For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222
Call 1-800-351-0222
TWO CONTEMPORARY PLAYS.
Term Paper ID:30671
Get This Paper Free! or
Essay Subject:
Analysis of David Mamet's "OLEANNA" and Peter Shaffer's "EQUUS."... More...
6 Pages / 1350 Words
4 sources, 6 Citations,
APA Format
$24.00
More Papers on This Topic
Paper Abstract:
Analysis of David Mamet's "OLEANNA" and Peter Shaffer's "EQUUS." Compares both as examples of a tragic fall, and as modern man's struggle to find meaning and purpose in present-day society. How their actions and events push leading characters of both plays over the edge; their fall from grace.
Paper Introduction:
This paper is an examination of two strong figures in contemporary American drama, both professional men who are faced with situations that cause them to question their choices and confront their weaknesses. John, in David Mamet=s Oleanna, is a college professor whose smug superiority is shaken by his encounter with a female student. Martin Dysart, in Peter Shaffer=s Equus, is a child psychiatrist who has already begun to doubt his powers when he takes on the case of a teenaged boy accused of a horrible crime. Both provide interesting examples of a tragic fall as outlined by a master playwright, and the contrasts between these two figures hold a mirror to modern man=s struggle to find meaning and purpose in present-day society.
Oleanna (1992) begins with an exchange between a college professor, John, and one of his students, Carol. He has given her a
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
They write, AThe difference betweenpersonality functioning and malfunctioning - between style and disorder -is only one of degree@ (p. John is so unaware of himself that he may actually be more likely tosuccumb to any one of a number of personality disorders. John hastaken young minds and worked to mold them in his image, while Dysart hastried to make the minds in his care become more Anormal@; he says, ATheNormal is the indispensable, murderous God of Health, and I am his Priest@(p. Heobviously considers himself to be hip, knowledgeable, accomplished, andwitty. God: A biography. John thought he was successful in both his work and his marriage butrapidly discovers how fleeting were all his accomplishments. Both provide interesting examples of a tragic fall as outlined by amaster playwright, and the contrasts between these two figures hold amirror to modern man=s struggle to find meaning and purpose in present-daysociety. By the end of Equus, Dysart has discovered the root of Alan=s anguishand sketched out a plan for saving the boy. He creates the human scene that hethen enters. He understands his own anguishmuch more clearly and, though his vision is bleak, it is at least clear.There is hope that he may regain meaning and happiness, though that hope isnot assured. John and Dysart can play atbeing gods, but they do not have the power or the perfection to carry offthe impersonation, and this deficiency dooms them to ultimate failure. John=s fall, on the otherhand, is primarily the result of his inability to understand anything atall about himself. Both men define themselves and are definedby those around them more by their jobs than by their personalities: Dysartis a psychiatrist before he is anything else, John is a professor and notmuch of a man. Yet John=s fall from grace is not as tragic from a dramaticstandpoint, if merely because he is such a pathetic figure to begin with.This patronizing, self-important figure almost begs to be brought down fromhis pedestal, while Dysart=s questioning and willingness to see himself asflawed makes him more sympathetic and therefore more moving in his pain. He seemslikely to blame Carol, the tenure committee, his lawyer, his real estateagent, and even his wife for the unfair, unjust cruelties to which he isabout to be subjected. Unlike Dysart, he will probably never be able tosee that his misfortunes are all of his own making, all the results of hisown actions. M., & Morris, L. . (1995). (199 ). If he is unable to find a way back to health and relativehappiness, then his fall is a greater tragedy. At the beginning of Equus, Dysart is a man in crisis. You believe in nothing at all@ (p. She takes his offhand characterizationof education as being Aprolonged and systematic hazing@ of students byteachers and shows the absolute accuracy of a remark he never meant to betrue. Martin Dysart, the protagonist in Equus (1974), begins the playuncertain and confused. 393). In the case of both of these characters,the events confronting each has the potential to push them over the edge,into some form of psychopathology. He has been having dreams in which he sees his jobas carving up children, eliminating their individuality in order to makethem more normal. John M. B. During the course of the play,however, he comes of recognize that his personal life is stale and flawed.His childless marriage has isolated him in self-delusion and his hobbiesare hollow passions that usually serve to keep him from seeing how emptyhis life has become. He istortured by the growing realization that his whole existence may have beenpointless and misguided, that it may, in fact, have been destructive,cruel, and evil. Oldham and Morris (199 ) chronicle the impact of personal andprofessional success on the different stages of life. At the beginning of Oleanna, John is a man at the top of his game. References Mamet, D. Even at the end of the play, he still has the capacityfor self-delusion. Knopf. He has given her a failing grade,and she is reluctant to accept his decision. Bothmen have previously enjoyed opportunities to feel like gods, exercisingomnipotent power over the minors who are subject to their power. Both men present many of these symptoms ofstagnation. Carol is transformed from an insecure undergraduateinto a powerful accuser, eliminating any chance of John=s gaining tenure,much less of even keeping his job. Yet both are in professions that encourage them to set themselvesabout the Amere mortals@ with whom they work. He defends himself breezily to the naive, inexperienced student, evenoffering to allow her to start over under his personal instruction. 65). He is presented with the case of a 17-year-old boy, AlanStrang, who blinded six horses with a metal spike, and, in the course ofdiscovering why, he faces his own doubts about what he is doing with hislife. 67). You believe in nothing. Oleanna (1992) begins with an exchange between a college professor,John, and one of his students, Carol. Both are mature men workingwith primarily underage clients who need their superior wisdom and greaterexperience. In some way, that makes him a more pathetic figure, butit does not make his failure as tragic as Dysart=s, since he has notlearned much from the what he has experienced. The second and third acts turn John comfortable world upside down.Everything he thought he knew about himself is suddenly put in a differentand horrifying light. She reduces John to a helpless,confused creature without refuge or context. Toward the end of Oleanna (1992), Carol tells John, AYou Are Not God .. He doubts notonly his abilities but the fundamental purpose of his life=s work. He has accomplished most of what he set out to do, andhis entire purpose may turn out to have been an enormous mistake. Martin Dysart, in PeterShaffer=s Equus, is a child psychiatrist who has already begun to doubt hispowers when he takes on the case of a teenaged boy accused of a horriblecrime. New York: Penguin Group. John,in David Mamet=s Oleanna, is a college professor whose smug superiority isshaken by his encounter with a female student. Oldham and Lois B. Dysart is actually professionally successful, though he ishaving difficulty feeling like a success. Miles, J. Morris (199 ) argue that every style ofpersonality exists on a continuum that, taken to its logical extreme, leadsto a particular personality disorder. They cannot help but be tempted to see themselves asmasterful, transcendent beings. (1992). He offers an importantlesson to his audience about humility and the need to pay attention, but itis a lesson he never masters himself. He is gracious enough to concede that his student=s failure isactually his own but does not really believe that for a minute. Oldham, J. He is constantly interruptedby phone calls about the pending purchase of a house, made possible by thepending decision of the tenure committee to award him the security andrecognition for which he has worked so hard and to which he feels entitled. The personality self-portrait: why you think, work, love, and act the way you do. That both are undergoing a critical period of redefinitionof their careers is especially important. The danger is that being a god is incompatible with being a humanbeing, and both John and Dysart are human. By the end of Oleanna, John has been reduced to his most basic self,and that self has been revealed to be pathetically lacking. Dysart at least has the self-awareness(not to mention the psychiatric training) to recognize the danger he is in. She accuses him of figurative rape and shows how everything he hassaid and done, every casual familiarity, every patronizing gesture, can bequoted in support of her accusation. Equus. The psychiatrist wonders if whathe does is genuinely worth doing or may perhaps be cruelly destructive,while the professor may be about to be stripped of his position and barredfrom defining himself in the only way that matters to him. New York:Bantam. New York: Vintage. Oleanna. John still thinks of himself as akind of god, albeit one who has been dragged from his rightful place in theheavens by unfair forces. However, hisinability to look at himself honestly will probably keep him from everexperiencing the kind of recognition of which Dysart is capable. Everything hewanted is about to be lost, everything he understood suddenly makes nosense. As Jack Miles (1995) writes,A[God] does not enter the human scene. (1974). He isconfident, witty, and Awith it.@ He is reaping the rewards of a life welllived. He creates the human antagonist whose interaction with himshapes all the subsequent action@ (p. 85). New York: Alfred A. Dysart describes his condition at the start of the play as being in akind of Aprofessional menopause.@ In many ways, John is in exactly thesame state, though he is blissfully unaware of his condition. This paper is an examination of two strong figures in contemporaryAmerican drama, both professional men who are faced with situations thatcause them to question their choices and confront their weaknesses. Heis deftly juggling the professional demands of dealing with a minor studentproblem and the personal challenge of buying his dream house. The phraseis especially useful in understanding both characters, implying an end tofertility and the transition into later middle age that often triggers amid-life crisis in many adults. Only in Dysart=s case, however, does thisvision turn into a haunting nightmare. Dysart, in the depths of his descent, is at least able to be honestwith himself. They observe thatsuccess in middle adulthood, the period both men are in, results infeelings of being @productive and creative,@ while failure in the sameperiod makes the individual Aegocentric, nonproductive, [experiencing]early invalidism, excessive self-love, personal impoverishment, [and] self-indulgence@ (p. He is the success he deserves to be. 2 ). Shaffer, P.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
We can write a Custom Essay just for you.
Browse Essays by Subject