David Mamet's writing demands things from you and of you, as an actor or a viewer. It is extremely specific, and if the wrong actor is given the material, or the wrong director for that matter, things can end very badly. Such is sadly often the case in "Edmond" one of my Mamet's best, darkest and funniest plays, but one of the worst adaptations to film. Perhaps it doesn't translate as well as some of his other things. Even still. Stuart Gordon, director of "Dagon" and "Space Truckers" may not have been the ideal choice. It appeared as though there had been no rehearsal process for the film, which is very likely, given the nature of the production, as is my assumption that there was little to know text analysis, character discussion, etc. And with material this dense and textured, that's like shooting yourself in the foot. Scenes that contained dozens of different arcs went nowhere. Macy's monologue about killing the pimp, one of the best speeches ever given to any actor, was almost totally lifeless. You could easily tell who'd done their homework, and who hadn't. Joe Mantegna's scene was pitch perfect (he's a Mamet regular, so it's no wonder), Bokeem Woodbine was mostly solid, and the scene with Bai Ling also worked pretty well. Mamet incorporates many natural vocalizations, there are often loads of one word lines-- "Yes." "Okay." "Uh-huh."-- but if many of the actors-- Julia Stiles, I'm looking right at you-- don't DO something with the line, it becomes stilted. That's why Mamet isn't done more often, it's difficult! For a crash course in how to do Mamet brilliantly, watch Glengarry Glen Ross. Then watch "Edmond," if for no other reason than that the story is interesting, and the themes are still clear. You'll see the difference.
