David Mamet - Oleanna

Did you believe the incident(s) of harassment occurred? Do you think John is worse, or Carol? Do you find one or the other blameless, or find them both to be victims of circumstance?

can I talk about this if I only saw the movie?

The beginning is so awkward to read with all the halting, interrupted, one-word sentence fragments followed by dashes.

xpost It's a free country imo

i just don't want to turd up your book thread! I didn't really know what I was getting into when I saw this but it made me go WHOAAA at the end. It's been a while but I didn't perceive any harassment - at the same time John seems the most monstrous to me

I haven't seen the movie. While reading the book I didn't perceive any harassment as it happened -- i.e. I didn't read the lines she later quotes in her report as being out of order, etc -- but I did find John to be a creep and probably sexist, if not overtly.

I guess it would be close to impossible to read Carol as a victim of circumstance. She's definitely not passive. And neither is John, at least by the end.

I just found out this was being performed at my school up until like a week ago! I should have seen it. Will watch movie despite Ebert hating it. Haw.

While reading the book I didn't perceive any harassment as it happened -- i.e. I didn't read the lines she later quotes in her report as being out of order, etc -- but I did find John to be a creep and probably sexist, if not overtly.

― ☠ (roxymuzak), Wednesday, March 16, 2011 7:56 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

Definitely DID think it was inappropriate that he told the anecdote about classes and sex activity/amount of clothes, etc. As soon as I read it.

I actually don't remember that, but I haven't seen this in a long time. He's definitely a sexist creep, but in the first act I was mostly thinking "what a blowhard" - I can't really read either of them as a victim of circumstance, unless the circumstance is "people not communicating properly"

Ebert's review seemed to be colored by his finding it incendiary as a stage experience and idk if you can recreate that once you've had your mind blown once.

First time I ever remember William H. Macy in a movie -- with an ugly beard no less.

Yeah, my initial reaction to John was just that he was full of himself and should let her get a word in every once in a while. It took a minute for me to read it as sexist, but I eventually did. And re: the comment I mentioned above -- about how rich people wear more clothes when they have sex, and have sex less often, or w/e -- I was uncertain whether he was saying it specifically to come on to her or make her uncomfortable or if it was a genuinely absent-minded error in judgment. Which is, I guess, part of the point of the whole thing.

And how about Carol telling John "and don't call your wife 'baby'"! I love that. My feelings about that line are a microcosm of my feelings about the entire play. Like, if we read this as being a girl who was actually raped by this man -- and here the situation has just officially escalated to that -- then my feelings are of a "you go" variety, but if he hasn't raped her and she's insane or being manipulative or being manipulated by the overly "PC" Group that she keeps referencing, then she's wayyy out of line.

yeah i think that's really otm. also makes me think that it might be more interesting to read than to watch - you have to imagine how ambiguous his contact with her was or wasn't, instead of having it staged for you.

not rape but attempted rape, i mean

Apparently it was pretty heated seeing the play when it was first being staged. Arguments breaking out and shit

My big problem with the play is that he clearly doesn't rape her, and she clearly accuses him of rape. Before that, it's he-said, she-said. If she just accused him of molestation, then it would be possible to block it in a way that he's giving her a comforting/maybe-a-hair-creepy hug that gets turned into molestation. But, no, she accuses him of rape and there's no way that he did. It's the same kind of problem that Speed-The-Plow has: in that one, if Karen's book was actually film-able but resembled The Road or Atlas Shrugged, it would be a fair fight--but since the book doesn't tell a story, it's not.

Only convincing production I've seen of Oleanna (and I've seen about a half-dozen) was the one Pinter directed. Carol was played by an Irish actress, and it was credible and a completely fair fight, moment by moment. Subtler than all the others. In all the other productions, all of them, Karen ends up sitting in John's desk chair at some point -- obviously, AHA the table have turned. Pinter's version, she just puts her blazer on his chair, and it's perfet.

SPOILER

Pinter also used a different, earlier draft. I wouldn't be surprised if that version ends up being restored to the text at some point. It's exactly as the current version, but (at least in Pinter's production), he attacks her at the end (perfect Aristotelian reversal), and she cowers under his desk, and he kicks her a bunch of times, and then goes across the room to catch his breath. After about 30 seconds, she crawls out from under the desk, beaten, and says "I have a statement." And he says "What?" And she tells him that the one way he can save his life, basically, is to read this statement before the entire university. He picks up the paper. She says "Read it." "I have failed in my efforts to educate the young." Pause. "Read it again." "I have failed in my efforts to educate the young." End of play.

she accuses him of attempted rape, and he did press his body into her and try to keep her bodily from leaving the room! he also tells her she can have an A if she spends more time alone in his office with her...

the original ending had her saying "don't worry about me. i'm alright" iirc

I've never seen a production in which John was sexualized at all, so maybe that's part of what kept it from a fair fight as well. Or even one where the physical moment in act one had the sense of crossing a line briefly, however ambiguous.

Yeah, I think a lot of this hinges on how the actor plays John.