*** I've posted some audience reactions/clips that may be of interest to you as/when you answer the questions below. Certainly feel free to comment on them/use them/link them/reference them. I like, and I know a lot of you do as well, video feed and commentary that adds a nicely multidimensional element to the conversation.
Question
1: Marxist theorist Georg Luka´cs, a Russian formalist,
believed that “a detailed analysis of symbols, images, and other literary
devices would reveal class conflict and expose the direct relationship between
the economic base and the superstructure reflected in art. [This is]
known as reflection theory. This approach to literary analysis declares
that a text directly reflects a society’s consciousness . . . For these
theorists, literature is a part of the superstructure and directly reflects the
economic base. By giving a text a close reading, these critics believe they can
reveal the reality of a text and the author’s Weltanschauung, or
worldview. It is the critic’s job to show how the characters within the text
are typical of their historical, socioeconomic setting and the author’s
worldview.”
Using the general idea of
reflection theory, explain how the characters in Oleanna reflect real-world (and American) ideas, problems,
concerns, beliefs (for example, how does the play reveal anxieties about higher
education? The tenure system? How does the play reflect concerns about sexual
harassment in the workplace (its use as a “tool” to advance versus genuine
accusation)? What does the play establish about students coming from a working
class, or as Carol says, “a different social, a different economic” place and
who endure “prejudices” that can be “economic” and “sexual” (among other
things)? Basically, how does the play reflect the position of a lower-class
student whose economic and sexual positions/preferences are outside the
dominant ideal? What does the play establish about exploitation in the
classroom that might mirror what can and does happen to students and
professors? Etc. etc. What do you think the author’s worldview might look like
based purely on Oleanna?
Question
2:
In well known feminist theorist Elaine Showalter’s indictment of Oleanna ("Acts of Violence: David Mamet and the Language of Men"), “In
making his female protagonist a dishonest, androgynous zealot, and his male
protagonist a devoted husband and father who defends freedom of thought, Mamet
does not exactly wrestle with the moral complexities of sexual harassment. What
he has written is a polarizing play about a false accusation of sexual
harassment, and that would be fair enough--false accusations of harassment,
rape and child abuse indeed occur--if he were not claiming to present a
balanced, Rashomon-like case. The disturbing questions about power, gender and
paranoia raised in Oleanna cannot be resolved with an irrational
act of violence.
Essentially, Showalter is saying that the characters are
drawn so extremely that the play doesn’t accomplish what Mamet suggested it
should (he tells us that, no matter who’s side your on, you’re “wrong”, which
suggests their perspectives are presented fairly and in a balanced manner,
making it difficult for us to determine who to favor). What do you think? Using
Showalter’s article, make a determination about the nature of the
protagonist/antagonist relationship here: who’s who?
Question
3: As your text says in the chapter “Character”, “Authors reveal characters
by other means [than words and actions]. Physical descriptions can indicate
important inner qualities; disheveled clothing, a crafty smile, or a blush
might communicate as much as or more than what a character says. Characters can
also be revealed by the words and actions of others who respond to them” (117).
Consider both Carol and John’s clothing, general physical appearance, body
language, and facial expressions. How do these things contribute to their
character development? Consider especially Carol’s changing outfits and
demeanor should you focus on her; you might think about John’s clothing,
mannerisms, and how he moves in his physical space (as well as what that space
looks like) if you focus on John.
Question
4:
Scholar Richard Badenhausen (“The
Modern Academy Raging in the Dark: Misreading Mamet's Political Incorrectness
in Oleanna"), acknowledges that “In discussing the
1992 debut of David Mamet's Oleanna, audiences and critics tended
to highlight two features of the play: its indictment of political correctness
on college campuses in America and its treatment of sexual harassment, an issue
made more potent then by the just-concluded October, 1991, Clarence Thomas
confirmation hearings.1 Both of these timely themes allowed
spectators of varied political persuasions to take up the cause of the Left or
Right via the play's two characters, characters polarized not only in their
gender, but physically, generationally, and educationally.”
However, he argues that, “Oleanna ultimately explores the perils of inferior
teaching and the subsequent misreadings that necessarily follow in a
pedagogical environment that tacitly reinforces (instead of collapsing or
bridging) hierarchical differences amongst its participants. In fact, this is
more a play about teaching, reading, and understanding: how to do those things
well and the consequences of doing them poorly. As such, Oleanna
offers an ominous commentary on education in America and more particularly
functions as a dire warning both to and about those doing the educating.”
Question
5:
J.K Curry (“David Mamet's Oleanna
as Commentary on Sexual Harassment in the Academy”) asserts that "The problem with Oleanna is that it is not really, or not primarily, about sexual harassment at all, ut rather about false allegations. Or, perhaps more accurately, about exaggerated or distorted claims of harassment, for John actually has said or done many of the things in Carol's report, though in slightly different context. The work obscures the issue of sexual harassment by suggesting that sexual harassment is really a ploy of militant feminists to disempower and destroy white, middle-class, male academics. (The article as a whole offers a Marxist/feminist analysis of the play.)
Do you agree with Curry? If so, how and where does the play argue that sexual harassment is simply a tool of disempowerment meant to destroy those with more power and cultural cache (educated white males being a major such group)? Be sure to quote directly from the article.
Question 6: If one of the other articles particularly interested you, discuss it here. To do so, come up with a question about the play (and, you know, type it here) and use the article to answer it. You should of course name the article/author and provide a brief summary of it before you answer it.
No comments:
Post a Comment