david mamet

1611 Words7 Pages
The pause unveils the self-awareness of the inadequacy to teach anybody by committing a crime and killing. This assumption is reinforced by the Don’s question, which encapsulates his ability to deviate the conversation from these terms and move forward to other issues. All in all, we can assert that Mamet strives to show what is hidden behind the language, therefore, he must get rid of the conventional language in order to grasp the essence of reality. In this account, the use of the inverted language stands as an attempt to grasp reality but at the same time, he is striving to unveil what is hidden behind it, that is, Mamet has a critical agenda towards the American society and capitalism, with the conventions of American society. Thirdly, we are going explore how Mamet’s protagonists show various degrees of personal stability. They are strangers of their own lives, with no particular sense of identity because for them the world is essentially meaningless, competitive, alienating and cold. It is my contention that the fragmentation of the society is mapped on the characters. In his article “Dominance and Anguish: The Teacher-Student Relationship in the Plays of David Mamet”, Hubert-Leibler draws attention to the construction of the characters: “Most of Mamet’s characters are mediocrities, losers who generally occupy the lower echelons of American society. Some of the hardly seem to have a lace in it. […] Whether they be casualties of capitalism – those for whom the American dream never materialized – or outsiders, it is clear that they do not have access to the power conferred by money, status, or, for that matter, love. Yet their profound need for dominance is very much alive, and because of their disempowerment, can only be ex... ... middle of paper ... ...izens and the moral choices to be made in order to effect a critical examination of society. In this sense, Bigsby contends that “[i]n his essays Mamet spends some time explaining what theatre is not. It is not, in particular, […] a mechanism for changing the world. He does, though, see it as a place where we show ethical experience, it is where we show interchange” (7) and the same Mamet goes further by stating, “[t]heatre is a place of recognition, it’s an ethical exercise, it’s where we show ethical interchange” (qtd in Kane: 2). In this sense, following Mamet’s reflections theater is not a catalyst for change, it is only a site of critical examination and does not offer ready-make solutions. In other words, it is a site where there is an ethical engagement and a place of encounter, but not a place to boost changes and intervene in the configuration of society.

More about david mamet

Open Document