Mamet speak

I may not see eye to eye on everything with David Mamet, but he'll get straight to the point with what he has to say, which I respect. In the Three Uses of the Knife selection, he references Constantin Stanislavski's view that there are two kinds of plays, those which make you feel good inside upon leaving, and those which disturb you and stick with you for a long time. I agree with Mamet that those which disturb are necessary. They remind us that our world is messed up, incredibly so, and maybe we should demonstrate a little more compassion to others because of it.

I disagree with Mamet's assertion that it is inappropriate for the dramatist/artist to desire to affect change in society. First of all, it is impossible to write a play/film that is devoid of the writer's social views. Your work is going to reflect your beliefs to some degree; you can't separate the two. With that in mind, a narrative that has a distinctive moral framework shouldn't be regarded as inappropriate. It doesn't necessarily follow that the artist is taking a morally superior view to that of the audience, they are simply stating their own. And what's so bad about having your moral compass put to the test in a way that doesn't threaten your life?

Personally, I'd choose a play over a gun as the instrument used to bring about social change.