Oleanna, a visionary play that is clearly still relevant today.
David Mamet’s exceptional talent as a playwright, as a creator of film scenarios and producer of films, is fueled by a deep-seated anger against corruption in the US, inspired and even fascinated by all manner of falsehood such as we saw in the Hollywood drama Speed the plow– at the Gladstone Theatre in 2011 starring John Muggleton, directed by Teri Loretto. http://capitalcriticscircle.com/?s=speed+the+plow+gladstone. First produced in 1988 with Madonna playing the single feminine role, that play lost none of its bite to put it mildly – its male capitalist energy, and the power of its dialogue that shot back and forth as though the actors were riddling each other with machine gun spray.
In 1994 we saw the film of Oleanna written and directed by Mamet as well. Now, John P. Kelly’s current production of Oleanna created as a play in 1992 long before the #metoo movement came into being , plunges deeply into what will become a serious source of conflict and great tension in present-day North American society. One might even speak of a visionary work that suggests all the drama and fury that will arise much later out of the #metoo movement, even before its time. The stirring up of anger, fascination, ideas of vengeance will take hold of North American society, destroy reputations, while liberating women and giving them more power than they ever suspected they would obtain.
The play is an impeccably constructed two-hander, performed in the slightly stifling office of a university professor, where a very insecure student Carol (Madeleine Jullian) and her self -absorbed professor John (Guy Buller), meet to resolve her problems. And yet, it all seems to unravel so logically. The two of them are enclosed in John’s office choked off by books and papers and all manner of symbols of his university power where Carol has come to get help, but the site would seem to suggest that this attempt will fail. She insists she is failing his course because he uses big words and she cannot understand what the professor is saying or writing. But, as he constantly interrupts her to explain apparently misplaced details about his own career, she becomes more and more frustrated hearing him talk and we realize that he is not listening to her at all; in fact, he is not even really interested in her concerns in spite of his empty gestures to make her feel better. Nor can she defend herself in what slowly grows into an uncomfortable confrontation, that resembles a dialogue of the deaf.
The first act which lasts about one hour, is all back and forth which becomes tighter and tighter. This talk is important because it helps us understand the problem clearly. Their discussions are constantly interrupted by his wife’s phone calls that draw John away from the student, make him lose his concentration and give her the feeling she is not important, especially when the voice on the other end keeps him busy with questions about the mortgage on his new house, his tenure hearing and his personal problems at home. They destroy the unity of their interaction, they even become unbearable because they interrupt the intense moments ,increase the mounting aggression and fuel the young girl’s anger. These constant ruptures force her to believe that he is purposely manipulative and is only playing her when he says he wants to help her during his calmer moments, because those moments do not ever last. Unfortunately, he is not sensitive to the effect of those ringing phone interventions.! They scream through his office like nasty intruders destroying any peace the professor and his student could possibly have.
A series of terrible errors in judgement on the part of both of them, that clearly appear ambiguous and even harmful, evolve into moments of horrendous violence that prefigure a fascist style attack where books are banned, and individuals become victims of physical vengeance. And suddenly, when there is no more to say, the play comes to an end. It might seem abrupt, but it all works that way.
Thus, what began as a serious discussion that might have represented an authentic encounter between a student and her professor slowly, becomes an intense ritual of transformation where the two protagonists enveloped by a wave of anger become archetypes of mutual destruction. Mainly because they did not know how to listen to each other .
Director John P Kelly has orchestrated the interaction with magnificent rhythmic control. The intensity of the exchanges, the tight reactions that continually and brutally interrupt each other, allow the battle of clipped speech to play out violently, nonstop, with growing ferocity. Guy Buller did have moments of fluffed lines, but the intensity was so powerful that it was almost impossible to avoid such things, especially at the end when was supposed to lose control of himself. Madeleine Jullian as Carol uses her facial features in a more realistic way especially during Act I. when her expressions shift every time John answers the phone or whenever he tries to explain a quote from his book which she clearly could not follow. She was suffering and her annoyance came clearly through her face!
In Act II, the contact with her “group” gave her a lot more strength by helping her define her feelings, understand what she believed had happened to her even if we felt as though she was being manipulated by her “group”. What was very clear from the first act was that the professor never appeared to take her misunderstanding seriously and he was not able to explain his written word in a language that she was able to follow. This is something that people in university struggle with all their lives because they tend to work with abstractions, and they have great difficulty shifting into the discursive world of those who listen to them or who have to learn. And if that does leave university professors with a lot of power, it also exposes the vulnerability of those who are not properly trained in their own language. Such inequalities lead to confusion, anger, helplessness on the part of all concerned and that is not necessarily a question of gender but more than anything, a problem of perfect education and upbringing and no doubt, class.
In any case, this finely tuned examination of the way power is played out through language makes for excellent theatre that also tests the skills of a director . In this case, the test succeeded perfectly.