In a previous life I was a radio producer and film festival presenter. Once I interviewed the director of Glengarry Glen Ross, which you might expect to be playwright David Mamet. After all, Mamet has directed most of his own screenplays. Glengarry, however, was helmed by James Foley.

Mamet – Elephant In The Room

We didn’t talk much about the movie’s theme. The topic of conversation was David Mamet, given this was an adaptation of a very significant Mamet play.

From what Foley told me, I suspect Mamet must have been a strong presence during production. Foley stopped short of saying that Mamet de facto co-directed.

My first exposure to Mamet was at the 1986 Venice Film Festival. Two great movies saw their world premiere on the Venetian Lido: De Palma’s The Untouchables and Mamet’s own remarkable directorial debut House of Games.

House of Games‘ deals with ‘living life direct‘, as opposed to vicariously. The heroine experiences her existence through her clients, until she embarks on a journey of change.

Mamet cast Joe Mantegna in the role of the story’s villain, after the actor won a Tony for his performance as Ricky Roma in the Broadway production of Glengarry Glen Ross. His terrific performance in House of Games instantly put Mantegna on the map as a screen actor.

Glengarry Glen Ross went on to win the Pulitzer Prize for drama. However, it would not be adapted for the screen until nine years after its massively successful 1983 world premiere in London’s West End.

The Metaphor

Glengarry Glen Ross shows a handful of real estate agents, struggling to save their jobs on a rainy night in Chicago. All but one are vying for the ‘Glengarry leads’. Each has their own strategy of chasing the precious lead cards, which are only handed out to ‘closers’.

What is this story really about? What is its theme?

It shows the mechanics by which the rich only get richer, as Aaranow (Alan Arkin) states. Perhaps this was Mamet’s stance at the time, and it surely makes sense for the real estate world, where it takes steel balls to survive.

Perhaps Glengarry Glen Ross is simply a microcosmos of the American capitalist society? This theme would be illustrative of Mamet’s socio-democratic views at the time. He left those ideas behind, and famously converted to the right in 2008.

To me, Glengarry is – like every truly great story – a metaphor for life. The ‘leads’ are ‘the cards’ we are dealt. Some accept them, and make the best of it. Others keep fighting them, trying to change what they cannot – and ultimately ending up exhausted. Or worse.

Deadline – Theme – Stakes

The inciting incident of the movie underscores this theme. In a spectacular monologue, the agents are dealt not the precious lead cards, but a deadline. Now it is closers vs. losers.

Baldwin’s lines imply that this is about a lot more than some real estate. Where Little Miss Sunshine would become a more lighthearted take on the winners vs. losers theme, in Glengarry we go the heart of darkness. The stakes are sky high. Lives depend on these cards. As a result, the players will show us their darkest side.

Why is this the inciting incident? Because it confronts the players with a challenge they have never faced before. It also puts them in a situation where they must act. How they will each respond, will be seen in the next act. Note that screen act structure is quite different from theatre structure, and in this respect Glengarry is compositionally somewhat of a hybrid.

The Scene

The stage play was so short, Mamet needed to extend it for the movie. He added material, including this early scene with a character that didn’t originally exist. Alec Baldwin was cast to play the role of a character who only refers to himself as “Fuck you! That is my name!” The super salesman tells our anti-heroes in the first act that they will have to close – or lose their jobs. Baldwin embraced the material so vibrantly, it became a career-defining moment.

Al Pacino does not appear in the movie’s most important scene. His character Ricky Roma does his own thing. He doesn’t need to take lessons from Head Office. Putting him in the scene would have diminished the dramatic impact of the speech, while Al Pacino’s screen presence would have undermined Baldwin’s.

It was a bold move to keep the movie’s biggest star out of its strongest scene. Yet it resulted in an instant classic moment, full of dialogue fireworks, and rich in theme. It also confirmed that Mamet once was not only a great playwright, but an equally brilliant screenwriter.

-Karel Segers

https://ozzywood.wistia.com/medias/ush8p7akqm?embedType=iframe&seo=false&videoFoam=true&videoWidth=640

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

Not all of these films are recent and audience’s expectation may have changed since these films were released. I believe that film goers have become more demanding in terms of structure. Some of the stories that worked then, would today be considered as structurally flawed.

Still, if you look at the protagonist’s journey, you will find that most – if not all – have a clear Inciting Incident, Act One Turning Point (Plot Point 1), Act Two Turning Point (PP2), Climax and Resolution.

In ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, the Inciting Incident is foreshadowed by presenting the antagonists before we meet our hero Bishop. The sheer violence of the gang puts their storyline on a collision course with Bishop. Right from the start, even before he realises (Dramatic Irony) it puts him in extreme jeopardy, which is an effective way to make an audience connect with the protagonist.

This movie written and directed by John Carpenter is not only very entertaining, it is structured around a powerful reversal. The first (outer) objective of Wilson is to keep the convicts inside the police station, thus protecting the outside world from them. At the mid point, this reverses completely: now he needs to protect the convicts from the gang assaulting the police station.

The structural breakdown was done in a single viewing, without going back to check and most likely I will be wrong here and there. Particularly the Inciting Incident doesn’t seem to be strong enough, nor is there any reluctance or clear plot point leading to the ‘crossing of the threshold’. See for yourself and try to improve my breakdown of this film’s structure.

ACT ONE

SEQ. A: BISHOP’S FIRST DAY: A DANGEROUS AREA
02.40 DI: Anderson, CAL, 3.10am: 6 gang members killed by police
04.30 Press conference: weapons missing, serious threat
05.00 DI: Three war lords become blood brothers, arsenal of weapons
06.00 (04.50): Bishop driving, gets supervising duty Prec.9,div.13

SEQ. B: BISHOP GOES TO ANDERSON
08.30 DI: (05.11): Napoleon Wilson, on death row
10.00 DI: Wilson & Co are being transported
12.30 (05.32): Bishop driving
13.00 DI: (05.37) Father & Daughter lost in Anderson
15.00 DI: Gang members driving in car with weapons
16.00 (05.49): Bishop arrives, deputy informs captain, coffee with Kathy
20.30 Captain briefs bishop: first day on the job.

ACT TWO

SEQ. C: GETTING READY FOR THE NIGHT, NEW TASK
22.30 DI: (06.18) Punk trains gun on people while driving; ice cream van.
24.30 DI: (06.41) Transport goes to Anderson, convict is sick
28.00 DI: Punk kills girl and ice cream man
32.30 Bishop puts up sign as bus arrives, convicts go in holding tanks

SEQ. D: THE CONVICTS BECOME ALLIES; STATION UNDER SIEGE
34.30 Wilson checks out Bishop, men check out Kathy.
36.00 DI: (07.00) Father kills murderer, escapes into Police station
38.30 Nobody in car park. Phone dead. Chaney leaves, power down.
40.30 Bishop goes out, is being shot at. Chaney is dead. Silencers.
41.30 Transport minders shot. Police station under siege.

SEQ. E: REVERSAL – KEEPING THE GANGSTERS OUT
45.00 Making plans: flares; waiting for help; gang army approaches
50.30 Marked for a siege. Do they want father of killed girl?
52.00 Gangsters start assault; move in; Wilson fights back, shoots.
54.30 Everybody helps holding the gangsters at bay; armed. Silence.

SEQ. F: STAYING ALIVE
57.00 Julie dead; barricading doors. Squad car here in 5mins (he hopes).
60.30 Explosives in basement; cars back, bodies gone. All in 30mins.
63.00 Not afraid to die: convict knows about ‘ciolo’ revenge; save ass (Wells)
65.00 Counting spare ammo. Wilson gets a cigaret from Kathy.

SEQ. G: GETTING OUT
66.00 Patrol car Unit 7 checking the area
67.30 (08.15): Basement solution – hotwire car.
70.00 Wells goes out: “I’m doomed.”
71.00 Someone will come. “A man with faith”. Wells’ mission fails.

ACT THREE

SEQ. H: SETTING UP A TRAP
74.30 Renewed attack: “out of luck”; basement
78.00 The explosives; patrol: nothing unusual, phone worker dead.
80.00 Molotov attack, invasion & explosion

SEQ. I: HELP ARRIVES
83.00 Police support: “Anybody’s got a smoke?”
84.00 Bishop defends Wilson

(DI: Dramatic Irony)

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!