Race

by David Mamet

Drama / Characters: 3 males, 1 female / Interior set / Multiple Award-winning playwright/director David Mamet tackles America's most controversial topic in a provocative new tale of sex, guilt and bold accusations. Two lawyers find themselves defending a wealthy white executive charged with raping a black woman. When a new legal assistant gets involved in the case, the opinions that boil beneath explode to the surface. When David Mamet turns the spotlight on what we think but can't say, dangerou

Genres: Plays, Drama, Theatre, Fiction, American, Race, Politics

80 pages, Paperback

First published August 23, 2010

About the author

David Alan Mamet is an American author, essayist, playwright, screenwriter and film director. His works are known for their clever, terse, sometimes vulgar dialogue and arcane stylized phrasing, as well as for his exploration of masculinity.

As a playwright, he received Tony nominations for Glengarry Glen Ross (1984) and Speed-the-Plow (1988). As a screenwriter, he received Oscar nominations for The Verdict (1982) and Wag the Dog (1997).

Mamet's recent books include The Old Religion (1997), a novel about the lynching of Leo Frank; Five Cities of Refuge: Weekly Reflections on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (2004), a Torah commentary, with Rabbi Lawrence Kushner; The Wicked Son (2006), a study of Jewish self-hatred and antisemitism; and Bambi vs. Godzilla, an acerbic commentary on the movie business.

Reviews

[صان]

ممت همیشه چیزهایی داره که آخر کار برات رو کنه. سبک‌اش شاید اینطوریه.
این نمایش هم همینطوریه و تا آخرین دیالوگ‌های نمایش چیزهای جدیدی برای فهمیدن هست و آخرش کامل می‌فهمی که ماجرا چی بوده.

این نمایش درباره تبعیض‌های نژادیه و تصوراتی که آدما از آدمای نژاد‌های دیگه دارن. مثل پیش‌فرض‌هایی که برای بزهکاری سیاها وجود داره و این پیش‌فرض‌ها رو توی دنیای مدرنی که می‌خواد بگه نژادپرست نیست مطرح می‌کنه. درباره نژاد‌پرستی مثبت که ینی وقتی انقدر می‌خوان به اقلیت‌ها گیر ندن، حقِ اکثریت نادیده می‌شه.
و در نهایت می‌بینی که وضعیت موجود چه شکلیه.

[Illiterate]

A play about people navigating the social meanings of race - the stifling legacy of racism.

[Robert Lashley]

As the grievance movements of wingnut identity politics gives way to the grievance movements of the tea party, David Mamet has written a play for our times. Shrill, horatory, and filled with stock speeches where there should be dramatic tension, Race is a protest play in whiteface; less concerned with character and narrative tension than telling the truth about the black man. The right wing message play is not new to Mamet: he went after women in Oleanna, gays and "effeminent" men in The Cryptogram, and in his next play, he's going after muslims. What is dispiriting about this one is that it has the feel of a violent counter volley; an extension of our screamfest/racial dialogue that seem to never end and, if ideologues like Mamet have their way, wont.

Race's intent in plot, you ask? if you are writing about a black woman falsely accusing a white business man of rape, add in a black attorney who is a vesuvius of racial cliches, throw in a black law clerk who dresses and acts like Mamet's vision of a video model, and top it off with the white businessman being screwed into going into the hoosegow, you are writing with the primary purpose to piss black people off. Yet Mamet doesnt augment the language and the pacing with his usual Pinteresque flourishes. No, he breathes into his characters such chestnuts as "Are all blacks mad at all whites? You bet they are!" " All whites are naturally guilty." " What's the thing that a white man can say to a black man about race? Nothing!" and other axioms barely plausible in the mouth of a militant 9th grader, much less an ivy league lawyer and his assistant.

Yet for all the violent, sneering fun Mamet wants to have with this; the interior limitations of the protest play stratify Race; and take to a place that is agonizing in it's sense of self pity. Central to every protest play is a statement of weakness, from Baraka's Dutchman and the Slave, to Walcottt's Makak, to any of Bullins' homocidal whiners , the primary theme of the genre is " i cant function in scoety because the ________ Man did something to me." The defendant in Race is no different. Mamet wants the audience to feel pity for his plight as he is berated by the rage-a-holic lawyer, and set up by the scheming black law clerk. Yet the defendant is violent to his own black mistress, and prone to fits of disurbing rage in the strindbergian back and forths he has with the law clerk in the third act of the play.

The result is the self pitying rhethoric of Race doesnt push your buttons as much it's wears you out. Mamet's newly minted racial politics are tacky, and his sexual politics have been ugly since he started as a playwright. It is his denial of human being, his unwillingness to grant them fortitude, and his inability to grant them agency over their lives that makes this play such a failure; as well as a cancer on the last subject in america that needs one.

[Ebony]

A friend passed Race along to me. I didn’t know what to expect, but I kept checking the premier date to make sure it wasn’t a Strauss-Khan play by play. The play’s relationship to the real life events is uncanny in my imagination since we don’t really know what happened in those hotel rooms, but like Susan implies there are somethings you just know not necessarily because you are black or because you are a woman but absolutely because your race and gender color how you view the world. I didn’t quite expect the turn at the end, but I appreciated it. Certainly. I loved how strong the characters were. It’s Mamet so that’s no surprise, but I dug how each character’s dialog could have been abstracted from the others and made into a monologue. It’s like even though they are interrupted by each other and new scenes each character always picks up on their continuous train of thought. The characters don’t need each other to make the play’s larger point that sex is indivisible from race and race is indivisible from sex and “justice” is contingent upon your identity. I would love to see this on stage. If only L.A. were more of a theater town…

[John of Canada]

Up here in the Great White North we have a Prime Minister who,when he's not playing dressup weighs in on issues that play to his 'progressive'following.In a recent court case that involved the shooting of a native youth,the white accused was found not guilty by a jury of twelve non natives.The usual cries of racism followed,which were followed by the P.M suggesting that a jury that was not made up of natives could not give a fair verdict.This was followed by a promise that he would change how the legal system works.
Reading 'Race' was very timely.It seems that racism is a two way street.I kept changing how I felt about what was happening in the play.It wouldn't be unusual for a person to wonder if there is a difference between justice and the legal system.Mamet is brilliant.I'm going to read some more of his works.

[?0?0?0]

Let's get something clear: just because David Mamet subscribes to batshit right-wing thinking doesn't mean there's any of that in this play. The same people who bemoan that "Race" is a play with racist, right-wing ideas seem to be the same people who somehow read in the text of "Oleanna" and anti-women message. None of this is to say that Mamet has much, if anything, new to say about race. But it's how he tells it. This play is brief, two acts, 60 pages, that cuts out scenes one would expect, either resulting in a tight, fast-paced drama or a drama lacking the dramatic tension those scenes possibly could've offered. Nevertheless, Mamet's "Race" is a good play to read or watch alongside "Phil Spector" as many of the same themes and comments about the legal system are offered up there as well. Left-wing people who write off the work of others based solely on the authors political affiliation are just as bad as the people on the right who write off most Hollywood projects as "liberal propaganda" - what good comes out of constantly reading books and plays by those who you agree with all the time? What's the point in even reading if that's what your reading habit looks like?

[Kelly]

I find David Mamet's view of humanity so alien from my own that I truly wonder if we live in the same universe. His is not a world that I recognize. The plot moves along nicely, even though the characters are all cyphers for Mamet's bottomless contempt. It's a good play, but good grief... the playwright needs to join the 21st century.

[Dhwani Shah]

Everything is always about structures of power and exploitation even when it feels like society has progressed enough to achieve civil equality. The play was electric, it had the power to completely capture the reader's attention even when the characters were far from likeable. Drowning in a sense of reverse racism and contradicting the ideas of white male privilege, Mamet tries really hard to make everyone conscious of their privilege, focussing on black privilege. I don't agree with Mamet on this. I don't think race roles are reserved now. He tries to villainize Susan who stands by her convictions of Charles's guilt. He tries to garner sympathy for a rich white racist male. But fuck, Mamet is smart. He writes the play beautifully. While I was reading it, I felt like I was in Mamet's mind and his non-inclusive worldview. I knew that the protagonists were bitches but still Mamet nearly succeeded in making me believe that rich white males aren't the worst.

[Evanston Public Library]

After Charles, a rich white man, is accused of raping a young black woman, he asks a team of two lawyers (one white, one black) to represent him in court. Jack and Henry enlist the help of Susan, their recently hired younger associate who is black. In this “he said/she said” case, all have pre-conceived notions about Charles. Their mission is to win over a jury. Truth is an illusion. Prejudice, lust, guilt, shame, human frailty, ruthless competition, hidden agendas, betrayal—our celebrated playwright lays it all out there, and we are left to ponder compelling issues of our day, including affirmative action, the legal system, and gender politics. Can we ever discuss race honestly? Can we ever find justice in a court of law? Boldly provocative, unsettling, and definitely un-“politically correct,” with crackling dialogue, cagey characters and thrilling suspense, this is top-notch drama, ripe for discussion. (Susan R., Reader's Services)

[Julie]

My favourite aspect of Mamet's writing has always been the tight dialogue: the quick back and forth between characters that builds tension so quickly; and the echoing of phrases that really adds to the confusion and frustration each of the characters feel in the scene. So, I enjoyed reading Race and could really get a sense of how this could be a dynamic staged performance.

What Mamet is super good at is making you feel one way about a character when you first meet them and then having your opinion suddenly shift. In this case, both Susan and John shift in the reader's mind - which is so fitting to a play about a court case and creating the character for the jury to "buy".

However, on some level I felt like this was modelled on Oleanna, in terms of the Pierre dynamics at work and of course, that meant it was going to pale in comparison because Oleanna is one of my favourite plays. So, if you enjoyed Oleanna, you will like this for the same reason (just not as much)

[Lorma Doone]

Read this on a flight from Memphis to Miami. Surprisingly easy read for a Mamet play.

Any casual theatre fan knows what to expect from a David Mamet play. Profanity, politics, battle of the sexes-type intrigue....he has a very specific style. I thought the man had run out of ways to shock; I thought wrong. All Americans should read this play. I'd give it 6 stars if I could.

[Joshua]

An intriguing if not preachy look at race relations in America. At times it seems that Mamet is simply begging for controversy, which can take precedence over the story itself and turns the play more into a kind of dissertation on what the author thinks of race and less a story wherein race is a prime factor.

[Nique]

I guess I was just hoping for something more insightful, instead of the usual "White man trying to keep the Black man down"/ "Black people hate White people" and vice-versa. I just don't feel anything was accomplished or that anything new was revealed in this play. Meh.

[Lincoln Hall]

Holy shit this was way way way more interesting than I expected, Mamet is a huge asshole & I disagree with him on nearly everything as a person, but as a writer I hate to say it but I fuck with him.

This plot should be impossible to make,
Every “turn around bad takes coming!” Light was going off in my head starting this & by the end I found myself questioning elements of myself & the perception of race, class, & gender.

I don’t really relate or empathize with anyone in this but I fully understand them & wanna read more just to know what kind of horrible arguments they will make to come out on top.

Overall great shit & some super strong characters all around, only reason it’s not 5 is because Mamet sucks weiner as a zionistic transphobe, but damn can the boy write good dickheads

[James]

Only Mamet could write this. It’s not perfect but it’s certainly a tonic—and to think it was on Broadway in 2009! All of the stuff touted as edgy and topical today is safe and made-to-order to allow audiences to flatter themselves. You think the cast of Hamilton lecturing Mike Pence from the stage was ballsy? Producing this was ballsy.

[Amnesty]

Says So Much

This short simple play is just loaded with meaning. I read it three times after I finished it, just to appreciate the enormity of the message. The subtlety hits like a sledgehammer. Well done, Mr. Mamet.

[Will Street]

As always, Mamet's language and thesis is strong but I'm not sure if it's the correct approach to such a topic. It sort of read manifesto-like, as it expressed white frustration in rather violent and incongruent ways. But hey! It's still Mamet.

[Syd]

listen man i do not fw m*met and i think susan could've been written better especially considering the ending but i will say i did enjoy the read and felt excited by what it COULD HAVE been ya know? this is a good first draft m*met

[Not Mike]

play.

Nope.

[Nada Alaa]

3.5
A thought provocative read.
Also the first assigned book that didn’t leave me bored out of my mind.

[Liberty Ero]

Oh, don’t mind me... just a James Spader fan casually passing through...

Sorry to have missed your call. Leave a message at the tone, and I’ll gladly call you back once I have this memorized.

[Leo]

I don't think the theme of this play is as black and white as the reviewers are making it out to be

[Pluto]

Blah. Read this for a cold table read. Found it to be a pretty basic exploration of race.

[James Binz]

Fascinating story about race from a VERY different perspective. Mamet's characters are always well developed, and his plots are perfection. Should have seen the ending coming - but I missed it.

[Renee]

Such a powerful piece of work. I can't wait to see it performed.

[Reza Tbrz]

4.3⭐️

[Timothy McNeil]

I would have preferred to have been less bothered by the punctuation than I was (I am wholly unsure of what point Mamet was trying to make with the sporadic interjections of periods and colons to keep sentences from being sentences). I do think it contributed to my not enjoying reading the play; it is an instance where I am positive it must play better than it reads. But I did not find any insight in the work, and it really felt like it was at least two decades behind the curve in envisioning how race is discussed and viewed in America. It certainly does not read as though it were written by a white man who has had any regular interactions with any people of color (much like how the film Larry Crowne felt like how the wealthy imagine the lives of the working class). To my mind it is little more than empty preachiness in content, saved only by the occasional clever quips and one solid extended exchange between Jack and Susan.

[Katie Bullock]

A lot to think about.

[Downward]

race is a play about some lawyers defending a white man who raped a black girl. one of the lawyers is white, one black. the paralegal is a black woman. the dialogue here is sharp and oddly constructed to provide cadence and voice, lending the character's monologues the gravitas of real human speech, impassioned and full of pausy tics. give mamet some credit here for treading on difficult ground, punching in his weight class as far as social issues are concerned. mamet contends that race is an intrinsic part of american identity that shades every human interaction throuh the lenses of shame and guilt. his words are combative and surgical, but as the plot moves through its machinations and we switch from one drama to another, it feels like its unwilling to explore every area. like most meals cooked by david mamet, at the end you're leaving some food on the table

[Phillip]

I'm not a big fan of Mamet, and this play didn't really sell me. Apart from the kind of stuttering dialogue Mamet uses--for example, Henry says, "Do you know what you can say? To a black man. On the subject of race?" (6)--I think what I found least appealing is how Mamet seemed to sacrifice a lot of the complexity of his characters. At the end of the day, Henry is an angry black man, Charles is (likely) a rich and powerful white man who raped an African American girl, Jack is an American 'liberal' who hired an attractive African American girl out of a mix of nobless oblige and repressed sexual desire, and Susan is unable to put aside her identification with the victim and distaste for the firm's client. The characters just seem rather predictable and somewhat boring to me.