Ole, Oleanna

The title ‘Oleanna’ is said to be an allusion to a 19^th century society in Pennsylvania. This society called Oleanna was named after a Norwegian called Ole Bull, a famous violinist and founder of this utopian society. Some say that it was his wife, but according to the website Why Oleanna (http://www.oleannaonbroadway.com/why-oleanna.html) it was his mother that was called Anna, together creating the name Ole-Anna. This man, Ole Bull, wanted to leave his print in America and so he bought 11000 acres of land in Pennsylvania for Norwegian immigrants to settle, in 1852. On this specific land, four fiefdoms were developed and one of them was called Oleanna. Hence, people came in masses to claim the new and free land. Ironically, the land was located in a valley between thick forests, making it unsuitable for farming. The community failed to exist and by the middle of the 1850s the colonists all returned home or settled somewhere else in America.

Shortly after the failure of the community of Oleanna, a satirical folk-song was written in Norwegian about this crisis. It was later translated to English and performed by Pete Seeger, which went a little like this:

The first verse:


Oh to be in Oleanna,

That's where I'd like to be


Than to be in Norway


And bear the chains of slavery.

In the drama itself, David Mamet included this verse as an epigraph to the play, creating an ironic and sarcastic comment about people’s goals in life and their need for more. In striving for something, people loose themselves in ambition and don’t get to be satisfied when they got what they wanted. This can be interpreted into the last line of the play spoken by Carol ‘Yeah… that’s right’. 

Take A Bow

The production of Oleanna that we saw in class was a huge success in terms of direction, staging and characters chosen.

Every little detail and movement made sense in terms of the dialogue. A lot was minor but very significant in terms of interpretation of the script. Considering that the author himself directed this movie, it is no surprise that a lot of thought was put into directing this movie. Sometimes, the camera zooms in on only Carol or John’s face, creating an additive effect to the impact of the lines. Action performed with papers lying around, books in shelves, couches and chairs enhanced the effect of the dialogue. For example when John picks up a chair to throw it at Carol, but holds it in a pose that is at the same time terrifying and exciting because the play has reached its climax and is about to come to a final resolution. Another example of a well directed action is when Carol goes to the shelf to pick up his book and stands behind the movable stairs attached to his small library, which creates some interesting shades and a sense of mystery on her face.

Since the whole play is in dialogue and set in John’s office, the director made a good choice in having intervals of people walking through hallways or throwing in a widescreen shot of the university because it kept the action interesting and versatile. Even the office itself varies throughout the movie. It isn’t that the office gets a renovation or anything like that, but the conversation shifts into different parts and corners of the office that allows the audience to feel like there is movement and progression in the plot and action. The office is well equipped, which, on a stage might not work out this well. On a stage, too many stage props and scenery can distract from the action itself happening on stage.

The casting for the characters was pretty effective. Carol was casted by a young woman with big eyes and round glasses, enhancing the sense of stupidity that relates to her character, especially in the first Act. She is dressed in simple clothes, nothing fancy. Her costume suggests her coming from a less wealthy family, provoking pity and empathy within the audience. Her whole appearance in the first act is perfectly adapted to the impression one gets from reading the first act. She is clearly the student that finds herself in a tricky situation because she doesn’t understand what her professor is talking about in class, something everyone can relate to. In the second act, she adopts a businesswoman-like attitude and appearance. The shift of power is highlighted by the switch in costumes in the second act, that has been well interpreted by the director, even though John’s costume doesn’t significantly change. The difference in age between the two characters is well distinguishable even though it is good that it isn’t too dramatic, so that the sexual references that Carol appears to understand aren’t too absurd coming from her professor.

Overall, the adaptation of the play was good and represented what I had imagined while reading it. 

In Saumya’s blog about the movie and play of Oleanna, she said that she had mixed feelings about the beating at the end and that made me want to talk about it as well. Surprisingly, I felt like the beating was well deserved. When finishing watching the movie I actually felt relieved that it happened because I got so annoyed with her attitude throughout the movie. I realize now that I shouldn’t wish for someone, even if it’s a movie character, to be beaten and I’m a bit ashamed that I feel that way. Maybe that’s an intended effect by the director, that people think about their own feelings in response to watching the movie, which is why I thought it was good that Saumya brought that conflict up. 

MASKS

In drama, masks can be used to characterize the actors on stage. While some are physically present, as in traditions like LeCoq’s mask theatre, most are metaphorical. A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams and Hedda Gabler by Henrik Ibsen use metaphorical masks to characterize the main characters, Blanche Dubois and Hedda Tesman. In A Streetcar Named Desire, Blanche slips into different roles by hiding behind her many masks and in Hedda Gabler, Hedda reveals her personality with her masks, which is portrayed through the stage props, symbols and manipulative diction.