing people?

John McClane : Yeah. But not for a long time.

Matt Farrell : [upset] So, who were those guys? Huh? Why were they trying to kill you? Why'd they blow up my goddamn apartment?

John McClane : They were there to kill you.

Matt Farrell : Why would they wanna kill me?

John McClane : You tell me, kid. You're the criminal.

The writer of this reductive article should watch Mamet's Masterclass in which Mamet gives much more context to his thoughts on drama and shares his personal experience creating it. ;)

yeah I wish writers would say, "try to use sparingly" or something like that. I see writers give hard line rules, but then break them in their work. Took me all of five minutes to find a scene in a Mamet script where two characters were talking about a third..

The last time I read Mamet's memo to The Unit, which this article's based off, I don't remember him mentioning any rules. But I looked at it again, link below (link in article is broken). He does actually mention one rule I found doing a keyword search. But ironic enough it's not mentioned in this article. Pasted from memo to The Unit:

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.

https://2fvqxa3fxpfi2sm7tt1oe5ln-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uplo...

I choose to have two people talk about a third who enters a room, as a means to know his background that serves for the scenes that follow immediately after. One of the two will reappear in the second act; useful to the Protagonist in the setting where he gossiped about the antagonist. I don't think Mamet's advise, '"ANY TIME TWO CHARACTERS ARE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT, " severs my purpose.

Jeff Caldwell, which of Mamet's script was that?

The one in particular there was ronin.

Thanks for posting Mamet's memo in its entirety, Frankie. It certainly helps to read this one sentence (two characters talking about a third) within its actual context and with the memo’s humorous tone. Plus we should consider its true intent—the memo was written as direction for The Unit writing staff. So probably not intended for consultants and/or bloggers to cherry pick from and use bits for argument sake. Lol! Anyway, overall, he's basically telling the staff to write visually and to avoid overuse of exposition. You know, show, don't tell. Every scene needs to be dramatic. Do NOT bore the audience. ;)

Looking at a wider snippet from the memo shows this overall context and notion better:

"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."

If I recall correctly from Mamet's Masterclass, in which he spoke a lot about playwriting, the two characters talking about a third or talking about something off-stage, again, the larger context that he's talking about is narration versus action and the dangers of overuse of exposition. Never, ever, bore your audience.

Here's a bit from the class pdf materials:

"David sees the death of drama as two characters talking about something that happened off-stage. If you find yourself relying on conventions such as montage or narration, there’s something wrong with your script that needs to be fixed on day one. As a general rule, don’t shoot something you don’t intend to keep and don’t write something you don’t intend to shoot. Fix your problems now, because they will only grow. David says there’s only one way to avoid the trap of exposition: stage your plays in front of a paying audience."

Personally, I like the sage advice: DO NOT WRITE A CROCK OF SHIT. ;)

Your summary is really concise, Beth Fox Heisinger. I love that.

i get what he says about not using things liek montage and narration, but that can be a stylistic choice as well. I don 't think it means it's a crock of shit. but I definitely agree with don't be boring. I am learning to create more tension in scenes and dialogue for this reason.

Interesting that he doesn't like montage or voice-over (or any cinematic techniques?) given he started out life as a playwright. Some great advice here on drama generally though.

Just to add, again, I think taking Mamet too literally is rather missing his overall point. Plus he's being humorously hyperbolic to drive home his general direction to his writing staff—the writing staff for The Unit, a drama series about a covert undercover Special Forces team. A genre that is typically filled with lots of information and procedural elements, just like in other similar shows, that can and often do lean hard on exposition. So he's telling them what he wants them to write and how. Every scene must be dramatic. It is their job to infuse each scene with action and drama. He's not necessarily saying that he doesn't like these things, montage or voice-over, etc, they can be used well, sure, of course. What he is saying is "the dangers of" and "IF you find yourself RELYING on conventions" then you are in trouble of leaning too hard on exposition and thus creating non-drama and boring your audience—writing a crock of shit. ;)

Mamet's insightful bit of advice that I often use to help me analyze a scene is:

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

1) WHO WANTS WHAT?

2) WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY 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.

Beth, there's yet another couple of questions to ask: 4) WHO CARES and 5) WHY? Always keep your audience in mind.

Doug, those questions are already implied within Mamet's three—creating drama, it's all about and for the audience. But whatever works, right? Lol! ;)

Beth, to you (& I) those questions are automatically implied/included but after reading zillions of beginning screenwriter's 'scripts' it's become evident that VERY few even have a clue. Basically that's one of the reasons there are so many JUNK scripts floating around.