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. 

Blog Portfolio

Coverage

1. Sexism
2. Somebody to Love
3. Love and other Drugs
4. Rien A Voir
5. Set Design
6. Show Goes On
7. Super Bass
8. 1, 2, 3
9. Complicated

Depth:

For my depth post, I used my blogpost Love and Other Drugs. I went into depth by analyzing the music in A Streetcar Named Desire. I researched the topic and carefully looked through the book.

Interaction:

I discussed an idea that Saumya touched upon in her blogpost Pay no Rent in my blogpost Somebody to Love

Discussion:

Saumya and I had a discussion on my blogpost Super Bass where we debate about Scoop being an antagonist or not and we think together and come to some conclusions for ourselves.

Xenoblogging:

I expressed some criticism on Saumya's blogpost Art in Heidi.

Wildcard

I assessed the importance of communication in my wildcard Let't talk. Do you wanna talk?. 

Let's talk. Do you wanna talk?

Plains are the safest public transports on the planet but when they crash, it tends to be tragic and we have to look for the cause of the accident. Now, most of the times causes like ‘ran out of fuel’ or ‘engines broke’ are listed, even though the real reason is much simpler than that: communication. Reading the chapter ‘The Ethnic Theory of Plane Crashes’, made me realize how complex our communications are and how they can be a question of life or death. I often think that if we were better at communicating, we would avoid so many problems in our lives: misunderstanding, fights, secrets, hurt feelings. And it goes on and on and on. Until we come to the plane crashes, and we realize that we might have to ameliorate our talking skills. It drives me mad really, to hear that 250 people could die just because the pilot and his first commander didn’t communicate in an efficient matter. Who are we not to speak up when we’re supposed to? How can we keep secrets that lead to misunderstandings which lead to hurt feelings? Leaving the plane crashes aside, communication used to be much simpler a few dozen of years ago. My grandmother often tells me about those times where phones and internet as we know it didn’t exist. Ignoring the fact that boys used to bring a girl home after they went on a date (not sure if communication is the sole reason for that), misleading conversations and false information was avoided by the phenomena called talking. Internet couldn’t show them any upsetting gossip on Facebook, and life in general just seemed to be simpler (excluding the fact that most of the countries were destroyed from the war and had to regain their pride and wealth).  When you don’t give it a thought, talking seems like the simplest thing out there. Talking to someone about something specific on the other hand causes difficulties in some situations. I feel like nowadays we don’t even know how to talk, we feel awkward even though there’s nothing to feel awkward about! The first commander who didn’t speak up to his boss because he didn’t dare question the pilot’s commands: what a waste of awkwardness (and of human lives as we find out reading on). When brought up, knowledge issues confuse my perception of the world as well as me. I do comprehend now, that I can’t judge any pilot for lacking a clear sense of communication because I for myself don’t know what that means. Society might be the questioned factor here, but who are we to blame it on our surroundings when we’re the only ones who can make a difference for ourselves.

Complicated

The article ‘Hedda as “Modern Woman”’ by William Archer is an analysis of Hedda’s character in Hedda Gabler. The review highlights some interesting points about Hedda being a modern woman because she is so indefinable and unpredictable. The author writes that modern women are full of the ‘pettinesses, the peculiarities, the inconsistencies, the contradictions’ that we are today. Hedda is described as weak and strong, capricious and determined, petty and powerful, yet always herself, always real. This writer sees Hedda as someone complicated and yet beautiful. He has a point when he says that the various aspects to her make her a real person that is hard to define in one term like Shakespeare’s heroines.

When I read the book I personally just thought that Hedda was a bad person, a mean person. She strives to manipulate everyone around her and doesn’t care if anyone gets hurt. She sticks to her beliefs, yes, but who in their right mind would actually go so far as to give a gun to someone and tell them to ‘make it beautiful’. She is happy when she hears that Lövborg killed himself and sad when she hears that he didn’t do it intentionally. She clearly has some kind of psychological problem that she doesn’t know how to deal with. She shoots herself, not considering the baby that she carries in her belly. I understand that people would go to extremes to not be dependent of a man, but who willingly kills their baby too? She is someone who is too arrogant and too self-obsessed to compromise and talk about thinks or figure things out before taking action. She doesn’t know what it means to love someone and she doesn’t know what it means to get over something. A minute a woman shows interest in a man that she had long forgotten, she willing goes and destroys her life. She seriously has some issues. I know that she is a complex and interesting character that deserves that she is analyzed and understood and found fascinating but I just cannot relate to her. It seems as though she doesn’t know what she wants either: she fools around and as William Archer says, is sometimes weak, sometimes strong and above all contradictory. If she was so true to her beliefs and motifs, she shouldn’t be so flaky. 

1, 2, 3

Scoop verses Stanley.

        

Scoop is Heidi’s antagonist. He thinks with his hormones and is very overpowering. At the same time he is smart and calculating. He doesn’t just do something irrationally but thinks it through. Stanley is more impulsive in his actions. He likes to just let loose or get drunk and yell at people. He even rapes (or at least overpowers) Blanche, which is something Scoop would not do. He is more the type of guy that tries to seduce a woman verbally. At the beginning of the Heidi Chronicles he provokes Heidi so much that she goes for him even though it clearly looks like she despises him. He has a way of irritating women and challenging them intellectually in order to get their attention. Stanley isn’t characterized as a very smart person. He is there with his polish/southern accent and people focus more on his body than on what he has to say. He isn’t dumb, as he figures out that there is something wrong with Blanche and that she’s lying about her situation, but he tends to repeat the words he thinks sound smart, as for example ‘acquaintance’.

Another characteristic feature of Scoop’s is that he likes to rate things on a scale of A to F, showing that he’s had experience with education and is shaped in a way that he rates a value of each thing while talking. Stanley on the other hand hasn’t gone to university and is said to be very simple and not greatly wealthy or educated.

Something that does make them similar is that they have a way of being involved with at least two women in the story. They seem irresistible and THE man to have disregarding their unfortunate character traits. They are both involved with the protagonist, but they aren’t exactly happy together in the end. Stanley and Scoop are in a way antagonist because they oppose the protagonist’s ideas and lead them to failure.

Two men, two different characters, but they’re still very similar. There’s just something about their rudeness and lack of sensibility towards a woman that makes them look alike.