Post: #1

Good stuff. And some red pill -ish notions at about 19:00:

"A man, the bulk of whose income is taxed, has less incentive towards monogamy."

Post: #2

Speaking from personal experience, Mamet leans more towards the 'man up' style of pontificating, instead of examining why women behave the way they do. Here, he makes men out to be more obsessed with sex than they actually are - men don't just want sex, given the right circumstances. Framing it that way makes women out to be innocent angels who want commitment and monogamy when men don't.

Post: #3

David Mamet is one of my favorite directors. He's probably the best playwright in America today.
I have to say, though, that some of his political stances are not to my liking. To me, the artist is so much greater than the man.

Post: #4

I really like and respect David Mamet. He seems like the type of guy that you could sit down and have a beer and great conversations with.

Post: #5

Am I the only one who finds Mamet's movies unwatchable? In particular, his dialog is stilted and artificial sounding.

Post: #6

Mamet's films can be a bit overboard and almost a parody of himself. I think his work is better when somebody else directs his scripts.

Check out 'Glengarry Glen Ross' - it is the best film I have seen.

Post: #7

(11-24-2013 10:25 PM)not_dead_yet Wrote:  Am I the only one who finds Mamet's movies unwatchable? In particular, his dialog is stilted and artificial sounding.

_________________

Yes, he does have a unique dialogue style. It is meant to be "artificial", but in a good sense. It takes some getting used to, just like listening to any new language for the first time takes some getting used to.
But to me, that is part of the appeal. By using this kind of dialogue, Mamet is trying to show just how difficult ordinary communication can be: how even the simplest ideas can become fraught with double-entendres and can conceal other, deeper truths.
My favorites from Mamet are:

1. Homicide. This is a totally underappreciated film and one of my all-time favorites.
2. House of Games.
3. Things Change
4. Spanish Prisoner
5. Glengarry, Glenross

While I am a fanatical admirer of his movies and plays, I can't say the same for his politics. He seems to have become a real die-hard pro-Zionist conservative. Which is fine, if that what works for him. But don't see the issues the same way he does.

Post: #8

I'm amazed otherwise intelligent people, and even geniuses like this guy, still use terms like liberal and conservative.
For the umpteenth time: reification is the use of an undefined abstraction (like "liberal") as if it were a real physical thing.
It is inaccurate speech.

Is it "conservative" to fight wars in countries mortgaging future generations with massive debt that no one knows how to repay, and really depends on bad-faith devaluation of the currency?

Is it "liberal" to say a female student of 22 can't fuck her professor because he's a professor, when they're both adults and capable of legal decisions?

These labels detract far more from dialog than they do add to it.

Post: #9

I know exactly, most people are tribal first, logical second. Logic requires thinking about every issue brought up, while tribal belonging merely requires copying your leader's or leaders' positions. Tribal modes of thought aren't inherently problematic, but in our day they turn out to be.

For instance, Mamet and many of his supporters are staunchly pro Israel. And that in turn means favoring American intervention in Israel related matters which undermines its sovereignty. From a logical perspective its not clear that such advocacy is pro Israel, but the members of the tribe have spoken, and thus that is pro Israel.

Post: #10

(11-24-2013 11:33 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  I'm amazed otherwise intelligent people, and even geniuses like this guy, still use terms like liberal and conservative.
For the umpteenth time: reification is the use of an undefined abstraction (like "liberal") as if it were a real physical thing.
It is inaccurate speech.

Is it "conservative" to fight wars in countries mortgaging future generations with massive debt that no one knows how to repay, and really depends on bad-faith devaluation of the currency?

Is it "liberal" to say a female student of 22 can't fuck her professor because he's a professor, when they're both adults and capable of legal decisions?

These labels detract far more from dialog than they do add to it.

______________-

Yeah, the labels do distract. Agreed.
But some sort of shorthand, some sort of attempt to generalize, is a concession useful for the masses.
What surprises me about Mamet is that, for all his genius, there seems to be some real gaps in his knowledge. And I don't mean that as a criticism. As I said, I really love his work, and totally respect him as an artist.
But I tried to read his book a few months ago, after checking it out from the library. I got through about 50 pages and just had to put it down.
For all his knowledge of human nature as revealed in his art, it is amazing just how far off base he is about other things.
Don't take my word for it...take a look at his book and judge for yourself.

Post: #11

(11-25-2013 12:45 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  But some sort of shorthand, some sort of attempt to generalize, is a concession useful for the masses.

I'm afraid I think it works the other way around-- use of jingoism serves as a way to artificially polarize the masses, and continue the divide-and-conquer that has gone on for ... well... forever.

There's much discussion about conservative and liberal, and virtually no discussion about the .01% and the rest of you.

That's not an accident.

Post: #12

Go watch all the films in my 2 posts in the knowledge forum. THAT is some hidden knowledge.

To most.

PS - GGGR is a great film. The only film I like Jack Lemon in.