how is definitely communication not the same as

Essay Topics: Character types, Characters lives,
Category: Literature,
Words: 969 | Published: 01.30.20 | Views: 541 | Download now


Get essay

Pages: 2

With regard to his own work, David Mamet admits that “What I write about is actually I think is definitely missing from our society. And that’s communication on a basic level. ” In his enjoy Glengarry Glen Ross, Mamet uses a great ironic strategy to illustrate his beliefs about communication: within a play consisting almost completely of sales people, we are forced to listen to characters who are not able to listen to themselves. Mamet’s utilization of dialogue functions on two levels. Initially, it is the only action in the perform, other than the conversations among the men, nothing else happens. The script contains few level descriptions and directions. Anything is centered on the discussion. The second function of the conversation is to demonstrate lack of and therefore words can hold. The in a number of conversations, the pace with their speaking, and the interruptions from the entire enjoy but these elements are eventually made unnecessary by the summary in the second act. Because many of the primary conflicts of the play happen offstage, the audience must depend upon the characters’ words to get an explanation of what has occurred. That dependency forces the audience to figure out which terms are important to communicating the message in the play and which words and phrases have no genuine meaning by any means.

Take action One begins with a little description of Williamson and Levene seated at “a booth at a China restaurant” (15). The only additional information offered about the character types is that Williamson is a guy in his 40s and Levene in a guy in his fifties. With his deficiency of characterization, Mamet forces the reader to enter immediately into the discussions between the character types in order to discover who they are. Each field revolves around the particular men will be talking about carrying out but not whatever they are basically doing. For instance , in a conversation between Moss and Aaronow, they discuss the relationship between talk and action:

&lt, blockquote&gt, Tree: We’re merely “talking” about it. &lt, /blockquote&gt

&lt, blockquote&gt, Aaronow: We’re just talking about it. While an idea. (39)&lt, /blockquote&gt

Through the entire play, each of the characters are merely “talking” yet never doing. The speak that is the action of the perform is also the most obvious source of répit in the characters’ lives.

If the just action in the play is usually talking, and if the words themselves have no accurate consequence, then the characters eventually have very little real purpose, since all their whole lives revolve around insignificant and trivial issues, the boys inadvertently illustrate how often conversation is covered, protected and abused. Mamet’s use of realistic conversation makes the discussions more believable. The text’s use of italics, exclamation factors, and constant breaks in dialogue are more effective in setting the tone from the play than any description Mamet would have provided. For example , in Take action One, Picture One, Levene attempts to convince Williamson of his abilities like a salesman: “Those guys lived on the organization I brought in. They resided on it and so did Murray, John” (22). The emphasis placed on Levene’s words convey both his desperation to prove himself to Williamson as well as the fact that the character types “lived” about business made by fabricated property.

Another technique Mamet employs may be the continual use of interruptions to pace the dialogue. In the context of a performance, the interruptions might have a more quick impact on the viewer, but are often strenuous to the visitor. To the audience, the disruptions are obvious, and though readers have the ability to tempo the relationships between the characters to suit specific reading styles, it occasionally becomes overwhelming to keep up with the constantly changing speakers and broken conversation. That raced feeling continues throughout the enjoy, emphasizing the pace in the characters’ lives. Perhaps the many noticeable occasion of that takes place when Mister. Lingk relates to the office in an attempt to cancel his contract. Roma and Levene use Lingk’s confusion while using details of the contract to blur the fact of how a number of days he has to cancel the deal. Levene constantly interrupts Roma and Lingk to distract from the key point, all their entire chat is eclectic and cracked. Initially, Lingk is scarcely able to have a full sentence out: “She called the consumer attorney, I don’t know. The attorney gen they said we certainly have three days” (84). As they continue to lie, Roma responds, “Listen to my opinion, the arrêté, it’s to your protection. I’ve no complaints with that, in fact , I was an associate of the table when we selected it, and so quite the opposite. This says that you can change your mind 3 working days in the time the deal is closed” (84). Through his trip to the office, Lingk is too mild-mannered to interrupt Roma and Levene. The problem of defeating the intimidation techniques utilized by the sales people is clear by Lingk’s busted and cut off dialogue.

Readers and audience people of Glengarry Glen Ross must concentrate on what is being said because the dialogue may be the only factor given by Mamet. Each of the heroes has lots to say, although non-etheless they communicate small, and their words and phrases have but little influence: Moss does not convince Aaronow to break into the office, Roma even now loses his sale, and Levene are not able to talk his way out of his crime. Through Mamet’s manipulations of dialogue, the audience learns to understand the failure and powerlessness of the spoken word as well as its capability to convey further meaning to appropriately open listeners.

< Prev post Next post >