Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “On Directing Film” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

On Directing Film

David Mamet

3.85 · Rating details · 2,928 ratings · 199 reviews

According to David Mamet, a film director must, above all things, think visually. Most of this instructive and funny book is written in dialogue form and based on film classes Mamet taught at Columbia University. He encourages his students to tell their stories not with words, but through the juxtaposition of uninflected images. The best films, Mamet argues, are composed o ...more

Get A Copy

Paperback, 107 pages

Published January 1st 1992 by Penguin Books (first published 1991)

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about On Directing Film, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

To Be A Filmmaker

22 books — 8 voters

Best of David Mamet

99 books — 4 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 3.85 ·

Rating details

· 2,928 ratings · 199 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of On Directing Film

Oct 06, 2013 David rated it did not like it

Shelves: on-my-literal-bookshelf, words-on-film

"People have tried for centuries to use drama to change people's lives, to influence, to comment, to express themselves. It doesn't work. It might be nice if it worked for those things, but it doesn't. The only thing the dramatic form is good for is telling a story." (p.65)

I don't know what planet this guy is living on, but it's definitely not Earth. I like Mamet, and I like his film House of Games but I disagree with almost everything he says in this book, especially his disdain for any film th ...more

flag 31 likes · Like · see review

Mar 19, 2014 William Torgerson rated it it was amazing

Shelves: indie-film-production

Coming from the perspective of writer first, I found a lot in here to think about when it comes to the craft of writing fiction.

The second chapter show you how you could just a small idea for a story you want to build (the student wants to impress the professor) and build the story via shots and beats just from that small idea. If you're without an idea for a short film, I think you could play along with Mamet in this chapter and end up with a solid idea.

Here's some of my fav lines I typed up: ...more

flag 14 likes · Like · see review

Jul 20, 2013 Sherif Nagib rated it it was ok

Shelves: film

A "meh!" book at best. So redundant that he could've summed it up in a single article, and even then I would've hesitated to share it. ...more

flag 13 likes · Like · see review

Dec 29, 2018 Diz rated it it was ok

Shelves: film

This book presents some interesting ideas on building scenes through shots. However, there are a lot of things to dislike about this book. First of all, two chapters are presented as classroom discussions. He basically shoots down most of the students ideas and forces them to accept his perspective on movies. The results are two very boring scenarios.

Second, he has a very negative opinion of actors and producers. If any of his students adopt his views, they will find it very difficult to work wi ...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Apr 10, 2013 Rein rated it liked it

It is an apology for handicraft. The basic ideas are all sound, and Mamet's recommendation for telling the story in a sequence of moments that speak for themselves is quite correct. I also enjoyed the analyses he develops in discussion with students - very informative and useful. However, his foaming anger against artistic film seems partially motivated by envy. In a crucial footnote, he bemoans that the Great actors winning prizes are not of the type he favours himself. Might be the same with d ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Jun 28, 2010 Tim rated it liked it

As short as it is, still seems padded and repetitive -- really the sweepings from a stint teaching at film school. Enough funny direct Mamet-isms to make it worthwhile, and a useful no-bullshit and absolutist summary of the Eisenstein/Bresson approach. The steadicam, and all it represents -- following the action around -- is mentioned a few times as a symbol of all that's wrong with American filmmaking today, because movies are made out of shots, and shots are of simple clear actions that don't ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Apr 22, 2019 DJ Yossarian rated it it was ok

Shelves: film

I didn't think it was possible to read a 107 page book and think, "This could have been much, much shorter," but there you have it. There are some good insights here, but they are overshadowed by Mamet's rants about Nearly Everyone Who Is Not David Mamet, and his interactions with the students in these dialogues shut down, rather than encourage, exploration and creativity. ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jun 13, 2008 Justin rated it liked it

Mamet's book on acting, True and False , was a rather audacious protest against typical trends of theater "acting" wherein Mamet verbally reamed the kind of performers who create "characters" and strive to make "interesting" choices. Stanslavski is worthless to Mamet, as are, likewise, method actors (I wonder how he feels about Daniel-Day Lewis!) Acting, argues Mamet, is about understanding what the objective of the play's text is and executing the obtainment of that objective, thereby commun Mamet's book on acting, True and False , was a rather audacious protest against typical trends of theater "acting" wherein Mamet verbally reamed the kind of performers who create "characters" and strive to make "interesting" choices. Stanslavski is worthless to Mamet, as are, likewise, method actors (I wonder how he feels about Daniel-Day Lewis!) Acting, argues Mamet, is about understanding what the objective of the play's text is and executing the obtainment of that objective, thereby communicating the play to the audience in the most uninflected way possible. The job of the actor is to speak of clear voice, be physically fit, and to communicate the play as it is written. Nothing more, nothing less. He scoffs hilariously at accents, mugging, and everything else that many, if not most, actors gravitate towards not only on the stage but in their day-to-day lives. As a person who loves acting but can't tolerate most "actors," Mamet's book was a revelation to me, and helped me to feel okay again about my decision to dodge acting as a career choice.

His book on filmmaking, aptly titled On Directing Film, is similarly brief and readable, but lacks True and False's sense of wisdom and authority. Taking a literally conversational style, in which he transcribes reflective dialogue with his students, Mamet seems to be working through his own theories about film directing on the spot. Again he is all about objective, decrying filmmakers who struggle to concoct elaborate, beautiful images instead of just looking at the film's story, and communicating that story in the most uninflected way possible. "If you find that a point cannot be made without narration," he writes, "it is virtually certain that the point is unimportant... A movie script should be a juxtaposition of uninflected shots that tell the story."

I like this point, but I also like movies like My Dinner With Andre and Whit Stillman's Metropolitan, where meandering dialogue and unfocused narration are sort of the point, telling messy stories that don't really go anywhere and don't need to. I also think Mamet's films, unlike his plays, are mostly mediocre, though understanding his outlook on directing helps me appreciate works like his confusing, amateurish-feeling Red Belt at least a little more. Though, that still doesn't make them any more fun to watch. His style of stripping the film of all narrative does have the effect of producing plots that have an element of mystery--you get only the barest essentials of character introductions and scenarios, leaving you confused but intrigued. Trouble is, his attempts to bring it around always seem to result in heavy-handed last-minute plot twists that don't even make much sense since you don't know enough about the situation to understand their import.

On Directing Film is certainly worth reading, if only for help in scrutinizing your own work, but it isn't nearly as comprehensive as True and False, which I felt addressed every important element of the acting process, from rehearsing to auditioning, deconstructed it, and then presented a new and incredibly practical way of doing it. Directing covers territory Mamet is much less familiar with, and it shows. For one, he completely avoids how dialogue might be used in a way that would be consistent with his methods, sticking entirely with how to string images together that will tell the story. But he uses dialogue all the time, and it would have been helpful to hear how he implements his own dialogue in an "uninflected" way. He also has nothing to say about the editing process outside of the idea that you can't fix your movie in the editing room (which many people who have edited film might disagree with), and his advice for actually shooting your film (as in, where to point the camera) is just to point the thing and shoot so as to capture the simplest, most uninflected image. He actually says at one point, "I'm going to put the camera somewhere. Is one place better than another? No? Then I'll let my subconscious pick one, and put the camera there."

I guess it's liberating to just not worry about creating pretty shots and just shoot the movie, but I also believe in the visual power of film, and I don't think you can obtain that (generally speaking) without putting thought into your shots, working with a skilled cinematographer and developing a finely honed visual schematic. An example that occurs immediately to me is Gus Van Sant's Gerry, a meandering film with almost no dialogue that simply follows Matt Damon and Casey Affleck around as they get lost in the desert. It's absolutely riveting though, largely because its visuals are so beautiful and eerie. It has these long, crazy, completely show-offy tracking shots that probably weren't essential but also are one of the main proponents behind the film's slow-building tension and terror.

I'm glad On Directing Film made me think, but I wouldn't define it as a seminal text, but then Mamet has plenty of those already; he doesn't need another. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Apr 16, 2014 Christopher McQuain rated it it was ok

I knew it before I ever read the book, but David Mamet is MUCH more worthwhile in practice (I very much admire HOUSE OF GAMES and HEIST) than when he's theorizing, explaining art and the world to us and offering commentary.

If anyone was surprised by his big public coming out as a Glenn Beck-worshiping political conservative, they never read between the lines of the extreme, simplistic narrowness (very erudite and well-informed narrowness, but narrowness nonetheless) he offered up in essay-books ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Nov 02, 2010 Lauren rated it it was amazing

Shelves: film-related

Mamet writes a short, to the point, book, not unlike the filmmaking approach he advocates. I wish I had read this prior to starting my Masters in film as it would have been quite beneficial. I learned more from this book than I have in film school thus far and will likely read it several more times. If you're interested in filmmaking as a craft, I cannot recommend this book enough. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

May 31, 2018 Shervin rated it it was ok

Mamet has a limited understanding of cinematic language, modeled exclusively on Eisenstein. This coupled with his overconfident, authoritarian style makes this manual somewhat ridiculous.

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Feb 22, 2021 Brianna Silva rated it it was ok

I actually despised this book.

Now, that's not to say that it's useless. The main thrust of what Mamet is saying is quite good; that is, know what the purpose is of a scene or shot, do that, and cut whatever is superfluous.

But many of the ways Mamet applies this basic principle I do not agree with. I think that the main difference between him and I is that he perceives film as "design", not "art"; that is, that one should approach film like one approaches making a chair or a house, not like one ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Jul 30, 2018 Kasa Cotugno rated it liked it

Shelves: subj-showbiz-film

While I cannot get enough of reading works by favorite performers and creators, I found this to be geared more for a serious student of the craft of directing. Mamet does inform that this rather slim volume is based on lectures and conversations to students in an advanced film studies course at Columbia, but for the lay person, there was rather too much technical content to make it fully engaging or even revealing about Mamet as a person.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Feb 08, 2020 A rated it did not like it · review of another edition

Shelves: nonfiction, very-bad-books

I haven’t hated a book like this since I was knee-deep in Rushdie, lmao. Three things:

1. Mamet hates “modern art.” He believes that he understands the only successful way to tell stories for the only reason there is, which is, simply, “because”. Of course, this very “basic” way to tell a story is the hero’s journey, Freytag’s phallic pyramid. There is no reason to include anything not pertinent to advancing the plot. This isn’t wisdom, it’s sophistry! Stripping away context from why we do someth I haven’t hated a book like this since I was knee-deep in Rushdie, lmao. Three things:

1. Mamet hates “modern art.” He believes that he understands the only successful way to tell stories for the only reason there is, which is, simply, “because”. Of course, this very “basic” way to tell a story is the hero’s journey, Freytag’s phallic pyramid. There is no reason to include anything not pertinent to advancing the plot. This isn’t wisdom, it’s sophistry! Stripping away context from why we do something is never more intelligent than the reverse; just because we’ve done something for thousands of years (and is that really the only way we’ve told stories, anyhow?) doesn’t mean it’s the only workable way to do it, because the only basic factor of human existence — and I mean the *only* one — is that we change things. Mamet’s principle can be tested by a very simple phenomenon: the rewatch. Very few works of art tempt me to revisit them through the actual workings of the plot, but I do tend to revisit specific scenes or characters or themes or moods or arrangements of images because they resonate with me and I can always find something deeper upon a closer look. My favorite film, Caravaggio, barely concerns itself with ordered events at all, and yet we (or I) still come to be invested in him as the film progresses. The picaresque, the pastiche — these structures draw me in, and yet they are, according to Mamet, “bad art.” Another way to poke holes in his hero’s journey is to examine the Brechtian drama, which may follow the rules of inevitability/exigency of plot but absolutely does not encourage the audience to identify with the characters because it wants you to know you are watching a play. In Mamet’s eyes, identification with the protagonist is king, but even if this were as important as he thinks (it’s not) not everyone would be able to do it. This brings me to…

2. Acting. Mamet thinks that good acting is simply doing what it says on the page without embellishment, and that anyone who goes beyond this fails; that failure is “great acting,” he says, because we identify with the *actor* rather than the character. So what? Coming back to identification, there is actually no way to make a “universally relatable” character. Someone will always be shut out. Mamet frequently uses fun little examples of “the guy getting the girl” to illustrate how plot should go, and this is no accident, because in his delusion that art can and should always be relatable he has fooled himself into thinking that his perspective is no perspective at all. (Aside: what the fuck was that slavery metaphor?) Let’s use the example of Dunkirk. The film was, by all accounts, excellently crafted, with an underlying sense of suspense and a plot that raced undistractedly toward its endpoint, and every actor did what was required and no more. I was bored to tears! Why? There was no reason for me to be invested in anything that was happening in the first place, since it isn’t a story that appeals to me, and the actors didn’t have anything further to offer, so I ended up feeling as though I was watching my brother play a video game. I always prefer a film with a bad plot and watchable actors to a film with a good plot and actors who simply stand there, cow-eyed and pretty, because plots and premises aren’t fucking universal! Why on earth would Shakespeare have written all those meandering soliloquies if there was really nothing more to acting than “walking down the hall quickly?” Why would people listen to podcasts if we didn’t like to see and hear people perform? *This* brings me to…

3. Screenwriting. Mamet says that a screenplay should be a shot list, no more, no less, and that dialogue should be the sprinkles on the cake. This may work for some, even many, films, but for others it’s patently false! The screenplay for Jennifer’s Body is very different than the movie structure-wise, but most of those bon mots made it into the film because they’re fucking fun. People *like* to hear the old repartee. Sure, dialogue may not be as long-lasting — most of Shakespeare’s jokes don’t land anymore, whereas we can still get invested in his characters — but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile! Also, going back to point 2, I happen to be of the opinion that actors deserve to have some idea of what the movie is about. That may just be me!

It’s not bad to learn the basic rules of film grammar, of course; they do work more often than not and going into any field without knowing how things are done is always a terrible idea. What’s poisonous is the fact that this macho bullshit is taught as if it’s the only way to make successful art and straying beyond its confines is bound to result in failure. Why do reactionaries always act as though they’re speaking truth to power? Everyone learns Freytag’s pyramid in sixth grade at the latest! Art has themes and context whether you think it does or not! Stop fondling yourself and just make your little movie!!! Shut the fuck up!!!!

(Also the way he kept bringing up stories told at bars as the best/most pared-down way of telling a successful story… as if everyone who’s ever been forced to listen to some male relation at a family function talk about something that’s happened to them hasn’t been confronted with the excruciating fact that simply not all stories are interesting!!)
...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jul 22, 2015 Ian rated it it was ok

I think if there is one word I would use to describe this it would be 'reductionist'. He abstracts and reduces everything into simple cynical package.
For example, people are reduced to 'What they want'- as if you can strip a person down to this.
Theres also an arrogant air to the writing, he speaks as if his opinions are facts. Furthermore I disagree with almost everything he says and some of it is self evidently false, For example he says "theres no such thing as character"..really? (This ridic ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Sep 05, 2017 James rated it did not like it

David Mamet has strong opinions about a lot of things. That's fine. I just don't need to read a book that is constantly telling me that I'm crazy and/or pretentious for enjoying the films of anyone who doesn't follow a strictly Aristotelian model.

I have found interesting nuggets in many of Mr. Mamet's books, plays and films. In fact, I use "Three Uses of the Knife" in one of my script analysis classes. But this one only frustrated me. He's just such a damn jerk about everything. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Dec 22, 2017 Patrick Grizzard rated it really liked it

Shelves: filmmaking

As with most of Mamet's pedagogical writing, this is two-thirds important theoretical insight and actionable methodology plus a third histrionic whinging at the aesthetic excesses of modernity and Hollywood's heretical philistinism. But even when he's a pompous douchebag, Mamet is, admittedly, an eloquent and entertaining douchebag. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 19, 2019 Bahareh Mahooti rated it really liked it

Shelves: cinema

I like the way he shows us how a plot grows and turns into a cinematic images. He’s good.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jul 27, 2020 Chun Ying rated it liked it

Shelves: film

While David Mamet is not necessarily the greatest filmmaker out there nor the best human being alive, and while the contents of this book are seemingly basic and redundant for anyone who's been to a film school, to be extremely honest, I'm glad I picked it up while roaming about in Eslite. It couldn't have been timelier that this book came to me at this hour, when I am struggling to understand the difference between being a writer and a director and how to, after having understood the difference While David Mamet is not necessarily the greatest filmmaker out there nor the best human being alive, and while the contents of this book are seemingly basic and redundant for anyone who's been to a film school, to be extremely honest, I'm glad I picked it up while roaming about in Eslite. It couldn't have been timelier that this book came to me at this hour, when I am struggling to understand the difference between being a writer and a director and how to, after having understood the difference, translate them into actual executive considerations.

Mamet gives unequivocal answers to filmmaking, which makes him an easy target to attack since he talks about films as if there are no other ways of making them. And those answers are glaringly flawed: his stance that "simple and stupid" shots are the best shots, his reverence of plot and scorn for the prose/poetry of films, his minimalization of actors' own art during the filmmaking process (reducing them to mere tools, almost dehumanizingly so), his framing of the audience as if they are all of one monolithic psyche, as if maintaining their interest is films' only job, his over-emphasis on montage as if shooting long shots with a Steadicam is the sin of the sins, etc.

It goes without saying that there is an avalanche of examples that go against his arguments, but it is exactly his emphasis on story-telling as a craft instead of a way to make personal statements that makes this book most helpful to me at this stage of my life.

I am about to make a short film and throughout all my creative endeavors I have been grappling with one question: how do I erase myself from the stories and let the characters speak for themselves? How do I stop narrating and actually tell a story? I was desperately looking for someone exactly like Mamet to shout at my face: "YOU CALL THAT A STORY? AND YOU CALL YOURSELF A STORY-TELLER?" And Mamet did exactly that, despite he did so with an extremely narrow view of film as a medium. But as of now, I actually NEED that narrowness, I need it because I live in a time where people are kind enough to never undermine whatever works you produce as long as they are intimate and true to you. But I don't just want to make a film that I enjoy making, but a film that people enjoy watching, not the mention that the latter often makes up the former. At this level, Mamet gives me a full swing with no hesitance, he's the "needle in the hay". And I wish that I would live to produce something that proves many of his views wrong, as many great movies did. But for now, I'll just let him spit in my face. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Nov 07, 2020 Jake Guy rated it liked it

The problem with this book is not that it is wrong, about 75% of it is correct about the craft of directing, but that it implies (I think it even says) that there is nothing else to learn. That the content of this book is the essential technique on directing. And frankly, it's really talking about the craft of writing and how that translates to directing rather than directing itself.

If you were in a pottery class and the teacher taught you how to make a bowl and said, "And that's it." would the ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Sep 05, 2018 Tim Heath rated it really liked it

Very interesting look into what goes into movie making, if not a little above my initial visualization or understanding. Let's see what happens! ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Mar 09, 2017 Marc Hampson rated it it was amazing

"If a person's objective is truly - and you don't have to do it humbly, because you'll get humble soon enough - to understand the nature of the medium, that objective will be communicated to the audience."

This book is a brilliant study in taking the role of the director and bringing an idea to life through communicating a series of images - the shot list. It's a book on Directing, but I would just as much recommend it to any screenwriter as well.

Mamet works hard to stay away from discussing angl ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 05, 2011 Steph rated it really liked it

P. 35

One part at a time. The boat has to look like a boat; the sail doesn't have to look like a boat. Make each part do its job, and the original purpose of the totality will be achieved—as if by magic. Make the beats serve the scene, and the scene will be done; make the scenes, in the same way, the building blocks of the film, and the film will be done. Don’t make the beat do the service of the whole, don’t try to reiterate the play in the scene.

P. 38

In The Uses of Enchantment, Bruno Bettelheim

...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Sep 12, 2018 Chao Wang rated it liked it

The title is a misnomer. He should've called it On How David Mamet Directs Film, because that's what it really is. He makes the claim that the bulk of a movie is made before a director even steps on set, and then his or her job is simply to stay awake while the actors do their thing. He takes a very reductive, mechanistic approach to film directing which is ideal for his dense and highly literary screenplays, but most directors don't apply that way of thinking to their own work, and thank God fo ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

May 02, 2011 Claire rated it liked it

Thought-provoking but also a little annoying. Mamet's metaphors don't really work for me - I'm not buying the comparisons of crafting a film to crafting shoes, homes, or chairs. He makes some really great points about simplicity, planning, and montage, but his tangential rants, while entertaining (he REALLY hates performance art) weaken his points. Also, this is very Western philosophy / dude-centric / arrogant professor-style and that bugged me. I know that's vague, but the lack of even theoret ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Sep 12, 2015 Michalle Gould rated it it was amazing

Even though I disagree with Mamet's almost monomaniacal focus on the hero's journey, this book is definitely a great resource and introduction to some foundational ideas about directing film. If everyone directed just like Mamet, it would probably be a boring world, but it's good to think about why and how you disagree in order to shape your own vision. Also, it's short and sometimes funny. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Oct 01, 2018 Alan Castree rated it it was ok

Took me a month to read a 100 page book...

It was okay. Probably would have had more of an influence on me if I actually finished it while at school, however I may revisit some of the ideas in my mind when writing my comics.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 24, 2010 Nicholas Luckett rated it really liked it

Shelves: favorites

"Get on with it, for the love of Mike. Get into the scene late, get out of the scene early, tell the story in the cut." ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Oct 24, 2014 Samuel rated it it was amazing

Platonic

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Dec 31, 2019 Toby Buchan rated it really liked it

Shelves: quotes

Chapter 1: Storytelling

"It's uninportant that the audience should guess why it's important to the story. It's important simply to tell the story. Let the audience be surprised."

"The movie, finally, is much closer than the play to simple story telling. If you listen to the way people tell stories, you will hear that they tell them cinematically. They jump from one thing to the next, and the story is moved along by a juxtaposition of images -- which is to say, by the cut."

"If you find that a point ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
Mentor Texts: Mentor Texts	1	6	May 14, 2019 07:25AM

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

Culture > Film

212 users

Nonfiction

65 users

Language > Writing

20 users

Media Tie In

15 users

Reference

9 users

Writing > Essays

6 users

Philosophy

4 users

Art

4 users

Philosophy > Theory

4 users

Education

4 users

See top shelves…

About David Mamet

David Mamet

551 followers

David Alan Mamet is an American author, essayist, playwright, screenwriter and film director. His works are known for their clever, terse, sometimes vulgar dialogue and arcane stylized phrasing, as well as for his exploration of masculinity.

As a playwright, he received Tony nominations for Glengarry Glen Ross (1984) and Speed-the-Plow (1988). As a screenwriter, he received Oscar nominations for Th ...more