Oleannawritten by David Mamet
directed by Doug Hughes
When: Thursday, October 29, 2009
Where: John Golden Theatre (New York City)
What: Play, Drama, Two-Man Show, Professional Theater, Broadway
Spoilers abound ahead...
Going into David Mamet's Oleanna, I knew that it had something to do with sexual harassment and that it "gets people talking," supposedly leaving you questioning which character is "right" in the end. Unfortunately, to me, there's no question to me who was correct, and a huge reason for this certainty is that the female character here is tremendously flawed and absolutely unbelievable.
The play has no intermission, but is told in three acts. In Act One, we meet John, a college professor who is up for tenure. John, played by Bill Pullman, is nebbish and timid, while at the same time, when discussing his philosophies on higher education, incredibly smart, yet overly loquacious. We also meet Julia Stiles' Carol, one of his students who has come to John's office to refute her grade on a paper. She feels unintelligent and foolish, and is unfortunately burdened with some poor lines. This first act feels drawn out and I kept waiting for it to get to the point. When it ended, I really was left flat and wondering whether Stiles was to blame for awful line readings or whether she wasn't given good lines to begin with (I'm going with the latter).
Act Two is a few months later and we discover that Carol has lodged a complaint against John with the Tenure Committee at the university. She accuses him of sexual harassment, for at the end of act one, as Carol cries from frustration, John puts his hands on her shoulders. John tries to get Carol to explain her issues with him, but she keeps referring him to the report, mentioning a "group" she's joined, but not really telling him her own thoughts. There is a hugely drastic change between the Carol of Act One and the Carol of Act Two, and it didn't sit well with me at all.
In Act Three, the Tenure Committee has ruled in Carol's favor and John's tenure has been denied. It is incredibly obvious in this act that the roles have been reversed. From stage direction with Carol standing behind the professor's desk to dialog as Carol is constantly interrupting John (as opposed to the opposite in Act One), it's apparent that Carol is now in charge. The problem is that I couldn't believe that Carol became this completely different person. Yes, she's simply spouting her "group's" thoughts (it's obvious that she seems to be pressured into this by others), but I still could not fathom that this was the same person from Act One.
It's the character of Carol that ruins this play. I found a quote online that says Carol is Mamet's "most fully realized female character." Really? Really? If "fully realized" means the ability to change your personality without any rationale, then sure. Carol just feels flawed to me as a character and, since this is only a two-character play and the twists of the plot rely heavily on Carol, the play just doesn't work for me.
It's not the fault of Pullman, that's for sure. I wasn't sure what I thought of him in Act One, but as the play progressed, I grew to appreciate his portrayal of the character. That being said, if the play is supposed to be ambiguous at the end as far as who was right and who was wrong, Pullman makes me feel for him entirely. This guy didn't do a thing wrong, but in this age of political correctness, every little thing can be interpreted as fault.
As far as Stiles goes, I do think she's a talented actress. I truly enjoyed watching her strength onstage. I totally found myself looking at her even when Pullman was talking because I was enthralled with her facial reactions and physical movements. Still, I've explained my problems with the character and since Stiles couldn't rewrite the play, I'm gonna go with this being playwright Mamet's fault rather than Stiles'. That being said, was Stiles too strong of an actress to play the meek Carol of Act One? Maybe.
The play's name is taken from the folk song "Oleanna" which refers to a perfect American society. I'm sure that means something deep, but I'm just too tired to figure out what it means.
Going into David Mamet's Oleanna, I knew that it had something to do with sexual harassment and that it "gets people talking," supposedly leaving you questioning which character is "right" in the end. Unfortunately, to me, there's no question to me who was correct, and a huge reason for this certainty is that the female character here is tremendously flawed and absolutely unbelievable.
The play has no intermission, but is told in three acts. In Act One, we meet John, a college professor who is up for tenure. John, played by Bill Pullman, is nebbish and timid, while at the same time, when discussing his philosophies on higher education, incredibly smart, yet overly loquacious. We also meet Julia Stiles' Carol, one of his students who has come to John's office to refute her grade on a paper. She feels unintelligent and foolish, and is unfortunately burdened with some poor lines. This first act feels drawn out and I kept waiting for it to get to the point. When it ended, I really was left flat and wondering whether Stiles was to blame for awful line readings or whether she wasn't given good lines to begin with (I'm going with the latter).
Act Two is a few months later and we discover that Carol has lodged a complaint against John with the Tenure Committee at the university. She accuses him of sexual harassment, for at the end of act one, as Carol cries from frustration, John puts his hands on her shoulders. John tries to get Carol to explain her issues with him, but she keeps referring him to the report, mentioning a "group" she's joined, but not really telling him her own thoughts. There is a hugely drastic change between the Carol of Act One and the Carol of Act Two, and it didn't sit well with me at all.
In Act Three, the Tenure Committee has ruled in Carol's favor and John's tenure has been denied. It is incredibly obvious in this act that the roles have been reversed. From stage direction with Carol standing behind the professor's desk to dialog as Carol is constantly interrupting John (as opposed to the opposite in Act One), it's apparent that Carol is now in charge. The problem is that I couldn't believe that Carol became this completely different person. Yes, she's simply spouting her "group's" thoughts (it's obvious that she seems to be pressured into this by others), but I still could not fathom that this was the same person from Act One.
It's the character of Carol that ruins this play. I found a quote online that says Carol is Mamet's "most fully realized female character." Really? Really? If "fully realized" means the ability to change your personality without any rationale, then sure. Carol just feels flawed to me as a character and, since this is only a two-character play and the twists of the plot rely heavily on Carol, the play just doesn't work for me.
It's not the fault of Pullman, that's for sure. I wasn't sure what I thought of him in Act One, but as the play progressed, I grew to appreciate his portrayal of the character. That being said, if the play is supposed to be ambiguous at the end as far as who was right and who was wrong, Pullman makes me feel for him entirely. This guy didn't do a thing wrong, but in this age of political correctness, every little thing can be interpreted as fault.
As far as Stiles goes, I do think she's a talented actress. I truly enjoyed watching her strength onstage. I totally found myself looking at her even when Pullman was talking because I was enthralled with her facial reactions and physical movements. Still, I've explained my problems with the character and since Stiles couldn't rewrite the play, I'm gonna go with this being playwright Mamet's fault rather than Stiles'. That being said, was Stiles too strong of an actress to play the meek Carol of Act One? Maybe.
The play's name is taken from the folk song "Oleanna" which refers to a perfect American society. I'm sure that means something deep, but I'm just too tired to figure out what it means.
No comments:
Post a Comment