Oleanna Paper - Eric Shapiro - April 2009
Frank Rich of the New York Times, David “[Mamet’s “Oleanna”] could not be more direct.” (1) Mr. Rich could not be farther from the truth. The playis indeed most obviously concerned with themes of gender relations and political correctness; one need not pay particularly close attention to reach that conclusion. However, equally if not more important to attaining a full understanding of the play is to examine its distinctive use of language and communication. Specifically, Wilson uses his dialogue to convey a perpetually shifting power dynamic taking place between his play’s two main characters. Seemingly unimportant comments, exchanges and monologues hold the key to picking up on the plays subtext, which is considerably more important than what is on the surface. Oftentimes, what the characters are saying is not nearly as important as the manner in which they are speaking. Oftentimes, they have nothing to say it all, their words only serving to highlight their desperate needs to remain in control.
John and Carol, as the latter points out on page 1456, are quite similar. Both characters are fundamentally insecure and they deal with their insecurities by struggling to maintain a position of authority over the other.
However, appropriately enough for a play concerned with communication, “Oleanna” begins with a telephone conversation between John and his wife Grace where they discuss the land on which they plan to build their house. The telephone will continue to play an essential role in the play, serving as a kind of X factor in the power struggle occurring between John and Carol. At the end of act 2, its interruptions also infuse the plot with a sense of urgency that is unsettling, especially given the velocity of the dialogue. Much less important than contents of the phone conversations is the position of subservience they place John in, even before he says a word to Carol, as well as the discomfort it causes him. It is easy to envision him squirming in his chair throughout the conversation and it renders his violent outburst at the end of the play more believable.
The interplay between John and Carol is defined by a certain choppiness. Their conversation is plagued by interruptions and often one character does not allow the other to finish a point. John (the professor) has the upper hand over Carol (the student) for the majority of Act 1. Nevertheless, John’s discussions with his wife provide examples of his insecurity and may well embolden Carol to go on the offensive in act 3. Act 2 is a kind of middle ground, with both characters given the opportunity to express relatively complete ideas. However, even then the characters mostly deliver monologues rather than addressing each other points. Even with different dynamics in each act, a conspicuous lack of real, meaningful communication pervades “Oleana.” It is therefore extremely ironic when John says: “I want to tell you something,” because it serves to call attention to this lack of communication. By ending the play with John’s beating of Carol, Mammet draws the disturbing conclusion that when humans are unable or not allowed to convey ideas through words, they will resort to physical violence. The ending is as much a reflection on the world as it is on John’s character.
Although the power dynamics shift back and forth over the course of the plays three acts, John consistently maintains a linguistic superiority. John shows his dominance over Carol by constantly falling back on “academic-speak,” figuratively bowling her over with his ornate language. It is significant that after offering a convoluted, nonsensical definition of the “term of art,” he admits: “I’m not sure I know what it means,” showing his tendency to communicate very little with many and unnecessarily complicated words. It is ironic that he criticizes her for offering an empty explanation in her paper when in fact this is a major part of what defines his character.
In addition to using language as an offensive tool to intimidate, John employs words as a shield to cover up his vulnerabilities. For example, on page 1460, after laying bare the inferiority complex instilled in him by authority figures early in his life, he retreats into the academic world, bringing up “the Stoics” for no apparent reason, especially because he must realize that there is no way she will understand the reference. As John rapidly loses control of the situation, he relies more and more on his vocabulary and professorial knowledge as a source of comfort and self-defense. John is almost all output and no input. Although he claims to want to help Carol, he is unwilling to listen to hear her out until his career is on the line. His overbearing nature (of which his vocabulary is one element) is in part a defense mechanism, but it is also a way for him to inflate his ego. At the beginning of act 2 on page 1459, John says “you see, (pause), I love to teach. And flatter myself I am skilled at it. And I love the, the aspect of performance.” This, combined with his prior statement about the uselessness of education says a lot about John’s character. He is primarily a teacher for two reasons: as a form of “security,” which he also mentions and a means of showing off. Carol may be wrong to destroy John’s career, but she is on to something when she claims that continuing to teach despite a lack of faith in the education system, as a form of self-fulfillment, is a disservice to students. In addition, John is hypocritical to bash the system for a lack of authenticity when he admits that a substantial portion of his career is performance.
Carol’s language also has a significant effect on the events of the play. One of the many ambiguities in “Oleanna” is the extent to which this is intentional and if so, to what degree. Carol mentions being a member of a group, which is only discussed in vague terms but is implied to represent political correctness. While John may incriminate himself by coincidence or as the fulfillment of some subconscious masochistic urge, but it is also possible that Carol is manipulating him from the very beginning (then again, the two are not mutually exclusive). The possibility of deliberate manipulation is certainly worth considering. The best argument in favor of this interpretation is her transformation from an unassuming, not particularly intelligent college student in the first act to a principled defender of women’s rights and political correctness in the second act. Also, after telling John not to call his wife baby and provoking a brutal beating, she says, first to John and then to herself: “yes, that’s right.” This could mean that her intention all along was to attain some form validation, of either her own power or sexism. Regardless, in a play with very little action, a simple instruction (“Don’t call your wife baby on page 1467) is enough to provoke a violent reaction.
In addition to using language in service of the plot (in order to indicate power dynamics and flesh out characters) Mamet makes a point about language viewed through the lens of political correctness. In this regard, “Oleanna” serves a cautionary tale, warning what can happen when society begins to accept a system that meets out its definition of justice based on an interpretation of an individual’s words. The burden of proof is put on the accused to prove that he or she is innocent, turning a traditional notion of justice on its head.
According to Critic Attilio Favorini of the Theatre Journal, “Mamet continually upstages his own characters, gesturing over their heads to an audience he is certain will condemn.” (401) This is true to an extent. Neither Carol nor John is a particularly deep character and sometimes their dialogue sounds like the playwright preaching to the audience, but he is redeemed by the fact that this seems to his intention. “Oleanna” is only superficially about its characters. Its intention is not to create psychologically complex individuals but to provoke the reader (which is, probably not by coincidence, what John defines as the role of a professor towards his students on page 1458) into reconsidering his preconceived notions of political correctness. Mamet presents political correctness as a phenomenon with the potential to result in failures of communication as a result of the limitations of language and the impossibility of accurately ascribing intention to words. Without voicing a conservative or liberal view, Mamet fulfils his role as an artist by using his medium to encourage reflection on a pressing contemporary issue.
Footnotes
1. Favorini, Attilio. "Playland." Theatre Review 46(1993): 401. Print.
2. Rich, Frank. Review/Theater: Oleanna; “Mamet's New Play Detonates The Fury of Sexual Harassment” 26 October 1992, 1
John and Carol, as the latter points out on page 1456, are quite similar. Both characters are fundamentally insecure and they deal with their insecurities by struggling to maintain a position of authority over the other.
However, appropriately enough for a play concerned with communication, “Oleanna” begins with a telephone conversation between John and his wife Grace where they discuss the land on which they plan to build their house. The telephone will continue to play an essential role in the play, serving as a kind of X factor in the power struggle occurring between John and Carol. At the end of act 2, its interruptions also infuse the plot with a sense of urgency that is unsettling, especially given the velocity of the dialogue. Much less important than contents of the phone conversations is the position of subservience they place John in, even before he says a word to Carol, as well as the discomfort it causes him. It is easy to envision him squirming in his chair throughout the conversation and it renders his violent outburst at the end of the play more believable.
The interplay between John and Carol is defined by a certain choppiness. Their conversation is plagued by interruptions and often one character does not allow the other to finish a point. John (the professor) has the upper hand over Carol (the student) for the majority of Act 1. Nevertheless, John’s discussions with his wife provide examples of his insecurity and may well embolden Carol to go on the offensive in act 3. Act 2 is a kind of middle ground, with both characters given the opportunity to express relatively complete ideas. However, even then the characters mostly deliver monologues rather than addressing each other points. Even with different dynamics in each act, a conspicuous lack of real, meaningful communication pervades “Oleana.” It is therefore extremely ironic when John says: “I want to tell you something,” because it serves to call attention to this lack of communication. By ending the play with John’s beating of Carol, Mammet draws the disturbing conclusion that when humans are unable or not allowed to convey ideas through words, they will resort to physical violence. The ending is as much a reflection on the world as it is on John’s character.
Although the power dynamics shift back and forth over the course of the plays three acts, John consistently maintains a linguistic superiority. John shows his dominance over Carol by constantly falling back on “academic-speak,” figuratively bowling her over with his ornate language. It is significant that after offering a convoluted, nonsensical definition of the “term of art,” he admits: “I’m not sure I know what it means,” showing his tendency to communicate very little with many and unnecessarily complicated words. It is ironic that he criticizes her for offering an empty explanation in her paper when in fact this is a major part of what defines his character.
In addition to using language as an offensive tool to intimidate, John employs words as a shield to cover up his vulnerabilities. For example, on page 1460, after laying bare the inferiority complex instilled in him by authority figures early in his life, he retreats into the academic world, bringing up “the Stoics” for no apparent reason, especially because he must realize that there is no way she will understand the reference. As John rapidly loses control of the situation, he relies more and more on his vocabulary and professorial knowledge as a source of comfort and self-defense. John is almost all output and no input. Although he claims to want to help Carol, he is unwilling to listen to hear her out until his career is on the line. His overbearing nature (of which his vocabulary is one element) is in part a defense mechanism, but it is also a way for him to inflate his ego. At the beginning of act 2 on page 1459, John says “you see, (pause), I love to teach. And flatter myself I am skilled at it. And I love the, the aspect of performance.” This, combined with his prior statement about the uselessness of education says a lot about John’s character. He is primarily a teacher for two reasons: as a form of “security,” which he also mentions and a means of showing off. Carol may be wrong to destroy John’s career, but she is on to something when she claims that continuing to teach despite a lack of faith in the education system, as a form of self-fulfillment, is a disservice to students. In addition, John is hypocritical to bash the system for a lack of authenticity when he admits that a substantial portion of his career is performance.
Carol’s language also has a significant effect on the events of the play. One of the many ambiguities in “Oleanna” is the extent to which this is intentional and if so, to what degree. Carol mentions being a member of a group, which is only discussed in vague terms but is implied to represent political correctness. While John may incriminate himself by coincidence or as the fulfillment of some subconscious masochistic urge, but it is also possible that Carol is manipulating him from the very beginning (then again, the two are not mutually exclusive). The possibility of deliberate manipulation is certainly worth considering. The best argument in favor of this interpretation is her transformation from an unassuming, not particularly intelligent college student in the first act to a principled defender of women’s rights and political correctness in the second act. Also, after telling John not to call his wife baby and provoking a brutal beating, she says, first to John and then to herself: “yes, that’s right.” This could mean that her intention all along was to attain some form validation, of either her own power or sexism. Regardless, in a play with very little action, a simple instruction (“Don’t call your wife baby on page 1467) is enough to provoke a violent reaction.
In addition to using language in service of the plot (in order to indicate power dynamics and flesh out characters) Mamet makes a point about language viewed through the lens of political correctness. In this regard, “Oleanna” serves a cautionary tale, warning what can happen when society begins to accept a system that meets out its definition of justice based on an interpretation of an individual’s words. The burden of proof is put on the accused to prove that he or she is innocent, turning a traditional notion of justice on its head.
According to Critic Attilio Favorini of the Theatre Journal, “Mamet continually upstages his own characters, gesturing over their heads to an audience he is certain will condemn.” (401) This is true to an extent. Neither Carol nor John is a particularly deep character and sometimes their dialogue sounds like the playwright preaching to the audience, but he is redeemed by the fact that this seems to his intention. “Oleanna” is only superficially about its characters. Its intention is not to create psychologically complex individuals but to provoke the reader (which is, probably not by coincidence, what John defines as the role of a professor towards his students on page 1458) into reconsidering his preconceived notions of political correctness. Mamet presents political correctness as a phenomenon with the potential to result in failures of communication as a result of the limitations of language and the impossibility of accurately ascribing intention to words. Without voicing a conservative or liberal view, Mamet fulfils his role as an artist by using his medium to encourage reflection on a pressing contemporary issue.
Footnotes
1. Favorini, Attilio. "Playland." Theatre Review 46(1993): 401. Print.
2. Rich, Frank. Review/Theater: Oleanna; “Mamet's New Play Detonates The Fury of Sexual Harassment” 26 October 1992, 1