Last night, David “I’m No Longer a Brain-Dead Liberal” Mamet’s “Oleanna” opened on Broadway. The production (a transfer from Los Angeles’ Mark Taper Forum) stars Bill Pullman and Julia Stiles. As discussed on these pages Friday, this play was originally produced off-Broadway 18 years ago and is now receiving its first, official Broadway production. “Oleanna” and the upcoming “Race” are two opportunities for Mr. Mamet’s work to be evaluated by the heavily-left-leaning theatre critics.
The play received quite positive reviews. Here are some interesting things I read in the reviews…
In Elysa Gardner‘s positive review in USA Today, she refers to the contrasting times in which the play is now produced versus the original production:
When David Mamet‘s Oleanna premiered in 1992, it was widely perceived as a response to the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in which Thomas was accused of sexual harassment by former assistant Anita Hill. It has been 18 years since that real-life drama played out. But as the very different controversy now surrounding David Letterman reminds us, the debate over what constitutes an abuse of power between a male authority figure and a female subordinate isn’t going away.
I find it interesting that the Hill/Thomas debate is compared to the Letterman story. Was Clarence Thomas ever accused by Anita Hill of anything even remotely close to what Letterman has ADMITTED to? I don’t think there is a debate about “what constitutes an abuse of power between a male authority figure and a female subordinate” with regard to Letterman, do you? Does Letterman? Does anyone?
Later, Gardner properly hits the nail on the head:
Mamet, after all, seems less interested in condemning women or men than exploring the complicated dynamics between them, made no simpler by such modern inventions as academic equality and political correctness.
Brava, Elysa.
Meanwhile, unlike Gardner, the NY Post’s Elisabeth Vincentelli doesn’t see ANY topical issues reflected in “Oleanna” and she uses the occasion of this play’s opening to put Mr. Mamet on the couch a la Sigmund Freud:
But watching the play 17 years later is like watching something made during the Red Scare of the ’50s. “Oleanna” speaks volumes not only about an era dominated by the shared paranoia of conservatives and lefty activists, but also about its creator’s id. And what surged from Mamet’s brain is the closest Broadway now has to a slasher movie.
In Ben Brantley‘s all-powerful NY Times review, further mind reading of Mr. Mamet occurs: [emphasis added]
What’s so infernally ingenious about “Oleanna” is that as its characters vivisect what we have just witnessed, we become less and less sure of what we saw. Anyway, that’s what occurs in performance — or should. Think about it afterward, or read the script, and you’ll realize that the sympathies of Mr. Mamet, a man’s man among playwrights, are definitely with John, however flawed he may be. It also becomes clear that Carol, as a character, is full of holes, most conspicuously in the way she uses words.
John Simon wisely avoids any direct criticism of Mr. Mamet (Mamet effectively castrated Simon in print last year thus rendering the critic incapable of objectively musing on the playwright’s talent), and he also differs with Ben Brantley’s suggestion that the play is skewered in the man’s direction:
The entire play is a clever enough piece of equivocation, allowing viewers to approve or reprehend either character according to their notions of feminism and sexism. The writing clearly and deliberately aims at provocation, at which it succeeds rather better than at credibility.
David Sheward in Backstage takes a different approach. In honoring this production, he decides to slam the original, Mamet-directed version:
Under Mamet’s direction, Rebecca Pidgeon (the playwright’s wife) played the co-ed as a vacuous fool obviously manipulated by an offstage group of evil feminists into ruining the life of the nice-guy prof played by sweet, teddy-bearish W.H. Macy. Many saw the powerful one-act as a backlash against the excesses of political correctness and the women’s movement. In Doug Hughes’ reconsidered staging (now on Broadway after a run in Los Angeles), with a pair of powerhouse performances by Julia Stiles and Bill Pullman, the terms of combat are more equal and the outcome more ambiguous.
And over at Talkin’ Broadway, Matthew Murray is not a fan of this production at all, but unlike his counter-parts, he does not take this as an opportunity to personally slam, label or psycho-analyze the playwright. On the contrary, he actually compliments him and the play:
The beautiful thing about Mamet’s incomparably incendiary play, however, is that it inspires fervent disagreement about which character represents what – stories of post-performance shouting matches and even fistfights have dogged the show for years.
But the prize for assault by play review has to go to David Rooney in Variety. Here are a few choice quotes:
…Mamet stacks the deck too heavily in favor of the former to make the drama a fair contest — or to escape the charges of misogyny that have long dogged this play.
…Carol is possibly the most complex female role created by Mamet, a writer whose women are more often ciphers than believably fleshed-out characters.
…Hughes’ sleek production is psychologically needling and uncomfortable to watch in a way that surely honors Mamet’s intentions
…Designer Neil Patel amplifies the abrasive nature of the material
…But while Pullman makes John’s undoing a harrowing spectacle, the sheer acrimony of Mamet’s stance against Carol blunts the confrontation.
In case you’re having trouble reading the hidden message in Rooney’s review, let me help you out: Mamet hates women. (He is a conservative, after all.)
More reviews are sure to trickle in as the week goes on, and If I find anything particularly obnoxious, I’ll bring them to your attention. In the meantime, as the show is a limited engagement, do yourself a favor and see it if you are in New York.