David Mamet, the Mass Manipulator

Attending the “David Mamet in Conversation with Robert Faires” lecture on Tuesday, February 4, I found that Mamet, much like fellow Jewish director Woody Allen, has a high level of Jewish angst. His heritage came up in the conversation repeatedly and again dominated the conversation my Mamet reading group had with him the following Wednesday.


My ticket to the lecture given at the Hogg Memorial Auditorium. After the interview with Robert Faires, Mamet answered questions from audience. Many aspiring film makers and screen play writers addressed him with requests for advice, and he respectfully replied to each of them. Mamet made a comparison to a passage of the Koran in his advice to screenplay writers.

"I'm going to give you a speaking teacher, and a silent teacher," he said. "The silent teacher is the paper, and the speaking teacher is the audience." Mamet believes that too much theory study in programs such as UT's Radio Television Film program only postpones the necessary experience of performing or writing for an audience.

When asked by one of the members of the reading group how his heritage affected him as a writer, David Mamet told us that he grew up in Chicago facing daily discrimination.

“I feel very much a minority,” he said. He spent about thirty minutes of our reading group’s hour session expressing his support of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

His life in Chicago as a minority reveals itself through his trademark dialogue. Short, fast-paced, businesslike, and often male-dominated, Mamet’s characters string meaningless words between pregnant pauses in which the most of the dialogue’s meaning surfaces.

An excerpt from Mamet's Speed the Plow:
Fox: I’m fine. I’m fine, I just need coffee.
Gould: We’ll get it for you. Tell mmm…
Fox: Alright, I, this is some time ago.
Gould: …uh huh…
Fox: That I get the script to Brown…
Gould: What script…?
Fox: You don’t know it, a prison script…
Gould: One of ours…?
Fox: I found it in the file. I loved it…all the time I’m thinking…
Gould: Uh huh…
Fox: How to do this script, I, one day…
Gould: Uh huh…
Fox:…so…
Gould:…So you give the script to Brown…
Fox: Not ‘him,’ his
Gould: Uh huh…
Fox: …his…
Gould:…I know…[1]

This excerpt comes from less than a minute from the start of the play. Mamet often uses ellipses and meaningless words in his dialogue, but the rhythm and strength behind each line often portray a powerful confidence of the characters. This theme surfaces in all of his work with characters who feel they have control of their particular situation when the audience knows that they don’t. Mamet utilizes this dramatic irony to communicate his belief that man does not control his own destiny and chance dictates his fate. In the reading group discussion, Mamet expressed this belief.

“Because isn’t that life? You feel like you know what you’re doing, then bam, you’re like ‘What could I have been thinking?’”

This is another example of Mamet's short and strong dialogue. But this scene also evokes Mamet's recurrent theme of man's powerlessness over his own destiny. Levene enters the scene exuberantly and confident, announcing his successful transaction. But he arrives in his office in the middle of a robbery investigation that causes the salesmen to turn against each other, clouding over his happy announcement. At the conclusion of Glengarry Glen Ross, Levene's clients turn out to be fakes, and his successful transaction just another fluke. Despite the strong, macho-man dialogue, not one of Mamet's characters really has control of their lives.

[2]

Even the actors and actresses who play Mamet’s characters on stage experience a similar lack of control. Plan II’s theater troupe, the Broccoli Project, staged Mamet’s Oleanna in December. The actress who performed the part of Oleanna in the performance attended the reading group’s meeting with Mamet, and told us about the peculiar reaction her friends and family had after watching her in the play. Her friends would tell her that they “really couldn’t talk to her,” and her family reacted similarly.

“I was in a funk for a month,” she said.

She asked Mamet if anyone else had a similar experience performing one of his plays. Mamet told us that when his wife played Oleanna in New York, she would often come home crying, distressed at the audience’s reaction.

“People were screaming at the stage. Sometimes fights broke out in audience. It was great,” said Mamet.

As a screenplay writer and director, Mamet enjoys manipulating the audience in the same way that chance manipulates his characters. In his compilation of essays regarding the film industry, Bambi vs. Godzilla, Mamet says he determines his film’s success based on whether or not “[the audience’s] attention is off themselves.”[3] His goal, therefore, is to convey a message by enveloping the audience in a story so much that they can’t help but lose self-consciousness. I think as a class we should keep this in mind when we read Oleanna.

And to address Professor Bump’s question, “What was your worst experience with a producer?” Mamet simply replied, “They’re all bad. But they had better have the money.”


[1] David Mamet, Speed the Plow (New York: Grove Press, 1987) 8.
[2] "Glengarry Glen Ross--Levene Closes," Youtube, 18 Feb. 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVki85rGcDY.
[3] David Mamet, Bambi vs. Godzilla, (New York: Pantheon Books, 2007) 45.

Glengarry Glen Ross - Levene closes

This is another example of Mamet's short and strong dialogue. But this scene also evokes Mamet's recurrent theme of man's powerlessness over his own destiny. Levene enters the scene exuberantly and confident, announcing his successful transaction. But he arrives in his office in the middle of a robbery investigation that causes the salesmen to turn against each other, clouding over his happy announcement. At the conclusion of Glengarry Glen Ross, Levene's clients turn out to be fakes, and his successful transaction just another fluke. Despite the strong, macho-man dialogue, not one of Mamet's characters really has control of their lives.

The Personality Archetype

According to Keirsey, I am an ENFJ, or a "Teacher", comparable to Mikhail Gorbachev, Oprah Winfrey, Pope John Paul II, Ralph Nader, John Wooden, and Margaret Mead. These people "often take for granted that their expectations be met," and care more about the development of others than anything else. [1]

Your Type is
ENFJ
Extraverted Intuitive Feeling Judging
Strength of the preferences %
22 75 25 67


Everyone so far, including myself, who has responded to this DB and taken this test before (Julie had not), has expressed that they receive the same results each time they take it. Hannah’s personal experience taking the test in middle school and receiving consistent results throughout her life reveal the astounding consistency of her personality throughout growth and development. And not only do the results seem consistent, Keirsey’s description of my personality type, a type in which only 2-3% of the population fall under,[2] aligns closely with my perception of myself. Keirsey’s definition what he calls “the Teacher” explains my personality better than I could explain it myself. Keirsey says Teachers “expect the very best of those around them,” “prefer to plan both work and social engagements ahead of time,” but also “have the ability to preside without preplanning.”[3] Though many personality types seem ambiguous and so general that they could describe anyone’s personality, this particular description impresses me because of its complexity. It almost seems to offer contradictions, claiming that a Teacher likes planning but also performs well without plans. But this statement portrays my qualities and characteristics perfectly, as I find myself perpetually making lists and I am often thrown into leadership positions whether I am prepared or not. And I usually do fine.

In high school, when a teacher assigned group work, the group would frequently designate me as the leader. Once, I asked one of my friends why he thought this happened, and he said, “You’re artistic and always have a good idea.”

This perplexed me because I never thought of myself as an artistic person. I don’t like to paint or draw, but I realized that I like to approach problems creatively. When given a choice between guidelines and open-ended prompt, I inevitably opt for the open-ended prompt so that I can pursue my own interests, whether or not it involves more work.

My high school US history teacher assigned a “timeline” activity as a review exercise for the AP test. She gave each group a set of themes to trace across a series of dates. Many groups whipped out the usual white butcher paper and marks-a-lots to make their timelines. But as usual, I wanted to do something different, and suggested to my group that we construct a puzzle for a timeline. Unwittingly, I had just designated myself the leader of the group as the rest of the project took place at my house, on my terms, and according to my time schedule. Though we undoubtedly spent more time working on the project than any other group, it turned out beautifully as an effective way to teach our audience and ourselves the assigned themes.


This is part of my group during a Sunday afternoon in March 2006 working on the puzzle in my garage. We carved puzzle pieces out of the big insulation board at the bottom left corner of the picture, decorated and color coded them according to their themes and dates, and secured them with velcro to a large piece of felt. The teacher kept the puzzle and uses it to teach her students the same themes today.

Thus, I am sure that throughout my career as a student, I have subconsciously volunteered myself for many of the leadership positions I have assumed because I love to teach. Keirsey’s name for my personality type surprised me because I had never thought of myself as a teacher. Indeed, to this day I loathe the thought of teaching children or high school students, but only because I find the public education system limiting. I want to pursue research, educate others through my writing, and discover new truths to teach.

Julie claims at the end of her DB that she finds the assessment of her personality interesting, but by no means plans to “let the Jung Typology Test” symbolize the center around which her life revolves.”

Nor did I plan to determine my life plans based on a personality test, but I have found that unintentionally my plans have aligned themselves with the goals of the Teacher! Last semester I toyed with the idea of becoming a professor, and since then, the idea has developed into a specific strategy. I am now applying for an Environmental Studies BDP (Bridging Disciplines Program, a way to concentrate in something not formally offered as a major by the university), and am working towards achieving a research apprenticeship in Germany when I study abroad my junior year.

As I aspire to educate masses in the dangers of global climate change through my writing, I find the assessment of “Intuition and Writing” especially valuable. The author says that intuitive writers “tend to forget to include concrete example and may not provide the reader with background information” (401). My generalizations often plague my writing. In assignments such as P4 requiring specificity, I have a hard time maintaining focus while providing sufficient examples. I need more P4-like exercises to strengthen my writing.

I agree mostly with the Meyers-Briggs test assessment of my writing, learning, and educating skills. I believe it has pegged my personality, and I also believe it accurately describes others, such as Hannah, Will, and Julie, though they may not agree themselves with the assessment in its entirety. Sometimes self-perception differs from an outsider’s perception. The tendency of human beings to categorize and compare things has resulted in the development of this kind of test. Scientists have grouped living things using the binomial nomenclature system for centuries. Numerologists like use names and birthdays to group people together and assess their personalities. Joseph Campbell, in Hero of a Thousand Faces, asserts that men have told the same fundamental story for centuries, and traces symbols and themes from the Bible to Star Wars. He says, “One knows the tale; it has been told a thousand ways” (43). Likewise, the billions of people who have lived on earth since the development of the homo-sapien have unifying similarities, and these allow for scientists and sociologists today to pinpoint traits and characteristics as they repeat themselves time and time again throughout the history of civilization.

[1] David Keirsey, "The Portrait of the Teacher," Keirsey.com, 18 Feb. 2008 http://keirsey.com/handler.aspx?s=keirsey&f=fourtemps&tab=3&c=teacher.
[2] Keirsey
[3] Keirsey

Sam Harris: Faith vs. Reason in the Modern World (1/5)

Sam Harris noted the divisiveness of religion at the Aspen Ideas festival in 2007. He addresses the problems and anachronism of motivating actions today in a world full of destructive technology and weaponry with archaic texts.

Reason

According to W.J. Bate, “…because of its primary importance in the consititution of man, identification by sympathy, which is achieved through the imagination, characterizes the highest moral and aesthetic exertion” (132).

On Sunday, February 9, 2008, Charlotte Beall posted a blog entry expressing her concordance with Dinesh D’Souza’s argument in The Enemy At Home. She finds herself completely swayed by D’Souza’s assertion that the cultural left is responsible for the Muslim World’s hatred and that America should adopt the traditional values of the right in order to appeal to Muslims worldwide.

In one fell swoop, both D’Souza and Charlotte (by association) deny the values that Americans have fought two centuries to achieve. These values include tolerance and separation of church and state, principles that seminate from the beginnings of our great democratic-republic. To forsake these principles means to forsake the intentions of our founding fathers. Under Amendment I to the Constitution, “Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” This guarantee against a state supported religion allows for the religious diversity evident in the United States today. Yes, a Christian majority exists in the United States (76.6% of total population in 2001).[1] But D’Souza fails to recognize the many factions of Christianity when he states that, “There is no valid basis for objecting to conservative Christians applying their religious and moral beliefs to politics” (202). The myriad of Christian sects alone would be enough to alienate tens of thousands of people with religious politics, not to mention the nonreligious and those who belong to other world religions. These people would face oppression every day with government sanctioned religious events and symbols. For instance, D’Souza ignores the impressionability of children in schools. When faced with an authority figure, such as a teacher, or an overwhelming majority participating in a Christian prayer, a Muslim child either feels left out or pressured to assimilate and behave in the same way as his/her peers. This leaves an everlasting impression on the child and encroaches on their heritage and the will of their family.


This graph shows the an approximation of the distribution of world religions by "Adherents.com". Notice that there is no majority and that no one religion comes even close to a simple majority. Considering the current rapid globalization, Iraq should prepare by promoting tolerance. The "Adherents.com" corporation is supported by the US Census.[2]

D’Souza demonizes secularists stating, “The real objective of secularists is to marginalize traditional morality” (202). But morality and secularism aren’t mutually exclusive. Reason and enlightenment foster nationwide morality while freeing citizens from the pressures of state sanctioned religion. Also, in this statement, D’Souza reveals his belief that the “traditional morality” is the only morality to which a society should adhere and that secularists have no morality as he denounces their progressive values one after another. However, the founding fathers believed in another basis of morality—reason.

The founding fathers understood the dangers of theocracy and advocated separation of church and state from the beginning. In his Farewell Address, George Washington states, “…morality can be maintained without religion.” He goes on to stress, “…that public opinion should be enlightened.”[3] A part of his warning to the nation against factions, Washington believed that education and reason could better maintain the Union than established religion. As one of the most diverse nations in the world, we have done well to honor Washington’s words thus far, and in the face of rapid globalization, we would do well to maintain them.

Sam Harris noted the divisiveness of religion at the Aspen Ideas festival in 2007. He addresses the problems and anachronism of motivating actions today in a world full of destructive technology and weaponry with archaic texts.

Start this video at 3:30.[4]

Thus, not only should we firmly stand by our separation of church and state, we should encourage the new born democracy in Iraq to do the same. Through tolerance, Iraq can achieve peace and benefit by diversification.

[1] Barry A. Kosmin and Seymour P. Lachman, ‘‘One Nation Under God: Religion in Contemporary American Society," 1993; 2001 data, Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar, Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture, Trinity
College, Hartford, CT, http://www.trincoll.edu/secularisminstitute/ .

[2] "Major Religions of the World Ranked by Worldwide Adherents," Adherents.com, 13 Feb. 2008 http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html.

[3] George Washington, "Farewell Address," trans. Worthington Chauncey Ford, The Writings of George Washington, (New York: Putnam's Sons, 1892) 277.

[4]"Sam Harris: Faith vs. Reason in the Modern World," Youtube, 13 Feb. 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baAg6k4c1Jg.

Deglorification

According to D’Souza in The Enemy at Home, America’s treasured values of “autonomy” and “self-fulfillment” have in effect allowed for a downward spiral of “moral depravity” and self-indulgence in popular culture that traditional societies, both at home and abroad, find repulsive (166). The “moral depravity” in media is self-evident, obnoxious, and in fact, unavoidable. Sensationalist journalism, trashy drama, and women-objectifying images bombard televisions, billboards, and the Internet.

D’Souza illuminates the dangers of rampant sex and violence in the media. Our distasteful obsession impedes our progress in persuading Iraq to adopt democracy and grant their people basic rights. Because of its effect on our image to the Muslim world, “moral depravity” poses a problem that the next president should address.

D’Souza states, “When traditional Muslims see how freedom is used in America, they become increasingly convinced that the Islamic world is better off without this kind of freedom" (278). In order to promote the basic right of “freedom of speech” that we as Americans hold dear in Iraq, we must show that such a freedom doesn’t necessarily bring immorality with it. Many, including D’Souza, question the United State’s government failure to limit sex and violence in the media. This presents a policy conundrum. What defines appropriate censorship? What is the line between freedom of expression and obscenity?

The founding fathers protected, but did not define “freedom of speech” in the Bill of Rights. In the First Amendment, they stated:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This intentionally ambiguous wording allows for the interpretation of “freedom of speech” to shift with time. The definition depends on the decisions of the current Supreme Court justices. And since the current Court obviously doesn’t mind the rampant sex and violence in the media today, they hand over the power of presentation to the media giants, namely Hollywood and conglomerates such as MSNBC. But sex and violence as mere themes or events in the media do not reflect moral depravity, their presentation does.

Thus, the real culprit and cause of our “moral depravity” is glorification of sex and violence, not their presence. Sexual promiscuity looks beautiful when Paris Hilton does it. Drug use looks glamorous when popular music artists do it.


Jim Morrison of the Doors is regarded by many as one of the "sexiest men who ever lived" . He is still glorified after having died of a drug overdose and behaving indulgently with women, as countless pop icons have.[1]

But rarely do the media conglomerates portray such activity in a negative light. This is why Candidate D’s policy of “limited censorship of sex and violence” would most effectively protect “freedom of speech” while upholding moral standards that the Muslim world could agree with. For America’s safety and the success of the war, we need “limited censorship of sex and violence” to minimize immorality, or what D’Souza calls the “…distinguishing feature—and leading export—of American civilization" (278).


Larry McMurtry’s The Last Picture Show provides an excellent example of deglorification of immoral behavior. McMurtry debases lusty teenage sex, portraying an ugly, primitive side of premarital sex that rarely receives coverage in media today.

This scene from the movie production of The Last Picture Show portrays the ugly side of perverse sexual relationships when Sonny's tryst goes sour.[2]

This model of limited censorship defines a middle ground of censorship that D’Souza loosely defines in his address to liberal democrats to, “…recog[nize] that there are higher and lower forms of autonomy” (272). This compromise between eliminating all sex and violence and no censorship at all at once allows artistic freedom and satisfies the demands of traditional cultures. WIley makes a strong point when he says, "But I also believe firmly that limiting freedoms inhibits both the growth of individuals and society and their potentials for manifesting greater happiness." As Americans, we value our rights highly because they provide the means to realizing our potential as human beings and finding fulfillment in life. Enlightened happiness, the happiness that comes with the freedom to grow and to learn how to express one's self, furthers the development of society by spawning enthusiastic, passionate leaders.

[1] "Jim Morrison," GrooveShark, 11 Feb. 2008 http://www.grooveshark.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/morrison.jpg.
[2] "The Last Picture Show--the end," Youtube, 11 Feb. 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__T3WJVmBY8.

The Last Picture Show- the end