The links to film clips and Broadway performances (video links) are listed and linked in the schedule. You might find these supplements quite interesting! I've included a few here as well, but you'll want to read the play in its entirety before watching them -- much of the play's success relies upon the suspense and cathartic conclusion.
Conclusion/Fight Scene
Director of Broadway version discusses the impact of Oleanna
Oleanna opening night at Mark Taper; various celebrities react
Opening night reactions from the Triad Stage
1. Consider John and Carol’s first interaction (not the entire interaction, but up to point at which Carol mentions her background in relation to her performance in the professor’s class). What do you think is established in this interaction? Who and what do the characters reveal themselves to be? In such revealing, then, do you identify any miscommunication, non-communication, or a simple lack of communication? (In your discussion, consider particularly the “term of art” (701) exchange, the way in which John tells Carol she’s failing his class, and/or Carol’s offerings with regard to her performance (the language John uses, her socio-economic background, etc.).
2.Consider the portion of the conversation (the first meeting) in which Carol offers up her reasoning, as it’s implied, for her performance in the class: “No, no, no. I’m doing what I’m told. It’s difficult for me. It’s difficult . . . I don’t . . . lots of the language . . . The language, the “things” that you say . . . It is true. I have problems . . . I come from a different social . . . a different economic . . . No. I: when I came to this school: . . . does that mean nothing . . . ?” (702-703). What is Carol trying to say? Are her points legitimate? (Consider the context in which she’s offering them). Why or why not?
3. Given the fact that the proposed lawsuit is based on the entire Act 1 interaction, discuss the events and comments that make up this interaction. Has Carol twisted John’s words? Is her lawsuit legitimate? Would it be legimitate in “real” life? On the other hand, has John, intentionally or otherwise, overstepped his bounds? How so? Remember that Carol’s accusations are not simply a matter of sexual harassment but of a perceived elitist, classist, and economic bias and privileging she feels John misuses.
4. Why do you think Mamet allows us a window into John’s life (signaled by the constantly ringing telephone, an apt metaphor for his connection to the outside world) but none into Carol’s (we have no sense of who she is or her life outside of this series of exchanges with her professor nor any events leading up to them)? Is Mamet empathizing with John by developing his character more than Carol’s? Do YOU sympathize with John and think perhaps the development of John’s character (as a professor, husband, father, recipient of a surprise party, etc.) might have something to do with where your empathy lies?
5. What do you think of John’s decision to “reveal” himself to Carol, to confess weaknesses and sins? Are these revelations part of a genuine attempt to identify with Carol gone wrong? Conversely, are they disingenuous rhetorical moves designed to maneuver Carol where John wants her?
6. Carol repeatedly, almost doggedly, accuses John of failing to understand her and the position she takes. This inability to understand, as Carol perceives it, comes to a head in Act Three, as Carol exclaims, YOU FOOL. Who do you think I am? To come here and be taken in by a smile. You little yapping fool. You think I want “revenge”. I don’t want revenge. I WANT UNDERSTANDING” (725). What does she mean?
7. And where/how does John go wrong by lamenting that his job is “over” immediately following this outburst? Consider Carol’s response to this: “Oh. Your job. That’s what you want to talk about” (725). What does John’s response clarify about his motives and values? What does Carol’s response (to his words) say about hers?
8. On the playbill distributed at various performances of Oleanna, theatregoers were treated to TWO rather than the traditional one picture: one featuring Carol, one featuring John. A version of the words “Whatever you think/Whichever side you choose, you’re wrong” was imprinted on the program. What do you make of this statement? What does it mean? Do you agree or disagree?
9. Consider Carol’s most serious accusation: “You tried to rape me. According to the law. . . . You tried to rape me. I was leaving this office, you “pressed” yourself into me. You “pressed” your body into me. . . . under the statute. I am told. It was battery. . . . Yes. And attempted rape. That’s right” (728). Discuss your reaction to this accusation. As you do, consider carefully Carol’s addition of “according to the law”. Is she, at some or any level, in the right? Is John right to be undone by this accusation?
10. The first time John orders Carol to leave his office, with some force, he has just called his wife “baby”, a term we have not yet heard in the other one-side conversations to which we are privy. This is significant, as is Carol’s ordering John not to “call [his] wife “baby”’ (728). Why do you think it is this comment that fully engages his wrath and destroys his self-control?
11. All is decided in terms of John’s career and reputation once he physically attacks her. Carol seems to reiterate as much when she says, “Yes. That’s right. . . . yes. That’s right”’. Theatregoers, time and again, have cheered when John attacks her. Cheering and encouraging the physical attack of a woman on the part of a man is a dangerous maneuver, and much has been made critically about audience’s reactions to this moment. In many ways, though, the act offers a catharsis, and it certainly does provide the resolution to the debate at large here. What do you think of Mamet’s conclusion? Are they both, ultimately, responsible for how things play out? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
David Mamet’s critically acclaimed play Oleanna, paints a sordid picture of he said, she said. The “victim” is the, presumably, college age student Carol, who is not doing to well in a certain class and desperately wants to turn that around. One way she goes about doing this is by meeting with the seemingly chauvinist professor of the course, John, in his office. During this meeting Carol often times disagrees with John and his perspective on higher education and life in general. Because of these disagreements, Carol reports John to the college board who start to review his job status. In scene two Carol is telling John about the implications and John starts to lose his in charge persona and almost starts to break down emotionally. This is seen when John wants to continue talking to Carol as she leaves and he is left to nothing more than physically restraining her. Scene three plays off of the physical restraint at the end of scene two, and shows Carol accusing John of rape. Throughout the play we receive multiple clues that John is married, has kids and is about to buy a house. The legal implications of rape set John’s world into a tailspin. After being interrupted by a phone call from his wife, Carol tries to correct his personal life by telling him “Don’t call your wife baby” (Act 3). This intrusion sparks something in John and he starts to physically berate her, until he gains composure, and then the play ends. Mamet changes John and Carol throughout the duration of the play.
ReplyDeleteCarol starts out as an innocent student, one that most students can agree with. “I take notes…it’s difficult for me.” (Scene 1) She then turns into someone that sadly some of us can relate to the “victim.” Seeing no way out of her problem, she thinks the easiest way is to give someone else problems. She never talks about life outside of school, just a “group” that is interested in suing John. “I come here… on behalf of my group.” (Scene 2) I think that it is dangerous to feel like a victim too much because; we see here that it leads to us wanting to make someone else the victim. Sometimes it means going to the extreme to give others our grief.
John, on the other hand, is at first portrayed as the sort of person that tries to prove that they are smarter than you. This is offset, however, by the continual phone calls John receives throughout the play. Oftentimes it is either John’s wife or John’s friend calling about a house that John wants to buy for his family. By the middle of scene 2 the audience feels almost empathetic towards John. Facing losing his job, this would also means losing his dream house and making life difficult for his family. “But to me it is important. A home. A Good Home.” (Scene 2). This whole dream is dashed when he gives into his own feelings and starts to beat Carol. Mamet is wonderful in painting this picture of John’s character and then turning it upside down and reversing it back to its original shape.
As a father, husband and man that is looking to buy a home I somewhat empathize with John. I think that one needs to be very careful in what they do behind closed doors. That, when in a position of authority we need to still respect others and their desires. This still does not make me like or agree with Carol in the least but, after acting like she was the victim, she finally becomes, in reality, the victim. I think that Mamet wants us to think if we are a John or a Carol and what these dangerous personas may lead to.
Response to Question #4:
ReplyDeleteI think the attempt to allow a window into John’s life is to reveal that his social standing is consistent with Carol’s description of him. The typical college student, as portrayed by Carol, is usually without much variance and is easy to identify with. Carol, with just a few revelations about herself, sways the audience to her side during the early stages of the play.
The window into John's life through the many telephone calls slowly brings the audience to identify with John to a certain degree. I think that it is typical to be reluctant to see his side of the story, as many may never be completely persuaded. Carol reinforces her position throughout, confirming how she comes from a different (or lower) social standing from the beginning.
Mamet is not empathizing with John in portraying the different aspects of his life, but is building up to the moment when Carol’s accusations became known. In doing so, it showed how devastating that her case is going to be on his life, potentially destroying this man who has worked many years to be in the position that he is currently in. I cannot help but to sympathize with John somewhat when her accusations were revealed, but I feel that his intentions were questionable early on. It seems that anyone in a position of authority such as John must be very careful when a third party is not present to confirm what did or did not take place. As a husband and father myself, my empathy is affected slightly by the development of John’s character, but not to the degree that I think most will be.
When Carol desperately gives the many different excuses as to why she is unable to understand the teacher’s lectures during class, in which she says is causing her to do poorly she uses statements like she comes from “a different school”, and a “different background”, and she is trying to justify her poor performance on not having the best socio-economic situation while growing up. She also says that it is “difficult” for her to understand the professor’s language, but I think that her points are illegitimate and that it is reasonable to think that she is lying at that point in the play because if she were unable to understand the professor’s language and the vocabulary that he uses then she obviously would not be taking classes at the university level. Besides I’m sure the professor knows that many people have difficult upbringings and do not have the privilege of coming from the best schools or a rich family and are still able to discipline themselves in order to strive to reach a goal, e.g. Maya Angelou, W.E.B. DuBois.
ReplyDelete"Oleanna" by David Mamet is at best described a paradox. John loves teaching, yet, he describes himself as someone who "hated teachers, and hated school." By contradicts understanding by using phrases such as "term of art," and words such as "obeisance." John is established as a "unsociable," teacher. He is angry, abrupt, and interrupts.
ReplyDeleteCarol establishes herself as "stupid." Carol is not stupid. She did not plot out the ruin of her teacher. Readers may mistake a lack of communication for miscommunication. Carol has a psychological problem. Carol says she is not learning because of the language and because of her background, but these are not legitimate claims. She acts as if certain conversations were never said, and then gives meaning to words and phrases of a whole different conversation in it's different context. She accuses John of calling her stupid. John does not call her stupid. She then refers to a moment earlier in the conversation where he commented on her essay by saying "What can that mean?" She is a selective listener, affected mentally.
Carol's lawsuit is not legitimate, she blanks conversations out of her mind, and tries to fill in the gaps of conversation with whatever she can. I truly believe that Carol thinks that the teacher made a battery assault toward her. She falsely recollects events. John has overstepped his boundaries by disclosing what he deems "secret" information about himself. She is angry that he is biased, and to many degrees he is. Mamet is not empathizing with anyone. I do not sympathize with John because he establishes from the beginning that he is not a people-person. Most of his conversation is him talking about himself in some form. He brings on his own demise by disclosing his personal life with his student. I am really unsure what John's intentions were when it came to revealing himself to Carol.
Carol exclaims that she wants "understanding," because she feels she is at a learning disadvantage with her teacher teaching the way he does. She is trying to get across that everyone interprets things in their own ways. This is why she says that he may not consider a touch on the shoulder sexual harassment but she does and that "it's is not for you to say." John's response clarifies that the end of his job meant the end of understanding. Carol's response and motives show that she is unconcerned about his welfare, and that a job is unequivocable to her understanding. A side is not to be chosen. The teacher is not faultless, and the student is not faultless. Carol is not right to charge rape, but John is in right to be undone by this accusation. He was alone with a girl of the opposite sex and there was physical contact. John's self-control is destroyed because Carol's comment was not a statement, but an order. He talks in Scene 1 about how he does not like to take orders, how he does not like to be subject to authority, she remembered it, and played on it. I like the conclusion because it shows that he is a human being, with real emotions, not experienced earlier in the script. They are both ultimately responsible for their own fates. John's irresponsibly allow a student to have one-on-one conferences with him. Carol had to be dominant, and prove that she was not inferior.
Although by the end of Oleanna I was indecisive of whose side I was on, during the scene of (the first meeting) I was behind John all the way. At this point he seemed to be a supportive teacher who was there to help. During this scene I found myself becoming more and more irked with Carol, and yes, I know personal opinion plays a huge part in how we perceive what is happening here. As I continued to watch this scene play out I became annoyed at how Carol was trying to play the victim and use excuses to plead her case. For example "I don't understand, I don't understand the language, it's difficult for me!" In this situation I have no sympathy for Carol. In my opinion her so called "points" are better known as excuses and are far from being legitimate.
ReplyDeleteDavid Mamet is turning a spot light on human relationship between the modern individuals in his play; Oleanna. The modern individuals are logical and rational and also use much of oppressive tones and behavior in order to exorbitantly pack up their identities and images. However, ironically their logic also strongly appears to reader as an emphasis implying that their values and the way of living in their lives are immoral and inhumane. From the conversations of John and Carol I saw a particular form of the frame. Perhaps, I would want to say “power mechanism”, in which people have different positions and conflicts in terms of looking at the development of their conversations in the play from common conversations to a serious sexual and physical harassment. And I believe that this development also shows how the power can be misused in the frame of “power mechanism” in the modern society.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why I chose question # 11 is that the ending scene gave me so much of catharsis, not that it was a trial to solve the issue, but it was to relieve reader’s concerns about the problem of power mechanism. When Carol said, “Yes. That’s right. . . . yes. That’s right”, it was an affirmation of what John previously asked in excited condition;
JOHN: You vicious little bitch. You think you can come in here with your political correctness and destroy my life? After how I treated you…? You should be … Rape you …? Are you kidding me…?
From my point of view, Carol’s response by saying, “Yes, That’s right” was the best answer to readers as she did not directly get involved in what John did to her (physical attack) and provided a small size of example that ultimately broke John’s power mechanism. This is significant because in Act 1, John was oppressing Carol with his higher superiority over her, who showed a frightened looking with less logical speaking tone. In Act 2 and 3, their level of positions dramatically become reconstructed and Carol obtains the power as she learned how to display the power by performing more “polished” linguistic expression with clear and decisive tone. And on the other hand, John shows how the power can be easily lost in a minute with its characteristics; variable and fictive.
Carol: Sufficient? Sufficient? Yes. It is a fact ... and that story, which I quote, is vile and classist, and manipulative and pornographic. It...
John: ...it's pornograghic...?
Carol: What gives you the right. Yes. To speak to a woman in your private... Yes. Yes. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You feel yourself empowered...
In conclusion, I learned from Oleanna about a contradiction between human, which is ruled by the frame of power. I do not think that we will be able to make a Utopia (an ideal society) with the power mechanism as there exists either physical or mental criminal due to the fact that people who hold higher level of positions might have more power of control over people who hold lower level of positions in education, finance, and the origin of birth, etc. What we, readers need to know and should do is to realize the existence of the power mechanism as an obstacle to make a better society and practice to prevent and void applying this system.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOleanna # 10
ReplyDeleteAfter seeing how John acted throughout the acts you can tell that in this home his wife runs the show, or at least during this Real Estate transaction she does. So, I get the since that in the class room and during this heated argument he feels like he is in control. Now, this young “Stupid” college student is taking that all away. One by trying to ban his book from the college reading list; second by bring charges against him for attempted rape. His whole world is crashing down before him, he doesn’t like it, and he feels like he is losing control of everything. Now, only to have this woman who’s taking his whole world and turning it upside down, tell him how to take to his wife. He loses the last bit of control he has, self-control. He unleashes all of his anger, frustration, and rage on to her. He can’t take anything more from her, and he felt like who is she to tell me how to talk to my wife, or charge me with rape. Her telling him what to do was the last straw, the final thing she could do to humiliate him.
In response to Question Nine, my reaction to Carol’s deliberate accusation brought about mixed feelings. Throughout the play, very little, if anything, is known about Carol’s background. She goes to her professor’s office wanting to speak with him regarding her supposed inability to grasp the concepts being taught in the classroom. Was that really her true intentions? Or did she have an underlying motive from the beginning that the readers were blissfully unaware of? I’m not implying that Carol purposefully set out to create the perfect opportunity to make such an accusation of rape against her professor. However, it is possible that she is the type of person who saw an opportunity and ran with it. This thought-process occurred to me when she mentioned the terms “according to the law” and “under the statute, I am told.” I felt sympathy for her up until I read those words, then my sympathy transformed into distrust. With those choices of phrases, it felt like someone behind the scenes (perhaps other students and/or a legal team) was guiding her and telling her what to say. Had I felt that she came up with the accusation completely on her own, I would have retained my sympathy for her situation.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Carol is only slightly in the right. She said she felt that when John put his arm around her that it was an inappropriate gesture. It is possible that John meant nothing more than consoling a friend with this gesture, but given the nature of their student/teacher relationship, it was more than likely crossing a boundary. In this instance, Carol is in the right for speaking her mind and telling John that it was inappropriate behavior. I do believe that, on the other hand, Carol is in the wrong for claiming rape against John and subsequently seeking legal council as well as writing to the committee. Without getting too technical, her claim doesn’t genuinely sound like rape. It sounds like she is completely exaggerating the situation and using it to blackmail John. Maybe she was angry because she truly did not understand the material being taught in class, or even the text they read, which just so happened to be written by John himself. So when she offered to speak to the committee to recall her complaint in exchange for banning his book, it seemed like maybe that was her was of taking her frustration with the class out on John, the person in charge of teaching that very class.
To a certain extent, John is in the right for feeling angry and betrayed by Carol’s actions. If Carol really was trying to blackmail him, he had every right to react with anger and disgust. However, he had absolutely no right to strike her with force and violence. For that, he is completely in the wrong. I do believe that he should have taken responsibility for his actions though because it wasn’t right to have a student in his office like that, and like Carol claimed, even flirted with her on several occasions. He seems like a very selfish and arrogant person, and had he been a little less self-centered during their conversations, maybe he would have behaved in a more professional manner rather than focusing completely on himself and his personal problems.
In response to question #4, I think David Mamet allows us a window into John's life and not Carol's life because he wants to give us a well-rounded view of who John really is. The telephone constantly ringing was a great metaphor for his tie to the outside world. It showed that John is like everyone else so to speak. He has a life outside of his career and he has problems that he has to deal with just like the average person does. When comparing John to how our society views what the norm is, I think John would be considered the norm even though he doesn't view his self as such.
ReplyDeleteJohn: ...Years, mind you, I would compare experiences of my own to this dictum, saying, aha, that fits the norm, or ah, this is a variation from it. What did it mean? Nothing. It was some jerk think, some school kid told me that took up room inside my head. This statement shows how John tried to think of himself in away that was different with the norm and it also shows how he tried to relate to how Carol felt about herself.
Mamet didn't give us a window into Carol's life but he did show through the conversations that she had with John what kind of person she appeared to be. Carol seemed to come from a low-class background and lack confidence within herself. So it does seem that Mamet empathized with developing John's character more than Carol's.
I was torn with which side I was on. On one hand, I could relate to Carol's character from a student perspective. Trying to get clarification from a professor and at times not feeling up to par. I could also relate to John's character from the stand point of someone who has achieved success, the career, the family, the house(societies norm)..etc. Overall, I guess I sympathized more with John because his character was well defined.
In response to Question 9:
ReplyDeleteWell, first of all, I think Carol likes to over exaggerate. From the moments this play started she wasn’t making sense. In fact, I could barely understand what she was trying to say. It also seemed as though John wasn’t much of help either, constantly talking trying to get his point across, but she wasn’t making herself clear when saying what she didn’t understand. John gets frustrated with everything that’s going on (the phone ringing, trying to solve Carol’s confusion).
When she accused him of Rape, I thought that she blew things out of proportion. The play write says he restrains her, where she says he pressed himself into her. It does not really clarify what exactly happened, but when you restrain something, it’s more along the lines of grabbing someone, not thrusting their body into someone else. But that’s my interpretation.
Now, if he did push himself into her body then that isn’t really an attempt of rape. That’s more Sexual Harassment. I don’t think she had the right to accuse him of such actions. He did not attempt to take her clothes off, he did not force himself onto her, and he was merely stopping her so he could speak with her. I think this student is only out to get teachers she doesn’t like in trouble and fired.
So, I think this student is nuts and just wants to create drama rather than do any good. I think John is in the right to come undone. But, it wasn’t right of him to beat her senseless. That was overboard. He had a right to get mad and have her leave, but to beat her out of anger is no better than what Carol did to him. Both were in the wrong in that sense. But it would have been fine if he hadn’t beaten the student.