Sunday, September 28, 2014
For my independent reading project, I'm reading Glengarry Glen Ross, the play by David Mamet. If there's one thing I can say Mamet does well, it's dialogue. All of the dialogue he puts out is extremely literal and to the T, factoring in awkward pauses, breaks, and anything else that is a common part of normal speech. The characters themselves are also very interesting, perhaps not on their own, but based on their interactions with each other. The cast of characters is quite intriguing. We have John Williamson, the cold office manager, who operates by the book and whose sole interest is his office's relationship to the company managers, Mitch and Murray. We have Shelly Levene, the veteran who dreams of a past time of door-to-door salesmanship. We have George Aaronow, the rather slow salesman who struggles at the bottom of the sales charts. We have Dave Moss, the brutally ambitious and hot-tempered salesman who only cares about his own personal gain. Finally, we have Richard Roma, the office hotshot, always topping the sales charts. The first act opens on to an interaction between Shelly and John in a restaurant down the street from the office. Shelly tries to convince John to give him some of the premium Glengarry leads rather than the unsellable crap he had been given. We understand that the top seller for the month will win a Cadillac, while the lowest seller will most likely be fired. Cut to a conversation between George and Dave. Dave tries to convince George to join him in robbing the office of the Glengarry leads and sell them to a rival company. They are both clearly discontent with the company and with Williamson. Finally, we are treated to a view of Roma in the middle of a sale with James Lingk. To see him in action is quite impressive. These three scenes accomplish the establishment of the situation in the play and the characters, as well as giving us an inside view of the workings of the company. Despite the intriguing nature of the play, however, sometimes it can be a little difficult to read due to Mamet’s use of erratic dialogue, as interruptions, pauses, and other quirks dominate the speech.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How does Mamet do all this? I can imagine that as a young man who is working on his own screenplays, you must have a heightened scene of how dialog works to convey all this information you have noted. I think the how of this would be the most important part for you to explore. And how much does Mamet rely on character descriptions and stage directions versus allowing the dialog to build the character?
ReplyDeleteIt's somewhat redundant to say that Mamet excels in dialogue in this text because it is in the form of a play, implying that there is almost no description available. What you should focus on instead is Mamet's writing. How is his style manifested in the character's exchanges (dialogue), and how does it contribute to the tone? It might be useful to include a passage to analyze his writing or the nature of the characters that you mention.
ReplyDeleteI am also reading a play for my independent reading blog, and agree that dialogue is heavily emphasized because of the absence of description. It increases brevity and often prompts the writer to spice up the dialogue that much more--the characters in the play I am reading are all eccentric and very opinionated. Are the characters in your book lively, and how is the liveliness shown in their dialogue?
It seems as though one of Mamet’s strengths in writing is his attention to detail. You should talk specifically about what the author does to demonstrate this, and how this attention to details sets the scenes in his story. This might also be a good chance to add a passage from the text and break down the writing.
The characters are pointed out respectively, but maybe showing their relationships would be better, as opposed to describing them individually. This gives a better sense of what is going on beyond the basic outline of the story.
Good blog post though, I did enjoy it.