Put that coffee down!
May 27, 2009 3:33 PM Subscribe
Why did David Mamet change the ending of Glengarry Glen Ross in the film version? (Spoilers within!)
I've seen Glengarry Glen Ross staged four times and the movie around a dozen times. At the end of both versions, Roma acts very admiringly toward Levene ("The things I could learn from you!") and hints that they should start a partnership.
But in the stage version, this is almost immediately revealed as a ruse: Roma tells Williamson that he's going to be taking a cut of Levene's sales from then on. In the movie version, there is no ruse and we're left with Roma's magnanimity as genuine.
This seems to me to completely change the last few minutes of the play/film. On stage, Levene is defeated and about to be dragged to prison, but he hangs onto the one last thing he's got: his legacy as "The Machine" living on in Roma's admiration. When this is shown to be false as well it fits in with the rest of the nihilistic universe Mamet spent the rest of the play building. When the cop is dragging Levene away and he calls out to Roma, it's pathetic because Roma is just playing him.
In the film it looks as though Roma is a glimmer of hope for Levene, which seems to contradict everything that came before. I'm not being critical of the contradiction, but it definitely doesn't fit with the rest of the story (or the rest of Mamet's oeuvre) when one character opens his mouth and a genuine emotion pops out for no purpose other than making a connection between two people. It just doesn't happen anywhere else.
What are your insights on this change? Or has anyone read an interview/one of Mamet's books that explains it?
I've seen Glengarry Glen Ross staged four times and the movie around a dozen times. At the end of both versions, Roma acts very admiringly toward Levene ("The things I could learn from you!") and hints that they should start a partnership.
But in the stage version, this is almost immediately revealed as a ruse: Roma tells Williamson that he's going to be taking a cut of Levene's sales from then on. In the movie version, there is no ruse and we're left with Roma's magnanimity as genuine.
This seems to me to completely change the last few minutes of the play/film. On stage, Levene is defeated and about to be dragged to prison, but he hangs onto the one last thing he's got: his legacy as "The Machine" living on in Roma's admiration. When this is shown to be false as well it fits in with the rest of the nihilistic universe Mamet spent the rest of the play building. When the cop is dragging Levene away and he calls out to Roma, it's pathetic because Roma is just playing him.
In the film it looks as though Roma is a glimmer of hope for Levene, which seems to contradict everything that came before. I'm not being critical of the contradiction, but it definitely doesn't fit with the rest of the story (or the rest of Mamet's oeuvre) when one character opens his mouth and a genuine emotion pops out for no purpose other than making a connection between two people. It just doesn't happen anywhere else.
What are your insights on this change? Or has anyone read an interview/one of Mamet's books that explains it?
Best answer: I've never seen Glengarry on stage, but I've seen the film several times and interpret it differently than you do. It seemed clear to me that Roma was being kind and respectful (and flattering, as is always his instinct) to an older, broken man who is clearly not remotely his superior as a salesman. I've never thought that Roma really thought he could learn from Levine or ever expected to work with him. He just knew exactly what Levine wanted to hear.
posted by moxiedoll at 3:44 PM on May 27, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by moxiedoll at 3:44 PM on May 27, 2009 [2 favorites]
Films covet their running time more strongly than plays do, so I imagine it was cut because Levine is pretty thoroughly crushed in the film as it is. Unless directly compared to the play, I don't think many people would consider it a "happy" ending.
posted by Bookhouse at 3:56 PM on May 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Bookhouse at 3:56 PM on May 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: He just knew exactly what Levine wanted to hear.
I see where you're coming from with this, but I'm left with the question of why he would bother. In both versions he makes a point several times of encouraging Levene to tell his sales story and then praising him. This makes sense if he's buttering him up to rip him off, but if not, why is he being flattering at all?
On the happy ending/sad ending: maybe it shows how naive I am that I never even considered that it was the studio that wanted Roma's last fuck-you cut out. But the stage ending is almost "happier" than the film ending. In the film there's one last glimmer of hope that gets cruelly snuffed out. On stage we actually get to have a giggle at Roma trying to scam a guy who's about to get dragged off to jail.
posted by hayvac at 4:02 PM on May 27, 2009
I see where you're coming from with this, but I'm left with the question of why he would bother. In both versions he makes a point several times of encouraging Levene to tell his sales story and then praising him. This makes sense if he's buttering him up to rip him off, but if not, why is he being flattering at all?
On the happy ending/sad ending: maybe it shows how naive I am that I never even considered that it was the studio that wanted Roma's last fuck-you cut out. But the stage ending is almost "happier" than the film ending. In the film there's one last glimmer of hope that gets cruelly snuffed out. On stage we actually get to have a giggle at Roma trying to scam a guy who's about to get dragged off to jail.
posted by hayvac at 4:02 PM on May 27, 2009
Best answer: I'm with moxiedoll--I think your interpretation is based on knowing the changes. I think that someone without prior knowledge is left with the impression that Roma knows the jig's up and is humoring The Machine.
As for why Mamet made the change, we'll never know.
That said, a studio definitely wasn't responsible. This is because a studio wasn't involved in the financing. The film was financed by selling foreign and cable rights. The entire budget was around $12M, which is low, of course. With so little to make back and such huge names as calling cards, it would be foolish of any financier or anyone with any power to fuck with a play that had won a Pulitzer and corralled these names. Were there a person along the chain who could insist upon changes (and I don't think there was anyone besides Mamet), they would look like an utter fool and shoulder all of the blame should the film not make back its modest budget. No one's that stupid.
All of the players were Mamet fans as is the film's director--some of them had been in the play on stage; some had been in other Mamet productions. I think every cast member took huge cuts in their pay (Pacino was making $6M to $7M per film at the time and he did it for $1.5M--something like that anyway. I think it's talked about a bit in Conversations with Al Pacino, the book.) No way in hell would these players take that substantial a cut to allow someone to undercut Mamet.
Further, Mamet is an extremely vocal person. Had anything been done to the words without his approval, believe me we'd know about it. He's a writer who has gone on the record about being screwed over by studios, directors, actors, producers, story editors, you name it. And he names names. Had someone fucked with GGR, he'd have written about it someplace. This is a man who, when he heard that a producer was putting on the play, word for word, with an all woman cast, threatened a lawsuit and had the production shut down before the first performance. He did the same thing when the play was going to be translated (word for word) into German. In both instances he thought the "changes" would alter his intentions.
So strictly did the filmmakers stick to the text that when a situation arose where they didn't even understand the text, they followed it. Foley's on record as saying he thought the screenplay had a typo: he thought the line "I'm meeting our man at the back" was supposed to be "I'm meeting our man at the bank", because, he's said, "at the back doesn't make sense. At the back of what?" He called Mamet and asked for clarification. "Mamet said," says Foley, "It's back, not bank" and that was all the clarification I got and that's what we shot." (Note I'm paraphrasing from my memory as I'm too lazy to go find the text.)
Whatever changes were done to the text of GGR, Mamet was responsible for them.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 7:16 PM on May 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
As for why Mamet made the change, we'll never know.
That said, a studio definitely wasn't responsible. This is because a studio wasn't involved in the financing. The film was financed by selling foreign and cable rights. The entire budget was around $12M, which is low, of course. With so little to make back and such huge names as calling cards, it would be foolish of any financier or anyone with any power to fuck with a play that had won a Pulitzer and corralled these names. Were there a person along the chain who could insist upon changes (and I don't think there was anyone besides Mamet), they would look like an utter fool and shoulder all of the blame should the film not make back its modest budget. No one's that stupid.
All of the players were Mamet fans as is the film's director--some of them had been in the play on stage; some had been in other Mamet productions. I think every cast member took huge cuts in their pay (Pacino was making $6M to $7M per film at the time and he did it for $1.5M--something like that anyway. I think it's talked about a bit in Conversations with Al Pacino, the book.) No way in hell would these players take that substantial a cut to allow someone to undercut Mamet.
Further, Mamet is an extremely vocal person. Had anything been done to the words without his approval, believe me we'd know about it. He's a writer who has gone on the record about being screwed over by studios, directors, actors, producers, story editors, you name it. And he names names. Had someone fucked with GGR, he'd have written about it someplace. This is a man who, when he heard that a producer was putting on the play, word for word, with an all woman cast, threatened a lawsuit and had the production shut down before the first performance. He did the same thing when the play was going to be translated (word for word) into German. In both instances he thought the "changes" would alter his intentions.
So strictly did the filmmakers stick to the text that when a situation arose where they didn't even understand the text, they followed it. Foley's on record as saying he thought the screenplay had a typo: he thought the line "I'm meeting our man at the back" was supposed to be "I'm meeting our man at the bank", because, he's said, "at the back doesn't make sense. At the back of what?" He called Mamet and asked for clarification. "Mamet said," says Foley, "It's back, not bank" and that was all the clarification I got and that's what we shot." (Note I'm paraphrasing from my memory as I'm too lazy to go find the text.)
Whatever changes were done to the text of GGR, Mamet was responsible for them.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 7:16 PM on May 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
Best answer: There was some discussion on the DVD features about the rewrite that Mamet did, adding the Baldwin character and some other connecting or reinforcing scenes. It didn't address this point specifically as far as I can recall, though.
An essay by Christopher C. Hudgins in David Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross suggests that this and other changes were meant to place greater emphasis on the friendship between the men rather than anger at the system -- which I interpret as being anger at how these men are forced to have friendship interfered with by competition. Another source suggests that Lemmon's pathetic interpretation is quite different from that of most of the stage actors playing Levene, so he becomes a more sympathetic character in the film. This may have made it more difficult to have him be screwed over one last time in the final moments.
Personally, while there may have been studio interference, it doesn't necessarily need to come from there. I prefer to think that Mamet understood he was presenting the play in a new context and rewrote accordingly.
posted by dhartung at 7:30 PM on May 27, 2009
An essay by Christopher C. Hudgins in David Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross suggests that this and other changes were meant to place greater emphasis on the friendship between the men rather than anger at the system -- which I interpret as being anger at how these men are forced to have friendship interfered with by competition. Another source suggests that Lemmon's pathetic interpretation is quite different from that of most of the stage actors playing Levene, so he becomes a more sympathetic character in the film. This may have made it more difficult to have him be screwed over one last time in the final moments.
Personally, while there may have been studio interference, it doesn't necessarily need to come from there. I prefer to think that Mamet understood he was presenting the play in a new context and rewrote accordingly.
posted by dhartung at 7:30 PM on May 27, 2009
I would guess that this is because Mamet really built the film version around certain actors. This is evidenced by the creation of an entirely new character for Baldwin, as dhartung pointed out.
I'm a pure neophyte about this stuff, but in the stage version, Mamet perhaps felt he needed to force the plot along more, since the play could be acted by just about anyone who had the werewithal to stage it. For the film version, he knew that his "vision" would be permanent once he got it shot and produced. So he could take more liberties with the script and let the actors connote the intended mood.
I mean, Pacino's Roma certainly sounds like a BS-er from the get-go. He makes it pretty obvious that his routine with Levine is that of a young hotshot patronizing the office old guy. And similarly, there was no need to see Levine dragge off by the cops. Jack Lemmon creates enough empathy in the last few minutes of the film that we didn't need to see everything play out so overtly.
posted by hiteleven at 8:37 PM on May 27, 2009
I'm a pure neophyte about this stuff, but in the stage version, Mamet perhaps felt he needed to force the plot along more, since the play could be acted by just about anyone who had the werewithal to stage it. For the film version, he knew that his "vision" would be permanent once he got it shot and produced. So he could take more liberties with the script and let the actors connote the intended mood.
I mean, Pacino's Roma certainly sounds like a BS-er from the get-go. He makes it pretty obvious that his routine with Levine is that of a young hotshot patronizing the office old guy. And similarly, there was no need to see Levine dragge off by the cops. Jack Lemmon creates enough empathy in the last few minutes of the film that we didn't need to see everything play out so overtly.
posted by hiteleven at 8:37 PM on May 27, 2009
Whatever changes were done to the text of GGR, Mamet was responsible for them.
Indeed. This was on the DVD. You may not realize it watching it, but Mamet wrote every comma and every pause. The actors performed what he wrote because they understood that Mamet had an intention for every nonverbal cue as well as the text itself. These are really good actors who have had amazing careers, and they were all so excited to be in this production that they accepted a level of control from Mamet that is very unusual in the profession. Most directors will have an actor play a scene with at least slight variation over a series of takes. With Mamet, one of the few times he gave an actor some leeway was when he didn't like something Jack had done: "Play it less ... Lemmon-y", he said. Contrary to what you might expect, the actor found this liberating.
In short, he meant what we see to be there.
posted by dhartung at 9:17 PM on May 27, 2009
Indeed. This was on the DVD. You may not realize it watching it, but Mamet wrote every comma and every pause. The actors performed what he wrote because they understood that Mamet had an intention for every nonverbal cue as well as the text itself. These are really good actors who have had amazing careers, and they were all so excited to be in this production that they accepted a level of control from Mamet that is very unusual in the profession. Most directors will have an actor play a scene with at least slight variation over a series of takes. With Mamet, one of the few times he gave an actor some leeway was when he didn't like something Jack had done: "Play it less ... Lemmon-y", he said. Contrary to what you might expect, the actor found this liberating.
In short, he meant what we see to be there.
posted by dhartung at 9:17 PM on May 27, 2009
Best answer: I've been thinking more about your question, and I think that the scene works and is especially poignant because even though the words are "the things I could learn from you!" - the fact that he can turn a man's mood entirely by saying the right thing demonstrates, again, that Roma is a far better salesman than The Machine ever was.
posted by moxiedoll at 10:51 PM on May 27, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by moxiedoll at 10:51 PM on May 27, 2009 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: Amazing discussion.
Despite all the re-watchings I'd never read that last scene as Roma playing with Levene, or just flexing his salesmanship muscles. Time to watch it again.
The friends-separated-by-competition is closer to my own interpretation, and definitely sharpens the pathos of Levene's downfall. If that's how Mamet meant it, it's a powerful moment -- sort of like the one speck of happiness the protagonist seems to get (maybe) at the end of Edmond.
I maintain that either of those interpretations (Roma bullshitting Levene / potential but thwarted friends) is more of a downer ending than the stage version.
posted by hayvac at 6:04 AM on May 28, 2009
Despite all the re-watchings I'd never read that last scene as Roma playing with Levene, or just flexing his salesmanship muscles. Time to watch it again.
The friends-separated-by-competition is closer to my own interpretation, and definitely sharpens the pathos of Levene's downfall. If that's how Mamet meant it, it's a powerful moment -- sort of like the one speck of happiness the protagonist seems to get (maybe) at the end of Edmond.
I maintain that either of those interpretations (Roma bullshitting Levene / potential but thwarted friends) is more of a downer ending than the stage version.
posted by hayvac at 6:04 AM on May 28, 2009
« Older What do I need to import items from USA and abroad... | Wrong time for expensive house maintenance? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
I speak from some knowledge of this kind of thing since I wrote a movie which Harvey Weinstein turned down on the grounds that 'no matter how you write it, it ends with a woman's head in an oven'. I did actually write an 'into the sunlight' ending which I liked but it was never shot.
posted by unSane at 3:42 PM on May 27, 2009 [5 favorites]