criterionforum.org

It's kinda fitting that David Mamet's dedicated thread has mirrored his career trajectory from hailing his artistic merits to directionless political discourse

The three most popular professions for pedophiles are surely teachers, politicians, and filmmaking, so I think we can probably all find common ground here.

I could've sworn it was priests and scout leaders.

Where do you draw the line on „government provision of public services“? That‘s my only point. These same people (more than relatives—I‘ll include the guy who cuts my hair) point in fear to the „socialism“ of western Europe—seriously. More government provisions for more public services. I ask which ones they want to include and which leave out. The same basic principles apply, no? The police is funded in the same way as our schools: taxes. Mainstream Republican ideology absolutely wants to minimize or eliminate taxes and the „public services“ that they fund.

Suggesting that supporting the police, as part of some minimal night-watchman state, is a form of socialism because it’s funded by taxation is simply to empty the word socialism of all meaning beyond “not pure anarchism”, which I’m not sure is particularly productive.

As Brian has pointed out, small state conservatives and libertarians have provided answers to these questions over the years - perhaps not to your satisfaction, but this certainly isn’t a new or original problem with which they are unfamiliar.

Now you suggest that “the same basic principles apply” to the justification of all possible public services and frame it as a question of drawing lines, but that’s just wrong isn’t it. How do the principles that justify a legal system and police force extend to justify, say, a state-operated travel agents?

The word "socialism" has already been drained of all meaning.

I wouldn't recommend arguing politics with someone while they cut your hair

HJackson wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 12:57 am Suggesting that supporting the police, as part of some minimal night-watchman state, is a form of socialism because it’s funded by taxation is simply to empty the word socialism of all meaning beyond “not pure anarchism”, which I’m not sure is particularly productive.

That‘s precisely my point. The way in which the right in this country uses the term is completely emptied of meaning and unproductive. I think we must be talking past one another here. And anyway, one person‘s travel agency is another person‘s sidewalk. Or another person‘s health care. Or another person‘s police department.

If it‘s not about drawing lines, then what is it? We have public swimming pools on the one hand and police departments on the other. Are you saying this isn‘t a basic principle connecting these two? I‘d say there is, even if only a general „public good.“

Who needs haircuts when you have hats?

denti alligator wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 12:14 amWhere do you draw the line on „government provision of public services“? That‘s my only point. These same people (more than relatives—I‘ll include the guy who cuts my hair) point in fear to the „socialism“ of western Europe—seriously. More government provisions for more public services. I ask which ones they want to include and which leave out. The same basic principles apply, no? The police is funded in the same way as our schools: taxes. Mainstream Republican ideology absolutely wants to minimize or eliminate taxes and the „public services“ that they fund.

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here. What "principles" are you even referring to? That any public services are "socialism"? It doesn't sound like you have any more idea of what socialism is than these imaginary people you're shutting down with one inane gotcha question in arguments.

swo17 wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 1:12 am The word "socialism" has already been drained of all meaning.

I wouldn't recommend arguing politics with someone while they cut your hair

Case in point.

Brian C wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 1:20 am I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here. What "principles" are you even referring to? That any public services are "socialism"? It doesn't sound like you have any more idea of what socialism is than these imaginary people you're shutting down with one inane gotcha question in arguments.

Brian, I‘ll admit that my question and answer is facile. But yes, the principle I‘m referring to is government-run (and in some cases government-subsidized) public services. In no democratic socialist western European country are the means of production publicly owned. Socialism, in these states, means more government-run and government-guaranteed services. Paid for by higher taxes. These are democratic socialist countries. The ones my hairdresser fears the US will become if it expands our social services. Sure, it’s stupid to say the police and my local swimming pool are socialist; but it‘s just as stupid to say universal health care is socialist. That‘s my only point.
Now where is the infighting break-away thread for this discussion with clever socialist hairdresser title?

I mean, maybe, especially given his puckish response to Maher a few days prior to the more inflammatory remarks, where upon being informed that page 2 of his book has a factual error, he just advises readers to still read it but skip page two. But I think hoping it’s all an act is wishful thinking, really. His recent works are legit like they come from a different author, I don’t see why his beliefs shouldn’t also reflect that disparity

That's a pretty needlessly harsh assessment of Pinter by Schrader. He slowed down as a playwright because he was one of the greatest screenwriters we had, but his later works for the stage are as good as anything he produced. He also wrote perhaps the greatest Nobel Prize lecture ever.

Not sure if this is common practice for this particular reviewer on the other forum, but I laughed at this added 'warning' to the Audio review for Heist, particularly when he tries to seamlessly transition back to what he was supposed to be doing (italics imposed by me):

Sony supplies an English DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 Surround mix (1769 kbps, 16-bit) and a lossy Spanish-dub stereo track. I wish that Sony had employed 24-bit and given the 5.1 track a maxed out bitrate. I had to really turn up my receiver to get the full amp of the explosions and other ambient effects. Composer Theodore Shapiro's jazzy and propulsive action score keeps the shifty plot gears churning.

One important point to make about the dialogue is its characteristically "Mametspeak." Theater and film critics have defined this as having "coarse, rapid-fire, naturalistic dialogue" (Dave Larsen) that's "rhythmic, pro­fane yet poetic patter of street­wise raconteurs" (AP critic). Heist is more spare and minimalist than the other plays and films Mamet has wrote. It does have witty and terse one-liners. Mamet wants viewers to focus on the story and characters, not the cadences. Dialogue is solidly rendered on the English track.

Optional English SDH as well as Spanish and French subtitles are available.

The Internet Archive has graced us with a top-tier copy of Mamet’s HBO special
Ricky Jay and His 52 Assistants

As a complete shock to me, David Mamet has a brand new film based on a play I never knew he wrote called Henry Johnson. Seems he made the movie with the same actors that were in the play, which again, I had no clue was staged locally to Los Angeles. I only found out while browsing the American Cinematheque website and seeing they're doing the west coast premiere next month, seemingly unworried about presenting him and Shia LeBeouf in the same room. He apparently shot it in five days, and I'm truly not expecting anything on par with his best work, but my morbid curiosity overtook me and I bought a ticket. If anyone here goes, I'll be the one wearing the "Kill Your Local Pedophile" shirt to support David Mamet.

beamish14 wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2024 5:34 am The Internet Archive has graced us with a top-tier copy of Mamet’s HBO special
Ricky Jay and His 52 Assistants

Still much lower quality than I had hoped. Was this recorded to video?

Probably Betacam SP. Looks pretty decent to me.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote: Tue Apr 15, 2025 10:29 pm As a complete shock to me, David Mamet has a brand new film based on a play I never knew he wrote called Henry Johnson. Seems he made the movie with the same actors that were in the play, which again, I had no clue was staged locally to Los Angeles. I only found out while browsing the American Cinematheque website and seeing they're doing the west coast premiere next month, seemingly unworried about presenting him and Shia LeBeouf in the same room. He apparently shot it in five days, and I'm truly not expecting anything on par with his best work, but my morbid curiosity overtook me and I bought a ticket. If anyone here goes, I'll be the one wearing the "Kill Your Local Pedophile" shirt to support David Mamet.

Thanks for the heads up. I gave up on Mamet's recent plays after the disastrous China Doll, so I can't say I expect the best. Previously it was looking like he was going to end his filmmaking career on a high note with Phil Spector, but I guess this one is rolling the dice (and absolutely "shot in five days" gives me less confidence than I would already have had going in)

Only a day later, the trailer for Henry Johnson. Sounds like it will be available to rent on the same day as the LA premiere (May 9th).

That... shockingly doesn't look terrible. Could he possibly still have some gas in the tank?

On another topic, the extras on The Verdict are pretty entertaining, and they even go into detail regarding Mamet's writing for the film. The two I remember most:

1) His script originally ended with the jury coming out of deliberations, right before they actually give a verdict. Producer Richard D. Zanuck called in Mamet and thought the best way to communicate his displeasure was through sarcastic jokes. (i.e. "Maybe we should put a question mark after the title!") Mamet didn't react well and ended the meeting by walking out and prominently giving Zanuck his middle finger.

2) The film then passed through many hands including more rewrites by other screenwriters. When Lumet and Newman committed to the project, it was because they wanted to go back to Mamet's original script, with one exception: they wanted a new ending (or as it would eventually play out, continue the film for a couple more scenes). Lumet personally contacted Mamet to write one, and I'm guessing the conversation went a whole lot better because Lumet wasn't being an ass and gave a respectable reason to request that change. Mamet didn't push back and agonized over it, and according to Lindsay Crouse, he basically stayed up all night in front of a typewriter and just kept typing, as if simply the act of working/writing would eventually push out something that worked. That's basically how those finally scenes came out - he had them by the morning.

Cautiously optimistic. There is also another Mamet-scripted film in production, The Prince. It's already in post, and has a strong cast led by Nicolas Cage. But it is rumoured to be inspired by Hunter Biden. By the way, did anyone see The Penitent? An Italian film, made from a Mamet script, it's supposedly dedicated to Jordan Peterson. It's producer-director-star was also involved in Polanski's The Palace. I think both of these films premiered in Venice.

Morbid curiosity overtook me and I bought a $10 virtual ticket for Henry Johnson, the latest and by far most-late of recent late-style auteurist howls into the void. The plot is basically a feature-length recreation of the two Roma/Lingk scenes from Glengarry Glen Ross, except mostly set in prison and depicted from the perspective of a Lingk played uselessly by an actor most famous for being subjected to an infamous feat of violence in Bone Tomahawk. (He's married to Zosia Mamet, which explains a few things). The non-cannibalized cast members are all compulsively watchable and given too-ample time (two scenes of four for LaBoeuf, one each for Bauer and Hoffman) to spout impossibly overwritten aphorisms and set their victim's frame. But outside of his disastrous principal casting decision, I cannot blame Mamet for too much that went wrong here, nor can I deny that the film is curiously interesting in its odd and misplaced details, perhaps even ideally positioned to become a film maudit some decades from now. Mamet is so clearly fighting against the imposition of his limited financial resources, staging a story of social manipulation and in some places brutal violence by deliberately omitting almost all action and catharsis and relying upon various monologues to fill in their details. If I didn't know any better, I would have sooner assumed an Accidental Love-style troubled production where our director literally did not get to shoot every scene than that he chose to deny us the ability to interpret and react to the build-ups and pay-offs of all the various con games run on our poor prisoner, the very lifeblood of all his previous work. No doubt if Mamet had secured a greater-than-Hong Sang-soo-level of budget and shooting time, he would have actually filled out his skeleton of a story with more than three sets and extras and all the cross-cutting machinations that high-level work can afford. If he had done that, he could have placed the mawkish or insane bon-mots and manipulations spouted by his dominant characters into context and saved his movie. None of this is to say that the technical craft on display in the film is amateurish - far from it. It's just that, like many a competent student work before, it's simply impossible to watch the movie and think more about its form or content than the material circumstances that led it to be made in that way and the palpable discomfort of the director in being reduced to those circumstances. Many filmmakers before and working in the same basic American indie sphere as Mamet have overcome the limits placed on their work and compellingly incorporated it into their art. (Think of David Lynch and Shane Carruth cobbling together their respective experimental features, Paul Schrader using low budgets to make austere and chilling films empty of sumptuous comforts, Sean Baker nobly attempting to elevate shooting restrictions at the end of The Florida Project to a communication of an emotional state). Mamet can't do the same. But that's only barely his failure. Te absolvo.