In all of Mamet's plays and movies, you are stricken by the theatrical way they talk. It's because they say a phrase, then say it again (and sometimes again and again). Now that I have noticed this is what he does, I find it annoying. He overdoes it. On the other hand, I still find his movies fascinating, so I guess it doesn't annoy me that much. The movie just played on cable this afternoon.
sharei've never read or seen any interviews with mamet, so i don't know why he writes his characters like that. it is distinct, though. in some cases, it plays like affectation, in others, it gives more solidity to the alternate universe in which any mamet-written/directed story takes place.
gregory 072007
I think he's like Harold Pinter, in the respect that he writes the way real people speak, but heightens it to draw our attention to it and make us reflect on it -- on people's actual lack of communication when speaking, or how sometimes people can say the same thing a second time but actually mean something totally different by it.
People do actually say the same thing over and over. When you think about it, there's a certain artificial theatricality to what we think of as "normal" theatre and film, where people geenrally say things only once and their speech and intention is very clear and concise and direct. No-one actually talks like that.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
I could be perfectly content in a world where people practise the restraint of only repeating what they say twice.
shareAh, then, you as well have been pestered with this observation of the behavior of others. Even thrice repetitive would be pleasing.
shareIt can't be done.
If you repeat whatever you say twice, you wind up in an infinite recursion, since you must repeat your repetitions.
[initial statement]
If you repeat everything you say twice, you wind up in an infinite recursion, since you must repeat your repetitions.
[initial statement - first repetition]
If you repeat everything you say twice, you wind up in an infinite recursion, since you must repeat your repetitions.
[initial statement - second repetition]
If you repeat everything you say twice, you wind up in an infinite recursion, since you must repeat your repetitions.
[initial statement - first repetition - repeated]
If you repeat everything you say twice, you wind up in an infinite recursion, since you must repeat your repetitions.
[initial statement - second repetition - repeated]
If you repeat everything you say twice, you wind up in an infinite recursion, since you must repeat your repetitions.
[and so on]
if you repeat wgat you say twic
Oh, for repeat's sake!
My wife has the same problem with the concept of "repeating." For example, she says that if something is "repeated three times" then it must have been said originally, then said again (once repeated) and then again (twice repeated) and then again (thrice repeated) for a total of four times being said. This is an error by those unfamiliar with the history of the term.
However, that's not what "repeated" means. A dictionary definition for "repeat" as a transitive verb says, "do (something) again, either once or a number of times." And that's how it is meant traditionally in most literature through history (though modern usage seems to be confused).
So, to repeat my wife's errant "logic" with definitive correction, to repeat something three times means to say it originally (once) then say it again (twice) and say it again (thrice). That is, "repeated three times."
Put it another way in a childish joke: "Pete and Repete went down to the river to take a swim. Pete drowned; who was left?" (The answer of the listener:) "Repete." (The joke-teller:) "Pete and Repete went down to the river to take a swim. Pete drowned; who was left?" (Listener:) "Repete." (Joke-teller:) "Pete and Repete went down to the river to take a swim. Pete drowned; who was left?" (Listener:) "Repete." (And you might notice, I repeated it three times, for the full effect of my essay's "thrice" theme.)
And et cetera, until the Listener "gets it" as a joke.
Now, there's an infinite recursion for you....
If you repeat whatever you say twice, however, "whatever you say" must include repetitions as statements -- however you define "repeat," a repetition must be included as "something said," and therefore must itself be repeated -- twice.
shareThere is a very simple way out of your paradox of infinite repetitions, UncleBobMartin. Stop trying to think like a computer and try to remember what it was like thinking like a human.
.
I've always thought his greatest influence was Dr. Seuss.
shareI notice Mamet's dialogue is never realistic, it sometimes comes across as disjointed and artificial. Sometimes I like it but sometimes I can never get into it.
share