Oleanna by David Mamet - Literature review Example

Defending John in the case of him being right and Carol being wrong At the beginning of the play, John, a is in his office talking over the phone. He does not readily accept to help Carol with her inquiries but only does so grudgingly. He merely listens to what she has to say and is uninterested in the matter. This is evident from the fact that although she tries to explain to him her concerns about the choice of literature used, he constantly interrupts her with polite comments and by answering the phone. He does not seem to appreciate her presence and replies to her queries with complicated language that she does not easily understand, this is despite Carol asking him to stop being so formal and use language that she can easily understand. In response to this, John becomes more condescending and Carol breaks down (Mamet, 21). Like any other individual, John becomes sympathetic at the sight of carol begging him to understand her situation and offer any kind of help. To calm her down he does what many other people could have done in that situation, he puts him arm round her and agrees to help her with her studies. This action did not have any hidden meaning but was sympathetic in nature. Carol knew very well that if she brought out certain displays of emotion she would induce feelings of guilt from the professor. Women were traditionally referred to as the weaker sex and she was taking advantage of this perception to obtain favors from the professor. From the beginning of their conversation, it was clear that John’s mind was elsewhere and he did not really care about what Carol had to say, but she persisted until she pretended to break down so that he could be more sympathetic. Later on, Carol comes back to the office and accuses John of having sexually assaulted her. At this point, her mode of dressing is manly and she is more serious than in the previous scene. It is clear that she knew the effect that her mode of dressing might have on the professor and therefore she wears manly clothing so that she appears more serious. John is seeking tenure of employment (Mamet, 5). For one to be granted tenure of employment there are certain conditions that have to meet by the professor. The professor has to constantly engage in scholarly activities and maintain conduct befitting a tutor. All these factors are reviewed on a yearly basis by a committee and only when these conditions have been met can the professor be granted tenure. Given that John was looking forward to being granted his tenure, he must have been very careful to ensure that he meets all the conditions of the committee and would not readily do anything that would jeopardize this opportunity. To him, Carol was just someone in need and he had no intention of a personal relationship with her. From the beginning, Carol views John as an opponent. She complains about his teaching style and the choice of books that he has chosen to be used. She has already set her mind that they cannot be on equal sides with the professor. When she claims that she was sexually assaulted by the professor it is a clear indication that to her, John is the enemy and she has to use all necessary means to ensure that he is removed from the position he holds (Mamet, 37). At this point, she does not even want to know what he has to say and any attempt at a confrontation results in her crying out for help. She fully understands the implications that such an action will have and is not scared of doing. It is obvious from the very start that her main intention is to bring down the professor and strip him of his job. When Carol confronts him she does not do it as an individual but with the help of her group. Throughout their argument she makes reference to this group as if the whole thing had been planned beforehand. Later on, she says that she can drop all the rape charges that she plans to file if he can make certain amendments to his lesson plan and even remove his own book from the list of those availed for references to the students. This cements the fact that all along there was a motive to the actions of carol and nothing that happened was an accident. All she wanted to do was to corner the professor and use his position to instill fear in him so that he could do whatever she wanted him to do. Carol tells him, her group has an agenda, she states, “I am not interested in your motivations or your feelings, but your actions” (Mamet, 23). This shows that there was something that she expected to achieve from her confrontation with the professor and all her actions were directed towards achieving that goal. In both occasions, when John confronts Carol, it is out of anger and this is a common human reaction. This is because she attempts to manipulate him and when he realizes this he attacks her and beats her. It is correct to say that Carol got what she deserved because she had also threatened the livelihood of the professor and did not seem to care what impact her actions might have on his life. John tells Carol, “You are dangerous, you are wrong and it is my job…to say no to you,” (Mamet, 46). John realizes that even though carol might have an influence on him from what she has done, the final action depends on him and he can make things right, although this might have a negative impact on his career and family life. Through out the play, carol is invasive and does not have any boundaries in regards to how she interacts with the professor (Mamet, 34). When the phone rings when both of them are in the office, she wants to know who is on the other end of the line and goes ahead to tell the professor not to refer to his wife as ‘baby.’ This is of no concern to her and she is just being a nuisance to John. This action makes John realize that carol has crossed the line of decency and has invaded into his personal space. It appears that they now have something against each other and each will have to try and defend his position as forcefully as they can. It is surprising to note that despite her actions, carol becomes angry at the professor and tells him that even though he has worked hard for power that comes with his position there is no justification for him to insult her. This is ironical because it is Carol who went to the professor and asked for some help. The professor was very comfortable before she came into the picture and his concern was focused on matters with his wife and the tenure that he expects to receive. From the actions and behavior of Carol, it is important that she was intruding into the personal space of John and like any other individual it is expected that he would defend his position. This is made difficult by the fact that Carol appears to gain strength over the course of the play and the professor cannot cut her off like he did in earlier stages of the play. The two characters come from different levels of the society and therefore it is expected there will be a miscommunication between them. John as the professor expects some level of respect from his students and will not tolerate any bad attitude from them. He is justified because he is their tutor and from his experience he knows best what they require in their coursework. On the other hand, carol only wants to gain favor so that she does not have to read the books that are outlined. There is therefore no justification whatsoever for her actions. A close analysis of the play shows that John, the professor is guilty of all the charges that were leveled against him and like any other individual his actions were aimed at protecting himself, his position and his career. Works cited Mamet, David. Oleanna. New York: Vintage Books, 1993. Internet resource. Read More