Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Oleanna by David Mamet: A Critique of Feminist Political Correctness in Higher Education, Study notes of American literature

An analysis of the play and film 'Oleanna' by David Mamet, which explores the theme of feminist political correctness in higher education. the U.S. Department of Education's sanctioning of the punishment of male students based on accusation alone, the egalitarian perspective of the play, and the metaphorical use of the land. It also examines the characters of John and Carol, the influence of Postmodern literature, and the societal pressure on professors during the Feminist Period. The document concludes with a discussion on the play's climax and the audience's sympathies.

Typology: Study notes

2021/2022

Uploaded on 09/27/2022

janet
janet 🇬🇧

3.3

(4)

252 documents

1 / 7

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
FILM
Oleanna (1992)
David Mamet
(1947- )
ANALYSIS BY ACT
Oleanna is a community founded in the 19th century in Ole Bull’s colony, New Norway, Pennsylvania.
The folk song “Oleanna” satirizes the utopianism of Ole Bull. The play and film Oleanna by David Mamet
mocks the oppressive “utopianism” of Feminist political correctness in higher education and throughout the
country as Old Bull.
The play premiered in 1992 in the radical Feminist utopia of Cambridge, Massachusetts. According to
reports, Feminist females in the audience were furious by the end of the first act. Making stock responses,
they identified with the female against the male. Later that year the play appeared off-Broadway and The
New York Times reviewer called it “an impassioned response to the Thomas hearings.” The year before,
Feminists led by Anita Hill had tried to block the conservative Clarence Thomas from the U.S. Supreme
Court by making false accusations against him of “sexual harassment.” Throughout the 1990s the
periodical Heterodoxy edited by David Horowitz documented many cases similar to the one in Oleanna. In
2013 the U.S. Department of Education sanctioned the punishment of male students for sexual harassment
based on accusation alone, depriving them of due process.
Oleanna is an inversion of The Lesson (1954), a famous European play by Ionesco in which a professor
is a personification of Nazism and a female student is his victim. In Mamet’s play the student turns into a
fascist, her “group” is analogous to Nazis and the professor is their victim. The British novelist John
Fowles similarly depicted Feminists as Nazis in Mantissa (1982). In response to political correctness in the
1980s the conservative broadcaster Rush Limbaugh popularized the term Feminazis.
pf3
pf4
pf5

Partial preview of the text

Download Oleanna by David Mamet: A Critique of Feminist Political Correctness in Higher Education and more Study notes American literature in PDF only on Docsity!

FILM

Oleanna (1992)

David Mamet

(1947- )

ANALYSIS BY ACT

Oleanna is a community founded in the 19 th^ century in Ole Bull’s colony, New Norway, Pennsylvania. The folk song “Oleanna” satirizes the utopianism of Ole Bull. The play and film Oleanna by David Mamet mocks the oppressive “utopianism” of Feminist political correctness in higher education and throughout the country as Old Bull.

The play premiered in 1992 in the radical Feminist utopia of Cambridge, Massachusetts. According to reports, Feminist females in the audience were furious by the end of the first act. Making stock responses, they identified with the female against the male. Later that year the play appeared off-Broadway and The New York Times reviewer called it “an impassioned response to the Thomas hearings.” The year before, Feminists led by Anita Hill had tried to block the conservative Clarence Thomas from the U.S. Supreme Court by making false accusations against him of “sexual harassment.” Throughout the 1990s the periodical Heterodoxy edited by David Horowitz documented many cases similar to the one in Oleanna. In 2013 the U.S. Department of Education sanctioned the punishment of male students for sexual harassment based on accusation alone, depriving them of due process.

Oleanna is an inversion of The Lesson (1954), a famous European play by Ionesco in which a professor is a personification of Nazism and a female student is his victim. In Mamet’s play the student turns into a fascist, her “group” is analogous to Nazis and the professor is their victim. The British novelist John Fowles similarly depicted Feminists as Nazis in Mantissa (1982). In response to political correctness in the 1980s the conservative broadcaster Rush Limbaugh popularized the term Feminazis.

QUOTATIONS

The quotation from Samuel Butler that opens the print edition of the play is ironic understatement lamenting “the absence of a genial atmosphere,” noting that children (students) are able to act happy even in a hostile environment like a London alley (or an American college) because they have never known anything else. There is a pun on “faculty”: “Young people have a marvelous faculty of either dying or adapting themselves to circumstances. Even if they are unhappy—very unhappy—it is astonishing how easily they can be prevented from finding it out, or at any rate from attributing it to any other cause than their own sinfulness.” In the background of this play, off stage, there are male students who are like the professor in being sexually harassed by Feminists for their “sinfulness.” The quotation from the folk song “Oleanna” evokes the irony that liberals from Europe came to America to escape “slavery” and a century later liberals enslaved others with Political Correctness.

ACT I

Limiting the cast to only two characters heightens the sense of social division and the polarization of opposites—male and female, professor and student, middle-class and lower-class. The professor has the common name John, connoting ordinary and representative. He is in his faculty office talking on the telephone with the student Carol seated across his desk from him, a common situation in colleges everywhere. Carol likewise is a common name, with the connotation of a Christmas carol, which becomes bitterly ironic. The text of the play identifies the two speakers as John and Carol rather than differentiating the professor from the student, expressing an egalitarian perspective.

The first three sentences of the play refer to “the land.” By repetitive emphasis the particular land that concerns John becomes metaphorical, evoking the nation--the whole land--giving national scope to the implications of the play. John says “I don’t understand,” before Carol says the same thing about her studies. The first act establishes several such parallels between the two, calling attention to what they have in common as human beings, affirming transcendence of gender. John points out some parallels to Carol. He is trying to be egalitarian and friendly, but his situation is disruptive. His phone conversation is full of interruptions, broken sentences, misunderstanding, frustration, and the fragmentation characteristic of Postmodern literature, especially plays, in particular by British playwright Harold Pinter, the main aesthetic influence upon Mamet. The audience must try to infer what is going on, like Carol the student. John is repeatedly interrupted by his wife, the one in control of their relation to “the land.” In Feminist terms, she has the “power.” Yet, in the position of Carol, the audience is likely to be annoyed by his talking on the phone and by not being able to fully integrate the fragments of his conversation. The audience is likely to blame him and fail to appreciate that he is obligated to his wife as well.

John apologizes to his wife twice, once because of misunderstanding—“I don’t mean that”—and once apparently because of his strident tone. His wife, also strident, is urging him to come and meet her about their purchase of a house. Although his responsibility to his wife is arguably greater than his responsibility to advise a student outside of office hours, John feels obligated to the student. Under increasing pressure he promises his wife to leave in “fifteen, in twenty” and then “in ten or fifteen minutes.” John and his wife Grace are in a crisis. Grace is concerned they will lose the house they want to buy, or the deposit. John reassures her, optimistic and supportive, and they express love for each other.

His first words to Carol the student are an apology. Ironically, in Act I John is more polite to her than he is to his wife. When he asks Carol, “Don’t you think…?” and she replies “…don’t I think…?” the implication is that she is not an independent thinker, a point emphasized at the outset and throughout the play. When she asks if she said something wrong, John bends over backward: “No, I’m sorry. No. You’re right. I’m very sorry. I’m somewhat rushed. As you see. I’m sorry. You’re right.” In Act I he apologizes to her 14 times. Carol never apologizes. She never thanks him for giving her attention outside of office hours when he is in a rush. Professors are notorious for neglect of advising and for missing office hours. For a professor, John is unusually generous.

This professor is also exceptionally modest, as when defining the phrase “term of art” he admits that he is not sure of its meaning. Both characters are insecure and hypersensitive, their conversation faltering and

escape. His telephone rings but this time he ignores it, giving his student his complete attention: “We’ll start the whole course over. I’m going to say it was not you, it was I who was not paying attention.” He is right in that he is not paying enough attention to his hostile academic environment. Though the course is only half over, he gives her more than an undeserved passing grade: “Your final grade is an ‘A’.” During the Feminist Period (1970-present) professors throughout higher education have been intimidated by student evaluations and political correctness into systemic inflation of grades, reducing the credibility of degrees even from the most prestigious schools. John’s generosity is due in large measure to his fear in anticipation of his evaluation for tenure. His only stipulation is that Carol meet with him a few more times: “What’s important is that I awaken your interest, if I can, and that I answer your questions.”

He resumes by explaining his critique of higher education: “It has become a ritual, it has become an article of faith. That all must be subjected to, or to put it differently, that all are entitled to Higher Education.” He asks Carol twice for her opinion: “Good. Good. Good. That’s right! Speak up!” But the girl cannot complete a thought. This is not good. When he tries to resume his encouragement she is so angered—“I’M SPEAKING”—that he apologizes to her 4 times. When she says “I’m keeping you,” he has still another opportunity to escape her. Instead he offers to advise her on her “wage-earning capacity” with and without a college degree, trying to help her be practical and face reality—a rare professor indeed. She refuses, yelling at him “I DON’T UNDERSTAND.”

She breaks down again, asking him “Who should I listen to?” In a comforting gesture he goes to her and puts his arm around her shoulder but—“NO!” she walks away from him. Finally she confesses, “I’m bad.” She is about to confide in him something she has never told anyone, when the phone interrupts again. John is later every minute to his appointment and yet he still says “I can’t talk now.” He refuses to leave his student until his wife tells him the realtor has declared their agreement void. In a passionate exchange with Jerry his lawyer, John threatens to sue the realtor, then says, echoing Carol, “I don’t understand.” Finally the truth behind the phone calls is revealed. All is well. Grace and Jerry have set him up for a surprise party in the new house, to celebrate his tenure announcement. John is so shaken up by the surprise reversal that he suggests it is a “form of aggression.” Otherwise Act I ends with a positive reversal, in contrast to the reversal opening Act II, which is more clearly a form of aggression.

ACT II

John’s long opening speech builds suspense as to why he is saying all this to Carol. He begins by emphasizing his motives: (1) “I love to teach”; (2) “I swore that I would not become that cold, rigid automation of an instructor which I had encountered as a child.” Since the 1950s women had often criticized “the cold, rigid automation” of men. John is self-critical, sensitive and accommodating—the New Man molded by political correctness, the compliant feminized male—an “Uncle Tim” as such men are known today, a variation on Uncle Tom. Despite his laudable motives, John questions his selfish motives— a “covetous” desire for tenure, security and comfort.

So far in the play, he has given Carol his highest priority. Now he considers “That I had duties beyond the school, and that my duty to my home, for instance, was, or should be, if it were not, of equal weight.” Ironically, in being more than fair to Carol, he has been less than fair to his wife. The climax of his opening speech is the revelation in passing that Carol has filed a complaint against him—a surprise to the audience, since she seemed on good terms with him at the end of Act I, accepting his sympathy. We can only wonder what he has done to warrant such ingratitude. Her complaint has delayed his tenure decision, the basis of his house loan. “I will lose my house…. I will lose my deposit… I see I have angered you. I understand your anger at teachers. I was angry with mine. I felt hurt and humiliated by them. Which is one of the reasons that I went into education.”

Trying to persuade Carol to drop her complaint, John confesses to his “weak sensibilities.” And his offensive claim to knowledge: “You find me pedantic. Yes. I am.” He is like one of the professors forced to endure Marxist “re-education” and driven from the classroom into the fields for hard labor by young Communists during the 1960s Cultural Revolution in China. Feminists in the United States called their indoctrination programs “sensitivity training.”

John begs Carol to reconsider: “What have I done to you?” She calls his plea an attempt “to force her to retract.” His response is a famous line from “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” (1916) by T. S. Eliot, one of the most influential poems of the 20 th^ century: “That is not what I meant at all.” The line is repeated to call attention to the allusion. The parallel of John to J. Alfred Prufrock adds to the pathos of this insecure professor, who is never seen out of his office. John suffers far more than fear of rejection by a single woman, his life is destroyed in the name of all women.

Carol’s inflation since her deflation at the end of Act I is evident when she claims to represent the whole student body of the school. John reads her report accusing him of sexism, elitism, pornography, and embracing—“all part of a pattern.” Her dialogue, her limited vocabulary and the sample of her writing quoted in Act I indicates that Carol is incapable of writing that report. It was concocted by her Feminist “Group.” This would account for her abrupt transformation from a cowering supplicant to a vindictive aggressor. As Feminists say, she has been “empowered.”

The report claims he told a “sexually explicit story, in which the frequency and attitudes of fornication of the poor and rich are, it would seem, the central point.” This refers to his unguarded anecdote: “When I was young somebody told me, are you ready, the rich copulate less often than the poor. But when they do, they take more of their clothes off.” This was his example of “an article of faith” that should be rejected. Ironically, everything done to John in the play is based on a Feminist “article of faith” about men. Carol also accuses John of using the phrase “The White Man’s Burden.” Feminists see white men as oppressors and deny that they have any burdens. She also accuses him of saying he liked her, of asking her to “come back oftener to see him in his office,” and of putting his arm around her. Everything he has done intending to help and comfort her has been perverted and turned against him.

John keeps urging Carol to use “her own words,” but she is unable to think independently and keep referring to her notes and to the report written for her by her Group. She expresses the dissociation from males that has been promoted in Women’s Studies programs throughout the country since 1970: ‘I don’t think I need your help. I don’t think I need anything you have.” Feminists empowered themselves by waging a gender war that inverted the ideals of higher education. Speaking “on behalf of my group,” Carol exults in the revolution and John’s loss of power: “The. Power. Did you misuse it? Someone did. Are you part of that group? Yes. Yes. You Are. You’ve done these things.” His “group” is white males. Unable to think for herself in Act I, Carol has become a group thinker in Act II. It no longer matters what John himself did, as a white male he is guilty of all the sins of his group, a scapegoat sentenced to career death with no trial, no due process, no appeal. Group thinking is tribal, barbaric, and childish. In this play, Feminists resemble the Nazis in being: (1) group thinkers; (2) motivated by hatred of a different group; (3) book banners; (4) fascists—“I don’t care what you think”; and (5) inhumane—“I don’t care what you feel.” Torturing men is more gratifying than gas chambers.

John pleads for his life: “Please… I’m not a bogeyman. I don’t ‘stand’ for something.” He is a human being, not a symbol. Carol is now so dissociated from reality she claims to be doing John a favor. Then she accuses him some more, of making a “demeaning remark.” She intends to tell the woman on his tenure committee about it. She is offended that males are allowed to teach at all. She challenges his right to speak to a woman in his office and to “play the Patriarch in your class.” To Feminist groupies “The Patriarchy” is the Evil Empire and all men are Darth Vader.

Carol’s longest speech in the play projects the characteristics of her Group onto the conventional John: “You love the Power. To deviate. To invent , to transgress…to transgress whatever norms have been established for us…this taste to mock and destroy…. But I tell you. I tell you. That you are vile.” After this onslaught spewed in his face, John says in response, “Nice day today.” He makes a plea for humanity: “I don’t think we can proceed until we accept that each of us is human.” He asks her to tell him “In your own words. What you want. And what you feel.” But she replies, “My Group”--like a robot.

Trapped and desperate, when she starts to leave the room he traps her—“I have no desire to hold you, I just want to talk to you.” Though he restrains her for a moment, his whole life is in her grip, making her demand ironic: “LET ME GO.” The gripping scene intensifies his desperation. Now he is more in her grip than ever. Ironically also, she plays the helpless victim in distress at the hands of a vile abuser.

will be humiliated. “You vicious little bitch. You think you can come in here with your political correctness and destroy my life?” He knocks her to the floor!

What is most politically incorrect about this act is that by making Carol increasingly demanding and arrogant and unforgiving, the play has induced the audience to sympathize with John and feel gratification when he knocks her down--a female! After centuries of civilization, radical Feminists have replaced conventional relations between the sexes with barbarism, putting women at risk. Tribe against tribe. In court it will be her word against his anyway, he has nothing to lose. “I wouldn’t touch you with a ten-foot pole. You little cunt …” Cowering in shock on the floor, she agrees. “Yes. That’s right.” At the end of Act I she confessed to him that she is “bad.” Now at the end of the play she lowers her head in evident shame and confesses to herself, “…yes. That’s right.”

SYMPATHY FOR FASCISM

Some reviewers of the play were more sympathetic to Carol than to John. Wade Bradford at About.com describes John as “deeply flawed,” “overly verbose,” “callous,” “pompous,” “abrupt,” “interruptive,” not giving Carol a “chance to speak.” [Carol has 219 speeches in Act I, the same as John.] He “doesn’t seem to be a very good or wise instructor. He spends most of his time waxing eloquently about himself and very little time actually listening. He does flaunt his academic power, and he does unintentionally demean Carol by shouting ‘Sit down’ and by physically trying to urge her to stay and finish their conversation. He doesn’t realize his own capacity for aggression until it is too late. Still, many audience members believe that he is completely innocent of sexual harassment and attempted rape.” Bradford thinks the play has no objective meaning and is “all about the perspective of each audience member…. Is the professor attracted to her in Act One?” Attracted? He would not touch her “with a ten-foot pole.”

FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE

The Wikipedia review must have been written by one of the Group: “John remains unable to understand any point of view but his own…. Carol tries to educate him in his position of privilege and power, forcing him to recognize the fact that his desires and hatreds all center around obtaining and losing power over others…. She has documented daily occurrences of sexist remarks toward his students.” This reviewer agrees with Carol and the Group that John has no right to call his wife “baby” and claims the endearment is expressed “dismissively.” He is a “smug, pompous, insufferable man whose power over academic lives he unconsciously abuses” (by giving Carol an A). In the play John “knocks her to the floor,” whereas in this self-pitying review by the Groupie “John savagely beats her.” Michael Hollister (2013)