Excerpt from a reflection:"It is very plain in reading the play that Mamet has given almost no stage direction; he limits the creation of dramatic tension to the field of dialogue, forcing the audience to take any meaning from only the words that are spoken and the messages that may or may not be hidden within them. Mamet packs a surprising amount into his dialogue, directing our listening with the emphasis he chooses to put on specific words, and directing our minds by having each character be seemingly unable to complete sentences; thus it is in those silences that we are expected to find the meaning of these men’s words and lives. It becomes exceedingly clear, however, that the moment any character opens his mouth, his words have the potential to be pitching something; as the Practical Sales Maxim (with which Mamet introduces Glengarry Glen Ross) states, “Always be closing.” This has the immediate effect of raising questions of authenticity—is there any one character who we should believe, any one “reality” that exists?One of the major themes in the play is that of manhood. It is initially invoked through the fact that the ensemble of characters itself contains no women (or queer men), and then increasingly through the dialogue. Moss says, “You don’t ax your sales force…when they build your business, then you can’t fucking turn around, enslave them, treat them like children, fuck them up the ass, leave them to fend for themselves” (36). There is a very real sense that these salesmen (excluding Williamson, who isn’t really a salesman) consider themselves men (with a capital m, if you will) because they have the ability to engage in double-talk, to close sales, to finesse or harass people into giving them exorbitant amounts of money simply by opening their mouths. They are “men” because they are steering their own lives, determining themselves, taking control in some sense of the word. Levene says of Williamson things like, “you don’t have the balls,” and “you’re a secretary,” positioning him in a non-masculine sphere, implying that he has no power because he does not have the ability to sell through talking (76, 77). Through their knowledge of what “manhood” rests upon, the characters in Glengarry Glen Ross are able to exploit other men’s fantasies of adventure, of power, of spending money carelessly. Roma’s pitch to Lingk certainly takes this form: “I do those things which seem correct to me today…And every day I do that, when the day arrives that I need a reserve, (a) odds are that I have it, and (b) the true reserve that I have is the strength that I have of acting each day without fear” (49). When Roma must subsequently battle with Lingk’s absent wife for the sale, he is really battling for Lingk to choose manhood over emasculation.The irony of these men’s constructions of themselves as “real men” is that they have as little control over their own lives as those they are exploiting. They essentially play a form of Russian roulette every day in the hopes that they will make enough on commission to put food on the table, and are subject to the whims of those above them. In his construction of the real estate office as a microcosm of late capitalist culture, Mamet positions these men as merely acting out the roles which they have been appointed by those who are really in control of the money: they must both act to succeed, but by succeeding, their coworkers must inevitably fail. This is not a world where everybody wins—they are actively competing with each other to virtually continue living. So we see that it is this type of capitalist culture which encourages talking as a way to dupe, a way to continue selling so that you yourself can hope not to be sold. It is this culture where speech is the mode of action, where speech is the mode of being, the way these men are able to exist, but what they are saying is not necessarily what they are saying. In this play, Mamet seems to be making a caustic attack on both contemporary capitalist culture and the postmodern age/sensibility that it exists hand in hand with, causing humanity to engage in a meaningless flow of words, attempting to exist through them and finding measured success (evidenced by Roma’s character; he is the most adept of the characters at selling through speech and the most successful, but is almost without any morals). By limiting his play to the details of dialogue, of speech, Mamet has created the potential for a comment on the way that it has figured into capitalism’s detrimental effects on society and the people who inhabit it (as exemplified by these real estate salesmen)."
Glengarry Glen Ross is a play by David Mamet that has won accolades across the board, been featured in the National Theatre of London, been on Broadway, and made into a movie (starring Al Pacino, Alec Baldwin, Jack Lemmon, Alan Arkin, Ed Harris, Kevin Spacey - I mean holy heavens Batman that is some serious casting).The action takes place over two days in two settings: a Chinese restaurant and a real estate office. The characters are real estate agents from Chicago trying to sell swampland in Florida to unwilling buyers, and they will lie, cheat, bribe, and in general be insufferable to do so. Their immorality doesn't stop with schmoozing average joes; they are also ridiculous to each other and willing to do just about anything, including steal, to make a buck. In other words, they are terrible people.I am entirely unsure how I feel about this play. I picked it up from the library on a whim. I was just walking around finding where things were (my first time in this particular library) and the title jumped out at me, being as it was familiar. I brought it home and read it during a blackout. I just love it when we lose electricity; that is some serious guilt free reading time in my opinion.I think my main problem with the play was the language. No one finished their freaking sentences. Like ever. I can see swindly egocentric men getting a bit phrase-ish when they get excited, but trying to read a play where every single character has difficulty forming a complete thought is taxing. I wonder if the film version is better; there's no way they made the movie true to the play as far as dialogue and action. Otherwise the movie would be extremely short and dull; after all, the entire play is conversations. With that cast of actors, it shouldn't be too difficult a movie to watch.As for what I did like about the play, first and foremost, it was interesting to watch listen to read about such horrible people. They were such over the top stereotypes of swindlers and listening to them complain and scheme was a bit entertaining. Overall, I can't give a solid recommendation. I'm glad I read it, but I definitely won't be reading it again.
Do You like book Glengarry Glen Ross (1994)?
این که چرا دیوید مامت نمایشنامه نویس "خوبی" است و چرا گلن گری گلن راس نمایشنامه ای "خوب" برایم قابل درک نیست. گاهی آدم کتابی می خواند که دوستش ندارد اما می تواند درک کند که عده ای آن را دوست داشته باشند.(صرفا با سلیقه ات جور در نمی آید)نمی دانم؛شاید من آن طور که باید به کتاب نگاه نکرده ام. شاید هم به این دلیل باشد که این نمایشنامه در اجرا کامل می شود.(-فقط این یکی؟! :) ) به نظر هم نمی رسد خیلی اثر عمیقی باشد و لایه های پنهان و ظرافت های صعب الوصول داشته باشد.(-شاید هم داشته باشد، هیچی بعید نیست!) خلاصه اگر یک فرد خیر خواه و دیوید-مامت-دوست پیدا شود و توضیحی بدهد ممنون خواهم شد.
—Tina Nazari
ROMA You think you're queer...? I'm going to tell you something: we're all queer. You think that you're a thief? So what? You get befuddled by a middle-class morality...? Get shut of it. Shut it out. You cheated on your wife...? You did it, live with it. (pause) You fuck little girls, so be it. There's an absolute morality? May be. And then what? If you think there is, then be that thing. Bad people go to hell? I don't think so. If you think that, act that way. A hell exists on earth? Yes. I won't live in it. That's me. You ever take a dump made you feel you'd just slept for twelve hours...? LINGK Did I...? ROMA Yes. LINGK I don't know. ROMA Or a piss...? A great meal fades in reflection. Everything else gains. You know why? 'Cause it's only food. This shit we eat, it keeps us going. But it's only food. The great fucks that you may have had. What do you remember about them? LINGK What do I...? ROMA Yes. LINGK Mmmm... ROMA I don't know. For me, I'm saying, what is is, it's probably not the orgasm. Some broads, forearms on your neck, something her eyes did. There was a sound she made...or, me, lying, in the, I'll tell you: me lying in bed; the next day she brought me cafe au lait. She gives me a cigarette, my balls feel like concrete. Eh? What I'm saying, what is our life? (pause) It's looking forward or it's looking back. And that's our life. That's it. Where is the moment? (pause) And what is it that we're afraid of? Loss. What else? (pause) The bank closes. We get sick, my wife died on a plane, the stock market collapsed...the house burnt down...what of these happen...? None on 'em. We worry anyway. What does this mean? I'm not secure. How can I be secure? (pause) Through amassing wealth beyond all measure? No. And what's beyond all measure? That's a sickness. That's a trap. There is no measure. Only greed. How can we act? (MORE) ROMA (CONT'D) The right way, we would say, to deal with this: "There is a one-in- a-million chance that so and so will happen...Fuck it, it won't happen to me..." No. We know that's not the right way I think. (pause) We say the correct way to deal with this is "There is a one-in-so-and- so chance this will happen...God protect me. I am powerless, let it not happen to me..." But no to that. I say. There's something else. What is it? "If it happens, AS IT MAY for that is not within our powers, I will deal with it, just as I do today with what draws my concern today." I say this is how we must act. I do those things which seem correct to me today. I trust myself. And if security concerns me, I do that which today I think will make me secure. And every day I do that, when that day arrives that I need a reserve, [a] odds are that I have it, and [b] the true reserve that I have is the strength that I have of acting each day without fear. (pause) According to the dictates of my mind.
—Nickolette
Of all works, in any medium, this is the best at showing American capitalism for what it really is: Darwinian struggle as blunt-force trauma. The last man standing is The Only Worthy Man. And by the way it IS only men Mamet writes of; women are peripheral at best, if occasionally decorative. I've seen and/or read the play many times but the best version is probably the film wherein Mamet adds a scene for Alec Baldwin that deserves a Lifetime Achievement Award all by itself. In the characters played by Baldwin and Al Pacino Mamet makes hard American poetry out of the rivers of blowtorch bullshit all the great Yankee salesmen have spewed out and swum in for hundreds of years. If Willy Loman is the tragic version of this great American archetype, Ricky Roma is the viciously comic kill-or-be-killed version. The ending's the same though: everybody dies, one way or the other - body or soul, or both.
—John Arfwedson
