IS MAMET'S BATTLE OF THE SEXES ON THE RIGHT WAVELENGTH?

Oleanna
Broadcast on BBC Radio 3
18th February 2024

An Audio Drama North production

Can a stage play truly be transplanted into the heads of a purely listening audience without major surgery?

David Mamet’s vicious two-hander Oleanna provokes that question after being converted into a theatre of the mind for BBC Radio 3.

Stage adaptations are invariably underpinned by visual cues such as vexatious expression, the decoding of body language and the notion that clothing can evoke emotions in others.

But this first-ever radio adaptation has none of these characteristics to draw upon, and indeed goes further, removing classic music and sound effects so often associated with the aural medium.

This extraordinary departure from convention leaves vocal inflexion, tonality and language to drive sensory perception.

Mamet’s university campus conflict pits older white male academic John against Bolshy young student Carol.

The pair clash in a battle of postmodern feminism reflective of the 1980s, a period just prior to the playwright’s authorship of this work.

Mark Bonner and Cecilia Appiah perform the two parts in American accents although there seems no clear reason why that should be the case. The listener is confronted with no more than these two voices and a noiseless background. All that is added is John's office phone ringtone and some fluting music to delineate the three acts. There are no radio-drama 'visual clues' in the script.

So, we can hear how the actors sound but how do they look? Is the professor in a woolly jumper and pipe or in a smart shirt and tie? Is he bald or dark and tall? Is she in jeans or a mini skirt, pigtailed or behatted? Our mind deciphers and concludes based on our own experiences, and without transparent directions we are presented with the ultimate test of the imagination, creating a world in our mind’s eye.

This simplifies matters, focusing entirely on the dialogue between the pair which starts as a chat about grades before eventually flaring into a struggle of power and gender dynamics.

On hearing the increasingly urgent exchanges I wondered whether modern audiences would be as outraged as those in 1992 appeared to be. Women were up in arms at Carol’s diminution as a freethinking individual whilst men howled at the idea an accusation without trial was enough to convict. Of course so-called cancel culture makes that latter notion almost de rigueur these days.

Even so, this stripped-down cadaver of a production exudes a growing sense of brooding disquiet as it becomes clear it is coming to life in the manner of Frankenstein's monster.

The story opens in the professor’s office where Carol has arrived to discuss a poor grade but he is involved in a loud phone conversation about a house purchase. The contrast is immediate and jarring to us, for no one on either side of the student-tutor divide these days would find a personal phone call taking precedence over a discussion of coursework.

At various stages the professor is interrupted but declines to take the old landline phone off the hook. The scene has been set - we infer his business is very important.

As the exchanges unfold we start to understand what is happening but how does it differ to what might happen now?

Having just finished university I can appreciate that on one hand we have the professor, all white privilege and worrying about saying the wrong thing and on the other the empowered student. I recall what seemed an amusing exchange when a student declared in class that he/she/they was thinking of changing gender. The lecturer looked troubled as if encountering a plumbing problem he had no idea how to fix.

Some academics may navigate the world through carefully constructed language that ensures the sesquipedalian is king, until confronted with their own linguistic frailties.

Carol begins hesitant and unsure but evolves, verbally unfurling a feminist banner as she shifts from dark to light, a phantasmagorical figure intent on eclipsing the symbol of privilege and superiority that hampers her progress.

Emboldened by her initial complaint about inappropriate behaviour being upheld she goes further, claiming a charge of rape could be brought against the professor who pressed against her while bundling her out of his office. The twin protagonists Bonner and Appiah pair, out of his office but offering a sop, suggesting certain books be withdrawn including his own.

Towards the denouement the professor concedes, realising his Tenure and secure future is at risk.

However the idea of his book being removed sparks a descent into a violently verbal pas de deux.

@Turnbullissimo



Sitemap