Mamet, on accusations of being a misogynist, in 1997: "It's inaccurate and it's a lie, and not only is it that, but it's cowardly. [N]othing could be further from the truth, either in my personal life, if it's anyone's business, or in my work. I think if someone wants to make such an unpleasant and demonstrably false assertion, let him or her make it, and I'll respond with whatever small courtesy it deserves" (The Boston Globe, 1997).
I do feel that Mamet’s choice in an all male cast drives home the message that women, despite being trashed behind their backs and downplayed by an all male cast, rather harshly, are, in fact, to be admired strangely enough.
In my eyes, the women mentioned in Mamet’s play are depicted as both rational (Mrs. Lingke gets her husband to detract from a bs purchase) and also human and vulnerable (Levene’s daughter is in the hospital). In their absence, Mamet’s women earn their rank in being a man’s better half. Mamet also chooses to deliberately exclude women from his play to help fill out its macho, chest-pounding and highly competitive atmosphere. Would an all female real estate office breed this “eat or be eaten” aggression? It might. I doubt a woman’s motive differs from a man’s when earning a pretty penny is at stake. I will, however, hypothesize that four women might be more cunning and less obvious. I’m sure the one-up-manship would involve a lot more tact, something other than bragging about a sale or calling a rival the C word. Either C word. Perhaps if a woman were in the sales office, my notion of her sort of upstanding image might fly out the window. In the spring of 2009, director Gary Krinke of STAGEStheatre took this approach straight to the stage in casting women for the four main roles:
http://www.ocweekly.com/2009-05-21/culture/glengarry-glen-ross-stagestheatre/
Having casted a female, Mamet could have done a number of things. Perhaps Levene might have had a scene displaying his emotional, fatherly side at a hospital visit. Perhaps Lingke’s wife might have shown up in the office with James, and we would really get to see Roma’s chops (and manipulation) as a salesman. But in keeping the women of the play in the background, Mamet keeps their integrity intact. But I would really like to have seen Alec Baldwin’s speech be delivered by someone like Judge Judy, but I’m not sure how the brass balls thing would hold any water in that scenario.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really enjoyed this blog post. It is very interesting to see Mamet’s take on a major criticism of his work. Clearly, he does not agree with the notion that his play is somehow misogynist. I don’t believe it is either. It’s more of a statement on how people react and treat each other in pressure filled situations. Which is why it would be so interesting to see Glengarry Glen Ross performed by an all female cast. I can agree with you that, given the same circumstances, women might not be so vulgar or act so heavy handed, but I don’t believe there would be any less pressure humming around or people’s feelings would be spared in anyway. Women have the killer instinct to survive just as men do.
ReplyDeleteWhere to begin… I humbly agree with your statements that women are to be admired in this play. They simply hold dominion over us men in more ways than obviously observed. Mrs. Lingk is without a doubt the voice of reason in the couple and having her off-stage reinforces the strength of women. I am coming to the conclusion that all men would be fools whose hubris knows no bounds. In turn, whose hubris will make them as gullible as Mr. Lingk and not see through the sales pitch. Who else could have seen through Roma’s pitch for the piece of crap property he so desperately attempts to sell? No one but a woman. Yes, women are man’s better half, their voice of reason, and ultimately the decision maker (whether the men like it or not).
ReplyDeleteIt would make sense to agree with you that presence of women on-stage would lessen the visage that men are ‘macho’ and in turn cause them to look weak. The inclusion would lessen the tone of the ‘dog-eat-dog’ of the office and cause a shift from ruthless tactics to more… intellectual choices. In turn I could say with the excerpt you’ve added at the beginning just gives backbone to the true message that the accusations are not getting: men by nature are ruthless, but when a woman is appears (in this case off-stage) their said tactics become useless and must think.