Unit Essay: Drama

Lies and the Truth
in
Glengarry Glen Ross

Question:

In David Mamet's Three Uses of the Knife, he writes that "the subject of drama is The Lie. The end of drama is The Truth?" What's "The Lie" in Glengarry? What's "The Truth?"

In David Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross, the audience forms a perception of the truth of this play and what is going on within it. These perceptions, established in the three scenes of Act I, are the Lie in the play. In the end, the perceptions of truth have been turned upside down as one by one each character struggles to attain his goals. In Act II, as the play moves toward resolution, the audience realizes that the perception of truth that they have formed is not really the truth at all. In arriving at this conclusion, the audience has arrived at this play's Truth, the Truth that Mamet claims is the result of drama. The Lie in Glengarry Glen Ross is the belief that you know the truth. The Truth of the play is that what one perceives as truth based on one's own limited experience may not be truth at all. As each scene in Act I introduces the audience to a particular pair of characters, each scene invites the audience to form an opinion about events of which the audience has no firsthand knowledge. Based only upon the information the characters can provide, the audience must make their own interpretation.

The Lie begins to form immediately in the play as the audience is introduced to the character of Shelley Levene, talking, or rather pleading, with the manager of his office, Williamson. The truth Levene clings to is that he has been and still is a good salesman, and his goal in this scene is to convince Williamson of this in order to win an opportunity to prove it. In trying to persuade Williamson of the truth as Levene sees it, Levene refers to events that occur before the beginning of the play, events that are outside of the experience of the audience.

Levene: Nineteen eighty, eighty-one…eighty-two…six months of eighty-two…who's there? Who's up there?
Williamson: Roma.
Levene: Under him?
Williamson: Moss
Levene: Bullshit. John. Bullshit. April, September 1981. It's me. It isn't fucking Moss. Due respect, he's an order taker, John. He talks, he talks a good game, look at the board, and it's me, John, it's me…
Williamson: Not lately it isn't.
(p. 17)

The audience, therefore, is not given concrete evidence that Levene's claim is true or false--they can only form a perception based on what they see now. Levene's desperation, his claim that bad luck runs in streaks (p. 16), and his constantly changing behavior--commiserating one moment, belligerent the next, pleading and accusing, begging and bribing--cast doubt on his protestations of greatness. However, there is no hard evidence that Levene is not as good as he claims, and there is some subjective evidence that he may truly be a good salesman forced into bad times by poor circumstances. Williamson's accusation that he has not been delivering "lately" implies that Levene once did deliver. Although the Levene's behavior as he resorts to bribes and invokes his daughter to appeal to Williamson's pity leads the audience to believe he has an exaggerated idea of his own competence, the stage is immediately set for open interpretation--and by the same token, misinterpretation.

The audience faces the same dilemma in the second scene. As before, two characters are introduced. Moss is the more active of these two, while Aaronow does little other than agree with Moss and worry over his own position. It is clear that Aaronow is worried about his job, wondering by his third line, "Where am I going to work?" (p. 28) This is one of the only lines he has in the first half of the scene where he is not agreeing with Moss. Later, he seems to struggle in trying to form an independent thought, finally giving up and once more agreeing with Moss:

Moss: All of, they got you on this "board…"
Aaronow: I, I…I…
Moss: Some contest board…
Aaronow: I…
Moss: It's not right.
Aaronow: It's not.
(p. 31)

Aaronow is not totally dependent on Moss, however. He seems reluctant to contemplate risks, in spite of Moss's declarations that the risks really aren't that great. An example of this occurs when Moss talks about the advantages of going into business for himself:

Moss: That's what I'm saying. Why? The leads. He's got the good leads…what are we, we're sitting in the shit here. Why? We have to go them to get them. Huh. Ninety percent our sale, we're paying to the office for the leads.
Aaronow: The leads, the overhead, the telephones, there's lots of things.
Moss: What do you need? A telephone, some broad to say "Good morning," nothing…nothing…
Aaronow: No, it's not that simple, Dave…
(pp. 34-35)

These two aspects of Aaronow's character come into conflict when Moss finally brings up the idea of the robbery, opening the way for the most obvious misconception of the play, revealed in Act II. At first, he seems to consider the idea, as long as Moss will be the one taking the risk. The promise of a new job and guaranteed money in his pocket is appealing, but as soon as Moss insists that Aaronow would have to commit the robbery, Aaronow backs down. The promise of security, which seems to be a major concern for this character, is not enough to outweigh the risks he would be taking. Aaronow then becomes the first character in the play to have his perception of the truth disproved as Moss tries to blackmail him into committing the robbery. He had perceived Moss as a friend, or at least an ally, but when Moss tells him he is already an accomplice. When Moss threatens him, and the scene ends, the audience is left in suspense. Again, there is no certain conclusion and the audience must essentially guess based on their perception of Aaronow's behavior whether he will commit the robbery or not. After the robbery has been committed in Act II, it is not much of a logic leap for the audience to believe that Aaronow has committed the crime.

The uncertainty seems to go on hiatus in the third scene, the final scene before the robbery. So far these salesmen have been portrayed as unhappy, overworked, and unsuccessful. The character introduced here is very different; unlike the unsatisfied, discontented employees the audience has met so far, this character is confident, smooth, and rather than complaining about the way things are, he talks about being in control and taking control:

Roma: "There is a one-in-so-and-so chance this will happen…God protect me. I am powerless, let it not happen to me…." But no to that. I say. There's something else. What is it? "If it happens, AS IT MAY for that is not within our powers, I will deal with it, just as I do today with what draws my concern today." I say this is how we must act. I do those things which seem correct to me today. I trust myself. And if security concerns me, I do that which today I think will make me secure.
(p. 49)

Roma's goal is to make this final sale and win his Cadillac. Roma's truth is that he is in control. He has the power to draw Lingk in, to make Lingk trust him-he has the power to make the sale. Roma's personality is overpowering. He has Lingk listening to him for nearly three pages before even giving the man his name. While the other characters are constantly interrupted or interrupting, Roma is never interrupted, leaving Lingk time for a total of six lines in the whole scene. As the scene ends and Roma pulls out the land brochures, the audience has very little trouble believing that he can make this sale.

Act II opens in the sales office after the robbery has been committed. It is in this single-scene act that the truths or perception of truth that the audience and the characters have developed come crashing down. Levene comes in, having made a great sale, something the audience was under the impression from the Scene 1 that he is incapable of doing, according to his recent record. The audience is forced to reevaluate their conclusion. Later, however, they are once more forced to change their minds, when Williamson informs Levene that his sale is no good, and his clients are broke.

Because of Scene 2, the audience naturally suspects Aaronow of committing the robbery. His conversation with Roma on pages 60 and 61 where he admits his nervousness about speaking with the police adds to the suspicion. However, as the audience finds out at the end of the scene, Aaronow is not the only one Moss has spoken to, and in spite of what seemed to the audience to be evidence of his guilt, he did not commit the robbery.

Roma makes his entrance on the scene totally out of control, wild with anger, swearing and upset about the contracts. He is hardly the smooth, calm character from Scene 3. His illusion of control unravels further when Lingk returns, insisting that he has to cancel the deal. Roma is not in control of the situation, as he thought. Rather, Lingk's wife has all the power. Just when Roma manages to win back some of his control, Williamson plucks it back from him and sets it squarely back in the hands of Lingk's absent wife.

Williamson also represents an upset of truth. In Scene 1, he protests to Levene that his job is to enforce policy, and that he doesn't have the power to make decisions beyond that:

Williamson: Let me tell you something, Shelly. I do what I'm hired to do. I'm…wait a second. I'm hired to watch the leads. I'm given…hold on, I'm given a policy. My job is to do that. What I'm told. That's it. You, wait a second, anybody falls below a certain mark I'm not permitted to give them the premium leads.
(p. 19)

After spoiling Roma's sale, Williamson is subjected to a rain of verbal abuse, where he is accused of being a woman, a homosexual, and a child. "Who ever told you you could work with men?" (p. 96) Roma demands in disgust. Yet for all his apparent powerlessness, Williamson is the only character in the play to actually accomplish anything. Levene's sale falls through, Roma's sale falls through, Moss and Levene are caught, Aaronow doesn't manage to gain security for himself, but Williamson rescues his own job by catching the thief. It is Williamson who traps Levene in his own words and manipulates him into confessing. It is important to note, however, that the play ends before the audience can see Levene brought to justice, or Moss hauled back in handcuffs. Again, the audience must draw its own conclusion, and in light of the rest of the play, the spectator has to wonder if it's truly safe to assume anything.

The uncertainty of truth throughout the play builds until the final act, and by the time the play is over, the only certainty is that nothing is certain. The characters have lived the Lie, and through the experience of this play, so has the audience. As a result, the audience understands the Truth: no one can ever be certain of what the truth is.