Oleanna

If asked immediately after reading Oleanna, I would have said that I hated this play. I would have continued that both of the characters were extremely un-likeable, and that both sides were so over the top that it bordered on ridiculous. I still believe these things to be true, but the more time that I have spent thinking about it, the more I think it was exactly what Mamet was shooting for. I am not supposed to like them. I think it was purposely written in a manner that we would not know who to root for, where we are so accustomed to having a definitive good guy or bad guy in our entertainment. You mentioned that some of the Playbills stated, “Whatever you think/Whichever side you choose, you’re wrong”, I understand that, both are John and Carol are right and both are wrong to extent, you really can’t make a valid argument on behalf of either. There is a hint of truth to everything that Carol alleges about John, word for word, she never lies, but she so wildly misstates the truth that it is nearly impossible to take her side. John loses any empathy he might have gained in being wrongly accused, at the end, when he attacks her. The purpose of this play, in my opinion, was not to provide answers, but make you ask questions that can’t be answered.
In the first act, Carol seems to mention where she comes from, social and economic background, never specifically saying what or where, but leading you to believe that it is less than privileged, she also says things like, “It’s difficult for me” , “I have problems”, or “I can’t understand.” We are supposed to feel for her at this point, in many ways she has declared herself the victim, and John helps this along with his endless interruptions, and lack of regard for what she has to say. I never felt any empathy for Carol, throughout the entire play, even at the end when he attacked her, maybe because it seemed to me that she was using her background as an excuse for her failure. I realize that my personal biases are coming into play here, but everyone comes from somewhere, and has there hurdles. What is he supposed to do with this information? Is he supposed to give her a pass because of her circumstances?
John likes to hear himself talk, constantly interrupting Carol’s explanations with his stories, experiences and opinions. He offers her an ‘A’, if she’ll agree to come back a few times and talk with him, though I never got the feeling that he had much concern for her predicament, it comes across as being innocent. Regardless of his motives, he chose to help her, asking what seemed to be, very little from her. I keep coming back to the fact that his life would have been a whole lot better if he had just made her keep the ‘F’ and been done with it. I found him to be an un-likeable man, but not a bad man.
In the second act and third acts, I am frustrated along with him, I feel bad for him. The allegations seemed so inconceivable that I was waiting for a punch line, or some kind of justice. I wondered if this is what she wanted, or was it the idea of the group she kept talking about, her motives were always unclear to me. Why was she okay with destroying this man’s life? Did she believe it was for a greater good? Does she believe her accusations to be true?
John had me on his side for a while, because his intent never seemed malicious, and even when he violently attacks her at the end, he does not lose me completely. I get why audiences applauded when John attacks her. It is that building up of frustration, when you know you’re right, and no matter how hard you try, it is being twisted into something wrong. There is nothing right, or justifiable about his actions, but I don’t believe that they applaud because they think John is right, I think they cheer, for the same reason John attacks her, it relieved the tension.