Questions 8-11

8. On the playbill distributed at various performances of Oleanna, theatregoers were treated to TWO rather than the traditional one picture: one featuring Carol, one featuring John. A version of the words “Whatever you think/Whichever side you choose, you’re wrong” was imprinted on the program. What do you make of this statement? What does it mean? Do you agree or disagree?

Playbill propaganda is so fascinating to look at. Producers and directors are able to direct the audience to a specific question for focus during the performance and can in a way influence how the audience perceives the characters and the action. The phrase on the playbill refers to the fact that it is impossible to take sides in a situation such as the one Carol and John find themselves in. A he said/she said struggle with no witnesses and no evidence is almost never concluded justly, or accurately. If one were to side with Carol, we could call her a liberated woman rebelling against white male societal privilege. If we were to side with John, one could say that he is acting in accordance with his prerogative as a teacher trying to reach out to a struggling student. And of course, no matter which stance is taken, the ‘other side’ would rail against that decision and try to convince the audience that their side is right and Carol/John are horrible people with disgusting motives. There is no real way to win in a situation like this one, and I think the play highlights that fact more than anything.

9. Consider Carol’s most serious accusation: “You tried to rape me. According to the law. . . . You tried to rape me. I was leaving this office, you “pressed” yourself into me. You “pressed” your body into me. . . . under the statute. I am told. It was battery. . . . Yes. And attempted rape. That’s right” (728). Discuss your reaction to this accusation. As you do, consider carefully Carol’s addition of “according to the law”. Is she, at some or any level, in the right? Is John right to be undone by this accusation?

I feel that Carol doesn’t fully stand behind the accusations she makes against John. From the interaction between Carol and John in the first act, the audience gathers that Carol has a hard time grasping collegiate level concepts and vocabulary. This second meeting finds Carol armed with a litany of legal terms and an inflated sense of herself, as does the third. When she tells John that he raped her “according to the law”, it feels like her accusations are more disingenuous stabs at the white male establishment than a personally traumatizing experience that she needs to bring to justice. I think Carol felt belittled or demeaned to an extent after the first meeting with John, and she feels the need to retaliate with this lawsuit. The entire reaction is very much overblown and verbose, and I think a lot of that has to do with her experience with her group; not necessarily that they put her up to filing a suit, but that they inflated Carol’s sense of self to the point that she feels a sense of power. Coming from a woman who could not understand a bar graph or the word hazing, her accusations sound more like puppetry than conviction.

10. The first time John orders Carol to leave his office, with some force, he has just called his wife “baby”, a term we have not yet heard in the other one-side conversations to which we are privy. This is significant, as is Carol’s ordering John not to “call [his] wife “baby”’ (728). Why do you think it is this comment that fully engages his wrath and destroys his self-control?

This is not actually the first time we hear John call his wife “baby”, as he refers to her by that moniker in their phone conversation at the end of Act Two, but this is the first time Carol hears John refer to his wife in that manner. I think Carol’s inflated sense of self is again at play in this interaction because she feels that she can manipulate John’s behavior to her own newfound feminist standards. John finally loses his cool because he sees his authority being threatened and after Carol taking away his tenure and house, he is not about to let her take away his authority or dignity by being talked down to. Of course, this is a terribly ironic decision because the second he lays a hand on Carol, John has cemented his loss of power and authority by committing a legitimately enforceable crime.

11. All is decided in terms of John’s career and reputation once he physically attacks her. Carol seems to reiterate as much when she says, “Yes. That’s right. . . . yes. That’s right”’. Theatregoers, time and again, have cheered when John attacks her. Cheering and encouraging the physical attack of a woman on the part of a man is a dangerous maneuver, and much has been made critically about audience’s reactions to this moment. In many ways, though, the act offers a catharsis, and it certainly does provide the resolution to the debate at large here. What do you think of Mamet’s conclusion? Are they both, ultimately, responsible for how things play out? Why or why not?

I guess I’m not enough of a raging feminist, because I can not stand Carol or her characterization, but I don’t know that I would outright applaud anyone being attacked in such a manner. I don’t exactly support John’s actions, but I can definitely understand the motivation behind them. In many ways, both characters are responsible for how the plot movement comes to a head in the final scene. John is at fault for encouraging repeat visits with Carol, and Carol is at fault for acquiescing to the requests. Both characters are guilty of ambiguous or mis-communication from the first meeting, and this causes feelings and emotions to escalate to the point of violence. I think much strife could have been avoided from the outset if clearer communication had transpired between the parties.