«(...) don't call your wife "Baby"!»
Oleanna tells the unconventional and controversial story of a female student, Carol, who's deeply upset with some grade on a course she failed and how she tries to persuade her teacher, John, to change it. It's a manipulative game - like the con master, David Mamet, so much loves - of seduction between teacher and student, man and woman and ultimately audience and director - yes, I believe, at some points, we're lead to support one of the sides of the argument. Mamet, with a very straightforward story and 99% set in only one location - the teacher's office -, was able, even without trying to make a point or statement, to invoke a notable variety of serious subjects. Mr. Mamet sets the table and delivers group identity politics - at some point even Carol keeps repeating the words "my group" -, institutional, aggression, violence towards women, political correctness, modern education and the so-called "system" - which both dislike in different ways -, free speech and so on. Remember, he does it just by putting two characters, well, simply talking and interacting on-screen (which is quite brilliant). Throughout the mildly Kafkaesque plot - with all the constants as phone ringing, door opening and shutting, characters interrupting each other -, it constitutes a puzzling clash between "anger" and "fear", which leads to various (even physical) confrontations between the two people. The dialogue is utterly upscale, and where some may rely their critique on the fact that the characters keep interrupting each other is where Mamet reaches for the true and natural essence of human communication throughout centuries (which is just pretty marvelous to be aware in film, if we consider all those Hollywood cliché stuff). Carol, played by the not-so-known Debra Eisenstadt, must be one of the most despicable characters ever to exist on paper. The paradox of free thought expression she presents, by blackmailing John, could well be interpreted as an act of censorship. The way she talks, all the questioning and dumbness are so annoying she really (almost) never reaches to prove her as a victim, which she partially is and partially not. The fact that she saw the touching on her shoulders as a sexual act could say a lot about her past - at some point she even tries to tell a secret to John, but gets abruptly interrupted. The sort of Stockholm syndrome that drives her to always get back to the office, make repetitive and stupid questions and mood shifting also shows she's sort of struggling inside. Macy, our John, is a great actor. His character seems to be one of great knowledge and uses so much rhetoric that he can be easily put in an elite. Also, he's being given a tenure and buying a new house (as if it didn't matter at all...). He's not that full of CRAP, but he sure says a lot of unreasonable stuff and acts often the same way. He ends up talking about education, family, job and careers, this and that, bla bla bla, but his philosophy always seems too confusing to get somewhere specific. Mamet was clearly way ahead of his time, if we consider the #MeToo movement, contemporaneous radical feminism and other sexual politics related problems present in the current decade. Oleanna, as a work of literature, could be he's greatest achievement alongside with Pulitzer Prize Glengarry Glen Ross (in my opinion), but, as a film, lacks some of the "perfection" he achieved, e.g., in his debut House of Games (1987). "Is John, initially, sexually driven by her? Is there any justice upon the denial of his tenure? Is Carol acting by her own? What are her true motives? Are her claims of sexism and attempted rape right?" are just some of the moral questions we could, by the end, ask ourselves. They both crossed a line, for sure, but the ultimate and most ambiguous question is: who holds the absolute objective truth? (Is there a truth?!) Thank you, David Mamet.
Oleanna tells the unconventional and controversial story of a female student, Carol, who's deeply upset with some grade on a course she failed and how she tries to persuade her teacher, John, to change it. It's a manipulative game - like the con master, David Mamet, so much loves - of seduction between teacher and student, man and woman and ultimately audience and director - yes, I believe, at some points, we're lead to support one of the sides of the argument. Mamet, with a very straightforward story and 99% set in only one location - the teacher's office -, was able, even without trying to make a point or statement, to invoke a notable variety of serious subjects. Mr. Mamet sets the table and delivers group identity politics - at some point even Carol keeps repeating the words "my group" -, institutional, aggression, violence towards women, political correctness, modern education and the so-called "system" - which both dislike in different ways -, free speech and so on. Remember, he does it just by putting two characters, well, simply talking and interacting on-screen (which is quite brilliant). Throughout the mildly Kafkaesque plot - with all the constants as phone ringing, door opening and shutting, characters interrupting each other -, it constitutes a puzzling clash between "anger" and "fear", which leads to various (even physical) confrontations between the two people. The dialogue is utterly upscale, and where some may rely their critique on the fact that the characters keep interrupting each other is where Mamet reaches for the true and natural essence of human communication throughout centuries (which is just pretty marvelous to be aware in film, if we consider all those Hollywood cliché stuff). Carol, played by the not-so-known Debra Eisenstadt, must be one of the most despicable characters ever to exist on paper. The paradox of free thought expression she presents, by blackmailing John, could well be interpreted as an act of censorship. The way she talks, all the questioning and dumbness are so annoying she really (almost) never reaches to prove her as a victim, which she partially is and partially not. The fact that she saw the touching on her shoulders as a sexual act could say a lot about her past - at some point she even tries to tell a secret to John, but gets abruptly interrupted. The sort of Stockholm syndrome that drives her to always get back to the office, make repetitive and stupid questions and mood shifting also shows she's sort of struggling inside. Macy, our John, is a great actor. His character seems to be one of great knowledge and uses so much rhetoric that he can be easily put in an elite. Also, he's being given a tenure and buying a new house (as if it didn't matter at all...). He's not that full of CRAP, but he sure says a lot of unreasonable stuff and acts often the same way. He ends up talking about education, family, job and careers, this and that, bla bla bla, but his philosophy always seems too confusing to get somewhere specific. Mamet was clearly way ahead of his time, if we consider the #MeToo movement, contemporaneous radical feminism and other sexual politics related problems present in the current decade. Oleanna, as a work of literature, could be he's greatest achievement alongside with Pulitzer Prize Glengarry Glen Ross (in my opinion), but, as a film, lacks some of the "perfection" he achieved, e.g., in his debut House of Games (1987). "Is John, initially, sexually driven by her? Is there any justice upon the denial of his tenure? Is Carol acting by her own? What are her true motives? Are her claims of sexism and attempted rape right?" are just some of the moral questions we could, by the end, ask ourselves. They both crossed a line, for sure, but the ultimate and most ambiguous question is: who holds the absolute objective truth? (Is there a truth?!) Thank you, David Mamet.
Tell Your Friends