On The Balance
At Big Hollywood, "Stage Right" wonders how David Mamet's plays will be received now that he's said he's no longer a liberal.
This week, the Mark Taper Forum’s revival of the aforementioned “Oleanna” will open on Broadway. ”Oleanna” was universally hailed when presented in the wake of the Clarence Thomas hearings. Many of the critics praised Mamet for being so even-handed in its presentation that it was hard for people to really know if the accused man was truly guilty of sexual harassment. Now that Mamet has “outed” himself, will they still see “Oleanna” and Mamet as “even-handed?”
Really? I didn't read what the critics said, but for me, the play's greatest problem has always been that it's so unbalanced.
PS Oleanna just opened and The New York Times beats it over the head with the 1992 production.
PPS "Stage Right" returns and claims he called it.
2 Comments:
Mamet's opinion piece repeats one of the most widely believed conspiracy fictions in American history: that Kennedy won in 1960 because of rigged votes in Chicago.
In point of fact, the electoral vote was JFK 303, Nixon 219. Illinois had 27 votes. So if Illinois had gone for Nixon, JFK still would have won, 276-246.
More generally, Mamet's first reason for becoming conservative (as a liberal, I loved JFK, but now I realize JFK was dishonest) is ridiculous. Yes, the worship of JFK by liberals is bizarre and unjustified, but if someone was really a liberal for forty years because he loved JFK, then he wasn't a liberal -- he was just an idiot.
P.S. The JFK thing worries me for another reason. Obama just one the Nobel Prize for his speeches. I like to think that if Obama, when his presidency is complete, has still accomplished nothing but to give good speeches, that the American people will decide he wasn't truly great. But sadly, that's a pretty good description of JFK's presidency, and after half a century he's still considered great. Oh well.
If Obama does nothing but make pretty speeches, I'll be happy.
Post a Comment
<< Home