Oleanna (1994) User Reviews

A Good But Neglected Message

[aimless-46 · 7/10 · 26 July 2005]

Oleanna gets my solid recommendation, at least for people who like small movies with really intense acting performances. Adapted pretty much straightforward from the play it benefits from the intimacy of television, as it gets no benefit from being on a big screen. It is not really a feminist film as neither character is portrayed in a particularly flattering manner.

Oleanna is basically a two-character film, which is divided into three sections, corresponding to three visits by a young college woman to her professor's faculty office. It is a small elite college and coming from a modest background she has had to make a lot of sacrifices to attend the school. As we come to know her we see that she harbors an "extreme" amount of resentment concerning these sacrifices.

The Professor (William Macy who played the role on the stage) is pompous, arrogant, and overbearing. He pontificates excessively and having him as your instructor would not be an inspirational experience. His approach to teaching and the film's title (a reference to a couple who sold swampland to unsuspecting saps) is a slap at the rip-off that passes for higher education.

Carol (Debra Eisenstadt) is flunking his class, her work is inadequate but she feels entitled to special treatment because of her disadvantaged social situation and her many sacrifices to attend the school. It is on this point that the play/film is especially interesting because part of her situation has merit, she simply wants him to teach her-to respect her and her aspirations for an education (i.e. to actually be a teacher). And someone from her background should receive help with the technical terms and theoretical abstractions, which are already familiar to those who received better preparation in high school. Toward the end of her first visit the professor for unknown reasons switches from stern taskmaster into his paternal mode and seems to realize that he really should be doing his job better.

But Carol misinterprets his sudden interest and on her second visit informs him that she and a support "group" are going pursue a sexual harassment complaint with his tenure committee. Her allegations, when viewed out of context appear to have merit and upset him enough that he physically blocks her exit. This simply compounds his trouble.

Her third visit occurs after he has been denied tenure and is packing up to leave the school. While clear that the professor has never had any sexual interest in her and was not trying to trade sexual favors for a grade, Carol's interpretation of his actions seems reasonable and sincere until she attempts to blackmail him and then condescendingly admonishes him about the pet name he uses for his wife. At that point you realize that she is a nut case who has irresponsibly ruined his life, in part because of her resentment about her overall situation at the college and in part because of desire for power.

This makes for a intriguing twist as Carol is revealed as one of those well meaning people so caught up in the rightness of their cause (and the seductive power of suddenly having influence) that they become blind to the human consequences of their actions.

Two characters, one room - I wasn't bored for a second!

[Ben_Cheshire · 6/10 · 15 July 2004]

Unique, hyper-real film where the dialogue is the main plot - and what a rivetting plot it is. I was very skeptical about Oleanna, and was really resistant to it - but was very surprised to find myself succumbing to it. If you love language, and know enough language, Oleanna will be a joy for you: because the dialogue is loaded with jokes about dialogue. You'll be able to pick the places where Bill Macy is saying non-words, pretentious words or jargons in his monologues - and notice where somebody is talking ambiguously, or not saying anything at all.

Its about words, talking and meaning. So there are lots of words for good reason.

Its very dialoguey dialogue: not the kind of things people say, but the kind of things writers write. Reminiscent of the verbal gymnastics of Samuel Beckett, and the twisting meanings of Catch-22. Or perhaps the comedic pretentiousness of Hal Hartley. Meaning is controlled by the powerful - that's the key. Whoever controls the conversation, the language, in this movie - controls the situation. So everything is either ambiguous or figurative. Mainly, the exact things the two say are not what's key. Its which one of them is talking.

The performances - well, Macy at least - are in an appropriately hyper-real tone to suit the hyper-real dialogue. The girl is not very good, but this is still a masterpiece of language. Its static, centring on two characters and one room, but for good reason - to put the words centre stage. I'm so shocked that i just watched a movie with two characters and one room, and was not only not bored once, but hanging on each word and found that the time flew by.

The moral of the story is that things are bound to go wrong if you talk to somebody for the length of an entire movie. You're bound to go nuts. The viewer is bound to go nuts just listening to William H Macy in the first half-hour of the movie - you'll be amazed that purely talking to someone, using words, can make you feel that you're trapped, that you can't win or even escape.

Quite brilliant, really.

8/10. Essential viewing. I never knew dialogue held this power. A unique discovery.

Prepare yourself for discussions and dissensions.

[niteman · 8/10 · 22 January 2000]

This is a movie not without faults -- the dialog at the beginning is stilted, William H. Macy's performance is not without its weak spots -- but in spite of those quibbles, is a compelling, intriguing film.

The movie centers on the relationship between a student and a professor at an unnamed university. She goes to him for extra help in his class (but she may be just trying to set him up for a sexual harrassment lawsuit). He tries to help her with her studies (but may be trying to dominate and have innappropriate relations with her at the same time). As the relationship turns into a struggle, the viewer finds him/herself switching sides early and often. The tension in the film becomes the viewer's tension; during the final scenes you'll barely breathe.

The tagline is right -- whatever side you choose, you're wrong. I've seen this movie lambasted as being anti-feminist, lauded for being pro-feminist, hated for being anti-establishment, pro-establishment, racist, sexist, etc. In reality, it is all and none of these things. Oleanna is a mirror that forces us to examine and discuss our own convictions. That it accomplishes this while still being an exciting film makes it worth seeing more than once.

One of the scariest movies I've seen....

[dcphillips33 · 22 January 2004]

David Mamet's "Oleanna" is a harrowing, horrifying, gut-wrenching portrayal of two human beings who have entered into - as John, the professor played by William H. Macy declares - an agreement as to certain forms and institutions - and the institution of grading is, though the catalyst for what follows, the least of concerns here.... "Oleanna" is set squarely in the midst of contemporary academia, but the issues it addresses are more far-reaching than those pertaining solely to classrooms and the offices of intellectuals. That said, many may have difficulty relating to the characters and to the specifics of the situation in which they find themselves - the drama is more often than not a drama of words, ideas - "discourses." But these are, ultimately, only the incidentals - or better, the particular manifestations - of what is at root as "simple" as a basic communication breakdown: "I don't understand" is a phrase uttered countless times by both of the protagonists/antagonists. And ultimately, this is what "Oleanna" is really "about": the difficulty - the impossibility?, as it is suggested - for two people to understand each other on the most fundamental level.... The "plot," such as it is, is rather simple: a private meeting between professor and student yields two wildly divergent ideas of what actually took place, and why. Carol, an intense and troubled young student, is concerned with her apparently miserable grade in a course taught by John, and goes to meet him in his office to discuss it. Initially, the audience's sympathies are squarely with Carol - especially in light of the brusque, brutal, even cruel manner with which John initially dismisses her. But slowly, John softens - he begins to see himself in the young girl, and soon he allows his guard to slip - he "dissolves the boundaries between teacher and student" and undertakes to help Carol as a fellow, sympathetic human being.... The equilibrium - if in fact there ever is any at all - is not, however, to last for long; the encounter results in a savage power-struggle in which each participant fails to connect with the other and, ultimately self-absorbed, fails to understand the other's position and motives. "Oleanna" is really about the consequences, it seems, of abstraction - and Mamet and his actors do a wonderful job of demonstrating the disjunction between the real, human core of individuals and the superficial personae that are variously self-adopted and assigned by the other. There are several moments where entente seems on the very verge of realization, in which "feelings" emerge to bridge the gaps separating the middle-aged, middle-class, white male teacher and the young, lower-class, white female student - but the moments are always interrupted by one or the other of the two participants, through, basically, self-absorbed self-indulgence of immediate concerns - be they material or psychological. And each immediately falls back into the traditional, comfortable role s/he has been playing. This film troubled me a great deal - both at the time I watched it, and later. There are, in fact, no easy answers, and the tagline "whichever side you choose, you're wrong" has come to seem to me much truer than I at first thought. The film really is a Foucault-informed meditation on power and discourse - both consciously exercised and unconsciously-assumed. But ultimately, I think, the film indicates that no solutions can be discovered in the very foundation of the problem - the modern tendency to abstract identity from socio-political and intellectual discourses. John seems much closer to the truth than Carol - but he is no less wrong for it - for he fails to "practice what he preaches," whether or not he knows it. These issues are "universal" in today's post-modern Western world - but perhaps nowhere are they better exemplified, or more serious, than in academia, where words are the foundation of life itself. As a chosen academic myself, and as both student and teacher, I found this film woefully plausible (in many respects - the fact that even a second, let alone a third and fourth meeting ever took place is admittedly rather incredulous) and relevant; quite frankly, it terrified me. I can honestly say - even considering my guilty addiction to cheap horror flicks - that "Oleanna" is the scariest movie I have seen in years....

Quirky, full of irony, not a film for everyone

[harrison-20 · 7/10 · 29 November 1999]

The dialogue is difficult to get past -- you want to grab the characters one at a time by the throat so the other one can at least finish a sentence or thought without interruption. But if you stick with it, the characters do deliver on what had to be a difficult script. And I found the irony of the story line to be the reward. It is a mind game -- not for the casual viewer.

Oleanna: the sham promised land behind Academia?

[oowawa · 10/10 · 20 August 2007]

One writer perceptively suggests that the term "Oleanna" was used to describe swampland being sold as prime real estate.

I think the primary context in which the title "Oleanna" is to be understood appears in a "folk" stanza preceding Mamet's published edition of the play:

"Oh to be in 'Oleanna,'/ That's where I would rather be,/ Than be bound in Norway/ And drag the chains of slavery."

And so, Oleanna is a version of a Utopian promised land, and in the context of the play, the gateway to this better tomorrow is through the halls of Academia. Susan, the victim of her own false expectations of how the university is to transform her existence, repeatedly mentions the struggle she had to endure in order to get into college. For her, academic success is central to her vision of a better life. John, the pedantic professor, also sees Academia as the means to a comfortable, upper middle class existence with his new house, wife, and son. All he needs to do is make tenure, and his future is secured.

However, John presents himself as an academic bad-boy who debunks the very Academia with which he is trying to secure his comfortable future. This ridicule of the academic process strikes at the heart of Carol's dreams of a better future through education. She quite rightly sees that the professor is trying to have it both ways--playing the academic outsider while trying to kiss-up to the tenure committee in order to ensure his cushy new home in the suburbs. When someone's dreams are threatened, they become angry and strike out, however they can.

This is a brilliant movie. Anyone working in a high school or university, and anyone contemplating an academic career, needs to watch it, and allow it to soak deep into the structure of the brain. Perhaps that academic career isn't such a good idea, after all. Maybe that utopian real estate is really swampland. At any rate, one needs to be very, very careful when dealing with students.

Emotion: ANGER

[coltonw · 7/10 · 20 September 2007]

If you ever have the urge to hate a movie character, this is the movie to watch. I hate the character Oleanna more than anything ever. But that is exactly what the story is going for and if you feel like getting really angry or want to truly feel the emotions of a movie, than this movie is amazing. William H Macy plays an extremely likable character who is screwed over by a heartless feminist b****.

I was shaking with rage (literally physically shaking) during the course of this movie and really just wanted to find a gun, find Oleanna, and murder her in cold blood. But, fortunately for me, Oleanna is just a character, so I went on with my life. I would advise seeing this movie with a towel to bite down on and with a lot of patience to sit through without throwing something at the TV.

If you want a movie where emotions run high, definitely see this movie. If you want even just a shred of joy in your movie, avoid this movie at all costs.

Political correctness run amok

[smatysia · 3/10 · 26 March 1999]

Mamet seems to be taking on political correctness, which is at its worst in academia. The professor finds himself in a Kafkaesque fix when trying to help a naive female student. She is later used as a tool by a radical feminist group, to attack the professor, the administration, and patriarchal society, blah, blah, blah. I have heard that the stage production was very good, but the movie sucks. The characters are intensely irritating. I realize that this was deliberate, but it was overdone to the point of ruining the show.

Disturbing and Illuminating

[rsternesq · 9/10 · 21 February 2009]

Context. Now There is a word used often in college and not often enough after. If the context really was the savage confirmation hearings to which Justice Thomas was subjected, this movie/play is useful. If the context is the entire post modern hash we are making of our art and even of our lives, this movie/play is essential to our survival. The two characters are archetypes/avatars and that is perfectly fine. Each is a bit exaggerated and perhaps the student is too easy to despise and the professor too easy to like. As our postmodern students would say, "whatever." The point (at least as I see it) is the destruction from which absolutely nothing good will come. The professor is utterly destroyed and any enlightening epiphany will come too late and too privately to balance out the murder of his life (Kafka, anyone?) and the student is is, ironically, empowered in her ignorance and will now be forever locked in a moment of victory that closes off any possibility of her ever learning to be compassionate. Others may cheer when the professor explodes. I saw it as his death. Every hope he had died and the blood that ran from his arm was in fact his life blood and he saw it. This is a tragedy and it is our tragedy, whether or not we are teachers, students, bosses, underlings, whatever our relationships to each other, the world of Carol and John threatens us all with the loss of personal liberty until we reject it and it doesn't seem that many have the courage within our society to look at our PC truths and declare them to be errors in judgment. The barbarians outside of our society do not suffer from our PC-driven misery but also don't have our old hard won liberty. A very disturbing and illuminating look at our brave new world and our fellow creatures and, of course, ourselves.

Definitely Not My Favoite Mamet

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 10 May 2016]

Student Carol (Debra Eisenstadt) visits Professor John (William H. Macy) to discuss how she failed his course but the discussion takes an awkward turn.

Roger Ebert, who loved the play, was "astonished" to report that Oleanna was not a very good film, characterizing it as awkward and lacking in "fire and passion". He does think the play 9and to some extent the film) makes clear how men and women can see things two different ways. He freely admits he sides with the male point of view while others have argued that the student was in the right.

Overall, I did not really care for the movie. I like Mamet and I love his dense writing, but it seemed to fall flat here. Macy is alright, but the student is annoying. She comes across as either stupid or in some way stunted. The repetition is annoying, too, as how many times must she ask about his house?

False drama, intellectual claptrap, disappointing Mamet

[secondtake · 3/10 · 30 December 2012]

Oleanna (1994)

A deeply intimate, conversational, quiet movie with "serious" intentions. It means to say something about fidelity and love and a common situation of an awkward attraction between two people.

And I found it stilted and false. It depended most of all on a kind of believability. This is about a professor (male) and his student (female). You know what happens next, sort of. Except that it doesn't quite become emotionally interesting. It's not just people spilling their interiors--it's a lot of talk, and so therefore a lot of thoughts in words. Which is very different than emotional conflict.

It depends enormously on the writing, which is just forced and wrong. The acting is fine, but as stiff at times as the writing. It may not matter but I'm a professor and I found it all improbable. It's almost like it was written by someone who didn't know this world, and yet the stiffness of it makes it seem professorial. (The writer, for the record, is not a professor.)

The professor in the movie is played by William Macy and he's not terrible (he's the familiar character he plays so well). The student is more awful, really, played by Debra Eisenstadt. But then, I'm not sure anyone can play (act) these lines with conviction. So we turn to David Mamet, one of the great lionized playwrights of our time, and a writer with a stunningly uneven career. I love his best work. I'm not sure what the point here was. It's arrogant and affected and boring capital B.

The sick truth about PC

[maxtshea · 9/10 · 28 February 2008]

I saw what this play illustrates in college in the early 1990s. Carol keeps referring to "my group." We can assume it's a militant feminist student organization, but it could one of many antagonistic outfits steeped in identity politics. These groups always claimed they wanted justice and equality. I participated in several such groups and I quickly observed they care for neither equality nor justice; what they wanted was deference, authority, and often revenge. John tells Carol several times he thinks she is angry. He is correct, of course. What John does not realize from the moment Carol sets foot in his office is he's a dead man. He is her prey. Carol is a type of student I knew well. She is quite intelligent. She is, however, confused and angry. On top of that, she suffers from depression, which diminishes her cognitive abilities. In self-righteous sociopolitical outrage, her "group" has given her a scapegoat--the white male establishment. Her "group" has also given her a deluded purpose--tear down the white male establishment. Much of what some commentators here attribute to John's "stilted" nature is actually Mamet's writing style. However, John is indeed stilted. He is a nerdy college professor. I met many of them too. He lives in his ideas. He pursues ever more clever theories about life and learning. Ironically, he is a bit hazy on what's going on in the here and now. He cannot read Carol's rage and this is his Achilles heel. Carol did not start out as a "bad" person. She started out as a "sad" person. I don't remember the exact quote, but John tells her: The Stoic philosophers say if you take away the statement "I have been injured" you take away the injury. Something like that. Carol's "group" has done quite the opposite. It has goaded her to build her entire life around being injured and being a victim. This is the bread-and-butter of "identity politics." By the time Carol enters John's office she has been trained to kill careers the way the drill sergeant's charges have been trained to kill enemy soldiers in "Full Metal Jacket." "Oleanna" is a tragedy about the consequences of misguided anger. The term "politically correct" is now no more than a term of abuse bandied about by right-wing half-wits; however, I remember the year 1990 and the pins leftie militants sported: "PC and Proud." I saw a lot of people get hurt by political correctness but two things I never saw PC give anybody: 1. Real empowerment. 2. Happiness. David Mamet nails the essence of PC in "Oleanna."

Uncomfortable film

[Joe M · 5/10 · 10 April 1999]

Hard to sit through this one, and if that's what you want, then by all means it's worth a rental. Basically, two characters, a male professor and a female student. The way I understand it, Mamet's play about power differentials is supposed to strike a balanced, provocative view. The first half of it, we're generally supposed to sympathize with the student, the second half with the professor. Problem with the movie is, neither character comes off as likeable enough for one to keep very interested in what happens. The professor (to whom the movie in general is stacked in favor) is a reasonable though somewhat smug fellow, though in the final climactic scene, all sympathy evaporates with his actions. And sympathy for the female student evaporates much sooner. She is at best a humorless, naive zombie and at worst a monstrous extortionist. Anyhow, there's no way you believe for a second that she'd be flunking the guy's class, especially with the assiduous way she scribbles down in her notebook every little thing he says (like Egghead from those Foghorn Leghorn cartoons). Both come off as somewhat hypocritical (why is the professor teaching in a system he has utter contempt for? why is the student going to such lengths to protest her grade from a system she over-idealizes?) Very depressing material.

2 films by David Mamet

[tieman64 · 31 August 2010]

This is a brief review of "State and Main" and "Oleander", two films by David Mamet.

The better of the two, "State" takes Mamet's usual tale of con-men and hucksters and places it in the quiet town of Waterford, Vermont. Here the con-men are not gangsters or card players, but a group of Hollywood filmmakers who wish to spend several weeks filming in the sleepy town.

For a Mamet flick, "State" is surprisingly cute. Much of the film watches as slick big-city filmmakers try to exploit cuddly small towners, only to find that the country folk aren't as simpleminded as they first seemed. By the film's end everyone is taking advantage of everyone else, money constantly shifting hands and deals hastily being made.

Like Altman's "The Player", "State" also satirizes various Hollywood types and Tinseltown customs, poking fun at actors, lawyers, producers, cinematographers, writers, assistants, nudity clauses and amateur theatre productions. Unlike Altman's film, however, Mamet's going for charm and whimsy. It's a light-hearted comedy, though it does contain one dark subplot about clashing egos, the instability of values (see Mamet's "Redbelt), artistic integrity and the corrosive power of money. It also gives Mamet a chance to indulge in his love for miscommunication and misdirection - for Mamet, all language is a con - and allows Alec Baldwin to sink his teeth in one of his best roles since "Glengarry Glen Ross".

"Oleanna", also directed by David Mamet, is a claustrophobic film which mostly takes place in a single room. The film's first half consists of a Professor having a long discussion with one of his female students. Later we learn that she is failing his class and that she blames this on his "inability to clearly communicate". She then accuses him of using his "power" as a Professor to engage in a sort of "word rape", stating that she dislikes the way that he constantly uses pretentious words and convoluted metaphors to belittle his students.

The second half of the film then shows the balance of power shifting between the Professor and the Student. She now speaks with confidence, whilst he continually stammers. She is now dressed with authority, whilst he is dishevelled. As this stage of the film progresses, she accuses him of sexual assault and threatens to have him fired and arrested. He, meanwhile, accuses her of misinterpreting his words and actions.

Though overly theatrical (the film was based on one of Mamet's stage plays), "Oleanna" is endlessly fascinating. Primarily a backlash against the American political correctness movement of the early 1990s, the film takes political correctness to absurd lengths, the point being that if taken to its logical extreme, social sensitivity could become so invasive, so overpowering, that every interpersonal act could be construed as being sexual or punishable in nature.

The film also offers a clever critique of educational systems (and their hierarchies of power), and allows Mamet to indulge in his love for word games (syntax as violence). Indeed, the film is one big semantic argument, the characters constantly battling over the "meaning" of words, "Oleanna" highlighting both the power and absurdity of language (Mamet has his characters speak in such a fashion as to highlight the very artificiality, arbitrariness and vagueness of words and/or meaning) and the way language leaves us vulnerable to misdirection.

In typical Mamet fashion, the film eventually reveals itself to be a giant con game. Here it is explained that the female student was part of a "Group" which is plotting to remove the Professor from the school's faculty.

8/10 - Worth one viewing.

He shoulda whacked her with the chair.

[=G= · 7/10 · 19 June 2001]

"Oleanna" is a claustrophobic, dialogue-intensive, manipulative two actor pseudo-intellectual sorta-psycho-drama which shows a shrinking violet student seeking help from her professor and then turning into an emasculating pitbull. A spellbinding flick for those who don't nitpick the script, this highly improbable story offers some serious entertainment value. The fact is, however, it would not be difficult to write a similar story for we all live in a world of push-pull communication whereby productive bilateral communication requires a desire to understand by both parties. Forsake this principle and you can manipulate a story in any direction with relative ease. No biggie but a worthy effort.

absolutely amazing!

[stefanstatescu · 10/10 · 27 August 2009]

I found the film truly excellent and it went way beyond my expectations. It's about a he and a she. Nothing is what it seems initially, and everyone is somehow right. What is fascinating is the way you change sides, and how everyone is convincing.

This is a movie of debate and meaning. And truly fascinating debate(whatever you might think initially, it's no boring movie for literature addicts!).

Also I thought the final scene was amazing as I could identify myself with the feelings of the professor, but at the very end there were no good guys.

WATCH IT!

Not as electric as the live stage production, but still worth seeing

[Figaro14 · 7/10 · 7 February 2000]

For those who saw the theatrical production, this version seems flat even though William H. Macy repeats his stage performance and the script is virtually the same. Mamet uses every conceivable camera angle in an attempt to ventilate the play for the screen. Somehow it just doesn't come off quite as well as seeing the same show in the live theater. I think people who never saw the stage show will still argue just as forcefully over who is right and who is wrong. It is a minor criticism, but I was constantly distracted by the idea that a non-tenured professor would have an office suite on the campus larger than any president of a major university.

This was like a night at the Community Theater

[PennGirl · 1/10 · 1 February 1999]

This movie was so obviously converted from a play. The dialogue was stiff and unmotivated, and by the end of it, I wanted to beat the girl up, too. Plus, people DON'T TALK LIKE THAT!!! A little emotion from the characters would have helped, too.

a masterpiece

[secchi-1 · 10/10 · 29 May 2006]

I've read some of the comments and they are simply ridiculous. This is a masterpiece of social criticism, period. If you don't understand it, that's your problem, but this is one of those intellectual achievements that are overlooked at their release and appreciated 100 years later..

This society is sick: feminism, political correctness, "sexual" correctness and God knows what. And Mr Mamet analyzes one of the most pathetic and odious aspect of the matter: sexual harassment (Once I've read a feminist saying that rape is "subtle" and women who thought they had consenting sex might have actually been cheated - by evil men, I suppose). I don't even know how the producer could find a distributor for this film.. Thanks God he did.

People, you do not deserve a film like this. Go get a crappy independent movie!

The Education of Mamet

[Quicksand · 7/10 · 31 July 2001]

"Oleanna" began as a play, and a play it will remain, long after this movie has faded. It's interesting to note that it WAS written and directed by the playwright, which makes one want to think that this must be the True Vision, the play as the playwright intended it, and everything within it is how the play should be understood.

Putting aside this, let's assume Mamet is just a playwright, and isn't nearly as good a film director as he thinks he is. Plays, unlike films, are open for a variety of interpretations (both visually and mentally), and while Mamet does take steps to make the (extremely) frustrating dialogue work-- occasionally moving the characters out of the cramped office, or adding subtle little visual distractions-- we cannot accept this to be the only interpretation. For myself, the film's climax doesn't work; on the page the events happen very quickly, in the film, it feels stretched out, forced. It's difficult to go into detail without giving anything away, but I get the feeling Mamet turned over those 2 minutes of film to someone else, then came back in to stage the final moment, which I think works quite well.

At the heart of the movie, we have the only two characters who ever speak, John (a professor) and Carol (a student). Mamet writes extremely distinct dialogue, which many scholars have called "realistic" but I call "frustrating." These two characters, like in most of Mamet's theatre work, exist in a world of their own, free from actual beneficial communication, where ideas and thoughts are exchanged only rarely, and then only with great difficulty. It is a world not unlike our own.

As tense as this movie made me, I still have to recommend it, as it provokes discussion, which American movies rarely do these days. It shows just what dialogue can do to a situation, how simply our language can twist simple events... and maybe it even says something about relationships between teacher vs. student, male vs. female, young vs. old, intellectual vs. not, or wise vs. inexperienced. Or maybe it says nothing at all about these things. A play, unlike a movie, doesn't offer any answers-- it just asks you questions, which will stick with you long after you leave your seat.

The Jazz Singer was the first "talkie." Oleanna is the MOST "talky."

[vipka · 2/10 · 24 July 2002]

What garbage! Two characters, neither of whom is very likable, arguing with utter pretention for 90 minutes. What's most interesting, relatively speaking, is how the woman keeps haranguing the professor about the hyper-intellectual words he uses, but she gets more pretentious with her vocabulary every scene.

This may have been a good play -- I doubt it, but maybe -- but it definitely does not translate to the big screen.

The peril of uniformity and conformity

[heriberto-larios · 10/10 · 23 July 2006]

This is an example of the danger of extreme application of "political correctness" in order to defend the "right" to mediocrity, to intolerance, censorship and questioning of the establishment. Carol, the student is a perfect example of the kind of personality needed to enforce either a fascist state or a witch hunt. Her arguments used to define sexual assault takes away the intention of the act and substitutes it not even for the appearance of the act but in the perception of the victim. I explain, the act in question can be seen as an assault or as kidnapping (retaining Carol against her will) but the act cannot be sexual; the last scene as well has a murderous attempt but not a sexual connotation and it is a reaction to a false accusation (perjury). The bottom line is that the self-portrayed victim becomes the victimizer by waving the arguments that make her a victim (sexism, racism, humiliation) and she becomes sexist, cruel, humiliating and patronizing in the name of a distorted concept of political correctness. The mere concept of political correctness, is non-sensical if it is only a way to behave but not of thinking.

Not "me too" just "sameo sameo".

[cornishrexrasta · 6/10 · 11 October 2018]

This was originally a successful New York stage play and stars William H. Macy and Debra Eisenstadt who give good lead performances. However, the problems for many stage plays turned into films include lack of location, actors, dialogue and contrived endings. Unfortunately Oleanna has all of these problems and a clumsy chauvinistic plot.

It portrays three meetings and conversations between two people as a series of misunderstandings. It also appears to predict the whole #me too movement and the courageous battle against sexual harassment and sexual assault but lazily infers the student is mistaken in her conversations with her college professor. He in my opinion is guilty of saying much of what he is accused. However, although easily misinterpreted he should not have said what he did in the first place.

During the conversations he is condescending and alarmingly dismissive of higher education. Throughout she takes notes and her interpretation of them leads to a formal complaint. The final scenes of the film is an improbable third meeting between the pair with an unnecessary ending to redress the films awful portrayal of the student and remove any sympathy for the college professor.

perhaps Mamet's worst film

[Ed-90 · 1/10 · 2 October 2002]

When it is a struggle to get past the opening minutes of a film, you know there's trouble ahead. Not a violent person, I wanted to smack both characters. Yes, I realize Mamet's characters can do the machine-gun dialogue, but neither shut up long enough to allow the other to finish a sentence. I wound up disliking both characters intensely, so that it was hard to get into the requisite "us" vs. "them" gender head. Plus, it was unbelievable that a student or professor, not on heavy drugs, could/would act that way toward another in real life. Pity is that Macy is a fantastic actor. Mamet is still a fabulous writer. "Oleanna" is his turkey, however, in my opinion.