The Cryptogram The Cryptogram

by David Mamet

In this gripping family tragedy, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Glengarry Glen Ross endows ordinary language with Hitchcockian menace and Kafkaesque powers of disorientation. This intriguing play is a journey back into childhood and the moment of its vanishing--the moment when the sheltering world is suddenly revealed as a place full of dangers.

Genres: Plays, Drama, Theatre, Fiction, 20th Century

Paperback

First published April 18, 1995

About the author

David Alan Mamet is an American author, essayist, playwright, screenwriter and film director. His works are known for their clever, terse, sometimes vulgar dialogue and arcane stylized phrasing, as well as for his exploration of masculinity.

As a playwright, he received Tony nominations for Glengarry Glen Ross (1984) and Speed-the-Plow (1988). As a screenwriter, he received Oscar nominations for The Verdict (1982) and Wag the Dog (1997).

Mamet's recent books include The Old Religion (1997), a novel about the lynching of Leo Frank; Five Cities of Refuge: Weekly Reflections on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (2004), a Torah commentary, with Rabbi Lawrence Kushner; The Wicked Son (2006), a study of Jewish self-hatred and antisemitism; and Bambi vs. Godzilla, an acerbic commentary on the movie business.

Reviews

[Amirhosein Aleavaz · Rating 3 out of 5]

* بریده ای از کتاب *
.
گناه هایی که مرتکب می شیم ، داغون مون نمی کنه، این که بعد ارتکاب شون چه غلطی می کنیم ترتیب مون رو می ده.

[Hasan Abbasi · Rating 4 out of 5]

به نظرم از هر جهت لیاقت گرفتن لقب یک نمایش عالی رو داره ... نام نمایش نوشته رمزی یا کریپتوگرام از هر جهت در متن مستحیل شده ... در واقع اشخاص نمایش در کل متن با ادبیاتی رمز گونه نزدیک به بیان اسلنگ و غیر رسمی خیابانی ترکیب با بیان قشر متوسط کارمند در حال مراوده هستند و این رمز ها صرفا در ذهن رمز خوان ها قابل معنیست ... این رمز گذاری وادبیات خاص در تمامی عناصر نمایش مانند دیالوگ ، توضیح صحنه ، پرداخت و اطلاعات شخصیت ها ، پیش قصه ، انگیزه و اهداف شخصیت ها و ... وجود داره ... و مثل این میمونه که یک گروه مخفی برای مراوده خود و انجام عملیاتی ادبیاتی رمز گذاری شده اختراع کرده اند و خواننده دارد به مکالمه انها گوش میدهد ... در پس این کریپتوگرام مباحث جهان شمولی در حال بحث است مانند جادو و خرافه که بر زندگی خانواده کاملا تاثیر گذار بوده و بچه خانواده یعنی جان را تا مرز جنون کشانده است یا روابط زناشویی مبتذل که بین دل و دانی و رابرت در جریان است یا شاید جنایتی خوفناک که توسط دل انجام شده یا انحام خواهد شد ...

[Lauren · Rating 2 out of 5]

I’ve tried, but I don’t like David Mamet. To me, his work reads like the unedited ramblings of a high frat bro. Honestly, Mamet’s work makes me understand why attendance is declining in theatres – this is the sort of self-referential dreck that appeals to post-modern Artistes who believe something must be inscrutable to qualify as art.

The Cryptogram – which, according to the back cover, is a coming-of-age play, which I didn’t get from the play itself – has a few interesting moments. But, my goodness, would it be such a terrible burden to extend those brief moments into something cohesive?

Similar to Edward Albee, I don’t find Mamet’s style reminiscent of actual conversation (although Albee is leagues better than Mamet). To me, playwrights like David Ives and Sarah Ruhl better capture the conversational tics and nuances of modern speech. I just find Mamet precocious and affected.

Maybe such opinions make me simple. I’m OK with that. Give this simple theatre lover plays with depth, character, nuance, and a relationship to human emotions not clouded by post-modern deconstruction. Make me feel, pull me into the world, make me believe the characters are real. Not recommended.

[Pooriya · Rating 3 out of 5]

جان: به خودم گفتم شاید هیچ‌چی وجود نداشته باشه. فکر کردم اون‌جا هیچ‌چی نبوده. بعدش داشتم کتاب‌مو ورق می‌زدم. فکر کردم «شاید هیچ‌چی تو کتابم نیس.» توش از ساختمونا نوشته بود. شاید هیچ‌چی تو ساختمونام نیس –شایدم روی کُره‌ی زمین. کُره‌مو که دیدی؟ دیدی کُره‌مو؟

دانی: آره

جان: شاید روی اونی که این از روش ساخته شده هم هیچ‌چی نباشه. نمی‌دونیم چی وجود داره. ما چه می‌دونیم اون چیزا اون‌جا هس یا نه.‏

دانی: من اون‌جاها بوده‌م. خیلی از اون‌جاها.‏

جان: یا تو ساختمونا، ما که اون‌جاها نبودیم. یا تو تاریخ. تاریخِ خیلی چیزا. یا خیال. من اون‌جا دراز کشیده بودم، شایدم چیزی به‌اسم خیال اصلا وجود نداشته باشه. کی می‌گه هس؟ یا انسان؟ ما همه‌مون یه خوابیم. کی می‌دونه ما هستیم؟ هیچکی نمی‌دونه. همه یه خوابیم. فقط داریم خواب می‌بینیم. یا چیزای دیگه – چیزای دیگه. چیزایی رو که می‌دونیم، چه‌جوری می‌دونیم؟ از کجا می‌دونیم؟ نمی‌دونیم چی واقعیه، فقط حرف‌شونو می‌زنیم. از کجا می‌آریم‌شون؟ اون چیزا، برا همیشه همین‌جوری ادامه دارن؟ یا همین که به دنیا اومدیم. یا مُرده‌هایی که ناله می‌کنن. یا این‌که – این‌که جهنمی هس. شایدم ما اون‌جاییم. شاید کسایی باشن که اون‌جا بوده‌ن. یا، این‌که چرا باید فکرشو بکنیم؟ این چیزیه که نمی‌دونم. شایدم همه‌چی حقیقت داره. شاید این‌که من این‌جا نشسته‌م حقیقت داره.‏

[Hasan Abbasi · Rating 4 out of 5]

به نظرم از هر جهت لیاقت گرفتن لقب یک نمایش عالی رو داره ... نام نمایش نوشته رمزی یا کریپتوگرام از هر جهت در متن مستحیل شده ... در واقع اشخاص نمایش در کل متن با ادبیاتی رمز گونه نزدیک به بیان اسلنگ و غیر رسمی خیابانی ترکیب با بیان قشر متوسط کارمند در حال مراوده هستند و این رمز ها صرفا در ذهن رمز خوان ها قابل معنیست ... این رمز گذاری وادبیات خاص در تمامی عناصر نمایش مانند دیالوگ ، توضیح صحنه ، پرداخت و اطلاعات شخصیت ها ، پیش قصه ، انگیزه و اهداف شخصیت ها و ... وجود داره ... و مثل این میمونه که یک گروه مخفی برای مراوده خود و انجام عملیاتی ادبیاتی رمز گذاری شده اختراع کرده اند و خواننده دارد به مکالمه انها گوش میدهد ... در پس این کریپتوگرام مباحث جهان شمولی در حال بحث است مانند جادو و خرافه که بر زندگی خانواده کاملا تاثیر گذار بوده و بچه خانواده یعنی جان را تا مرز جنون کشانده است یا روابط زناشویی مبتذل که بین دل و دانی و رابرت در جریان است یا شاید جنایتی خوفناک که توسط دل انجام شده یا انحام خواهد شد ...

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

A B C
Always be closing… this book

[Zi · Rating 5 out of 5]

جان: منتظرشم
دانی: منتظرِ چی هستی؟
جان: بدبیاریِ سوم
دِل: بدبیاری سوم؟
دانی: بدبیاریِ...؟
جان: منتظرم ببینم بدبیاریِ سوم چیه؟
دانی: منظورش چیه؟
جان: تو کتاب نوشته
دِل: بدبیاریا سه‌تا سه‌تا می‌آن سراغِ آدم



جان: ولی ممکنه یه چیزی بدبیاریِ سوم باشه. حتا اگه خیلی وقت پیش اتفاق افتاده باشه
دِل: چه جوری؟
جان: می‌شه که "سومین بدبیاری" قبلنا اتفاق افتاده باشه. اگه وقتی اتفاق افتاده هیچکی نفهمیده این همونه، یا
دِل: همون زمان
جان: یا یادشون رفته حسابش کنن


جان: یه شمع دیدم. تو تاریکی
دانی: کجا بود؟
جان: تو اتاقم. اون‌جا داشت می‌سوخت. گفتم"پاک تنها مونده‌م." به خودم می‌گفتم"پاک تنها مونده‌م" گمونم یه عالمه وقت همینو می‌گفتم. آخه خودکار نداشتم. تا حالا همچین چیزی سرت اومده؟


جان: خوابم نمی‌بره
دِل: دیگه به خودت مربوطه
جان: من یه صداهایی می‌شنوم. منو صدا می‌کنن
دانی: آره، مطمئنم همین‌طوره
جان: صدام می‌کنن
دِل: حالا چاقو رو وردار برو
جان: اسمِ منو صدا می‌کنن. (مکث) مامان. اسمِ منو صدا می‌کنن

[Jessie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Years ago, my partner grabbed this play off my shelves, as a way to get into reading for pleasure, and he hated it so much he did not read another book for a year. Now I finally got around to reading it myself.

This is apparently a play about a divorce but from a child's perspective. It does not succeed. The opposite of compelling. Weak plot, weak characters, terrible dialogue that is like Harold Pinter's dialogue but worse. The least realistic child dialogue I've read in quite a long time. Classy garbage.

David Mamet coasts by on his two famous plays and some movie scripts and while I love Glengarry Glen Ross... but this is the second time he's burned me with an offering that I've genuinely disliked. You're on thin ice, pal.

[Wendi Enright · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not really as spooky as the hype, but I always enjoy reading plays.

[Jerry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Most of what I know about Mamet’s plays I know from Second City’s Glass Mamet skit. This is exactly what that skit was riffing off of. Because of the way Mamet directs his dialogue, this may be one of the few plays that is faster to watch than to read. It must, in fact, be a fairly hectic, even stressful, play to watch.

Dialogue is the only direction in the play. There is nothing about the set or the characters. The only directions are, if a speaker’s target changes mid-line, who the new target is, and if one speaker is talking over another speaker, exactly where the over-talking starts.

The focus of the play, such that it has one, are the cryptic references between adults that children don’t understand, and perhaps even subconsciously know they don’t understand. To a lesser extent, it’s about similar cryptisms between men that women struggle to understand. While there are only three people in the play, there is a fourth, the woman’s husband and man’s friend. Here, the son understands more of what’s going on than his mother does.

The mysteries within the cryptisms aren’t explained, but some are more obvious than others. The aphoristic Chekov, for example, would say that a murder must have taken place but nobody in the play, at least, seems to believe that one did.

John: Every time I go to sleep I see things…

[Martin Foroz · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title of the play tells probably what the reader is going to struggle for. Yes, the reader has to go through the labyrinth of the covered mini plot or the maze of meanin-extracting of the play. This journey is the most challenging one since the reader has to wait for that very moment when he can make an idea of what he’s reading. However, what the reader finally arrives at is nothing but freezing the paralyzing pain of a child who seems to understand more than what he should. Maybe one of the reasons that in most of the parts of the three acts of the play, the readers faces the word sleep or sleeping, as if it’s a good solution for the the child not to be awake or aware of the desolation of a family. Despite the fact that all the characters even the father of the child, Robert who is Donny’s husband and Del’s friend and is absent and never appears on the stage betray one another and tell lies, it’s the child who is accused of telling a lie and betrayal because he seemingly breaks his promise to sleep.

[George Dibble · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5/5

At what point is childhood lost? I don't know really when mine was, or if it ever left. There's still a bit of innocent optimism peeking through my general nihilism. It was interesting to see when it was gone for the boy. And I enjoyed the trance-like feel of this play. I usually enjoy Mamet's dialogue as well; mostly. I'm sure I'd have a better appreciation of this live; watching it. I also think I'd enjoy this with the more Freud I read and understand. So I'll probably come back to this later. It was a quick read. And that's so funny because I read a review on here and someone was saying that her boyfriend read this, hated it so much that he didn't read for a whole year! That's absurd.

[Bobby Sullivan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I liked it more than some other Mamet plays I've read. The dialogue is Pinteresque. But ultimately, I don't see the point. The ending is abrupt, and it seems arbitrary to me.

[Elliot Chalom · Rating 2 out of 5]

This one I didn't get. Just didn't work for me. The suspense never hit me and if there's a deeper meaning it went over my head. Oh well.

[J Dubyuh]

Stick to realism, Mamet

[Laura · Rating 2 out of 5]

If this play had some greater meaning, it went way over my head. Had no idea what was happening, there was too much repetition, and John was very introspective for a 10-year-old.

[claundici · Rating 2 out of 5]

...huh.

[Nick Kozel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Probably better in play form but this is barely eligible in a written format as Mamet does his best Beckett impersonation with none of the humor.

[annasterli · Rating 5 out of 5]

A captivating read.

[Banafsheh · Rating 2 out of 5]

هرج و مرجی که با یک راز همراه است.
رازی که تماشاگر باید تمام تمرکزش را روی دیالوگ های بهم ریخته بگذارد تا بتواند به آن پی ببرد و روند داستان را متوجه شود.

[Ralph Burton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mamet’s big cathartic sob.

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

Imagine a child misunderstanding an adult, and the adult, in the process of correcting the child’s misunderstanding, realizing they themselves have misunderstood the child. This is the dynamic that underlies nearly every exchange in this play. A little exhausting, also a little brilliant.

[Brendan · Rating 3 out of 5]

My inner jury is still out on this play and I think the reason for it is that like many plays it doesn't read well. It's meant to be performed. It begins with so many have finished sentences, statements that seem like they should be questions, questions that seem like they should be statements that I was left wondering if anyone was actually paying attention to punctuation or if it was just being inserted randomly.

When I got used to the style I started enjoying the dialogue more, but the ending just felt so "so what?" I think this is a potential setback into anything where someone is speaking in "code". Perhaps the code that is familiar to the author is not a code familiar to me and so I am missing things just like the child in the book.

Then there is the ever present specter of "The Emperor's New Clothes". Is this deep and insightful because we want it to be deep and insightful when it is potentially meaningless? There's nothing there at all but people want it to be great so they start inventing the reasons why it is so great? Everything is art because we say it is? I don't know, but until I see this played out my inner jury will remain in doubt.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

A haunting masterpiece. This has to go down as not only one of David Mamet's best works, but should be a play studied in every play writing class, performed by every play company working on modern drama, and studied and used as scene work by actors in their acting classes. I could sit here and give you a multitude of reasons why this play is great and I have with many reviews in the past, but with this one I'm going to go with telling you to just go read this piece, because what Mamet does here is bring the deeply personal workings of family life gone wrong into a harsh spotlight.

[Judine · Rating 3 out of 5]

At first I just found this play to be weird. Then I read the back synopsis and it all clicked together. I like that it's not typical Mamet, but I needed to be clearer that the little boy was the central character (this wasn't necessarily spelled out in the script itself, and would have helped initial comprehension). Additionally, it was written in such a style that I was having trouble "hearing" the characters speak, which was unusual for me.

[Asa Merritt · Rating 3 out of 5]

A surreal play in which the central character is a ten year old boy. I was always engaged and the spooky tone is expertly crafted, but ultimately I didn't understand how the various sub-plots came together.

[Joshua · Rating 5 out of 5]

Complex, scary, and quietly tragic - it's not the Mamet you expect. It's a somehow more mature, albeit slighter, work than his profanity ridden previous plays. But the Cryptogram holds its own as a challenging family drama of deception and, ultimately, great revelation.

[Maddsurgeon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very intense play by an American master playwright... a family in the 50s is in the midst of collapsing, and they skirt the issue for nearly two acts until everything finally explodes. Well-paced, interesting characters, would be fun to see.

[Wayne · Rating 4 out of 5]

The second act is worth the ...hesitations... of the... first...

[Kelly · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chicago book club, my pick
I wanted to find something different for the group, so I chose this play
Not your typical Mamet, a strange, quiet, story...