Oleanna

Rating:
Summary: UACT-Critial Thinking
Review: If you are looking for a movie that will not make you think. If you want a movie that where the hero carries a big gun, and saves the world. If you want a movie that you can watch without emotion. Oleanna is not for you. Oleanna is about a teacher that trys to help a student grow and learn. Durring that process the student, either on her own behalf or her group, feels that the teacher tried to rape her. As a on looker you are able to see what really was going on and are able to be either annoyed by the student or sympathize with the student. Durring the process of the teacher helping the student the teacher looses control and the student becomes the person with power. That builds to the very last sence. As long as you are not annoyed easily and want to think after watching a movie. Oleanna is a great movie to watch. Everything builds off something else. If you are annoyed easily I would suggest that you try not to watch this movie.

Rating:
Summary: Just Makes the Grade
Review: It's always been a puzzle to me why some screen adaptations of stage plays work just fine and others fail miserably. Lately, I've been watching a fair number of them--not for the sole purpose of answering that question, mind you: it just seems to have worked out that way. Good thing, too, that I haven't been hellbent on resolving that issue, because I'm no closer to an answer now than I've ever been.

Sure you can talk about how successfully the play has been "opened up" for the screen. In the case of OLEANNA, the answer would be "not very much at all." It is, as others have noted, still very much stagebound. Like the female student, we feel virtually confined to the professor's office. Theatergoers have to accept such conventions as a (usually) necessary theatrical limitation. But in the context of a film, it becomes almost unbearably claustrophobic.

And I see from reading other reviewers' comments, that I'm hardly alone in finding the dialog too mannered. For long stretches at a time, the two protagonists (well, actually, antagonists) do nothing by interrupt each other. Some interruption makes for a more natural representation of actual conversation, but when neither character actually gets to complete an entire sentence, it is anything but natural. It's just irritating. Mamet, who reportedly writes to a metronome, should probably have turned the darn thing off this time out.

And of course there's that constantly ringing telephone. That would likely have driven me nuts even as a theatrical device. On film it's too much.

Mamet is always interesting enough to make almost any of his projects worth watching (at least once). And William H. Macy is his reliably quirky self. The quintessential character actor, he shines when given the lead role. Despite the mannered dialog, he is able to plumb his character's proverbial depths and create a fascinating portrait of a tortured academic, whose ambition, though very real, is hampered by nagging self-doubt (to say nothing of his doubts regarding his chosen profession).

Debra Eisenstadt as his student antagonist doesn't have as rich a palette to work with. Her character goes from insecure, diffident student, somewhat in awe of her brilliant professor, to near militant, bent on the personal destruction of her former instructor. The actual transition seems to have been made deliberately vague. She seems to have fallen under the influence of an unidentified but apparently quite militant "group" and finds some new strength and a sense of identity therein. With a moral certitude unique to the very young, she has no qualms about sacrificing her professor's life and career on the altar of "political correctness."

Which brings up the subject of the film's "message." The film's tagline is "Whatever side you take, you're wrong." And that simply is not true. As riddled with self-doubt as the professor is, he is clearly the more sympathetic character. Yes, both "sides" are aired, but it is clear almost as soon as the nature of the conflict is articulated, that the tortured but intellectually honest professor doesn't stand a chance against the newfound black-and-white worldview of the "true believer" student.

All of this conflict could have made for gripping cinema. What you actually are likely to come away with is that "hmmm-it-probably-worked-onstage" feeling. And that's too bad. Given the potentially incendiary subject matter, it really should have been a better film.

Rating:
Summary: Just Makes the Grade
Review: It's always been a puzzle to me why some screen adaptations of stage plays work just fine and others fail miserably. Lately, I've been watching a fair number of them--not for the sole purpose of answering that question, mind you: it just seems to have worked out that way. Good thing, too, that I haven't been hellbent on resolving that issue, because I'm no closer to an answer now than I've ever been.

Sure you can talk about how successfully the play has been "opened up" for the screen. In the case of OLEANNA, the answer would be "not very much at all." It is, as others have noted, still very much stagebound. Like the female student, we feel virtually confined to the professor's office. Theatergoers have to accept such conventions as a (usually) necessary theatrical limitation. But in the context of a film, it becomes almost unbearably claustrophobic.

And I see from reading other reviewers' comments, that I'm hardly alone in finding the dialog too mannered. For long stretches at a time, the two protagonists (well, actually, antagonists) do nothing by interrupt each other. Some interruption makes for a more natural representation of actual conversation, but when neither character actually gets to complete an entire sentence, it is anything but natural. It's just irritating. Mamet, who reportedly writes to a metronome, should probably have turned the darn thing off this time out.

And of course there's that constantly ringing telephone. That would likely have driven me nuts even as a theatrical device. On film it's too much.

Mamet is always interesting enough to make almost any of his projects worth watching (at least once). And William H. Macy is his reliably quirky self. The quintessential character actor, he shines when given the lead role. Despite the mannered dialog, he is able to plumb his character's proverbial depths and create a fascinating portrait of a tortured academic, whose ambition, though very real, is hampered by nagging self-doubt (to say nothing of his doubts regarding his chosen profession).

Debra Eisenstadt as his student antagonist doesn't have as rich a palette to work with. Her character goes from insecure, diffident student, somewhat in awe of her brilliant professor, to near militant, bent on the personal destruction of her former instructor. The actual transition seems to have been made deliberately vague. She seems to have fallen under the influence of an unidentified but apparently quite militant "group" and finds some new strength and a sense of identity therein. With a moral certitude unique to the very young, she has no qualms about sacrificing her professor's life and career on the altar of "political correctness."

Which brings up the subject of the film's "message." The film's tagline is "Whatever side you take, you're wrong." And that simply is not true. As riddled with self-doubt as the professor is, he is clearly the more sympathetic character. Yes, both "sides" are aired, but it is clear almost as soon as the nature of the conflict is articulated, that the tortured but intellectually honest professor doesn't stand a chance against the newfound black-and-white worldview of the "true believer" student.

All of this conflict could have made for gripping cinema. What you actually are likely to come away with is that "hmmm-it-probably-worked-onstage" feeling. And that's too bad. Given the potentially incendiary subject matter, it really should have been a better film.

Rating:
Summary: my review of oleanna
Review: Oleanna did exactly what it was made to do: stir the emotions of those who watch it. No movie can broach subjects that these to characters did without causing some kind of commotion. William h. macy plays the role of a college professor dying to get his point across and his pupil a young girl who is unable to grasp her instructors ways strives to succeed by asking for his help. Things take a turn for the worse when each character starts to develop for themselves different personalities and tries to impose them on one another. It culminates in a dramatic scene between the two when tempers boil and the relationship between teacher and student has far been crossed. Oleanna is a movie that everyone should see at least once, it allows a forum for discussion and can let people use that as an avenue for their thoughts and beliefs about the topics broached in this film.

It gets 2 stars in my opinion because i have seen a lot better movies and David mamet, the director, did a lot better with wag the dog then he did with this.

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant.
Review: Phenomenal movie - watch this and try not to get stirred one way or the other. By virtue of its tough yet well handled subject matter this remains my favorite David Mammet film. Stylistically its quite minimalistic, but somehow this seems appropriate in the context of the film. But again, thats just my opinion. Watch it for yourself and you decide.

Rating:
Summary: This is actually a horror film!
Review: Sure, on the surface this seems like a movie/play about sexual harrassment, but it is truly deeper and more terrifying than that. I believe what this story is about is modern man's inability to conduct civil discourse, and of our propensity to run roughshod over our fellow citizens just to prove that we can. The professor and the student in this story are both extremely flawed in their own ways, but in common they are both terrible at simple human communication. As a result, a very minor event gets blown WAY out of proportion, and neither character has the foresight to see how badly things may well turn out as a result - at least until it's too late. This is actually a very sharp microcosm of America's litigous society. We seek to sue rather than to compromise or understand. It's not enough to be right - everyone else has to be wrong. This story is as good an example as anything else I've encountered of why our society is going to hell in a handbasket. We as a society are so full of hatred, self-loathing, insecurity, and/or pomposity that we are hastening our own cultural demise. The tag line for this movie (and the play) is "Whatever side you take, you're wrong." How right that is! There is no right side or wrong side. That is not the point anyway. The point is, look at the kinds of problems we create for ourselves in this society. It is truly scary how much real life is mirrored in this story.

Rating:
Summary: Unimpressive, unrealistic...
Review: The girl in this film is not sympathetic. But neither is the boy. And yes, "girl" and "boy" are appropriate nouns to describe them. It's astonishing in one sense that this fellow made it to a tenure decision...what department is he in, anyway? Philosophy? Psychology? Babble? No, he didn't try to rape her, yes, he's a stupid fool, yes, she's annoying, so is he, no, he doesn't deserve prison, but yes, he deserves to be kicked out of a university...the film is shallow in its appraisal of the politically correct culture of some universities in the 90's and beyond. These two characters deserve each other.

Rating:
Summary: Unimpressive, unrealistic...
Review: The girl in this film is not sympathetic. But neither is the boy. And yes, "girl" and "boy" are appropriate nouns to describe them. It's astonishing in one sense that this fellow made it to a tenure decision...what department is he in, anyway? Philosophy? Psychology? Babble? No, he didn't try to rape her, yes, he's a stupid fool, yes, she's annoying, so is he, no, he doesn't deserve prison, but yes, he deserves to be kicked out of a university...the film is shallow in its appraisal of the politically correct culture of some universities in the 90's and beyond. These two characters deserve each other.

Rating:
Summary: You won't be the same after watching it...
Review: This film should come with a warning: "Danger! For David Mamet fans only!"

It isn't unlikely that the uninitiated will enjoy the film. It is a very good film. However, those for whom this is their first Mamet film may find themselves confused or uncomfortable and thus, unable to enjoy the film for what it is. Better that they start with something easier like "The Edge" and then move onto something like "The Winslow Boy" or "The Spanish Prisoner" and thence to "House of Games" before trying something challenging like "Glengarry" or "Oleanna".

All of Mamets tricks are here... his love of the telephone as a means to interrup conversations and his use of the one-sided conversation to add depth to the story. Mamet's stacatto dialog which its odd combination of 40s gangster-aggression and dry, professorial wit is rarely more purely distilled than it is here.

Watching this film is like drinking 151 rum in neat shots. It isn't for everyone but those who can do it will have one hell of a ride.

One thing I really like about Mamet's stuff is that he doesn't create "strawman" characters. I read once that the Chess Master Bobby Fisher learned the game by playing both sides equally hard because he couldn't find a worthy opponent.

Many writers may claim to attempt this when creating confrontations between their characters but Mamet is one of the few who succeeds brilliantly. The tagline "whichever side you take, you're wrong" is not only clever, it is very true. They could just as easily replaced "wrong" with "right". Why didn't they?

Read Mamet's book "Three Uses of the Knife" for his explanation of why the Arthur Miller play "Death of a Salesman" couldn't have been called "Life of a Salesman" and you'll understand.

I wish Mr. Mamet a long a prolific career. Keep 'em coming!!

p.s. I read on the DVD box that when this play was first performed at a university, a group of angry students confronted Mamet and one of them accused him of "political irresponsibility". Here's hoping that Mr. Mamet continues to annoy and irritate foolish people like that for many years to come.

Rating:
Summary: You won't be the same after watching it...
Review: This film should come with a warning: "Danger! For David Mamet fans only!"

It isn't unlikely that the uninitiated will enjoy the film. It is a very good film. However, those for whom this is their first Mamet film may find themselves confused or uncomfortable and thus, unable to enjoy the film for what it is. Better that they start with something easier like "The Edge" and then move onto something like "The Winslow Boy" or "The Spanish Prisoner" and thence to "House of Games" before trying something challenging like "Glengarry" or "Oleanna".

All of Mamets tricks are here... his love of the telephone as a means to interrup conversations and his use of the one-sided conversation to add depth to the story. Mamet's stacatto dialog which its odd combination of 40s gangster-aggression and dry, professorial wit is rarely more purely distilled than it is here.

Watching this film is like drinking 151 rum in neat shots. It isn't for everyone but those who can do it will have one hell of a ride.

One thing I really like about Mamet's stuff is that he doesn't create "strawman" characters. I read once that the Chess Master Bobby Fisher learned the game by playing both sides equally hard because he couldn't find a worthy opponent.

Many writers may claim to attempt this when creating confrontations between their characters but Mamet is one of the few who succeeds brilliantly. The tagline "whichever side you take, you're wrong" is not only clever, it is very true. They could just as easily replaced "wrong" with "right". Why didn't they?

Read Mamet's book "Three Uses of the Knife" for his explanation of why the Arthur Miller play "Death of a Salesman" couldn't have been called "Life of a Salesman" and you'll understand.

I wish Mr. Mamet a long a prolific career. Keep 'em coming!!

p.s. I read on the DVD box that when this play was first performed at a university, a group of angry students confronted Mamet and one of them accused him of "political irresponsibility". Here's hoping that Mr. Mamet continues to annoy and irritate foolish people like that for many years to come.