Do You See? | The Moral Panic of David Mamet's Oleanna

[@oltedders]

Thomas should never have been confirmed. A massive coordinated hit job perpetrated on Anita Hill.

[@ProuvaireJean]

It certainly wouldn't happen today, or in - say - 2018. Oh wait...

[@rishabhanand4973]

It's an abomination that thurgood marshall got replaced by Clarence fucking Thomas

[@latrapp4641]

And don’t forget Biden’s role in his nomination. The chickens have come home to roost and women are paying the price.

[@latrapp4641]

Oh yeah. I’m still voting for Biden because I’m not stupid.

[@dontcare3430]

​@@latrapp4641 Joe is a centralist. He's there to continue the game. One of the long term players, like Mitch, Chucky G. And the list goes on.

[@SheeplessNW6]

With the current fad for AI, I wish Microsoft would create a new Clippy-style writer's assistant. Its sole task would be to pop up and say "you seem to be writing a protagonist who's a middle-aged male college professor. Try not to make him an obvious mouthpiece for your real-life fears and grievances, ok?"

[@Mallory-Malkovich]

The capacity of our society to take a problem raised by women and affecting women and turn it into an exploration of the fears of men is a persistent facet of patriarchy. Male insecurity is too often prioritized over actual real threats women face, and it's a little embarrassing that after 30 (or 60, or 100) years we are still unable to even look that problem in the eye.

[@alarcon99]

Perfect observation 🥇

[@christophermeade1532]

Well Said.

[@stephengiunta1564]

Same going on today in Florida classrooms. Moms for Liberty attacking innocent elementary school teachers.

[@NovaPolitte]

About 20 years ago in one of my uni writing classes were given the assignment of critiquing Oleana. In my first submitted draft I discovered moments before handing it in that I had referred to the protagonist as "David" in every instance. I quickly scrawled a note at the top of the first page admitting my error and that of course it would be fixed in the final copy. The prof handed it back later with his own note beneath reading: "completely understandable mistake, considering."

[@PoopHobbit]

Wow this exchange is the essay I was fully incapable of articulating as a sophomore in college

[@ShinGallon]

"A great artist ought to know better" is the best summation of this play/movie I can think of.

[@seaoftranquility7228]

Man, where did you come from? Started watching your “if they said the quiet part out loud” sketches not so long ago and I was impressed by the depth that underlined the comedy. This was excellent. Fun fact: Mamet’s original title for the play was “Look What You Made Me Do” but his publisher thought it was too ‘on the nose’. That’s probably not true.

[@bgw33]

Steve, the variety of your content means you are my favorite channel. Retired college prof here. Always have your office door open. Always! Unless of course if you are alone.❤

[@mugemobi]

Ever had someone in a position of control, who was stronger than you stand between you and the exit to a room? Scary. And when they get even a bit physical it goes from scary to terrifying. Don't ever do this to someone, please.

[@were-owlinwisconsin4441]

No, but I've experienced a weird inversion of that scenario - somebody who was smaller than me, and THOUGHT they were an authority figure, tried to get between me and the end of a hallway while screaming at me over an imagined offense. I'm pretty sure she was also trying to provoke me into getting violent so she could play the victim card.

[@seannyhan2254]

Ended up liking both the comment and your response. I've had both happen to me, and neither one was a picnic.

[@kaitlyn__L]

I had that happen in a doctors examination office once. He didn’t let me leave, and unfortunately it went much further than that. (I made an official complaint, but his lawyers got me disregarded as “too emotional”.)

[@SPDYellow]

That's something to point out. The idea that it never occurs to the male protagonist that he shouldn't grab a woman and drag her around, then refuse to let her leave the room...wanna bet dollars to donuts that this character wouldn't dream of doing this to a male character? I mean most of us are familiar with the idea of personal space and how you generally shouldn't violate it without someone's consent, unless there are extenuating circumstances, like you need to pull them away, so they don't get hit by a bus or something. Yet somehow, men just keep forgetting this basic principle when they're around women for entirely unfathomable reasons. In fact, whenever men wargle-bargle about how they don't know how to act around female employees or colleagues and how can anyone know what's appropriate anymore, there's one good question that should come up: would they behave this way towards a fellow man or a woman who's in a position of power over them? Because chances are they wouldn't, meaning that these men know exactly what constitutes appropriate behavior, and they choose to be creeps.

[@normative]

I think in a way Steve’s description of that first act scene shows how insidiously the play operates: A professor putting his hands on a much smaller female student and physically blocking her from leaving his office is not a minor or trivial offense! It would be properly grounds for discipline if not termination at just about any university. It’s ONLY relative to the clearly false accusation of rape that a viewer might be tempted to retrospectively say “well gosh, it wasn’t THAT bad.”

[@ssatva]

This was making me uncomfortable, and it seems out of character for this channel. I was reading it due to it's placement and cadence as a critique of the story as Mamet intended it to be read, but that reading broke down at a couple points. I was left unsettled but still trying to read it that way, and this comment clarified the discomfort, so thank you.

[@nielsjensen4185]

Even transformative diction is written with the norms of the time in the subconscious mind of the creator. That it's described the way it is is less an indication of the play and more an accolade that our current understanding is a lot better than it was 40 years ago.

[@ThePlayTyperGuy]

Yes, Mamet has manipulated the audience by this point because the student has already "unfairly" escalated the original complaint. The average, reasonable liberal-minded person embraces the concept of a "punishment fitting the crime." It's why we think Jean Valjean's life shouldn't have been destroyed because he stole some bread. And this applies to even less sympathetic crimes -- we don't think shoplifters should lose their hands or actual rapists should lose their genitalia. The original complaint made should have only triggered a relaxed, "what can we learn from this?" and how can we modify our behavior conversation. It should not have jeopardized Macy's career but the play needs life or death stakes, so we get the second act scene, in which the professor behaves poorly (he should've never touched her or demanded that she speak to him, etc).

[@Nariasan]

I've always had a profound dislike for Mammet specifically because of how he writes women. When I studied performance and we had to do a Mammet scene or play, I would always roll my eyes _"here we go again!"_ Thank you for this video and bringing out the nuances that people can't see.

[@pureflix8086]

For sure. Because I _definitely_ didnt see it😬

[@ThePlayTyperGuy]

Women are the villains in almost every Mamet work, even when no woman physically appears (Glengarry Glen Ross). Worse, women are rarely *compelling* vlllains.

[@marthaknox6466]

This reminded me of a guy I knew who a few years ago had a woman who was his subordinate at work formally complain because during a celebratory moment in the office, he had attempted to dance with her. His side of the story was that in the midst of the whole office team getting good news, he had put one hand on her side and took her hand with his other, attempting to dance in an innocent, friendly manner. He said she stiffened and in response to that clear body language he immediately let go and stepped back. Because of her formal complaint he later had to attend an in-house workshop about workplace harassment. That was the only consequence he ever suffered. It seemed to me that his superiors viewed the whole thing as a misunderstanding and also opportunity for him to learn how to behave more appropriately with female subordinates. He viewed this as a great injustice and the same guy while drunk once snarled and sputtered “Fuck feminism” at me in a debate. I'm sure if he ever saw this play, he'd love it.

[@Pehrgryn]

I feel like, going solely on your description, that it seems a bit much to file a formal complaint against the guy. I also feel like, if I were in that guy's shoes and had the complaint made against me I'd say, "fair enough. I didn't intend for that, but that's the way it was interpreted, my mistake." Apologize and take the class, (dare I say for comedic effect) like a man. Then that last bit about how the guy treated the affair makes it seem like there might have been more to the story than just what the guy reported. By which I mean he's done other things that were inappropriate or borderline inappropriate.

[@allenrubinstein3696]

@@Pehrgryn Yeah, it's never just the one thing. That's among the many things that Oleana gets wrong. "Oops, you fell into a sexual harrassment," is extremely rare, if not entirely fictional. It's an entire mindset, which women can pick up on.

[@TimmyTheNerd]

I think the punishments depend on how wealthy the man being punished is, to be honest. I want to preface this with me making it clear that I'm not stating that all sexual harassment accusations are false. This is an example of how someone with money will get a lesser punishment for such accusations than someone without money. I grew up in a small town, not a lot happens so the news paper is always quick to jump on anything that might be a story. I had a friend who was a man and in a very abusive relationship. For years, me and a few other friends had been trying to get him out of the situation. If he told anyone outside of our friend group, he would get hit with the typical responses that toxic masculinity creates. "Women can't abuse men.", "You're just being soft.", "You need to man up and put her in her place.", ect. One day he made the mistake of walking home an hour later than his girlfriend was expecting him to be home. On his way home, he saw her car and waved at her....thinking she was coming to pick him up. Instead, she hit him with her car and he wound up in the hospital. Of course, my friends and I tried to get him to leave her again. Which he did, once he left the hospital. He moved in with me for awhile until we could find somewhere better for him. She would park outside my house, honking her horn, in the middle of the night until I called the cops. Eventually my friend decided to get a restraining order, only to wind up being arrested at the station. Turns out she had been to the cops earlier that day to report that he had attempted to r*pe her. It got into the news. The son of the guy who owned the scrap yard tried to r*pe the daughter of the mayor. The newspaper ran with it, quickly taking her side. His reputation was ruined over night. Everyone in town talked about how they knew something was wrong with him. People even went as far as vandalizing his father's scrap yard. Court day comes along, and for a long time everyone, even those who know he was innocent, was sure he was going to get the guilty sentence and sent to prison. Instead, the lawyer who was defending my friend had managed to get evidence to clear my friend. A phone call between his ex-girlfriend and one of her friends planning out how she was going to ruin my friend's life with the false accusation and how she hoped he would 'drop the soap'. The stuff in the phone call was vile. But the damage had already been done. He couldn't get a job, because even though the case was thrown out and the judge said he was innocent, none of the businesses in town were willing to hire him because they were convinced that he was evil and a potential r*pist. Despite all of this, my friend and I still spoke out against conservative bullshit. If anything, the entire thing made him even more of a feminist. He told me that things happened the way they did because of how the men of that town though. "The reason they are all so quick to assume I did it is because, deep down inside, they know they'd do it if given the chance." Eventually the harassment from his ex's family and the lack of job did cause him to move from town. He got some money from his father, cut ties with everyone, and then moved. His last words to me was "Hate always festers in small towns like these, get out when you can." and then he got onto a Greyhound and I haven't seen or heard from him since. But I keep thinking. If the men of my hometown weren't so toxic, would things have escalated to the point where my friend had to go to court over false accusations? Would he have gotten help sooner, and would more people be aware of how crazy his ex was, if their minds weren't clouded by thoughts that 'real men' can't be abused? In the end, I lay the blame at the feet of toxic masculinity for allowing the situation to get as bad as it did.

[@S.A.White...]

This reminds me of all the false rape claim stories I've heard over the years. One man told me his poor friend was falsely accused because he "had sex" with a woman who was passed out at his place. To the storyteller, the fact that the woman got intoxicated enough to pass out was implicit consent. Which meant that his friend was falsely accused. I have heard many stories like this. I have never heard a story I would think of as a legitimate "false rape claim". That being said, I'm definitely part of The Group.

[@kaitlyn__L]

@@allenrubinstein3696this

[@Pehrgryn]

This was so interesting. I've never seen the work, nor heard of it, till now. Your initial synopsis left me thinking Acts One and Two seem kind of ambiguous, with Act Three culminating in John showing his true misogynistic tendencies. My thought then was, "what is the ambiguity? John is human garbage." Then you broke it down more, and I thought that it sounds like the work is really more unambiguously trying to say that John is an innocent man that is pushed beyond his limit. I mean, still a garbage person for manhandling and later beating Carol. I enjoyed this breakdown. Thank you.

[@kujasan]

if i was a teacher i would ask you to allow me to show this to my class. great work, thank you.

[@MurrayLeeder]

I actually have seen a stage production of Oleanna, having first seen the movie. This was in 2004 in London, and it starred Aaron Eckhart and Julia Stiles. One major difference I noticed right away is that when he makes physical contact with her in the first act, it is staged a lot more like sexual harassment -- she even tries to pull away and he doesn't let her. This seemed to me an improvement on how it's handled in the movie. I also felt that Eckhart played John as a bit more slimy and insincere.

[@highlorddarkstar]

I saw a similar stage production, in 1990, starring David Suchet. My memory, such as it is, definitely had the professor being old school touchy. It felt a lot more both sides behaving badly. Which in retrospect still had some of the issues here, but the professor wasn’t as clearly innocent. I suspect there was rewriting from play to movie, and Mamet took it in the wrong direction.

[@X2Magneto]

I'm glad you made this video. Glengarry Glen Ross and The Edge are two of my favorite films, but I'm constantly at a loss trying to figure out how somebody like Mamet could come up with stuff like that, but manage to fumble the ball so completely on things like this play or his full throated support of the orange man.

[@edwarddavies1119]

I remember watching this back in the 9o's and yeah, it was just so twisted and weird and left you uncomfortable. First I didn't like Macy's character. He was an ass and he didn't care about anyone but himself. He felt a little henpecked, but not obviously and was just as rude to his wife as his student. Then he became the victim of the false accusations and that made me even more uncomfortable because I didn't want to support him. I wanted him to be the bad guy. I wanted mousy little student to be the innocent victim, but she clearly wasn't. And then act three, the accusation were now beyond any reason and no way could they be reasonably justified, yet, Macy was so brilliant at still being an a-hole and unlikeable that I just couldn't willingly see his side. Up until she told him not to call his wife baby.... Maybe because I was newly married then, but being told how to address my wife? I'd have thrown her out of the office on the spot and now he had my full support... and then he completely lost it by attacking her. And that's what makes it such a deeply uncomfortable movie... Macy makes such an unlikeable character that it's impossible to want root for him. You have to actively root for him to be the bad guy because in so many ways he is... just not in any of the ways she accuses him.

[@MrNoName999]

It's insane that this was just uploaded!! I have an exam tomorrow which includes this play and I found no useful material to study from. This has been so helpful!

[@joshhobson4625]

I had picked up Mamet's recent "Everywhere an Oink Oink" about what he perceives to be the problems in Hollywood today. While there were some occasional fantastic bits (Thomas the Tank Engine as told by Rene Descartes: "I think I can, therefore I am I can"), most of it were the same tired conservative grievances with diversity. More succinct and with better vocabulary than most right wing pundits, but no different in substance. Disappointed, I returned the book to the library unfinished.

[@davidcolby167]

While describing the plot I kept waiting for you to reveal some twist that would recontextualize Carol and reveal that John was actually far worse than he seemed and, uh, that never happened...

[@themeparkexclusives8586]

Thank you. I, too, appreciate Mamet's writing as much as I loathe his politics

[@HonoredMule]

Any man (person, but man especially) who conducts themself with respect, integrity, and thoughtfulness is that much more admirable given their conditioning to a society which in in practice neither requires nor rewards it. This is about the only wholesome lesson I can draw from stories like those of Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, or Bill Clinton.

[@christophermeade1532]

Well fucking said.

[@LiluBob]

I must say that I think this is the best video and critical analysis that I have seen you do, and I have been watching you for quite a while. Maybe not long in time but I've been viewing a good handful of videos each week over the past many months if not a year. I remember this film, and I've got to tell you, listening to you talk about it and seeing it again, I began to remember the visceral pain and grief it brought me when I watched it for the first time. I think your final analysis hits it right on the head and I agree wholeheartedly. It was the same conclusion about the peace that I and so many other women came to. What most men don't understand and you seem to have a good grip on it, is that even in the best of communities and families, girls as young as five learn very quickly how to identify sexual predators, from older boys to men, and family members. I grew up in the 50s and 60s, and even at age 5 the girls on my block were telling the younger girls like me, don't play with those boys because they will do this to you. We knew exactly what they were talking about. And if we talked about it, or complained, no matter our age as a child or even as an adult, we were the ones accused of imagining it, we were the sick ones, we were perverted, and the favorite phrase I remember that we were called, often screamed, was that we were "frigid" and therefore too neurotic to be believed. Once when I was 19 I was upset because I was in London and a favorite hat of mine flew down onto the tracks. I was already not in a good way emotionally and this was the last straw and I was upset. Wanted to fetch it and thank goodness The platform conductor would not let me, but his final cutting remark to me as he took me up the elevator was that I was behaving like a "frigid bitch". Since nothing sexual had happened or been implied by either one of us during the interaction, a very brief interaction, I was floored. As I fell silent I realized exactly what it was he was doing, he was demeaning me, making me and my upset, my feelings beyond trivial, and elevating himself as a superior male. Funny thing though, when I returned a few hours later to go home he had fetched the hat off the tracks and gave it to me. I burst into tears of gratitude, yet he never apologized, he simply walked away.

[@JonasGreenFethr]

When Garrison Keeler had his downfall, every interview I heard was him being perplexed and irritated with all women. “Well this shows that you can’t be ‘just friends’ with women.” Was his conclusion… No self awareness, no differing perspectives. Just a close-minded dismissal of ‘changing times’.

[@Jesselaj]

Sometimes I get frustrated with some of Steve's social or political takes, but then we have incredible videos like this. Very well argued, Steve!

[@firefly4f4]

I'm going to disagree about calling John's actions against Carol in act 2 "relatively minor", as "relatively" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Assault & unlawful detainment are in way minor crimes. Is it rape? No. But it's still serious.

[@Grizabeebles]

Where I live, the law as written says that what John does in Act 2 is assault and possibly even attempted kidnapping. However, unless John was an absolute idiot and admitted to it on the record, I sincerely doubt the charges would stick. That's why John agreeing to the meeting with Carol in Act 3 at all, let alone without his own lawyer present is such a mistake. John has every right and reason to demand Carol go through the University administration or his lawyer for everything. Before e-mail profs could demand all necessary correspondence in writing delivered via a third party.

[@EdDale44135]

The amount of time she was detained, as shown in the clip, was minimal. It was bad behavior. He should not have done it. I did not see it as rape, sexual imposition or kidnapping. If the intent was to be even handed, putting the audience in a he said / she said, the staging needs to be more. The male lead needs to make his lines more smarmy, make it clear the A is a quid pro quo for sex, without explicitly saying it. The scene in act 2 should have more of a sexual overtone.

[@ThePlayTyperGuy]

Again, the crazy liberal in me pushes back against describing touching someone or even blocking their path as "assault" or "unlawful detainment." These are the sorts of escalations that wind up with people unfairly doing hard time (it's very right-wing reactionary in its way). I do think we need high bars for those things., even if the behavior is inappropriate. No one should block the door but that's not literally imprisoning someone.

[@debbiebannister32]

Thomas is right up Trump"s alley, both have no business in office

[@Dlstufguy2]

This is almost god's not dead level of absurdity.

[@cliftonchurch6039]

What we need is Oleanna The Musical, a musical which tells the same story with satirical music that accentuates the absurdity of the storyline to the point of parody. I can only imagine a big song and dance number (complete with tap break) in the second act about how the feminist group warped her mind and has morphed the teacher's offer of assistance into something improper, but also directly pointing out how completely absurd and unlikely such a situation would be to happen, and it's more likely that something worse did happen between the teacher and student than has yet been presented. Then again, I might be the one with a sick, twisted sense of humor.

[@Gardengallivant]

This would make the story worthwhile. Maybe lyrics by Randy Rainbow, choreography by Cathy Marston?

[@THE_Dodge_Morningstar]

"A man who has done nothing wrong..." Keeps rattling around in my head for some reason.

[@catherineelmore2004]

I read the play on college and my professor told a really interesting story about a production he'd seen of it where during the intermission after act one they had a vote going in the hall on a paper over who was in the right. Then after the play you could vote again - needless to say, a lot of votes were changed. So... Possible that the theatrical production played at least act 1 with more ambiguity about John's statements or behavior... But that's purely anecdotal.

[@RadzPrower]

Yeah, this is the first I've heard of the play or film, but the rapid recap Steve presented at the start felt fairly ambiguous up until the physical assault, so presentation could definitely be a factor.

[@Grizabeebles]

I put it down to the change in medium. On stage the audience views things from a distance. In film the camera can show exact hand placements and the smallest facial expressions. Audiences can also study a film frame by frame and form an opinion over multiple viewings -- which can't be done with a play or real life.

[@catherineelmore2004]

@@Grizabeebles Agreed, and also how the film is staged and handles the physical contact and or getting up in people's space versus the blocking on stage.

[@bondfool]

I haven’t seen Oleanna, either on stage or on film, and there’s always the chance that if I did, I wouldn’t agree with your opinion of it, but based on this video: absolutely fuck this movie.

[@loorthedarkelf8353]

So I'm at the end of the plot summary and I already Feel The Yikes here It frames harassment as something that only happens if The Person Who Is Afraid over reacts, thus blaming them for their own suffering. This is a story I've heard a thousand times from guys; that he didn't *do* anything and it's HER fault for kicking up a fuss about 'some comment' or 'a joke.' It assumes the account the abuser gives is correct, that they didn't do anything, and were Provoked By The Aggrived Party into violence "Look what you made me do." When I dig into those stories, ask my male friends what the joke or comment was, it is always something vile. And I ask 'why would you say that?' And they stammer and stutter and then say something about All Women Being So Sensitive. To whit I point out he's the one begging me to ease his concious. If he didn't think he MIGHTA been outta line, he wouldn't be seeking reassurance from me. Sooner or later I can get them to back up into the realization that what they said was really gross at best, and sounded like a threat at worst. Once there, I can help with conflict resolution; helping him put his words together into an appropriate apology, and speaking to the injured party to ask if they feel safe enough to receive that apology and help choose a venue for the resolution. I was basically the live in therapist at my school for my peers, specifcially for de escalating personal conflict. Guys came to me ranting about their girlfriends being unreasonable and crazy and in two breaths he'd admit to cheating-- to whit I'd inform him If She Cheated On You, The Entire School Would Know About It By Now. I think she's being awefully cool by keeping it between you guys while you work it out. The LOOK on the dude's face as he realizes the gal he's dating Is A Person With Agency Who Could Ruin His Life is something I train my poker face against because it is so hard not to break out laughing as it dawns on the dude.

[@Jane_8319]

You have infinitely more patience and kindness than I do

[@ronjaj.addams-ramstedt1023]

Thank you!

[@MasterDarkenRahl]

Someone did write the better version of this play. It's Doubt. The question of who was right is genuinely ambiguous, both sides are sympathetic, and importantly, everyone agrees that the alleged wrongdoing is bad and would deserve airing if true.

[@dietwald]

This is very good. For a second I confused Mamet with Malick, but then - thankfully - confirmed it was Mamet.

[@thezpn]

Act 1 shows the conversation from the perspective of the trees lining the quad, act 2 investigates the consequences of the first meeting on a geologic timescale.

[@cyrussoxlegion]

I was told years ago that the vast majority of sa/ r*pe claims are not fabricated, and many cases go completely unreported. I was skeptical of that for the longest time, but eventually, I understood why the saying "believe women" is important and necessary. It's not as if that saying stands in some stark contradiction to reality.

[@tomfrombrunswick7571]

Apart from the Anita Hill stuff Thomas had only done about one case in court. His nomination was based more on his outlook than his skill set

[@ProuvaireJean]

It's been many years since I watched the movie, and even longer since I saw the play (a memorable production starring Geoffrey Rush and Cate Blanchett) but my takeaway both times was very similar to yours. Oleanna was promoted as a story with an ambiguous truth at its core, with two ostensibly evenly balanced warring arguments, but I agree that the writer was clearly much more on John's side. I don't have a problem with a story that features a female antagonist, and I don't need the themes in every story to align with my own largely progressive views (in fact I often find those works overly didactic, a case of preaching to the converted), but the subject matter and structure of Oleanna called for a level of nuance and complexity Mamet didn't achieve. And perhaps didn't even set out to achieve. Cate Blanchett revisited some of the themes in the play - such as the notion of "political correctness" and the abuse of power, albeit from some different perspectives - in Tar, and gave one of her all time best performances in that movie (which is saying something). Geoffrey Rush, some years ago, lived through - and perpetrated, depending on who you believe - his own Oleanna-like experience IRL which, I suppose, falls under the heading of irony.

[@Shindai]

I can only imagine the sheer frothing at the gills that would erupt if this was made today, what with how rational and balanced and in control of themselves folks can be

[@Redmage913]

Thank you for explaining the basis and origins of this play. I honestly had no idea what you were wanting to talk about from the video header and image…

[@ushere5791]

brilliant commentary--thank you.

[@fad23]

I read the last shortly after it came out, though i didn't comprehend it much at my young age. Thanks for unpacking it here.

[@justinstewart4075]

We did a grad student directed production of it when I was a Freshman (05) and one of my best friends at the time was playing Carol. Her read was exactly this if not more exaggerated. The director clearly wanted to point out that Mamet's entire point was weaponized feminism exists and is coming for you. The act two shift in tone was much starker than the 1-2-3 gearshift the film seems to have. Our Carol and the director made it clear that the first meeting was an in for a setup and act three only happened because she didn't succeed in act two. I haven't read it myself so I'm not sure if the ending we used was in the text or not. It could have been the director wanting to leave zero doubt as to the point, but our fight ended with Carol bent over the desk with John holding her down as he says "Is this what you wanted?" and Carol responding "yes." I walked away from that one never doubting the shows "ambiguity". Or Mamet as a person.

[@moonkey2712]

Keep telling it like it is Steve!

[@jan-rs6im]

i believe you Anita - said it then and say it again and always - this is the first i've heard of this movie and play, but your analysis is amazing!!

[@hartthorn]

It's kind of interesting to think how this play could have done a lot more if you simply re-ordered the acts to 2-3-1. Of course, that still does nothing to defuse the weird feminism hatred boogeyman shit, but would at least leave ACTUAL ambiguity in play up until AFTER the savage attack. With Act 1 showing us all the facts in dispute, we are automatically primed to side with John. We know what we saw ourselves. But if we come INTO the situation with no information at the accusation, we would be left looking at these two sparring as uninformed 3rd parties. To then go into the 3rd act, as things rise to thunderous chaos, and we see what kind of man John is and what he's done to Carol, we could very easily be primed in a different way upon getting the information from Act 1. We might not be as sympathetic to John's little mistakes, or give him the benefit of the doubt. His line about the surprise party being a kind of aggression. The assumption that there is nothing untoward going on with his sudden fascination in this student and offering her benefits to spend time alone with him. And it sounds like it wouldn't even be that difficult to accomplish, and I wonder what might happen if you had two groups watch these different versions and then had them discuss it.

[@Lunictd]

Hello there! First time commenter here. A friend of mine played in a non-professional theater performance of this story. At first I thought it would be a "grumpy/weird teacher helps student" story -I didn't know the story at all before watching the stage play. It was definitely not that. What I got from the play I watched was that they were both kind of nasty and everything would be better if they listened (the poster for that version of the play was really on point on the "people talking past each other and not listening"), but finding that the author is a piece of work himself sure is something. Good to know that nothing ever changes with people (he said sarcastically). Anyway, very interesting video! Keep up the great work!

[@mikeisernie]

Another interpretation is that since he loses it and misogynistically berates her while beating her...the story is showing that she was ultimately right about him. If a viewer's reaction to that is "Well, she pushed him too far."...that says more about the viewer's point of view than the pieces.

[@brianschwartz7937]

I think that is a crucial element. Frankly, I read the whole thing as an apparent admission of his guilt on every accusation, and that everything the audience sees is just from his own warped, self-justifying, denying perspective. The over-the-top beating plus misogynistic ranting don't just come out of nowhere.....they are right below the surface because that's the kind of guy he is. And we are given evidence of this throughout.

[@scottfw1193]

Excellently balanced critique. I've seen film version and on stage, and I think stage version allows more nuance in performance. The film version is a fixed document and feels less subtle, more uncomfortable? I've also just noticed that 'received' is spelt incorrectly in the complaint! I wonder if that was an actual typo, or a Mamet comment?

[@grevinlew]

I saw this play back when it was first produced. Carol is so deeply problematic that I simply couldn't take her seriously. Ultimately, I determined that the real villain of the play was Mamet. It's all about his grievances. I suppose you can give him credit for anticipating contemporary conservatism's displeasure at having to take women seriously.

[@francoisperras8186]

Excellent review and social analysis. Thanks

[@GeekFilter]

I read that play in 94/5 for school and I believe my thought at the time was something like “I’m sure there’s a message in here somewhere but reading this play is not how it should be absorbed” I remember it was kind of a slog because of those sentence fragments and what I thought at the time was unnatural dialogue. I haven’t thought of this place since then!

[@robertrodger3055]

I read Olenna in college in the '90s. It must have been just after the play was released. My distant recollection of reading it at the time is there was (in the text) more ambiguity and you could more easily imagine "the Group" encouraging her to reframe what happened to her. I can imagine that translating the action to stage and screen would take away a lot of that ambiguity, though.

[@bm8631]

I played the John role back in college!!!

[@professorplum88]

This was really insightful and crystalized a feeling I'd had about these kinds of reactionary pieces of art about women and men - I think another example like this is Disclosure by Crichton which came out at about the same time.

[@austinsmith1285]

Yeah the play tries to show both sides of the issue but it is REALLLY on John's side and against Carol.

[@reyperry2605]

I share your admiration for Mamet the playwright and filmmaker and I share your disdain for Mamet the sociopolitical thinker. He and Frank Miller seem of a kind to me, on an impressionistic level, if nothing else.

[@hibiscusman]

Seriously excellent video

[@lacrartezorok4975]

It's inevitable for me thinking that if Mamet would say something unflattering about Trump he would be calling him "over rated" and Fox news would say he should limit himself to write plays. Of course you can disagree with someone's ideas an even then recognize their merits in other areas.

[@mbessey]

I don't know if you've seen it, but "John Proctor is the Villain" is a much less confusing and confused play about sexual misconduct in the classroom. Highly recommended, though not at all "fun" to watch.

[@pacmanshooter247]

I remember reading this in school and I was quite confused.

[@utz2867]

Great vid

[@rishabhanand4973]

21:48 hell, he could have done it in this movie by having the first act shown twice, once from the professor's perspective where nothing wrong happens, and then once from the student's perspective showing the sexual misconduct. And then the rest of the movie would be evaluating who was right or rather, whose version of events is closer to the truth.

[@anare3050]

A companion piece to Oleander written from the POV of the woman would, no doubt, put a different narrative forward. Couldn’t be written by the same guy tho. The whole play is his account.

[@williamblakehall5566]

Steve, thanks for this. When it first came out, Oleanna made a lasting impression on me, but in such a way that I was not eager to take either side. I summed it up way back then as "A male asshole gets screwed by a female prick" and nothing has really changed that conclusion for me. My father was a university professor who taught American history for 51 years, and compared to that I found the character of John very wanting. I'm not that sure that John really believes in anything he's teaching, at one point trying to impress upon Carol that a college degree is a handy tool with which to try to acquire a high-paying job. It all seems to be a hustle to him. Carol from the beginning is such a twitchy mess of ignorance and defensiveness that for the life of me I don't see why she just can't take a year off and find something calming that she can take strength from. Each character is equally deaf to what the other one is about. It does become a little easier to side with John because Carol is playing dirty pool, she has not been forthcoming about her "group" or the terrible things she claims are John's fault. I take Oleanna as an excellent study in how communication can become impossible. If Mamet wants to go beyond that and claim this as some sort of personal manifesto, that's on him. I am thankful that students are generally not as neurotic as Carol. I also feel thankful for those teachers who regard their subjects as more than meaningless hustles.

[@nielsjensen4185]

Centrist ideology is simply the least extreme continuum on the spectrum of Conservative ideology. "BoTh SiDeS" is a silly standard to have.

[@ruthspanos2532]

I saw the play in a production by a local theater group (they were awesome…they did all kinds of tough and adult subject matter). It was many years ago, but I remember not liking it and thinking it was misogynist, but not being able to explain it sufficiently to my partner. I almost didn’t want to watch this, fearing that it would undermine my feelings. I am relieved that there are some men who are able to understand how harmful and reactionary this play was.

[@compagniaelvira]

I think the idea behind Oleanna is pretty solid. Two sides, no right nor wrong, just a balance of forces. The only poor thing about it, I think, is that violence explodes as a totally unpredictable event. I don't think it's nearly possible. I think that all that John interrupting Carol and not actually listening to her, his self-centeredness, his idiotic verbiage, has to be held as an index of the upcoming violence. I see him as more insecure, nervous, and flairily narcissistic than he's depicted in the movie. Otherwise, such as in the very movie, his assault comes across as the rant of a poor victim unfairly accused, which is polarizing and stupid. I like to think that Carol's intuition is deeper than her purposes, as she 'smells' that he's a violent man even before the aggression itself, because he is violent and twisted in his own thinking. "Everyone is an idiot, the tenure committees are idiots, students are idiots because the school is idiotic and unnecessary." These are the kind of thoughts you would expect by someone whose entitlement is so wide that he cannot respect any institution.

[@dustind4694]

I vastly prefer to remember William H. Macy hitting the scene in his role as a stage manager in an aggressively 80s jacket in Last Dragon.

[@barbarakrueger9824]

No academic ever should promise a grade. It’s illegal if your standards aren’t the same for all students. At least in college.

[@KathyHecht-bm3xk]

Steve generally I usually agree with you and I have never heard of oleander before this video. But the professor character starts as a flawed man because he fails to address the imbalance of power between himself and his student offering to help his student is noble but if he feels he needs to tutor his student it should be meeting in a public setting like a classroom and allowing her to resubmit work for reconsideration as to grade but it should be judged on it own values with no offer of unearned accolades. As someone who has worked as a professor who genuinely wants my students to succeed but who must always keep the power dynamic in mind and always act professionally so that you protect yourself in our very litigious society. In the second act his behavior has very clearly crossed the line and he has definitely had sexually harassed and assaulted his student by blocking her exit and physically touching her when she clearly has not invited or wants it. As a woman who has been assaulted this is a terrifying experience which leaves lasting scars. The most unbelievable part of this is not that Carol seeks out support to deal with this experience is that she would approach him alone in his office again. Her charge of attempted rape maybe overreaching but assault is not. Clearly by the third act as it stands it demonstrates the some people never learn and that they must learn lessons in such a way the cost of their reprehensible behavior must cost them in the form of money, reputation, or imprisonment to the extent that they finally learn and rehabilitate themselves or that they are removed from society so they can do no more harm.

[@st.anselmsfire3547]

The thing that always irritates the hell out of me with stuff like this is that, while conservatives will always spew their BS about every inch of progress, all it takes is for one woman to have lied for the whole damn progressive movement to get sidelined for twenty years. Just one, and it's like the zeitgeist ran into the Ghostbusters because now the whole damn culture has decided that sexual harassment isn't really a thing after all, or when a woman gets raped the number one question is "what was she wearing?" as if men are wild animals incapable of basic self-control. Why is our society like this? We can't take a nuanced or even logical stance on anything. The vast majority of sexual harassment cases turn out to be 100% true. The ones that aren't are usually due to a misheard joke. The outright lies are a statistical anomaly.

[@Nariasan]

When I was rehearsing for a play in theatre school, a teacher of mine genuinely engaged in sexual misconduct (targeting myself and other female students). He often had us do scenes from _Oleana_ and the _Boston Marriage_ in class. I don't know if that's ironic or not... We _did_ try to press charges. It did not go well. (He turned the whole school against us, saying we were just failed actress looking for our 15 minutes of fame... oh, the _fun_ memories!)

[@DawnDavidson]

Geez. That sounds terrible. So sorry you had to endure that! Hope you can find something less charged to help soothe your nerves today.

[@muddhatter7118]

I greatly appreciate your take here, but I do think there is an ambiguity that is missed by those stating John did little to nothing wrong miss the hints that Carol may have been victimized in some manner prior to attending said University, the “I’m bad” dialogue from act 1 and the interruption from the phone before we can learn, and coupled with how she acts around some of John’s movements into her space-this could then mean Carol’s group is a support group as opposed to a militant feminist group and upon hearing Carol’s story encourage the complaints. If one has such in their background John’s words and actions take on a whole new light. Carol had to work to get to the university evident by her diligent note taking, reading his book, and not just “getting” what others (according to Carol) understand, so his words, offer to give her an ‘A’ if she continues to meet with him privately can make John look like he’s grooming her-and how can we know he wasn’t?

[@sfitzmd]

I dunno on an uneducated look at the first act i can kind of see where she's coming from and it feels like apologising and adjusting his conduct isn't a big ask of John.

[@WoohooliganComedy]

💯

[@brianschwartz7937]

I have not seen the full play or movie and am only going off of what was shown here some general plot summaries (and a script) I was able to dig up on the internet......but based on what I've seen/read, I actually think this fits much better as a play where the professor absolutely sexually assaulted and likely did attempt to rape his female student, and that all three of the acts which the audience sees are NOT the unbiased truth but rather his version of events told from his own warped, defensive, self-justifying perspective. The way I see it, the audience isn't just being shown things as they simply happened and it's left up to your interpretation as to who was right/wrong......John is clearly in the wrong, to a certain extent he knows deep down that he is wrong. Everything shown is purely the selective memory of a character who substantially downplays, glosses over, ignores, and conveniently forgets/leaves out critical details of the improper to criminal things that he isn't willing to see/admit to himself, while only sort of remembering/admitting the mildest of his improprieties until it all comes crashing down in the chair smashing scene......a point at which John does finally accept that he did something wrong--but only about that incident. Based on what we are shown Carol's accusations seem completely disproportionate and wildly out of context with what we see on the screen. But what I think gets lost in most analyses of this is that HIS actions even more don't fit what is on the screen either. Nothing HE does makes sense if what the audience sees is real. The takeaway most people have from that she is grossly mistaking or exaggerating harmless incidents. Well, yes, HER claims and responses don't fit what we see on the screen.....because what is on the screen isn't what really happened. It's HIS memory, the way HE chooses to remember. I know this almost certainly wasn't the author's intent in creating this.....and yet, I can't see it in any other way.

[@amandapeine6745]

Im torn between incredulity and disgust. I want to see the movie to verify your diagnosis, yet I never want to see it from your description which I trust.

[@XxThunderflamexX]

It's like JK Rowling's House Elves. Obviously an author can write a fictional scenario in which a clear cut moral issue has moral ambiguity. That doesn't say anything interesting or clever. It's just childish.

[@burtmccormick4727]

Powerful and reasoned analysis of not just the production, but of the flawed mindset that plagues the predictable knee jerk reaction to the marginalized among us attempting to be less so. Bravo!

[@GSBarlev]

Let's think about what this film is telling _young girls:_ that *any* man, no matter how educated and "civilized," is just a few words away from flying into a violent rage... And yet the very men who write this nonsense are somehow confused why women would choose the bear...

[@allanolley4874]

This film was actually screened in my high school English class (I'm guessing in '96 or '97 up here in the Toronto area, Canada). While I think others in my class were far more receptive to the view that somehow there was different perspectives, complex questions of perception or whatever to take on the events, but to me it was just kind of clearly all a bit forced at best if not unconvincing caricature at times. To me (as I vaguely remember it now) the entire proceedings and shooting etc. had a feeling of a lit fuse and we are waiting for the bomb to go off in the final act at the end it goes off. And yes it clearly is the story of The Group transforming weak willed young woman into a bloodless automaton soldier for the cause. My guess would be that Mamet was trying to have something like even handedness or ambiguity, but that his fundamental lack of sympathy and understanding for things like feminism mean if you don't share enough of his anxieties about false sexual harassment and rape claims, it comes off as revealing how unfair and unsympathetic to legitimate concerns he actually is. I think one can point to any number of cases where a noble cause is pursued and supporters fall into simplistic group think that tends to villainize mere associations and create bizarre (simplistic or otherwise flawed) purity tests and so on. However I think portraying that would be weirder and probably less dramatically satisfying than this sort of thing. Mamet's attempt is at best an exercise in the very unnuanced group think he ostensibly is trying to critique.

[@NullStaticVoid]

Used to be a huge Mamet fan. But this movie along with 'The Unit' changed my mind on him. There was also some op ed he wrote that was pretty offensive, but I couldn't dig it up. It's a shame because he does have an ear for dialogue and can be a deft storyteller. Oleanna was just character assassination of feminism. I'm sure some of his best friends are women. He probably even listens to a few female musical acts and thinks females are good at certain things that men arent. Like childcare and cooking. It's almost like his hatred of feminism blinded him to his need to tell a story. Because there are several parts of that movie/play where it just doesn't work.

[@lawrenceking192]

I haven't seen the film; when I saw the play, I never had any notion that her complaint was based on what happened during Act I, but that whatever happened -- if anything happened at all -- happened during the intervening 1-on-1 meetings. My personal interpretation is that Mamet never meant audiences to go away so confused - that there was no sexual assault, and the real underlying question was "is it justified to use the charge of sexual assault to redress some other wrong" - in this case, the appointment and granting of tenure to a truly shitty teacher - "if it's the only weapon you have?"

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

Sadly, as Chair of the Judiciary Committee, Biden played a key role in Thomas', confirmation. He may not have been confirmed without Biden's help. His questioning of Hill was pretty terrible.

[@DawnDavidson]

Not one of Biden’s finer moments. There was so much wrong about those hearings.

[@Ozz04]

SH Rashomon? So 'The Last Duel'?

[@Irisarc1]

I am not happy to say that I agree with Steve's analysis of this play/movie. My real problem with this whole thing is that this could have been an interesting, even compelling, story if it was just the story of something that happened between two people. If that were the case, I might possibly say I enjoyed it. Unfortunately, because we know the writer and what his modus operandi typically is, this is indeed a propaganda piece that is trying to to make the desire for gender equity seem silly and useless. I hate it when a brilliant artist uses their talent this way. I saw this movie not long after it came out. My girlfriend at the time wanted to see it. Despite my recent immersion in the sapphic side of life, and my complete support of Anita Hill (being from central Oklahoma where the sexual harassment took place and knowing someone who knew Anita personally), I still found myself resenting the way the girl treated her teacher. I guess this is evidence of Mamet's skill as a writer, leading even someone in my situation to see things the way he intended. When I saw the film, I was not of the mindset that every piece of entertainment should be analyzed to see if a deeper meaning was intended. I didn't think to do that with this film at the time I saw it either. I am a college graduate, with a minor in English literature, so treating literature that way was somewhat second nature to me, but I just didn't realize I was supposed to see a biger picture here, so to speak. I imagine that was probably the product of my level of maturity then. It's just so frustrating to know now, 32 years later, what I should have seen then. I knew I didn't care for the film then, but now I understand why.

[@normative]

I wonder whether a play isn’t naturally much more amenable to an ambiguois reading. You’re not in the same kind of close up, and viewers will have, quite literally, different perspectives on the action that likely obscure to varying degrees exactly what’s physically happening. And there’s no pause or rewind in the theater. The theatergoer in that final act is probably not able to say as confidently as the film viewer “that’s clearly not what happened.”

[@benjaminstock5334]

Is it just my imagination, or did humanity hit a creative wall after the 1990s? It manifests in the lack of fresh IP in Hollywood, and the lack of fresh ideas in our politics. It’s like one day we decided we were going to keep reliving the same ideas over and over again, and we kept on doing that for 30 years. No one seems to have any fresh ideas anymore about how to solve mankind’s issues- or maybe the thing is that a bunch of people became too lazy or impudent to implement those ideas. Instead we keep on recycling the same platitudes and nostalgia franchises until our culture devours its own tail. I’m waiting for the political candidate who says “I’m going to take our country 30 years into the future” instead of “I’m going to save the way we used to do things.” Am I nuts?

[@DawnDavidson]

No. That said, I think it’s a mistake to think this he only been happening for the past 30 years. I think it’s an ongoing cycle that one can find evidence of back to Ancient Roman times and beyond.

[@IanZainea1990]

While I have no opinion on the film. Persecution complexes definitely do exist. Look at right wing Christians who feel that they are being "erased" ... It exists on the left too. I think it generally comes from a feeling of powerlessness. Someone might be very into fighting for their rights, but they don't have any real ways of doing that. So they are hawkish about minor details in interpersonal relationships. Interpreting them to come from the most vile of opinions or positions.

[@herbsandlemons]

saying up front that I have seen neither the play or the movie. so I don't have an educated answer either way on whose right wrong in this case but up till 11 min in and I was inclined to agree that the lady in question was overreacting a little likely sensibly but still. Then it showed him manhandling her and I kinda switched sides, you said its justified and/or casual but I don't think you realize the kind of anxiety a woman has just being in a space alone with a man even one she 'knows' esp one in a position of power. I've never been AS but I have been sexually harassed and even before that happened there is always that voice when youre first alone with a man 'am I safe?' Also regardless of intentions he physically got between her and the door closed it/locked it? that is a huge nono as a teacher/person in power there no way he's unaware of the fact that hes physically intimidating her and as a man being intimidated isn't inherently sexual for you? But for women it absolutely is. This woman is giving ever indication she's upset/uncomfy and his response is to physically block her only escape route? and then physically move her where he wants with his hands on her? Do even realize how terrifying that is? from your own mouth you have a man that was casually cruel treating her like a pest then hes also causally and likely explicitly sexist and then hes using his body and his hands to make her do what he thinks is best. Any woman with even a little bit of self preservation would have alarm bells going off on this dude. You don't need to be unmistakable making a sexual advance to have your instincts tell you that this person is a threat. Please don't every do this to anyone but esp not as a man to a woman. Even if you're well intentioned. We(as women) are always especially aware of how quickly anyone(men in this case) can go from congenial to violent and I think that as a man that's a very important component your missing in this scenario. edit I had not finished watching the vid, and she is unmistakably wrong for accusing him of rape and making what he did much worse than it is.(though if he did pull her against his body that could definitely be considered SA, his hands should have never been on her in the first place.) Its hard enough to get police to take theses thing seriously especially when majority of media has a habit of using it a a freaking plot point. I'm not excusing her behavior, at all, possibly her lawyer friends convinced her enough is enough we need to make an example of this dude, or she came to that conclusion all on her own. she obviously had an agenda by that last meeting I think if she was really afraid for herself she never would have let herself be alone with him like that willingly. I think the person who wrote this is a misogynist and he just wanted a way to let those violent feelings out, like see this man did nothing wrong ever, so its totally justified if he finally cracks and just beats the shit out of this vile woman who made up 1000 lies about him and ruined his life on a whim(this is sarcasm) tldr: This is fucking complicated subject matter. The teacher absolutely fucked up with his behavior. Did he mess up bad enough that it should ruined his life? I don't think so, but it doesn't make his behavior in the least bit acceptable.

[@pashortt123]

Ah, David Mamet; the edgelord gateway to theatre.

[@Hk121394]

He commited assault technically.

[@justinb2824]

Yeah I think Steve downplays the assault way too much, but the overall point is right. Having feminists accuse him of attempted rape is rage bait for men.

[@Mallory-Malkovich]

Which is a different and less politically loaded charge.

[@gozerthegozarian9500]

A lot of Mamet's plays are basically rape-, abuse-, and harassment-apologism sermons. Dude's got issues.

[@shaunmccomish8572]

Oleanna is definetly a case of trying to be nuanced, but ultimately confusing nuance with ambiguity. In the end the text refuses to acknowledge who the real victim is in a way that comes across as cowardly. I was reminded a lot of John Irving's comedic 1976 novel The World According To Garp in how it approaches the idea of feminism. Irving, unlike Mamet, is a lot more sympathetic and has Garp experience first hand some of the horrific things women endure (Garp actually comes across a child being sexually assaulted while jogging and helps the local police apprehend the rapist only to find them later released much to his anger). However, Irving still ends up depicting feminism itself as a movement of weird fanatics. One such stereotypical "manhater" ends up killing Garp even after he takes in a young SA survivor who one particular Radfem group treat as a sort of cause celebre. The 'Ellen Jamesians' as they cause themselves are ultimately presented as dangerous as the most violent misogynists. It's a great novel; it notably has a surprisingly sympathetic portrayal of a trans person in the character of Roberta Muldoon. However it disappointingly has that same 'Have your cake and eat it' attitude towards sexual politics that Oleanna has.

[@ahouyearno]

Fake rape allegations are depressingly common as a theme in otherwise good media. Kastanjemanden is a brilliant series but 2 episodes before the end they revealed the abuse. I knew it was going to be fale :/

[@michaelodonnell824]

Sexual Assault is, as this video claims, a problematic situation, especially when there are only two people present and the two people disagree about what went on. Moreover, often, probably too often, the victim is dismissed because the accused is in the Power Position. But, not always. American Jurisprudence is replete with examples of Innocent Black men who served decades in jail because of the false testimony of White Women - and unfortunately, they were the fortunate ones. Most Lynchings occurred as a result of claims of Sexual Assault by White women against Black men, including the Lynching of fourteen year old Emmett Till. His accuser never faced any consequences. Modern lynchings are best exemplified by the case of White Femininst author Alice Sebold, whose repeated perjury resulted in Anthony Broadwater, a completely innocent man, spending sixteen years in Jail and a further 22 years on the Sex Offenders list. Sebold took her sweet time apologizing even after Mr Broadwater was exonerated and has never faced any consequences for her lying. And it's not just Black men who suffer this modern lynching. Senator Al Franken was compelled to resign from the Senate because of false accusations against him and pressure from noted feminists including Senators (Derek Chauvin enabler) Amy Klobuchar, Kirstin Gillibrand and current US Vice President Kamala Harris. In US Law (and the law of most democratic states) people are innocent of ALL crimes until PROVEN Guilty. Some feminists are clear that, in the case of Sexual Assault, they believe that, once an accusation is made, there is no possibility for the Accused to prove their innocence (despite that NOT being what is required in any other crime). Especially in the US with your long history of Lynching, such demands need to be treated with deep suspicion, because History has proven that the inevitable victims of "Liberal White Feminists" are too often Black men....

[@dsillsevans]

If you race swap one of the roles in Oleanna, it actually becomes MUCH better theater and probably a better movie, too.

[@ahouyearno]

Hot take: if carol had stayed in that office or went into private tutoring, she would have been raped. His goal was to have sex with her. That’s how the scene reads

[@lizzie5620]

I think a good number of your interpretations are made through a lens that Mamet is a misogynist. I think Carol is an incredibly powerful character, especially in act 2. She challenges her professor in act 2 the same way he has taught her to challenge prior to the movie and in act 1. This is to teach him a lesson, that he does not have respect for his students. I saw her "group" as maybe women or just his other students. It can be interpreted many ways. Until he admits that his actions could be construed in the way she alleged then he is a hypocrite. Carol is smart, and on the verge of entering a graduate program, because you do not need to use or understand large words to have intelligence. She demonstrates this to her professor over and over but because he is selfish and elitist he infantilizes her. So she makes the complaint to make a point and prove that she understands more than he thinks she does. If he accepted it and instead of trying to fight it and convince her his way of think is correct, the committee's decision may have gone differently. Granted, this is undermined by the quid pro quo mention of banning books for dropping the charges in act 3. That is where I think Mamet goes wrong. Up until that point there is ambiguity. Does he deserve this, who is justified, who is taking this too far? And then the end where he attacks he makes the point that was referenced back in act one: We become what we say we are. If you say you are bad you will keep being bad. If you say you or someone is something then that is what you or they will become.