Oleanna Revisited
March 10, 2009
Five years ago, I did a run of David Mamet’s play, OLEANNA, in London’s West End. The experience was so rewarding, I’ve decided to do it again, only this time with a different cast, a different director, and in a different city. For more info, click here.
But I have more of a point than shameless self-promotion. I really love this play. Years later, and before we’ve even started rehearsals, it gets my mental motor running. I still find it provocative and challenging, and I remember bits of dialogue that sound like musical daggers. The set up is simple; OLEANNA takes place entirely in a college professor’s office, where a failing student accuses her mentor of abusing his power. The ensuing ninety minutes is more than just a battle of “he said/she said,” and conflict between the two characters escalates. Words are weapons in this play, sometimes more potent than physical violence.
I went to see SPEED THE PLOW (also Mamet) a few weeks ago, and said ‘hi’ to William H. Macy afterwards. (Forgive the name-dropping, but we did work together twice). When I told him I was doing OLEANNA again (he originated it), he looked at me with pity. “Yikes. That’s a hard one. Especially for the girl.”
He meant that the audience utterly hates the female character by the end. Yes, there were times in London where I understood the accusations that Mamet is a misogynist, but the genius of the play is that he sets you up to hate her so much you want the professor to hurt her. And there you are, surprised by your own prejudice.
But as an actor, this bias is entirely freeing. I discovered after the first night in front of that London audience that I wasn’t up on stage to get approval, but to make a point.
I can go on and on about OLEANNA, and I will another time. Then I’ll change the category to “AD NAUSEUM.”
I have seen Macy and Eisenstadt in the film version of Oleanna , and you’re right about being pulled by your predjudices, particularly in the last few moments. I have to say, though, that neither character can hold the high ground when you realize they are talking in circles around each other. Mamet’s use of language is the real star of Oleanna.
Tons of luck! I’m sure you’ll do a great job. I saw you playing Oleanna in London years ago and loved Aaron Eckhart’s and your performance.
Hey! I really enjoyed seeing Oleanna in London. Best of luck with the new version!
[...] be starring opposite Bill Pullman in David Mamet’s Oleanna at the Mark Taper Forum. She recently blogged about the experience and about revisiting the challenging work after a successful run in London a few years [...]
Julia, I saw you in Oleanna last night. Great job! Another critic had written that this play is not realistic. I’m here to tell you I know a woman like the character you played. This play is realistic. It really helped me to see a similar drama that I’m going through played out on a bigger scale — on stage. Thanks for your wonderful performance.
“And there you are, surprised by your own prejudice.”
well said, I’ve only seen the film version and i thought it brilliant! I have read reviews that say the same of your performance, hope to see it soon, timo
Why is it called “Oleanna”? Is it the name of a location or does it engender a different meaning? I enjoyed it very much especially the ending.
It’s never mentioned in the dialogue of the play, but in the prologue of the printed version Mamet quotes an old folk song. It starts, “Oh, to be in Oleanna…” Oleanna is a utopian community, where men and women are equal. (The word is a combination of the names Ole and Anna). Utopia is a place that is aspired to, but can never be achieved.
When you performed it, does it end with Mamet’s original ending, or with the shorter one performed often, and shown here: http://staff.bcc.edu/faculty_websites/jalexand/Mamet–Oleanna.htm ?
I’ve never seen the play, but having read that version of it, I have to say I’m surprised how little anger I had toward the (presumably) false accuser. She’s ruined his academic career and hurt his personal life, but the professor fairly blatantly treats her inappropriately in the first scene and physically restrains her in the second.
The second act ends without it being clear what’s happened after he restrains her (no further stage direction or dialogue exist until the start of the third act, which takes place days, weeks or months later) and the fact he can’t own up to his actions in this version suggest that even if more has occurred between the two, the professor would not be able to own up to it right away.
Personally, I thought the characterization in the play is what really drives it. Carol relies on her notepad and is at first timid, but then, post-tenure board complaint, is confident, solely as a result of the unnamed group she mentions repeatedly clearly pushing her to see John’s treatment of her as an obvious case of sexual harassment, even rape. Her character isn’t inconsistent, just pliable.
He, on the other hand, is a hypocrite and sort of a monster. He claims he wouldn’t trust the tenure board members to wash his car in the first act, then plays up their nobility and wisdom when he feels threatened by her complaint. He only really gets upset when Carol tells him she wants his book off the reading list. I guess if you see only limited sexual harassment in his actions, you might see her accusation as baseless and
I could, of course, be entirely mistaken, in addition to obviously being long winded. It’s really a fascinating, amazing play. Congratulations on the role. Thanks for reading.