I had some trouble in starting an attempt to find a theme in Mamet's Oleanna, so I decided to look at Gautam's How Does Mamet Convey Theme in Oleanna for ideas about what he thought the theme could be. While he saw a theme I hadn't thought about much, he allowed me to get thinking of what I thought the theme was, and so I take his idea and take it in a different direction.
I find his idea of "feminism's power struggle" as the theme in Oleanna interesting. While it wasn't at the top of my list, it certainly exists. Carol, especially in the third act, criticizes John's actions as being rude towards women, and in fact provokes him by telling him "don't call your wife 'baby'" (Mamet 47).
Gautam focuses in on several literary devices that convey this theme. The setting, as he points out, is rigid and correctly portrays the relationship John and Carol have. However, I believe that it is not only the rigidity and constancy of the setting, but the position the characters take within the room that is more important. John is usually behind his desk while Carol is sitting in front of him. This atmosphere, where he is in power and judging her is what adds to the dynamics of the theme. While I took this in a different direction, to convey a theme between society's role as a judge, this could also add to Gautam's idea of a power struggle between men and women, with the traditional role of men in power. Then there is this "idea of transformation", which I also noticed more in watching the play than reading it. The characters do shift, such as the words they use: Carol, in the beginning, says often "I..." and "I don't understand", with John saying "Don't you see?", which changes towards the end when Carol takes John's words "Don't you see" and John is in confusion and less certain. There is definitely a change in who holds the power within the room. However, I would have to disagree with Gautam when he says "Carol has grown as an individual following the alleged 'sexual harassment'". I'm not sure Carol is an individual.
Throughout the play she frequently says that she is in a "group" (34). In fact, she admits that even if she were just her, she would be "inclined to [...] forgive", but she does is not by herself. She is a part of her group. She admits, "I speak, yes, not for myself. But for the group; for those who suffer what I suffer" (40). She uses the system, and does what she is told. I'm not sure she has changed at all. She still does not understand, but tries to follow society. When trying to prove to John that her claims are not alleged but "facts" (38), she uses her notebook. I think this is a motif that helps to characterize who she is. Carol does not think for herself, but acts on what others say. And she uses her notebook to do this. Her notebook is how she attempts to understand the world, and what she follows in order to follow the rules that society has set out. As John points out, she is not gaining any self-benefit in accusing him, but she is doing it anyways, not for her but for others. She says that he is guilty of rape because of the definitions that society has set out. The idea that "society rules" comes to mind when she says that the Tenure committee, which believes her allegations, makes them facts. It does not matter what an individual thinks, but the majority in general, if that makes sense. I think this is where I would take a theme from. Of how the world works according to society, and not individuals who would, by themselves, work with each other and encourage each other (in Act 1) instead of hurting themselves for the greater good (Act 3).
Although after discussion in class today, it's clear this isn't actually the case. I suppose it can't be, as the tone makes Carol seem really, really annoying, and makes us empathize with John. But I never get any of the sexual references/tension/thoughts, so whatever...
Gautam's idea of feminist struggle certainly exists, but I am a bit confused as to what about feminist struggle the author may be trying to portray. While Gautam suggests that Carol is, at the end, in power, switching roles with John, I'm not sure that is the end of it. The "idea of transformation" is not growth, but a switching of roles. That is to say, Carol's tone, as Gautam points out, goes from "weak-willed and shy" to something much more confident, "begins to sound a lot like John". So the feminist struggle brings her to power, right? But I'm not sure if that's a good thing. Because, Carol and John are at this point, not so different. Everything that Carol criticized John for, she could be criticizzed herself for. This again is supported by the motif Gautam brings up of interruptions, from John's phone and Carol's "aggressive verbal interruptions". There are these "communication barriers between the characters" that can resemble "the disparity between man and woman", but they are both much too similar to only focus on the differences. If we look at the struggle the two have and yet how each of them act in a similar way, perhaps Mamet could be focusing on how while both men and women struggle for power, perhaps there is no need to compete as they are all the same.
Yet again, though, I see the role of interruptions in a different way. For though the phone poses as a barrier to communication, where each time John tries and gets close to Carol and understand her, and she is close to telling him how she feels and what she actually thinks, he gets a phone call. In Act 1, Carol almost tells him: "I always... all my life ... I have never told anyone this... [...] All my life..."" (25-26), when right then and there the phone rings, and John has to go pick it up. In watching the play, I saw this repetition, of how she would start to understand him when the phone would ring, John would answer, and then Carol would be back to her accusing self. Reading the play, I took the phone interruption as a interruption from society- John's duty in society as a husband, prospective buyer, etc. budging in, not letting him do what he wants to do. Then, when watching this scene occur, I also noticed that John himself lost his caring tone that he used towards Carol and always got angry and more demeaning of others. I'm not sure what this could mean, but perhaps John is critical of others (which Carol takes as demeaning towards women) because he doesn't really want to do what they want. Society tells him what to do.
Ahh! I just had a slight epiphany! This idea, of "doing what you're told", is brought up from the very beginning when Carol asks him to do just this. And John doesn't do what society tells him to do- he breaks the rules. It is Carol, who is following the rules, using her notebook, backed up by the Tenure Committee and her group, who succeeds, or well, ruins him. Maybe with this Mamet suggests that in order to succeed/live in a world (a world that follows society's rules) you must also follow its rules, or otherwise, you'll fail. For if John had just followed the rules set out for him and given Carol a bad grade or make her retake the class, then he wouldn't have gotten in trouble.
I find his idea of "feminism's power struggle" as the theme in Oleanna interesting. While it wasn't at the top of my list, it certainly exists. Carol, especially in the third act, criticizes John's actions as being rude towards women, and in fact provokes him by telling him "don't call your wife 'baby'" (Mamet 47).
Gautam focuses in on several literary devices that convey this theme. The setting, as he points out, is rigid and correctly portrays the relationship John and Carol have. However, I believe that it is not only the rigidity and constancy of the setting, but the position the characters take within the room that is more important. John is usually behind his desk while Carol is sitting in front of him. This atmosphere, where he is in power and judging her is what adds to the dynamics of the theme. While I took this in a different direction, to convey a theme between society's role as a judge, this could also add to Gautam's idea of a power struggle between men and women, with the traditional role of men in power. Then there is this "idea of transformation", which I also noticed more in watching the play than reading it. The characters do shift, such as the words they use: Carol, in the beginning, says often "I..." and "I don't understand", with John saying "Don't you see?", which changes towards the end when Carol takes John's words "Don't you see" and John is in confusion and less certain. There is definitely a change in who holds the power within the room. However, I would have to disagree with Gautam when he says "Carol has grown as an individual following the alleged 'sexual harassment'". I'm not sure Carol is an individual.
Throughout the play she frequently says that she is in a "group" (34). In fact, she admits that even if she were just her, she would be "inclined to [...] forgive", but she does is not by herself. She is a part of her group. She admits, "I speak, yes, not for myself. But for the group; for those who suffer what I suffer" (40). She uses the system, and does what she is told. I'm not sure she has changed at all. She still does not understand, but tries to follow society. When trying to prove to John that her claims are not alleged but "facts" (38), she uses her notebook. I think this is a motif that helps to characterize who she is. Carol does not think for herself, but acts on what others say. And she uses her notebook to do this. Her notebook is how she attempts to understand the world, and what she follows in order to follow the rules that society has set out. As John points out, she is not gaining any self-benefit in accusing him, but she is doing it anyways, not for her but for others. She says that he is guilty of rape because of the definitions that society has set out. The idea that "society rules" comes to mind when she says that the Tenure committee, which believes her allegations, makes them facts. It does not matter what an individual thinks, but the majority in general, if that makes sense. I think this is where I would take a theme from. Of how the world works according to society, and not individuals who would, by themselves, work with each other and encourage each other (in Act 1) instead of hurting themselves for the greater good (Act 3).
Although after discussion in class today, it's clear this isn't actually the case. I suppose it can't be, as the tone makes Carol seem really, really annoying, and makes us empathize with John. But I never get any of the sexual references/tension/thoughts, so whatever...
Gautam's idea of feminist struggle certainly exists, but I am a bit confused as to what about feminist struggle the author may be trying to portray. While Gautam suggests that Carol is, at the end, in power, switching roles with John, I'm not sure that is the end of it. The "idea of transformation" is not growth, but a switching of roles. That is to say, Carol's tone, as Gautam points out, goes from "weak-willed and shy" to something much more confident, "begins to sound a lot like John". So the feminist struggle brings her to power, right? But I'm not sure if that's a good thing. Because, Carol and John are at this point, not so different. Everything that Carol criticized John for, she could be criticizzed herself for. This again is supported by the motif Gautam brings up of interruptions, from John's phone and Carol's "aggressive verbal interruptions". There are these "communication barriers between the characters" that can resemble "the disparity between man and woman", but they are both much too similar to only focus on the differences. If we look at the struggle the two have and yet how each of them act in a similar way, perhaps Mamet could be focusing on how while both men and women struggle for power, perhaps there is no need to compete as they are all the same.
Yet again, though, I see the role of interruptions in a different way. For though the phone poses as a barrier to communication, where each time John tries and gets close to Carol and understand her, and she is close to telling him how she feels and what she actually thinks, he gets a phone call. In Act 1, Carol almost tells him: "I always... all my life ... I have never told anyone this... [...] All my life..."" (25-26), when right then and there the phone rings, and John has to go pick it up. In watching the play, I saw this repetition, of how she would start to understand him when the phone would ring, John would answer, and then Carol would be back to her accusing self. Reading the play, I took the phone interruption as a interruption from society- John's duty in society as a husband, prospective buyer, etc. budging in, not letting him do what he wants to do. Then, when watching this scene occur, I also noticed that John himself lost his caring tone that he used towards Carol and always got angry and more demeaning of others. I'm not sure what this could mean, but perhaps John is critical of others (which Carol takes as demeaning towards women) because he doesn't really want to do what they want. Society tells him what to do.
Ahh! I just had a slight epiphany! This idea, of "doing what you're told", is brought up from the very beginning when Carol asks him to do just this. And John doesn't do what society tells him to do- he breaks the rules. It is Carol, who is following the rules, using her notebook, backed up by the Tenure Committee and her group, who succeeds, or well, ruins him. Maybe with this Mamet suggests that in order to succeed/live in a world (a world that follows society's rules) you must also follow its rules, or otherwise, you'll fail. For if John had just followed the rules set out for him and given Carol a bad grade or make her retake the class, then he wouldn't have gotten in trouble.
CULT REPRESENT
ReplyDelete