Mamet on Manliness

In Mamet’s view, what is necessary to be considered a “man” in the eyes of the real estate sales agencies of the world require one to be ruthless, conniving and willing to be flexible with morals and ethics in order to make the sale. The maxim “always be closing” is repeated throughout the play as much as the repetition of the concept of a “man’s world”, at least in the sales agency. For the four salesman in the real estate firm, their livelihood is completely dependent on their image and their ability to close the deals they make, therefore to be looked upon as soft, weak or without initiative is to be seen as a sub-par man. For Moss, Aaronow, Levine and Roma, their habitual predatory vocation parallels their view on anything outside the real estate business- to them, the paradigm of the “man’s world” overlaps into the real world regardless of race, creed or culture. For them, the “Lingks” and “Nyborgs” of the world are viewed as subhuman, even as prey, because they allow themselves to get trapped within the pitch of a salesman’s spiel. There is no remorse in the sale of a piece of land to someone whether they need it or not because the end result is a desperate attempt to still have a job and have a steady paycheck. Roma is by far the “manlier” of the group, seeking any and all methods to close the deal, and as he is at the top of the contest throughout the play, he is both viewed in a jealous admiration and as a threat to the other’s jobs. Levine appears to be a washed up salesman, a man who used to be on top but is now floundering. He is the omega of the pack, only supplied with the leftover leads as the others- especially Roma, collect the lion’s share of the leads. He is only given enough to sustain him and no more than that. Mamet points out that the salesmen operate somewhat comically in their pursuit of their prey, and if they don’t close the sale, it is through no fault of their own- they blame it on the customer’s race, bad luck, or bad leads or a million and one other excuses. Yet, throughout the play, the desperation still remains the same. It is not an industry conducive to having good cardiovascular health, and Mamet likes to express this.

Lear's Tears and Inner Fears.

It is all too easy to see that Lear has a certain deficiency in understanding the inner workings of his mind. It is easy for someone of my generation, who have been exposed to the psychoanalysis of Freud and Jung for long enough to realize that Lear is leading a life bound by two opposing needs- the tantrums he throws is not unlike a two or three year old child begging for a certain amount of attention or control, and yet, he is a king: a two or three year old child with enormous political and military assets at his disposal. Throughout the course of the play, we witness Lear’s self realization slowly unfold as he realizes that the very respect and formality his two daughters pay him lead to his usurping and capitulation of his entire world- yet it is only when he has lost all of these does the realization that Lear’s life has been overshadowed by his regal persona has taken over what truly makes Lear a living, breathing human being. Yes, he has emotions, but they are not matured, thoughtful emotions, and he doesn’t know from whence they come. You don’t have to delve too deeply to see that Lear’s tantrum in the beginning of the play- when Cordelia responds that she loves him like a father and nothing else- is solely a reaction to a withholding of some form of power from him. Since he is king, he feels he is entitled to a more formal response from her, and it is this kingly formality he has bargained as a form of intimacy with his daughter that has been repressed for a long time. Yes, Lear is dependent on his daughter’s approval, but the venue and format of its approval is meant to reflect a more regal fealty than an actual father-daughter relationship. This is something he later shows regret for in his meeting with his long banished daughter as he begs her forgiveness of his actions. In fact, the words here are very honest and heartfelt, and this is one of the few times the actual dependence and humanity of Lear shines through his kingly exterior. Now, for the real question: Does Lear regret not having realized the same sentiment with his other two daughters-at least before they turned on him- in a real sense, or would it merely be a topical regret on the consequences of his actions? What I mean to say is: would Goneril and Regan be redeemable in Lear’s eyes?
This is not merely a feminine understanding, it is a human one. For all of Jung’s work on exposing the archetype of the Anima, it is evident that these “feminine qualities” are merely shadows of a self that is often repressed in males, and has been considered an unmanly sentiment, especially in the time of Shakespeare and indeed, King Lear. It is precisely a consummation that Lear must accept if he is to understand all that a man is, and what it means to be fulfilled and in some ways, more individually refined. Did Shakespeare allude to hints of this Anima in Lear’s character, centuries before Jung’s time? If he did, is it as effective as the psychoanalyst’s works on the same phenomenon? It is difficult to tell what the average theater enthusiast thought of Lear in Shakespeare’s time, but it is clear to know what we think of him now in this more modern time.