My thoughts on OLEANNA (spoilers abound?)

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 10/4/09 at 6:53pm

Bill Pullman looks broken during the curtain call of OLEANNA, and with good reason. His performance as John, the college professor forced to grapple with a student determined for no particular reason to cut him down to size, is mesmerizing. Pullman's John is entirely internal, and the final storm of rage at the very end is even more powerful, since this is the first time through the entire 70-minute play that he actually releases something.

For the record, I did feel that Julia Stiles' shrewish Carol deserved to have the cell phone shoved down her throat. The beauty of their performances is that she is so unlikeable, and he is so piteous, that you're rooting for him to stop being so pushed over and actually take a stand. Which is why the ending works so well. His only explosion of anything really cuts deep down because you feel so bad for him and hate her so much.

Hughes does a commendable job, as do the designers, especially set and sound (I don't have the program in front of me.)

Look, OLEANNA is 70-minutes of two people going around in circles. You're either gonna love it or hate it. For the record, I found this to be a strong production of a terrible play, but then again, I've never proclaimed myself a fan of Mamet.

I don't think that makes any sense, but I'm sure some of you will be able to decipher it.

Updated On: 10/4/09 at 06:53 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/4/09 at 6:59pm

I hate hate hate this play.

[blaxx]

Posted: 10/4/09 at 7:05pm

It takes a playwright who only knows how to write for dudes to attempt to write a female character.

No wonder you hate her by the end of the play.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/4/09 at 7:26pm

I once knew people in a production of this that was in the round. And they made the men sit on side and the women on the other. I refused to go see it on those grounds alone.

This play is asinine.

[musicalman2]

Posted: 10/4/09 at 7:34pm

I have to say that when I first saw this play 15 or 17 years ago, I did not like it all that much. At the time, I remember thinking that it was really all about a commentary about how over the top people get on complaints of sex harassment. By contrast, I really thought the performances in this version were very fine performances, and the characters much more nuanced than one would expect. There is a good interview with Julia Stiles in the Bergen, NJ paper today, where she talks about her take on the show, and some of what they are heading for (consequences of failure to communicate, abuse of power by those that have it). As a result, I think the show finally resonated for me. I think it is too simple to ask at the end "who is right or wrong?" etc. To my mind, each does both right and wrong things throughout the show, and at the end of the day, each suffers for it in a different way. Stiles' character becomes temporarily empowered, only to have the power taken away again at the end. I thought it was a very powerful ending and a real roller coaster.

[AC126748]

Posted: 10/4/09 at 8:19pm

The play itself is slight and not particularly well-written, and the fate of a production almost completely depends on the actors cast as John and Carol. Based on the reports, it seems like Pullman and Stiles are up to the task. I haven't seen the show yet--probably sometime this week--but they both seem like good choices (although, I'll admit, I think the role of Carol works best with a less physically attractive actress).

[scaryclowns2232]

Posted: 10/4/09 at 9:45pm

When you call the play itself "slight" you're not really doing it justice. Sure, it is physically "slight". but it carries with it a great deal of weight, a lot of issues up for debate, and some great ideas.

Yes, some of the dialogue is flawed, and yes Mamet can't write girls. HOWEVER, the play as a whole is wonderful- a piece of theatre that really makes you think and takes you for a ride.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 10/4/09 at 9:50pm

I think the play is very slight. It's carries pseudo-weight, but it's nothing more than a shrew of a woman screaming at a defenseless man for 70 minutes.

Mamet CAN write women - he writes them the same way Neil LaBute writes them - interchangeable, with no discernible feminine traits except breasts (and I have to say - I feel bad for Julia Stiles, who was sporting some serious pokies through the entire show).

[AC126748]

Posted: 10/4/09 at 10:01pm

Your welcome to your opinion, ScaryClowns2232, but please don't try to undercut mine, and please don't patronize me by implying that I don't understand the meaning of the words I use. I knew exactly what I meant when I called the play "slight". That's how I personally feel about it.

Updated On: 10/4/09 at 10:01 PM

[scaryclowns2232]

Posted: 10/4/09 at 11:19pm

I really didn't attempt to patronize or insult. My sincerest apologies. I totally entitle you to your opinion, but I wasn't sure if you were referencing physical or topical "slightness."

I think what I meant to say is that, in a properly balanced production, there is enough ambiguity there to explore some interesting ideas. It is very easy to villify the female role, but the play is most interesting when played more evenly. That is when it carries weight. Granted, I haven't seen this production (I'll be there at some point in previews) so I can't comment, but that is all I meant to say.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 10/4/09 at 11:23pm

I don't think anything about the piece can be considered well-balanced. The male is defenseless, the female is a shrew.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 10/4/09 at 11:30pm

Also - not being terribly familiar with this play - is the ending used here the original ending or the standard rewrite? I imagine the standard rewrite.

[theaterkid1015]

Posted: 10/4/09 at 11:32pm

Never read this play, and probably won't until after I've seen it, but I find it interesting to read the comments. I have quite a few female friends who adore this play. Maybe I'll ask them to go into their views a little more sometime....

[bjh2114]

Posted: 10/4/09 at 11:35pm

The beauty of their performances is that she is so unlikeable, and he is so piteous, that you're rooting for him to stop being so pushed over and actually take a stand.

I actually didn't see him as piteous and was rooting for her. I thought that his underlying pride was evident from start to finish. I was really cheering her on...well... I would have been cheering if I weren't put to sleep by the terrible writing.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 10/4/09 at 11:54pm

So this won't convert me into a pro-Mamet?

[Robert Taylor]

Posted: 10/5/09 at 1:40am

I've only read the play in book form, but I understand that there are two different versions of the ending...and I'm curious as to what ending is used here. Could someone please enlighten me after putting up spoiler tags?

When I read the play I was absolutely enraged. In the first scene it was against the teacher and in the second it was against the woman. It's not about sexual harrassment...it's about gender lines and the ever-shifting power struggle. I don't think it's theatre that you are supposed to "enjoy"...but it was well written and made me think about it long after I closed the book and put it on a shelf.

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 10/5/09 at 2:39am

I haven't seen this production... and I imagine that your sympathies may vary depending on how the roles are played... but I've always felt that the play was very well balanced... the Professor is condescending, rude, patriarchal and predatory in the first act... and a sympathetic victim in the second... my sympathies are with the student in the first act and viciously against her in the second... I suppose I should read the play again... but I remember the play being very well balanced... with sympathies shifting through out...


kmc

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 10/5/09 at 12:27pm

Prod. ends with him beating the pulp out of her and her saying "Yes, that's right."

[April Saul]

Posted: 10/5/09 at 12:35pm

In this incarnation, the teacher is full of himself and annoying, but the student is pretty much a psycho, without a back story to explain her extreme dysfunction and you pretty much want him to let her have it by the end. Not too satisfying...

[musicalman2]

Posted: 10/5/09 at 12:50pm

Yankee and April, I have to disagree. First Yankee, it is not 70 minutes of her yelling at him. The first scene is her tutorial which he keeps interrupting to use the phone. She has is completely angst-ridden about not understanding his class, and in fact, he does very little to assist her. The performances are much more layered than you describe, and it is clear you have not seen it. April, you get some sense of her back story when she is telling him how she got to the point where she is outraged by what he has said to her. It's the whole section about what it cost her personally to get to the university, and what she suffered. The play is meant to explore, in my opinion, the consequences of a failure to communicate, as well as the abuses of power which can occur on the part of the one who has power (whomever it is - because you would have to agree that in the play the power shifts back and forth).

In any event, I don't truly believe that this production is about gender issues generally, or even primarily. I think that is what makes this play better than the original production.

My final thought is that sometimes the gender argument is made, because in some respects it is the easiest one to address and dismiss if you want the guy to "win". If you look at the other things he does: breaks rules by promising an "A", being pedantic, being elitist, telling an off-color joke, etc., her allegations seem to have legs.

We are shocked by her behavior in large part because we know what her pursuit of her allegations costs him. I wonder if everyone would feel the same way if his punishment was a written reprimand from the University. (Of course, that would not create as much good drama).

Anyway, those are my thoughts for what they are worth.

I am looking forward to seeing it again after it opens.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 10/5/09 at 1:41pm

"The performances are much more layered than you describe, and it is clear you have not seen it."

That's funny, considering I did, in fact, see it.

[April Saul]

Posted: 10/5/09 at 3:50pm

Hey MusicalMan--My daughter, who saw it with me, wasn't crazy about it but enjoyed the dialogue a great deal, especially early on when they speak endlessly and manage to communicate virtually nothing. And we both admired Stiles' ability to convey her character's metamorphosis, from being powerless to becoming the one wielding the power. It's also possible that--as a woman who works in a male-dominated profession where women rarely if ever have a chance to abuse power--the idea that the female student would not only be able to complain but ruin the guy's life with these allegations was something I couldn't relate to a whole lot Of course, you are right in saying that it's not a question of who's right or wrong; Oleanna is all about the themes you mention. At the end of the day, I believe I get what Mamet is driving at; I just don't care for the play as much as you do.

[musicalman2]

Posted: 10/5/09 at 6:18pm

"I think the play is very slight. It's carries pseudo-weight, but it's nothing more than a shrew of a woman screaming at a defenseless man for 70 minutes."

Yankee, it was this statement that persuaded me you had not seen it, since nobody could make that statement having seen the show, unless your goal was not to portray it accurately.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 10/6/09 at 12:04am

Well, I did see it, and that statement accurately describes my take on the show.

So there.

::Sticks tongue out::

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 10/6/09 at 9:18pm

Interesting to hear that most people after viewing this production see John as a total victim and Carol as "a shrew" or "psycho." I felt similarly when I saw the movie in high school, and several years later, when I acted in the play in college, I still felt that Carol was pretty much crazy and totally out of line, even if John is kind of an a-hole. But I was fascinated by how many people who have read the play or seen other productions of it side with Carol. I think ideally, you don't really know who to side with, as both people are very flawed individuals (although clearly **SPOILER** Carol had no right at all to report an attempted rape).

Anyway, I'm curious how they're handling it being a cell phone instead of a land line. In the production I was in we wanted to use cell phones to make it more modern but couldn't as the play was written pre-cell phone age, and so much depends on John having to pick up the phone. They keep getting interrupted, so you have to wonder, "Why doesn't John just turn his phone off?" I also find it scary/exciting that in this production John uses a cellphone for the final fight...in a way that is sickening, but theatrically kind of exciting.