Oleanna
|
List Price: Our Price: $12.49 You Save: $7.49 (37%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $10.00 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Oleanna
Movie Review: a critique of liberalism - SPOILERS AHEAD!
Summary: 4 Stars
Oleanna is the revenge of the non liberal against the liberal. The non liberal takes the tools provided by the liberal and uses them to destroy the liberal.
The woman keeps on repeating how hard she and others had to work to get into college and how hard it is for them to stay there. They had to struggle and sacrifice. She gets into college and goes to class. She has been taught all her life how important education is and how higher education is the ticket to many excellent things in life. She sits in the classroom and the instructor tells her it is all nonsense and that higher education is a travesty and it is like a stupid fraternity ritual, some hazing ritual. He is the professor and he seems to despise what he does and what he has dedicated his working life to.
Some understand why the man takes this attitude. It is part of the liberal contempt for the United States and for the entire western world. The premise is this - that all of that is worthless and stupid, that although all of the west is bad, the US is the worst, that everything that the conventional minded seem to value, such as higher education, is a joke. Yet at the same time, it must be pursued. Education is important and so is a nice upper middle class lifestyle. Yet it is all nonsense. Anyone who suggests otherwise or who notes the contradictions is regarded as stupid, as not with it, as not cool. Such a person does not get it.
The woman does not get it. Why does the teacher affect to despise his work? Why does he stand in front of students and express disgust for the institution that employs him and the entire system it is a part of? She is prepared to study and learn. She does not understand how she is supposed to study and learn and at the same time regard the whole thing as a joke.
The man is not entirely consistent. As a good academic, he parrots the usual line. Yet he values the book that he wrote. He has pride in it. He wants his son to be proud of him. Not only that but his values appear to be solid bourgeois values. He is buying a nice new house. He wants a promotion and more money. This in turn is even more puzzling to the woman. What is he about exactly?
The man is nice. He tries to explain to her what it all means. But he can't. She cannot understand how these things are important and at the same time worthless. She asks him repeatedly, what does he mean when he says that a college education is the same as a stupid hazing in a fraternity (full of mindless frat boys, one presumes.) How is she supposed to take school seriously and yet at the same time not take it seriously? If what he says is true, then what all they all doing there? How can it all be nonsense?
As a nice man, the professor tries to help her. If she accepted his help and learned to parrot the usual line, she would have been okay and so would he. But she remains genuinely bewildered. The man, though kind, never understands her. He never understands what she is asking, although she asks it explicitly. She is very open. So is he. But they are speaking different languages. This is the truth that he cannot tell her because he cannot acknowledge it himself. The group to which I belong has the rule that we must express contempt for everything in our culture. At the same time, we must value it enough to act by its rules and garner the rewards it offers. We must express disgust for such things as big new houses as evidence of mindless American materialism. Yet at the same time, we must buy and live in such houses.
But she gets her revenge for his opacity. She takes the liberal thinking and uses it to destroy him. He thinks he is a critique of culture. She will show him what a critique really is. She will show him how every word out of his mouth, every gesture of his hand, every thought in his head is in the service of the evil oppressor. She will show him how just one word of hers, just one accusation that he oppressed her can destroy him. She needs no proof. In the liberal system which he accepts without even thinking about it, proof is not needed. All it takes is one word of hers. She out liberals him to the point of telling him how he can address his wife. She gets drunk with her power over him. "Don't call your wife baby." Then this civilized liberal man loses control, but just for a brief instant.
Movie Review: Only watched the movie, have not read the book.
Summary: 4 Stars
Oleanna is a two-character piece. For the most part, the dynamics are played out in a series of rooms on an unnamed college campus.
Carol approaches the professor for help. She's failing his course. Instead of giving her conventional advice, the professor explains to Carol his entire philosophy of education. She is offended by some of what he says, and they argue, but their eventual parting seems to be amicable, in the beginning.
Bolstered by a group of nameless, faceless supporters, Carol is no longer the nervous, uncertain girl of as the movie plays out. Her self-assurances waxes, the professor's wanes.
An intellectual sparring match where there is no absolute truth.
The dialogue is strewn with inuendo's through out the latter part of the movie, though neither is lying; it is the subjective rather than the objective element of their account which is unique to each who witness this movie unfold.
Ultimately, perhaps the question in Oleanna is not whether sexual harassment has been committed, but exactly who is persecuting whom.
Although there often appears to be a play with graduated English literal terminology, Carol often demeans the language to lower the standard in conversation; though apparently fluent in it's use.
As the movie progressors it's possible in the beginning to see Carol searching for understanding, then toward the end simply using it as condesending weapon or retaliation, in attempt to belittle and demean the professor; as she feels, was done to her and not just in terms of conversation but her grade. There is constant reflective quality of a word meaning, that within the cofines of using a word and within the sentance structure, which is acurrately used, becomes a tool to change the structure of intent and meaning.
The most annoying aspect of this work,is the constant interruption and it's not the phone ringing during critical pauses in conversation, but the constant incomplete and interupted sentances and 'Flight of Thought'; by both the professor and Carol.
In some ways, the progression of Oleanna is more like that of a psychological thriller than a drama.
As the movie goes forward, there is the revealation that Carol has filed a protest against the professor, accusing him of sexual harassment. Her charges have some part of fact, but neither intent nor context are considered within the charges laid forth. They are not meant to be real, in fact.
This is essentially a play of a student failing a class and is looking to get even, easily reflected in her attempts to document each and every word; which in its self is taken out of true context, thus proving a play on words without a witness,is nothing more than words -Accurate as they may be. Having noted that, the turning point of the whole movie, was made in the most simple fashion..."Don't call your wife, baby",
one will have to see the movie and then consider context and intent of that small phrase and the impact relationship.
Oleanna is a about mind games and I would feel confident that there is the possibility to see more than two versions of the whole, in the end. Much of the interpration is left open for judgement.
For myself I see a student, feeling threatened with failure, seeks guidance with the express intent of obsolving herself; only the situation gets out of control and that's remarkable, the movie is about control, although the word 'Power' in transgressed into the theme. In order for the student to give conscience to her appeal, she drives herself deeper into a disconsolate mood and is not helped by the professors ideology of himself and that education is his to manipulate. Neither one listening to the other, the result is the student breaks down the barriers, using her notes to have the professors tenure dismissed, without any involvement on his part officially; the professor was over confident and should have seeked School counsel.
The end result was in fact more than words, but the physical act of lost control and indeed a crime, pushed and goaded he cracked.
I'm always taken by those that subverse others with dreaded "Social" crimes, with no real merit, equally the self imposed Rightous types; we have both in this drama.
Michael
Movie Review: Thought Provoking
Summary: 4 Stars
Oleanna gets my solid recommendation, at least for people who like small movies with really intense acting performances. Adapted pretty much straightforward from the play, it benefits from the intimacy of television, as it gets no benefit from being on a big screen. It is not really a feminist film as neither character is portrayed in a particularly flattering manner.
Oleanna is basically a two-character film, which is divided into three sections, corresponding to three visits by a young college woman to her professor's faculty office. It is a small elite college and coming from a modest background she has had to make a lot of sacrifices to attend the school. As we come to know her we see that she harbors an "extreme" amount of resentment concerning these sacrifices.
The Professor (William Macy who played the role on the stage) is pompous, arrogant, and overbearing. He pontificates excessively and having him as your instructor would not be an inspirational experience. His approach to teaching and the film's title (a reference to a couple who sold swampland to unsuspecting saps) is a slap at the rip-off that passes for higher education.
Carol (Debra Eisenstadt) is flunking his class, her work is inadequate but she feels entitled to special treatment because of her disadvantaged social situation and her many sacrifices to attend the school. It is on this point that the film is especially interesting because part of her situation has merit, she simply wants him to teach her-to respect her and her aspirations for an education (i.e. to actually be a teacher). And someone from her background should receive help with the technical terms and theoretical abstractions, which are familiar to those who received better preparation in high school. Toward the end of her first visit the professor for unknown reasons switches from stern taskmaster into his paternal mode and seems to realize that he really should be doing his job better.
But Carol misinterprets his sudden interest and on her second visit informs him that she and a support "group" are pursing a sexual harassment complaint with his tenure committee. Her allegations, when viewed out of context appear to have merit and upset him enough that he physically blocks her exit. This simply compounds his trouble.
Her third visit occurs after he has been denied tenure and is packing up to leave the school. While clear that the professor has never had any sexual interest in her and was not trying to trade sexual favors for a grade, Carol's interpretation of his actions seems reasonable and sincere until she attempts to blackmail him and condescendingly admonishes him about the pet name he uses for his wife. At that point (if not before) you realize that she is a nut case who has irresponsibly ruined his life, in part because of her resentment about her overall situation at the college and in part because of an unconscicious desire for power.
This makes for a intriguing twist as Carol is revealed as one of those well meaning people so caught up in the rightness of their cause (and the seductive power of suddenly having influence) that they become blind to the human consequences of their actions.
Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
Movie Review: Excellent
Summary: 4 Stars
David Mamet's Oleanna, named after a Norwegian folk song that mocked the idea of a utopia, is a tense, tense movie. I haven't been so uncomfortable watching a movie in a long time. After watching it a second time, I especially noticed the girl's compulsive taking of notes, recording John's (William H. Macy's) talk about his son having to go to a public school as "the white man's burden." He tells her that she doesn't need to take notes, but she tells him that she "want to remember." This means something different the second time around, as the viewer knows the aftermath of her analysis. I think that she misinterprets his willingness to help her; germane statements such as, "I like you" delivered in non-suggestive tones are taken in the most aggressive way possible; his openness and her naiveté are a lethal combination.
The play was inspired by the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill controversy and its aftermath. Unlike that case, where the question was, "Did he do what she alleged?," the question in this work is, "Did what he undeniably did constitute sexual harassment?" He would say yes, she would say no.
I think that your appreciation of this film is partially influenced by your ideology: If you generally agree with feminism, you're more apt to take the girl's side, and if you generally disagree with feminism, you're more likely to take the guy's side. I think that David Mamet wants us to side with Carol for the first act (she just wants help, and he's being difficult), side with John for the second act (he's about to lose his house, his tenure, and his reputation over trivial matters), and make up our own mind in the third act. On the cover of the dvd, it says, "Either one you side with, you're wrong," suggesting that it's easier to make a case against either person in this film than for them. In this sense, instead of having a traditional protagonist and complementary antagonists, the play doubles up on antagonists, and skips the "good guy" part (I apologize for saying "good guy." I should have said "person of a non-specific gender with quality.").
While Glengarry Glen Ross or American Buffalo may inundate the viewer with certain four-letter words, Oleanna's strong language comes from other four-letter words-rape, baby ("and don't call your wife baby!"), etc. You will either love it or hate it; I loved it.
Movie Review: Oh, the damage two people can do...
Summary: 4 Stars
As mentoined by others, this is not a film for the unprepared. Take Mamet's trademark choppy and rythmic prose - add that there are two characters in the whole film - put that together with the fact that the film is about one of the most controversial subjects and yet, does no 'moralizing' of the 'who's right' variety. What do you get? Boredom? Torture? That's what you'd think, right? Wrong! This film is outstanding; that is...if you are a David Mamet fan. I am, and quite frankly, if you're not, you should be. Oleanna is the story of a girl who goes to see her college professor for help in a class she is failing. He means well (so it seems) and tries to help, but says (and does?) some thing that lead her to suspect sexual harrassment. Before long a complaint is filed and he may lose his tenure and his job. Yes, the whole film - THE WHOLE FILM - is dialogue between these two characters in his office (three acts). But as a testament to Mamet, no one has ever made a two-person dialogue stretched over 90 minutes so forward moving, exciting, confusing, nuanced, and awesome. The ending is explosive!
The reason for the knocked out star is for the Mamet-ness which, though I am accustomed to and love, may seem strange to the uninitiated. His style is this: the dialogue he writes containes fragmented and somewhat choppy sentences as an attempt to immitate real speech (why do movie characters always talk in complete sentences?). Further, instead of the actors improvising the "ums" and stammers, Mamet actually WRITES THEM INTO THE SCRIPT and the actor's job is to perform it completely as written! What does this make for? If done correctly and properly it makes for a highly rythmic and forward moving style. If done poorly, it makes for a mechanical and almost dull recetative that gets under your skin, it's so tight. Fortunately, it is done quite well by the two actors (with ever-so-slight slippage into the monotone from the actress).
All in all, this is a film I will watch again and again, and I'm confident that I'll see new nuances each time (that's just Mamet's way!). If you want to see some great art, get this film!