Masking the Truth

 Prompt: Masks can be used literally or metaphorically in drama. Discuss to what extent, masks have been used and for what purpose in A Streetcar Named Desire and Hedda Gabler.

Intoduction

In the world of stage, masks are often used figuratively or literally to camouflage and disguise the true intent or personality of a character, allowing them to manipulate situations and people as a means to an end to great effect. In Tennessee Williams’ A Streetcar Named Desire, and Henrik Ibsens’s Hedda Gabler, the female protagonists Blanche DuBois and Hedda Gabler use metaphorical masks to hide from the real world that they cannot accept or face to create a delusional one. Ironically during this staged play acting façade, they convince not only those around them, but sadly themselves that their illusions are not just mirages. That is until their masks become irretrievably broken down leading to tragic or disastrous consequences. Blanche an ageing beauty on the brink of insanity and a closet alcoholic, having lost her wealth, youth, position in society and her first love finds herself clinging to her past and clutching at straws to desperately find a gullible husband to free her from her misery.  Blanche’s mask hides her vulnerability, fear, and ultimately her unsavory past until she is exposed  to be a conniving drunk whose mental instability sends her to the asylum. Hedda, coming from a wealthy background, masculine and independent in outlook feels trapped in an age where women are mere pretty props.  Similarly, Hedda’s mask  disguises her isolation from society as she cannot conform to their ideals and her unhappiness in a loveless marriage until unable to hold onto the charade she kills herself with the gun that symbolizes her freedom and past. Williams and Ibsen utilize varying literary devices to illustrate their protagonists’ masks.

Topic Sentence 1: The Mask of Darkness

In  A Streetcar Named Desire a dimly lit room is used as a metaphor of a fading beauty and serves to hide not only the age of Blanche but to mask her eyes and face so they cannot betray her feelings and emotions.

In Hedda Gabler, the drawing of the curtains by Hedda is a  metaphor not only for the staged act she is playing as an actress but to shut out the world riddled by societies restraints that she abhors, and acts as her cloak of misery and darkness.

Topic Sentence 2: The Mask of Femininity.

In A Streetcar Named Desire, uses her feminine wiles backed with stage like hair, make up and clothes, to pretend to be a high society lady, with airs and social graces to trap a husband using these masks as a cover for her actual immoral activity and feisty, independent self.

In Hedda Gabler, Hedda plays up her femininity and acts as the perfect wife and hostess, as she re-arranges her flowers and furniture which acts as a metaphor for her frustration and the change in her life she craves, all the while masking her entrapment as she hides her true self symbolized by guns locked in a drawer.

Topic Sentence 3: The Mask of Illusions.

In A Streetcar Named Desire, Blanche uses fabricated story telling to create an illusion and myth that she has a life filled with admirers and high society parties to mask her downtrodden actual lonely self.

In Hedda Gabler, Hedda uses conversation to illustrate story telling to create an illusion of a well settled homely character with a caring attitude to mask her disillusioned, depressed self.

Oleanna - Reel vs. Real

I recently saw the movie, Carnage, by Roman Polanski (a movie adaptation of the play ‘God of Carnage’ by Yasmin Reza). Like Oleanna movie, it dealt with complex human relationships and blame games of a situation and was set mostly in the confines of a living room with four characters. Interestingly both movies ended up with people playing football in the park perhaps to denote that life goes on beyond the musty cobwebs of emotional verbal entanglements. While Mamet is no Oscar winning Polanski I felt his direction was compelling and drew you in like a thriller, rather than the drama as intended by the original play. The movie though slow and pedantic, a little staged  at first ( not for the usual Friday night cinema goers), began to pick up pace  from normality to highly charged primitive insanity. The discerning movie buff needs to look underneath the complex layers to see the subtle nuances beyond the script as related to all human misunderstandings and miscommunication to make an impact.

 I was surprised to find out that the playwright was also the director and screenplay writer of the movie as most hand over that mantle to others. In that sense the movie must be a true representation of the writers vision and came across so except in the ending when John beats up Carol before picking up the chair and says “ Oh my God “. I wonder why Mamet decided to change this from the original play. Perhaps he succumbed to pressure that a movie needed more dramatic action and shock factor. However, while I think the extra three words shows John’s  remorse and self realization of what he has done out of character from his normal sense, I think just putting the chair down as the original has more effect. Further, her response to his final elipsed word “ well…”  which is  “  Yes that’s right” changes in context now from the play. In the play  there is ambiguity in her words but in the movie her rebuttal is an affirmation of his wrongdoing and makes Carol revengeful and self righteous and downright smug as she celebrates her victory which flaws the movie. In the original context it appears that no one wins and both are left disillusioned. In fact both play and movie still leave us with the question of who are the traditional protagonist and antagonist. Perhaps John is the hero and Carol his foil or maybe nemesis? Or is Carol the heroine and John the villain ?  There is room for interpretation and debate.What do you think ?

The movie has definite rhythm and pace in its dialogue delivery and both actors do a commendable job in bringing the characters to life. The movie succeeds in its auditory capacity as tone changes with shouted words revealing greater insight into mood than the script alone. The script is annoying to read with its broken elipsed sentences and in this cannot compete with the movie.

The script and dialogue show the transformation of the characters and their role reversal; Carol from meek, confused, immature student  to confident, self assured assertive woman and John from conceited, condescending  but still caring and affable stressed professor of high stature to harrowed, insecure and aggressive man. Words are used effectively to mirror this change from high end vocabulary from John that Carol does not understand such as “predicliction” showing his status of mature academic to basic and primal profanity of “ bitch” akin to hoodlum talk.  However, for a brief point there is an equilibrium that boils over to events going out of control. The movie enhanced this metamorphosis visually with the costume design. At first Carol is in a coat showing a student devoid of funds or style to a business like suit. Her clothes a form of power dressing shows she means business and will not tolerate nonsense from her former superior. On the other hand John dressed as the conservative, respectable academic turns into a disheveled drunk. Roles of student and professor are broken down, gender and status and age become irrelevant as they face each other as two sparring equals in the climax. What was interesting and not in the play was when John looked at his ripped bleeding shirt and seemed shocked at how he had got to this point, and how did it all go wrong. The pristine shirt may be a metaphor for his ruined life.

As far as film techniques I am pretty sure I noticed the shadow of the camera on the door which is a major goof up. That aside at times the camera moves into the face of John highlighting his confusion in an otherwise confident demeanor, but Carol remains an enigma and is difficult to decide if she is delusional and naive  or cruelly manipulative. Subtle camera movements move along the storyline and maintain momentum of the events and dialogue. However I felt the film was dimly lit by the lighting people and full of shadows perhaps to add to the claustrophobia of the restrictive settting, but the cinematographer mostly does not allow us to see the eyes of the character leading to ambiguity of motive and intentions and echo the dark theme. But then again this pattern of one setting of the play is broken by short periods out such as John in his hotel room which takes away Mamet’s original intent of feeling trapped. When he takes the final phone call and reacts to her comment not to call his wife “baby” reveal a very ominous and evil look on his face foreshadowing his reaction and intent.

The University office was as I imagined musty, old fashioned and masculine with woodwork and book shelves like a library revealing the elitest world of higher learning that was once just a male domain. Tearing down of the book shelves could be a metaphor for tearing down the establishment.

All in all the pros out weigh the cons and bring the written word alive with music adding to the mystique. And whether you root for the hapless yet haughty professor or the conniving and annoying Carol caught in her feministic tirade is irrelevant. What is important to note is how difficult it is even for two level headed, educated people to communicate.  Words the crux of education and academia fall by the way side and the most primal instincts take over where communication happens through violence. The movie and the play are both thought provoking, provocative and disturbing but are realistic as it is controversial. And finally we need to note the adage that there are three sides to every story: his, hers and the truth !

Theme in Oleanna - A Dangerous Mind

Oleanna, though simplistic in approach with only two visible characters is actually deceptively complex with several themes that are related to one another. It is difficult to point out one main theme but I feel political correctness / feminism/ gender power struggles, generation gap lack of communication  and society expectations as primarily used in the theme of higher education are central themes. Mamet uses several literary devices to illustrate his themes including allusions, motifs, setting, language and diction, tone and to some extent symbolism.

I have discussed allusions of the prologues and its meaning in my last blog , “Its just an Allusion “ so I won’t elaborate further here but the extract and folk song reflect conforming to societies expectations of which higher education is one aspect. Young people buy into the notion that they need to go to college to obtain status symbols to show they have succeeded such as a good job, house, car, family life that represents normality and respectability. Carol who has undergone hardships in her family background and financial hindrances has bought into the dream that college is her ticket to improve her status. However, failing and not understanding in class she feels she is stupid and is letting down society who will condemn her. Ironically John scoffs at the benefits of the brain washing of higher education and even publishes a book about it  and still with hypocrisy of entering the teaching profession wants a promotion to have the house he wants and give his children the benefits of the right school.

Mamet uses setting of the dusty academic office of the professor through out the play. I feel this room which though not described I imagine as small musty and windowless lined with book shelves is the oppression of the education system that kills free thinking and only wants students to regurgitate facts parrot fashion. Actually both John and Carol are victims of societies expectations and the room represents their incarceration of a jail that they cannot break free from.

Following on from this is the motif of Carol’s notes. She unable to answer John’s questions and despite his pleas to stop looking at her notes she is unable to do so. She clings to her notes like a crutch and will foreshadow her intent by writing down what he says so she is sure she can remember it correctly. She does not make her own decisions but follows the rule book and her note book is her Bible that she worships as the gospel truth. She is frustrated though that despite note taking and despite reading John’s book and despite attending class she is not absolved and does not understand. The motif could also be symbolic with religious connotations of the good girl who goes to church and yet God (the college or professor) does not reward her but instead gives her penance. She begs John not to punish her with a low grade as her faith is strong and she has abided by his rules. The written word as truth appears many times in this play whether it be John’s book, Carol’s notes, the legal notice, lack of tenure committee promotion in writing and her paper which is attacked as meaningless.

There is the theme also of power struggles in the form of student teacher relationship bordering on the generation gap and also male female power struggles related to feminism and sexual harassment.

The desk I think represents a great divide which shows that initially John is in the powerful position and Carol is the subordinate. John with his decision of Carol’s grade controls her future. However, the desk becomes irrelevant when in the third act Carol takes over control and has the power to destroy John’s perfect life or forgive him. In the final act in frustration he takes his throne (chair ), or seat of power and threatens to fling it at Carol symbolizing her audacity at her figuratively taking away his position or seat of power.

Language, tone and diction are used to signify the differences in their status. At first John is condescending in his tone and treats Carol like a little lost girl who he will save. Ultimately John becomes the little lost boy that Carol can save. Carol cannot understand his academic difficult words such as “predilection” ( ironically John does not fully understand  “term of art” and may resort to hard words to prove his superiority). Word play to show power is used effectively by Mamet through out the play. John claims not to be Carol’s father but goes on to try and exert authority in a personal manner more akin to a father giving a sermon to a daughter. And here lies John’s mistake he breaks the formality of student teacher relation and tries to become personal which is interpreted by Carol as sexual harassment. The interruptions of Carol by John reveal,  his reluctance to listen to her and comes to a head with her screaming that she is “SPEAKING “. The interruptions and the choppy half sentences show John’s lack of respect towards Carol and vice versa.

Ultimately there is a huge communication gap between Carol and John as a theme and neither try to understand each other despite their futile attempts and pleas from both sides of wanting to understand. The communication gap could be social differences, gender or generational. The telephone which is the only access to the outside world serves as a powerful motif to interrupt their dialogue in mid sentence. It shows that John has an outside life and is a real grown up with real grown up problems. John constantly putting Carol on hold even rudely not waiting to hear what she has never told anyone else belittles her leaving her feeling small and marginalized.  Carol’s problems are trivialized as psychological  growing pains that she will grow out of while his telephonic conversations highlight his very real non imagined problems. The group that Carol on the other hand talks about simply serves as an imagined authority figure that controls her thoughts in a parental way showing her immaturity and clinging to approval. I feel John should have not taken the calls or either re-scheduled his meeting with Carol as his half hearted juggling of his student and personal issues do little justice to either and simply show his weaknesses to a student that undermines his authority which will be taken advantage of cunningly by Carol. Interestingly though Carol and John are alike, trying to get approval and fit into societies’ norm, they both struggle with their insecurities. John in his calls has lost control of his future in his house buying plans and in his waiting for the tenure committee decision and Carol has lost control of her future at college which determines her future life’s success. They are both on the cusp of success but are afraid will not attain it. Ultimately John offers her help by granting an A and bending the rules which does not appease her and is misunderstood in intent and Carol in turn negotiates a deal related to her retraction of her complaint that leads to the final lack of communication in his violent outburst.

In final consideration with the theme of feminism Carol acts as a living caricature symbol of the Political Correct movement. She corrects him in the final act taking the mantle of power away from John. . Ultimately  male/ female stereotypes and power struggles come into play climaxing with Carol deriding John for calling his wife “ baby” which she sees not as a term of endearment or love but his authority over his wife. John in his naiveté has been oblivious that his actions could be interpreted as predatory and though the allegations (which Carol sees not as allegations but fact) are extreme and far removed as being actual rape the fact they are taken seriously as the burden of proof is on John  shows the great divide in communication and understanding  between men and women.

Whether you agree with John or Carol is opinion based but ultimately both appear as victims caught in their own misconceptions and insecurity and both ultimately abuse their power and control over each other leading to an ugly climax show down preceded by dangerous mind games.

It's Just an allusion...

At first glance the prologue quotations in David Mamet’s play Oleanna seem to offer no parallels or significance to the play or direct comparisons, and that is what makes it such an interesting choice for Mamet, in that it allows the reader food for thought and musings. There is ambiguity and interpretation and provocation and his prologue choice in fact reflects his character development and his style of writing. There is realism in his work as in real life real people do not always expose their true emotions or intent and we are left wondering. The same can be said of his play that relies on acting and reading between the lines and not just the dialogue which has pause, false starts, unfinished sentences and down right rude interruptions.

However, on ponderings I have come up with the following interpretations on the allusions used :

The first prologue, The way of All Flesh, by Samuel Butler,

“ The want of fresh air does not seem much to affect the happiness of children in a London alley: The greater part of them sing and play as though they were on a moor in Scotland. So the absence of a genial mental atmosphere is not commonly recognized by children who have never known it. Young people have a marvelous faculty of either dying or adapting themselves to circumstances. Even if they are unhappy – very unhappy –it is astonishing how easily they can be prevented from finding it out, or at any rate from attributing to any other cause than their own sinfulness.” (Mamet 4).

The extract could almost be a patriarchal monologue straight from the superior position of professorial power of John to his ‘ child’ or student, Carol. The passage reflects his general feelings towards not just Carol on a personal level but on a broader level to the student body in the first act.  John preaches to Carol that she is overwrought of her lack of understanding in his classes and her low grades as she has been sucked in by the common school of thought and society dictates that she must do well in this environment or fail at large. Society tells us that the  annals and corridors of the prestigious school of learning are for the privileged few and they grasp at this idea as if the gates to University are the pearly gates of heaven. However, they are stupid mindless children who know no better just like the waifs who play in London’s alleys and do not miss fresh air. In fact the ivory tower they are ensconced in are not the real world but a fake illusion which they feel by succeeding in will bring fame and riches. Carol quotes from John’s book which she does not understand or grasp but reiterates John’s assumption that University is, “ virtual warehousing of the young”. (Mamet 12). This I believe though not fully explained in the play means that higher education actually does not allow free thinking or freedom of thought or creativity. It teaches robotic learning and so the system is in fact a joke as instead of nurturing and developing young minds it stunts mental growth and is more harmful than beneficial.  It is controlling and brain washing and produces ‘ yes men’ who follow rules rather than entrepreneurs who are pioneers. ( famous college drop outs like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs may well agree).  This “ garbage “ is shown when John tells Carol to stop looking at her notes but to think for herself, to give an opinion. However, Carol at this point is unable to do so as she desperately clutches to her notes as a crutch. This derision of the institution of college is far more directly marginalized by.

“Look the tests, you see, which you encounter, in school, in college, in life were designed in the most part for idiots. By idiots There is no need to fail them. They are not a test of your worth. They are a test of your ability to retain and spout back information. Of course you fail them. They’re nonsense “ (Mamet 18). 

However, instead of making Carol feel better John makes Carol feel more desperate and confused. Similarly the prologue quotation says that children will survive and adapt and attribute any happiness to their own failure and self worth and ability rather than the environment or system. They blame themselves in the alley as does Carol in these corridors. She is trapped in a windowless professors office unable to appreciate the beautiful day as she is wrapped up her grades which do not define her but is a burden and pressure which she happily accepts. She is angry with John that he insults her entering the college and has destroyed her hopes and aspirations by mocking what she has worked to achieve and overcome in terms of her social and financial background. Again reinforcement of these ideas is brought out in the first act by John who dominates and controls the conversation with describing college as “ hazing “ which is explained as “ Does it educate? In no sense. Well then, what is higher education? It is something-other—than-useful” (Mamet 21).  “  This leads us to why does Carol have this pressure and burden and I feel this can be summed in one word ‘Society’ which leads us to the second quotation.

“ Oh to be in Oleanna,

That’s where I would rather be.

Than be bound in Norway

And drag the chains of slavery”.

The above quote is an extract ( first verse ) from a satirical folk song originally in Norwegian. This obscure allusion refers mockingly to a perfect Utopian community ( Oleanna) in New Norway in Pensylvannia, America  as created by its founder Ole Bull in the nineteenth century .The community though at first flooded with settlers due to opportunity and free land eventually failed as the land acquired with immense forests in narrow valleys  were not conducive to farming and cultivation. Mamet alludes that the valleys of Oleanna are like the corridors of the university who lure with scholarships and great promises  but ironically does not  deliver or cultivate minds and students do not reap what they sow in a farming metaphor. You could say funnily enough that their minds cannot see the woods for the trees !!!  Ironically again students think their minds are free in college where in reality they are slaves shackled to the system that bounds them stripping them of power or rights or free will.

Society sets rules and expectations  ( college, married, good job, 2.5 children ), and if we deviate from this we cannot achieve acceptance. Carol by getting a possible bad grade feels she has failed in society and cannot come to terms with this failure and with self loathing she blames herself as she quotes her paper and exclaims in self disgust;

“ That’s right. That’s right. I know I’m stupid. I know what I am. I know what I am Professor. You don’t have to tell me. Its pathetic. Isn’t it ? “ ( Mamet 14). ( note: ironically she ends the play with “ that’s right “ with far more confidence than her non confident whimpering here ).

Carol is carrying a bag full of the burden of expectation on her tender young shoulders and she is drowning under those expectations.  ( though we will find out as alluded in the first quote she will not die but adapt).  She has been conditioned and has conformed. She carries further a chip on her shoulder that she does not belong in an elitist establishment due to her social and financial impediments and hence sits at the back of the class she feels unnoticed and unwanted. She is a victim of her own illusions and dreams that she has readily bought into. If she fails she will not be able to live her dream life in a perfect society. Ironically even John who pretends to be above the rules and despises rules and authority is also bound to it. His dream home, child’s future and marriage depends on the Tenure committee decision for his promotion  ( and at the end on Carol’s forgiveness and retractment ) as does Carol’s on her grades. Further, Carol does not have the ability to act or think like an individual as she hides behind society, tenure committee, her group ( possibly a feminist movement ) and even claims she has to tell the truth of her perceived sexual harassment not for her gain but for her responsibility to the other students and college. She also believes it must be true if they have accepted it as such. Strangely Carol wants to fit in as a “ paradigm “ of society ( though she does not know what that means) and through conflict there is a power shift where the teacher becomes the student divided by a desk that represents the power struggle.

In fact there can never be a perfect society like Oleanna and it exists only as an illusion or unattainable dream. We are all just trying to fit in and chase rainbows. Who is the victim in this play is opinion based but clearly empathy lies with the hapless professor who paid for his help and advice. In actual fact, John and Carol are alike and are both victims of that dream and their own insecurity which drives them. Mamet in a clever choice of allusions defines this theme.

Dexter, Gary. “How Books Got Their Titles.” Oleanna. Web. 18 Apr. 2012. <http://garydexter.blogspot.in/2009/04/62-oleanna-by-david-mamet.html.>