More on Mamet
Mamet is interviewed by Salon back in 1997.
He says some interesting things about film, but this about grief and exploitation struck a chord.
Why is a movie like this that feeds into the audience’s need to feel good about itself pernicious?
DM: I thought it was especially pernicious in the case of “Schindler’s List” because, as a Jew, I don’t like the fact of the Jewish people being exploited, whether in the name of good or ill. For example, everything that has been said about Diana, including this, is gossip. The people who showed pictures of her embracing X, Y, Z and the people who wrote that the pictures were bad and this comment I’m making are all gossip and exploitative about something that’s nobody’s business. They’re all exploitative about that dead person. Just so, attempts to picture Jews going to the gas chambers are exploitative, even if they’re done for the best reasons in the world.
The only response is silence?
I think so.
Is that the only legitimate response to someone else’s grief?
Absolutely so. It’s in the Talmud that you’re not supposed to say anything when someone is in mourning. What’s there to say?
***
I’ve been through the grief process a few times now.
One thing I did find is that from people I didn’t know, silence was more comforting than words. However, from people you care about then I think one wants mroe than silence.
I believe it is true that a grief itself can not be shared,
but the will to share grief can be shared. We can share the same intention if not the same outcome.
I’ve also always believed that “if you have nothing good to say then it is best to say nothing”.