David Mamet's Complicated Brain
In 1991, Mamet released Homicide, his divisive but impactful third film as writer/director, and in 1992, the late James Foley's electric film of Glengarry Glen Ross, featuring a stacked ensemble cast led by Jack Lemmon and Al Pacino, became something of a cultural event—not a box office hit, but critically acclaimed, nominated for a slew of awards, and considered a bit of a comeback for Lemmon, while its (movie-original) scene featuring Alec Baldwin as an abusive sales executive became instantly iconic. The stage should, by all rights, have been set for Mamet to get a new project, something really ambitious, off the ground. Mamet's Jewish faith had been strengthening in those years, and had manifested itself in his writing most forcefully in Homicide, the victim at that film's core murder investigation being an old woman whose corner shop was a front for an operation running guns into Israel. The opportunity to pursue these themes further seemed to have presented itself.
Mamet attaches a very brief introduction to the published screenplay of Russian Poland; in it, he lays out the historical, as well as the political, but more so the personal, inspiration for the script. For instance, he writes that his grandmother grew up near the Polish city of Chelm, and that she told him
stories of the pogroms she'd survived in the Pale of Settlement—the area permitted to the Russian Jews. The Pale was geographically known as Volhynia, known to her, and, then, to me, as Russian Poland.
The tales-within-the-tale, here, are fables of Isaac Luria, the Ari (lion) of Sfat, in the late 16th century…
I set his mystical tales in my grandmother's Volhynia, and framed them in another fable.
And that is, ultimately and unexpectedly, what Russian Poland is: a collection of Jewish fables, almost an anthology, with an illegal shipment of supplies by air to Israel functioning as a kind of framing device.
This setting for this framing device is the late 1940s, shortly after the establishment of the state of Israel. The military men carrying out the mission are British RAF officers, and throughout the script, they are referred to only as Sergeant and Officer. Also on board is an elderly Holocaust survivor called Old Man. (Almost none of the characters are given names, except for one or two that appear in the fables.) Neither the Officer nor the Sergeant seem to know who the Old Man is, and they even ask him what he's doing there. Not very talkative, the Old Man does indicate he's on the plane because he's going to Palestine. The RAF men object that none of the planes at the airfield have the fuel capacity to reach that destination (and the Officer also asks why the Old Man wants to go to Palestine, because, he says 'The Arabs say they're going to drive you people into the sea'), to which the Old Man offers only a shrug. Something mysterious has now been established.
Explore the deep mysteries while supporting our growing coverage of books, culture, and the arts: Sign up for a free or paid Bulwark subscription today.
The Old Man begins to drift into his past, and into Mamet's fables, as the flight becomes more dangerous. In the first, set in a village in the 1890s, the Beggar roams the village, seeking charity, first from a pair of housewives, then from the local Rabbi, and then from the Rich Man (or, Reb Siegel, one of the few proper names in the script). As these short tales begin to take over the narrative of Russian Poland, the dialogue becomes less casual and more formal, but what's most interesting about this aspect of Mamet's script—Mamet being justly famous for his gift for stylish, stylized dialogue—is how it reflects his attitudes as a director more than as a writer.
In his book On Directing Film, and more recently when promoting Henry Johnson, Mamet has said that ideally, when directing a film, it should be possible to remove all the dialogue and, as in silent films, let the images and the editing tell the story. This is, of course, the central idea behind all motion pictures, but I can't imagine following the narrative of a film as word-drunk as Henry Johnson with all the language removed. Henry Johnson is a very skillful and artful piece of film direction, but the words, and the performances of those words, are the whole show.
This is not the case with Russian Poland, or it wouldn't have been, had a film ever been made from it. In the story about the Beggar, the Rabbi, and the Rich Man, Mamet lays out his scenes and his shots in strict visual terms, as directing choices he made at the screenplay stage. It begins with this image:
A longshot. A road on a hill. A Beggar comes into the shot, moving across the frame from left to right. A mullioned window bangs into the shot. Camera pulls back slightly to reveal we have been looking at the scene through a window. The window frame bangs in the window.
Then a cut to the Rabbi, outside the building, commenting on the deteriorated state of the window, and the Shul to which it is connected. We have also been introduced to the Beggar, and his journey. There is now a connection (ideally, anyway) in the viewer's mind between the state of the shtetl, where this is all taking place, and the Beggar. There is conflict in this connection, one that will play out as both Rabbi and Rich Man are shown to be somewhat callous towards the Beggar—though the Rabbi is perhaps more officious than callous—but the story is one of redemption. More importantly, that window, through which we were introduced to a setting and a key character, returns as an image, and through it we are shown actions the meanings of which the audience understands better than the characters do. We see, more than hear, both the Beggar and the Rich Man, independent of each other, find evidence for the existence of God, through each man's misunderstanding of events. To Mamet, these misunderstandings, and the revelations they inspire, are as true and as spiritual as would be those brought about by a literal angel appearing on the scene.
Join now
It's difficult, in this venue, to get across how much of Russian Poland's story is communicated visually rather than through dialogue. But this is very much a script written by a man who intended to direct: visuals, shot descriptions, and even camera edits are described at length, broken up by streams of conversation that is sometimes of a spiritual nature, sometimes just pure gossip. This is done in the same way that a film heavy with talk might find relief, or a heightening of emotion, through bursts of silence. I can imagine one fable, late in the script, being told entirely through images, with no dialogue whatsoever (not that there's so very much of it to begin with). This fable is much darker than the life-affirming tale of the Beggar (Russian Poland can get pretty bleak at times), and it ends with a punchline—I think a certain gallows humor is at play here, but as far as gallows humor goes, it's pretty heavy on gallows—that is entirely visual. (Words are spoken, but don't need to be.) Granted, these visuals include words written on a piece of paper—words that reveal the aforementioned punchline—but this is all part of the silent film grammar Mamet aspires to.
Because of his outspoken conservative politics over the last several years, even well before Trump, Mamet long ago fell out of favor as an artist. Some artists, when confronting such a fate, will withdraw; others will lean into it, inflating the political rhetoric that had been subliminal or even non-existent in their work before. And while Mamet's responses in interviews and his nonfiction writing have gotten nakedly reactionary, it has not gotten in the way of his fiction. As implied earlier, this unproduced screenplay is particularly compelling when looked at Mamet's career as a film director as a whole, and especially in the context of his work during the 1990s. Once again, Homicide, his best film, can't help but spring to mind.
Mamet's current politics (many say his politics have always leaned right, if not far-right, but I don't), and what I'd call the spiritual politics of Russian Poland, often seem to be at odds with each other. In Homicide, for example, the murder of the Zionist shopkeeper is not, as homicide detective Bobby Gold (Joe Mantegna) believes, an antisemitic act. In a final twist (a swing so wild I almost can't believe Mamet brings it off), it's shown to be a random act, an apolitical crime of greed, and evidence for the anti-Zionist motive is revealed as a blind alley. Though Gold has faced antisemitism in his past, and experiences it over the course of the film, his political righteousness becomes a mental trap, and his inability to view the situation from any other angle ultimately destroys him. Not the same kind of thing you'd expect from the author of Russian Poland, which radiates a kind of arcane energy.
If Russian Poland can seem esoteric, especially to a gentile like myself, it is nevertheless clearly the work of an artist who sees in it a grand truth, whereas Homicide is awash with uncertainty. Yet both works are about, essentially, the same thing. And if Henry Johnson, the story of an unprincipled idiot who believes everything people tell him, doesn't seem like it could possibly have been made by someone who supports Donald Trump, well, the human brain is a complicated organ.
Share this article with someone who appreciates the complicated nature of the human brain.
Share
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Even if they settle with Trump, universities have their work cut out for them
Last month, the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University and Brown University cut deals with the Trump administration to resolve accusations related to antisemitism, diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and transgender rights. The administration believes it now has a template for forcing universities to accede to its policy preferences: Make vague but sweeping allegations of discrimination; freeze hundreds of millions of dollars in research funding; overwhelm administrators with civil rights investigations and document requests; and threaten consequences ranging from stripping universities of their right to enroll international students to revoking their tax exemptions. The means used to secure these deals amount to extortion. Over $400 million in research funding was frozen at Columbia with no due process and in violation of the procedural requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Harvard University, which chose to litigate but is reported to be negotiating a deal, had over $2 billion in federal grants and contracts frozen and faces half a dozen civil rights investigations and threats to its international student population, tax exempt status and accreditation. Trump's tactics work because his targets cannot survive as modern research universities if they are at war with government agencies prepared to ignore legal constraints and social norms. There are ample reasons to question the sincerity of the Trump administration's commitment to combatting antisemitism, and throttling scientific research makes little sense as a response. Many of the policies agreed to in the settlements reached by Columbia, Brown and Penn are damaging and dangerous. But some of the concerns on which they are based are legitimate. American institutions of higher education should act as well as react to this crisis. The anti-Israel protests that engulfed some campuses last year brought with them a surge in antisemitism. Task force reports at Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, UCLA and other elite institutions acknowledge failures to do enough to address harassment of Jewish students, faculty and staff. At UCLA, for example, pro-Palestinian protesters barred Jewish students from crossing parts of campus, prompting a lawsuit UCLA recently settled for over $6 million and a Justice Department finding that UCLA violated civil rights laws and the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. In its settlement agreement, Columbia pledged to review its Middle East programs to ensure their educational offerings are 'comprehensive and balanced,' appoint new faculty members in related fields who 'will contribute to a robust and intellectually diverse academic environment' and hire an administrator to serve as a liaison to students on antisemitism issues. We believe the imposition of these requirements poses a threat to academic freedom and university autonomy. That said, the Trump administration's draconian demands provided at least part of the impetus for institutions to revise their policies. Harvard, for example, announced a series of initiatives to encourage respectful discourse and support research on antisemitism. Other colleges and universities are also making efforts — generally commendable, sometimes problematic — to maintain their commitments to free speech while tightening time, place and manner restrictions on protests. In an April 11 letter, the Trump administration also insisted that Harvard hire an 'external party' to audit 'the student body, faculty, staff and leadership for viewpoint diversity,' and then hire faculty and admit students to achieve balance in every department, faculty and teaching unit. This demand is ill-defined, absurd and unconstitutional. But as Harvard's president, Alan Garber, has acknowledged, the university needs to do more to ensure 'a culture of free inquiry, viewpoint diversity and academic exploration.' According to a 2023 survey, over 77 percent of Harvard's faculty identify as 'liberal' or 'very liberal,' compared to 3 percent who identify as 'conservative' or 'very conservative.' Similar if less extreme disparities exist on most elite campuses, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. And as the Heterodox Academy has observed, a too-uniform political culture can give rise to 'closed-minded orthodoxies within scholarly communities.' The devil, of course, is in the details. Departments can easily rule out hiring a creationist to teach biology or a climate change denier to teach environmental studies. But what is the right mix of expertise in a history or chemistry department? And how should that be achieved without employing affirmative action, given the dearth of conservatives pursuing a Ph.D. in many fields? One thing, at least, should be clear: The answers to such questions should come from internal deliberations rather than external mandates. The most controversial aspect of the Trump administration's effort to remake higher education has been its attack on DEI programs. The Columbia settlement insists not only that the university maintain 'merit-based admission policies' and refrain from racial preferences, but also that it 'may not use personal statements, diversity narratives, or any applicant reference to racial identity as a means to introduce or justify discrimination,' even though the Supreme Court's decision on affirmative action permits universities to consider 'an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.' Universities must decide how to square this circle. Similar language forbidding racial preferences appears in the Brown settlement. That agreement also requires Brown to 'provide female student-athletes with intimate facilities such as locker rooms and bathrooms strictly separated on the basis of sex,' offer women the option of 'female-only housing, restrooms, and showering facilities' and 'ensure students have access to single-sex floors in on-campus housing,' with male and female defined in accordance with a Trump executive order insisting that sex is binary and immutable. These provisions go well beyond existing law and may make campuses less welcoming places for many students. That said, some DEI policies should be reconsidered. Requiring job applicants to submit diversity statements, for example, risks the imposition of ideological filters. And although concerns about transgender athletes participating in college sports have been vastly overstated, there is room for fine-tuning participation policies. Critics of the Trump administration rightly decry the bullying that is forcing universities to accept unprecedented government intrusion into university affairs. Most of that intrusion will do far more harm than good. But colleges and universities should seize the moment to preserve and promote core values while implementing reforms that are reasonable, feasible and just. Doing so may not keep the wolf away, but it might help win over a skeptical public.
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
‘A continual assault.' How UCLA's research faculty is grappling with Trump funding freeze
Their medical research focuses on potentially lifesaving breakthroughs in cancer treatment, and developing tools to more easily diagnose debilitating diseases. Their studies in mathematics could make online systems more robust and secure. But as the academic year opens, the work of UCLA's professors in these and many other fields has been imperiled by the Trump administration's suspension of $584 million in grant funding, which University of California President James B. Milliken called a 'death knell' to its transformative research. The freeze came after a July 29 U.S. Department of Justice finding that the university had violated the civil rights of Jewish and Israeli students by providing an inadequate response to alleged antisemitism they faced after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack. The fight over the funding stoppage intensified Friday after the Trump administration demanded that UCLA pay a $1-billion fine, among other concessions, to resolve the accusations — and California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the state will sue, calling the proposal 'extortion.' Amid heightened tensions in Westwood, thousands of university academics are in limbo. In total, at least 800 grants, mostly from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, have been frozen. UCLA scholars described days of confusion as they struggle to understand how the loss of grants would affect their work and scramble to uncover new funding sources — or roles that would ensure their continued pay, or that of their colleagues. While professors still have jobs and paychecks to draw on, many others, including graduate students, rely on grant funding for their salaries, tuition and healthcare. At least for the moment, though, several academics told The Times that their work had not yet be interrupted. So far, no layoffs have been announced. Sydney Campbell, a pancreatic cancer researcher and postdoctoral scholar at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine, said her work — which aims to understand how diet affects the disease — is continuing for now. She has an independent fellowship that 'hopefully will protect the majority of my salary.' But others, she said, don't have that luxury. 'It is absolutely going to affect people's livelihoods. I already know of people ... with families who are having to take pay cuts almost immediately,' said Campbell, who works for a lab that has lost two National Institutes of Health grants, including one that funds her research. Pancreatic cancer is among the most deadly of cancers, but Campbell's work could lead to a better understanding of it, paving the way for more robust prophylactic programs — and treatment plans — that may ultimately help tame the scourge. 'Understanding how diet can impact cancer development could lead to preventive strategies that we can recommend to patients in the future,' she said. 'Right now we can't effectively do that because we don't have the information about the underlying biology. Our studies will help us actually be able to make recommendations based on science.' Campbell's work — and that of many others at UCLA — is potentially groundbreaking. But it could soon be put on hold. 'We have people who don't know if they're going to be able to purchase experimental materials for the rest of the month,' she said. For some, the cuts have triggered something close to an existential crisis. After professor Dino Di Carlo, chair of the UCLA Samueli Bioengineering Department, learned about 20 grants were suspended there — including four in his lab worth about $1 million — he felt a profound sadness. He said he doesn't know why his grants were frozen, and there may not be money to pay his six researchers. So Di Carlo, who is researching diagnostics for Lyme and other tick-borne diseases, took to LinkedIn, where he penned a post invoking the Franz Kafka novel 'The Trial.' The unsettling tale is about a man named Josef K. who wakes up and finds himself under arrest and then on trial — with no understanding of the situation. 'Like Josef K., the people actually affected — the public, young scientists, patients waiting for better treatments and diagnostic tools — are left asking: What crime did we commit?' wrote Di Carlo. 'They are being judged by a system that no longer explains itself.' The LinkedIn post quickly attracted dozens of comments and more than 1,000 other responses. Di Carlo, who has been working to find jobs for researchers who depend on paychecks that come from now-suspended grants, said he appreciated the support. But, goodwill has its limits. 'It doesn't pay the rent for a student this month,' he said. Di Carlo's research is partly focused on developing an at-home test that would detect Lyme and other tick-borne diseases, which are on the rise. Because no such product is currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, he said, people who've experienced a tick bite have to wait for lab results to confirm their infection. 'This delay in diagnosis prevents timely treatment, allowing the disease to progress and potentially lead to long-term health issues,' he said. 'A rapid, point-of-care test would allow individuals to receive immediate results, enabling early treatment with antibiotics when the disease is most easily addressed, significantly reducing the risk of chronic symptoms and improving health outcomes.' Di Carlo lamented what he called 'a continual assault on the scientific community' by the Trump administration, which has canceled billions of dollars in National Institutes of Health funding for universities across the country. It 'just ... hasn't let up,' Di Carlo said. Some professors who've lost grants have spent long hours scrambling to secure new sources of funding. Di Carlo said he was in meetings all week to identity which researchers are affected by the cuts, and to try to figure out, 'Can we support those students?' He has also sought to determine whether some could be moved to other projects that still have funding, or be given teaching assistant positions, among other options. He's not alone in those efforts. Mathematics professor Terence Tao also has lost a grant worth about $750,000. But Tao said that he was more distressed by the freezing of a $25-million grant for UCLA's Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics. The funding loss for the institute, where Tao is director of special projects, is 'actually quite existential,' he said, because the grant is 'needed to fund operations' there. Tao, who is the James and Carol Collins chair in the College of Letters and Sciences, said the pain goes beyond the loss of funds. 'The abruptness — and basically the lack of due process in general — just compounds the damage,' said Tao. 'We got no notice.' A luminary in his field, Tao conducts research that examines, in part, whether a group of numbers are random or structured. His work could lead to advances in cryptography that may eventually make online systems — such as those used for financial transactions — more secure. 'It is important to do this kind of research — if we don't, it's possible that an adversary, for example, could actually discover these weaknesses that we are not looking for at all,' Tao said. 'So you do need this extra theoretical confirmation that things that you think are working actually do work as intended, [and you need to] also explore the negative space of what doesn't work.' Tao said he's been heartened by donations that the mathematics institute has received from private donors in recent days — about $100,000 so far. 'We are scrambling for short-term funding because we need to just keep the lights on for the next few months,' said Tao. Rafael Jaime, president of United Auto Workers Local 4811, which represents 48,000 academic workers within the University of California — including about 8,000 at UCLA — said he was not aware of any workers who haven't been paid so far, but that the issue could come to a head at the end of August. He said that the UC system 'should do everything that it can to ensure that workers aren't left without pay.' A major stressor for academics: the uncertainty. Some researchers whose grants were suspended said they have not received much guidance from UCLA on a path forward. Some of that anxiety was vented on Zoom calls last week, including a UCLA-wide call attended by about 3,000 faculty members. UCLA administrators said they are exploring stopgap options, including potential emergency 'bridge' funding to grantees to pay researchers or keep up labs such as those that use rodents as subjects. Some UCLA academics worried about a brain drain. Di Carlo said that undergraduate students he advises have begun asking for his advice on relocating to universities abroad for graduate school. 'This has been the first time that I've seen undergraduate students that have asked about foreign universities for their graduate studies,' he said. 'I hear, 'What about Switzerland? ... What about University of Tokyo?' This assault on science is making the students think that this is not the place for them.' But arguably researchers' most pressing concern is continuing their work. Campbell explained that she has personally been affected by pancreatic cancer — she lost someone close to her to it. She and her peers do the research 'for the families' who've also been touched by the disease. 'That the work that's already in progress has the chance of being stopped in some way is really disappointing,' she said. 'Not just for me, but for all those patients I could potentially help.'
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
Rapper T-Hood dead at 33
Georgia rapper T-Hood has reportedly been shot and killed. He was 33 years old. TMZ reports that Gwinnett County police officers responded to reports of a dispute that resulted in a shooting at his home. First responders rendered aid at the scene, then transported him to a local hospital, but the rapper, whose real name was Tevin Hood, died from his injuries. One person has reportedly been detained in connection with the shooting. The motive for the shooting is unclear. Local authorities are investigating the case as a homicide. T-Hood's producer, Deddotwill, took to Instagram to comment on his death after the news. "We was just on the phone all day, I can't believe you are gone," he wrote. "Rest in peace T-Hood, I love you brother." T-Hood's death comes a few weeks after he posted an Instagram video dressed as a ghost in a graveyard. In the clip to promote his song Grave Diggerz, the rapper had a white sheet over his face. "Hello, are you still alive? We are dead down at the cemetery. Come down to the cemetery, I have a spot for you," he told viewers in the video. "All you have to do is die," he continued. "Just die today." T-Hood was known in the Southern rap scene for songs like Ready 2 Go, Big Booty, and Perculator. His last song, Girls in the Party, was released in May.
