The movie of "Oleanna" was very effective in my mind in capturing what happened in the play. It was also interesting to see the last scene because of the differences there. As the play comes to a close John begins to attack and hit Carol. When reading the play I don't think I was as heavily effected by this, however when it occurred in the movie I began to realize how horrible this was. That it was really John losing control and not Carol getting what was coming to her. Seeing happen instead of reading it had a much larger impact on me than it did in the play and I think that reading the play again I begin to see more of the flaws in John that I missed the first time.
Also the ending lines were significantly different from the written play giving them a completely different meaning depending on our interpretation.
Hey Samantha! I agree watching the play helped clarified what was going on. I think that producing this play would be easy; however, doing it well would be difficult because the play can be boring if not done well. There are only two characters and minimal set, this is partly why the play can be confusing. There are barely any stage directions in the playwright which adds an even greater challenge for the actor. This leaves more freedom and interpretation for the director and the actors. The only stage directions that are used in the play is "Phone ringing" and ellipses which cause a pause and more confusion in the play.
ReplyDeleteOne advantage of watching the play is being able to see the visualization. For example, when Carol changes her attire from the first to second act, as you mentioned. There is no cue in the playwright for Carol to dress more assertively; however, if she were to continue to wear her baggy clothes her change in character would be difficult to believe. Visual imagery is an advantage with plays because you force the audience to see it rather than allow them to imagine it.
Back to the "phone ringing". This cue is incredibly important because it causes a break in the conversation and forces the characters to come back to reality. With every ring there is a pause in their conversation which adds to the theme of the inability to communicate between a male and a female, student vs. teacher, and between different age groups. It is the only stage direction that helps the actor and is the most important, and that is why Mamet most likely only used this stage direction because he wanted to emphasis it.
For the ending of the play. The last few lines can be interpreted differently by each individual. By changing the lines it changes the meaning. It can be seen as a reaction or as a thought. It has many different meanings and no answer is wrong. What do you think is one possible meaning for each of the characters respective lines?
I agree with a lot of what you have said about the plays stage directions. I think what the movie added in terms of costume and stage directions really effected the audiences interpretation of some of the scenes in the play.
ReplyDeleteYour discussion of the clothes was one of the more important addition, I think, to the play. Because of the changes we saw in Carol appearance we saw the effect the "group" had on her and Carols growing power in her outfit. I feel a lot of the battle is reflected in their clothes (in the movie) as Johns become sloppier and hers more sophisticated. At the Beginning of the play he is all pulled together and in control and then by the end the roles are swapped and she is the one that appears to have her act together.
As regards to your question the different times I've read it I've understood it differently. I think that the ending is heavily effected by how you've interpreted other interactions between John and Carol, and also by what you've understood of the two characters.