Within this play there were a few references to women and they usually occurred in the company of the subject of money. In the 1st Act of the play Levene speaks of an EX whom “kicked out” of an earlier deal. Then there is Mrs. Lingk, she did not agree at all with the fact that her husband had signed off on a land deal without 1st consulting with her. She immediately made her husband go back to the office and attempt to get out of the deal. Harriet Nyborg, another woman within the play, chose to sign off on a deal in which a transaction was to have taken place. But, due to their history with salesmen, the deal was inevitably worthless. At every turn, when a woman was involved, the deal was not going to happen.
Throughout the work, money represents power and signifies value. Whoever has CONTROL of the money has control of the situation. Whether it be a relationship, a partnership, an office, or a company, money was the motivation. To me, it was Mamet’s intent to weave these two subjects together in order for “men”, or people in general, to understand that there is no meaning in having or obtaining “money” (i.e. power, things) without having established values… In the midst of all the “talk” the men did in this play, the motivation behind everything they said and did was non-existent. Just like the way in which they used the word “talk.” It was as if the word itself signified when someone was saying something meaningless.
The absence of women is like the absence of money. There was very little presence of women as there is very little presence of actual money. They are in constant pursuit of this. To analyze it literally, if all you do is "talk" but there is no weight(money, morals) in what you say and do, then you cannot possibly hope to obtain anything of value. Be it money or women, in this case.
No comments:
Post a Comment