Bambi vs. Godzilla - Book Report/Review Example

and Number Due Reader's Response to Bambi vs. Godzilla "Helpful Hints on Screenwriting" is a chapter written by David Mamet in his book Bambi vs. Godzilla. Mamet's theories in this chapter are somewhat schizophrenic. It is not that some of his points aren't salient. They are. He is often on a tangent, though, and when he claims, in the beginning, to have two main points, the second is not easily identifiable. Herein, this reader's response will summarize Mamet's ideas, discuss which of them are viable, which are candidates for the discard pile, and which ideas leave us, the readers, with a cool indifference. On its face, the chapter is about individuality. Mamet begins it by asking what a good screenwriting course can offer. By the end, his answer is that what potential screenwriters need the most is the ability to not cow tow. What comes in between is a mixture of good advice, personal hyperbole, and an incoherent divergence or two that don't seem to fit anywhere in the text. Let's start with the good. Mamet doesn't profess to have all the answers. In fact, he advises that trial and error will be a big part of successful writing. He writes, "And like the Gospels or the Torah, child rearing, or marriage, anyone truly interested can and will have to figure out the rest" (62). This is good news for writers. No matter how many books are published on the subject, there are no magic formulas for a career in screenwriting. It is exciting to know, though, that a bit of tenacity will go a long way in a business that is inundated with scripts from amateurs and seasoned professionals alike. He also writes, "It is laudable to resist this nagging invitation to sloth and predictability" (65). This statement is made in reference to screenwriters who use the usual formulas to tell a story. Although uninspired, or uninteresting, writers might sadden him, he doesn't blame them. In fact, he claims that those in the biz oft times make the same mistake. He asserts, "If the audience is financially involved (the studio executives), suborned (the 'invited' carded test-group screening), or hired (the university professors), one will learn nothing from their responses except obedience" (67). He is saying that those particular groups of people expect to see a certain thing on screen, or will presume that every audience will expect to see those things on screen, and will therefore always choose in favor of the predictable. The numbers of movie critics who review movies prior to the box office openings, and call the movies predictable (even movies they like or think will do well), are a testament to Mamet's supposition. The third thing Mamet does well here is to give actual screenwriting advice about what a writer should do if he is stuck in a place, or finds that she has too much material. He writes, "When in doubt, cut to the chase" (67). The translation: The more action the better. "Stay with the money," (67) he scribes. His meaning: The more face time the star of the movie gets, the more satisfied movie goers will be. There is also, "You start with a scalpel and you end with a chainsaw" (67). Or, rather, once all the writing and filming is done, there is going to be plenty of material that is not directly related to the story, and can be excised. This is all good, unbiased advice for a new screenwriter. It reeks of one professional advising another, instead of one professional with a microphone, and an axe to grind, on a soapbox. Unfortunately, this isn't true of the whole chapter. In one such moment, for example, Mamet writes that all humans need to indulge in drama, and basically states that everything we do is directed at taking part in dramatic situations. In several different ways he claims, "We human beings delight in drama we will fight in wars whose benefit, in hindsight, consisted solely in the dramatic confection of national unity" (63). He furthers that we go to the theater out of the desire for drama, that journalism is drama cloaked as "formalized gossip," and that behaviors we display at home, or at work, are all just movements from one dramatic event to the next. The fact is, however, that claim is too big for Mamet to make. All of nothing can be put into an every category. He has no way of knowing that every single person who watches a movie or stage play does so because he or she needs drama. What about boredom The love of music Socializing with family and friends By Mamet's postulation, a couple's evening, after dinner walk is not about healthful activity or a few moments away from their children, but out of some uncontrollable need to find drama in every activity. Simply put, he couldn't be more wrong. I can't say that I know one person who goes to the library to find drama. In fact, the library is a place of calm and quiet, of academia. He doesn't show much proof of his assumption, though. This is proof to me that he was spouting off without any actual knowledge of the subject. He also makes a wrong hypothesis when he writes, "For a star's grosses may be quantified, and a prediction (supportable even when proven false) may be made out of his or her worth. But the worth of the script is moot" (65). His claim here is that no matter how good a script is, its moneymaking potential hangs on the big name actors who play the lead roles. I'll admit that this has some merit, but Mamet hasn't considered movies like The Blair Witch Project in which a small group of young adults, armed with a script and basic camera equipment, made millions of dollars. Someone took a chance on them, and their project. The dichotomy here is that this chapter doesn't disguise Mamet's disgust over routine predictability, but he makes an assumption that is just that - a predictable remark from someone who ought to know better. It does not matter what movie Tom Cruise appears in, if there is little action or romance, and no plot, word will quickly travel through the states and the movie will flop. With regard to digression, Mamet writes, "Perhaps, then, this graduate functions, whether through design or happy accident, not to train but to certify house slaves" (66). My response to this is: What Where do slaves fit into this I think he is trying to say that graduate courses in film studies teach in such a way that screenwriters are taught techniques, in a robot-like fashion, and can only be given the honor of graduation once they have performed well by the school's mechanical guidelines. If that is indeed what he means, the point is understandable. He still should have chosen to use less abrasive language. This is one of the instances where he is spouting off, rather than giving constructive advice. He also runs off at the pen about people of means. He writes that children of privilege don't "take' drugs" but 'experiment' with them (66). They are never "out of work" but "searching for themselves" (66). In the interim, they will attend a graduate program in film studies. I don't quite see how this passage fits in with everything else. I also don't think that most of the graduate students of film studies would agree that they fit into this category, and those that don't might even be offended that anyone would suggest they were only there in an effort to delay going out into the "real world" and finding themselves - or jobs. Finally I will mention here, but not go into great detail about, his tirade about students who receive financial aid. Maybe tirade is an unfair word, but, again, the digression is an odd one. He writes, "But what of the scholarship student, what of he who could not afford tuition and entered the school only as a way to achieve, without cost, the film cameras and lights unattainable in the lay world" (68). I ask, what of him He ends the chapter by calling the school a charitable organization and instructing the scholarship student to take his charity, and do exactly opposite of what he has been taught. "Defrauding the chumps who thought they were doing him good" (68) is not real advice. Should students who did not receive scholarships not attempt to break out of the mold he claims film schools put graduate candidates in In conclusion, the chapter had its good and bad parts. It was entertaining to say the least. I could've done without the digressive moments, but if he managed to get himself published, who am I to complain To be sure, his writing style is a little different than a lot of other writes. Even when he made absurd assertions, the language wasn't cold or clinical like many how-to pieces that I've read. There is much information to be gained in this single chapter. If I was given only this chapter as a representative piece to gauge interest in the rest of the text, I'd be willing to read the rest of the book to see what else I might learn. In the end, that's the most important thing. Writers who don't sell their books don't remain authors for very long - just like actors who don't fill seats in a theater. Read More