OLEANNA

[Richard Sutherland]

In Vancouver within the past year I saw two versions of Oleanna--one, a
staged reading at UBC, the other the Playhouse production which led off the
fall season. At both there was audience discussion following the show. At
UBC, the actors (readers?) moderated the discussion, whereas at the
Playhouse, the management arranged to have guests (of which I was one)
moderate the feedback.
 
For me, it was interesting to compare the feedbacks. At UBC, the atmosphere
was more highly charged (as might be expected, I suppose, considering the
location and the intimate atmosphere). I felt that at both the UBC and
Playhouse productions, there was more heat than light generated by the
discussion. Maybe they needed high school students, as mentioned by
Madeleine Lefebvre. At UBC, in particular, I felt that the discussion was
levered by (and how I hate this term) a "politically correct" majority
which made a truly open discussion difficult. Example: the discussion was
begun by a woman who seemed to be about the same age, etc. as Carol. Voice
shaking with rage, barely able to control herself, she she ranted at the
"unfair" portrayal of Carol in the play. The effect, I felt was to dampen,
to say the least, the ensuing discussion. From that point on, it became
"safe"--obviously no one was willing to rock the boat. This is not to
dismiss the fact that the objecting woman had a legitimate point--Carol
*is* portrayed as a red guard.
 
At the Playhouse, the discussions were, I feel, hampered by the guidelines
given to the moderators. We were expected only to keep the discussion
"moving," and not to interject our own opinions. Fair enough, but I felt
that the discussion tended to focus primarily on the subject of sexual
harrassment itself, rather than how the issue is treated in the play.
Discussion tended to go along the lines of "Well speaking as a woman, I can
vouch that this has happened to me," or "Well, speaking as a man, I can say
that the exact same thing happened to me." Interestingly, I felt that the
audience was about evenly divided between men and women as to how they felt
about some of the issues. In other words, half the women (or men) agreed
either that Carol was an out-and-out bitch, or that she was treated
unfairly by Mamet, etc. The only real eyebrow-raiser in my session, was
when a man stood up and said "Well, speaking as a Catholic priest, I know
what it is to be falsely accused." Needless to say, that caused a little
ripple in the audience.
 
I was at the Playhouse production along with my own "group"--students
enrolled in my playgoing course which I am offering through the UBC
Continuing Studies. Our own discussion, the following week, was lively and
engaed, partly because I was able to "guide" the talkback, and relate it
back to the play. I wish I were able to do this with the Playhouse
audience.
 
Re: Madeleine's comment about Mamet. I feel that she's essentially right,
albeit a bit hard on him. What play isn't contrived to achieve a desired
result? One can't deny, whether you agree with his m.o. or not, that he has
tapped into a subject that is current, and done it in a provocative manner
that has obviously engaged both producing companies and audiences. I quite
dislike aspects of the play, especially the ending, but it certainly has
provoked a tremendous amount of discussion. And what's wrong with laughing
all the way to the bank? One should scowl? Or is it better to be pure,
pristine but poor? I think it's too easy to knock someone like Mamet,
partly because he's so successful, or doesn't write plays "acceptable" to
the critical establishment.
 
Richard_Sutherland at mindlink.bc.ca