Cool quick morning read.

It's the kind of writing that grabs your attention right away and keeps you engaged.

Snappy writing for a play, it has that energy and sparkle that makes you think it would be probably really fun to see on stage.

The characters come alive through the dialogue and the actions described.

You can almost picture the scenes unfolding in front of your eyes.

Now that I've read this, I'm really curious to see how it translates to the big screen.

I should watch the movie now to see if it can capture the essence and excitement of the written work.

Maybe the movie will bring a whole new dimension to the story and make it even more enjoyable.

I'm looking forward to experiencing it in a different medium and seeing how the director and actors bring the characters and plot to life.

It's always interesting to compare the written word with the visual interpretation.

Who knows, maybe the movie will become one of my new favorites.

Glengarry Glen Ross is an electrifying play that is both intense and captivating.

It is a dialogue-driven piece that is filled with profanity, desperation, greed, and corruption. Set in a Chicago real estate office, the play features a cast of unscrupulous salesmen who are all fighting to keep their jobs.

None of these characters are particularly sympathetic, but they are all masters of the art of persuasion. Driven by the office manager to outdo each other and faced with the threat of unemployment if they don't sell, they use their silver tongues to obtain better leads, deceive naive customers, and even cheat their bosses.

The entire enterprise is rotten to the core, with corruption permeating every aspect. The salesmen are corrupt, the customers are gullible, and everyone is filled with a sense of desperation and impending doom.

Yet, despite the bleakness of the situation, there is a certain dark humor that pervades the play. It won the Pulitzer Prize for Drama in 1984 and was later adapted into a highly acclaimed film in 1992.

I had the pleasure of listening to the outstanding LA Theater Works production, which boasted an amazing cast including Richard Dreyfus, Joe Mantegna, Gordon Clapp, and Richard Schiff. Their performances brought the play to life and added an extra layer of depth and nuance to the already powerful story.

Overall, Glengarry Glen Ross is a must-see play that will leave you on the edge of your seat and laughing out loud at the same time.

Damn, they were really just giving Pulitzers to anyone, huh?

It seems rather astonishing that the Pulitzer Prize, which is supposed to be a highly prestigious and selective award, could potentially be handed out so liberally.

One would expect that only the most outstanding and deserving works would receive such an honor. But this statement implies that perhaps the standards have been lowered or that there has been some sort of irregularity in the awarding process.

It makes one wonder if the true value and significance of the Pulitzer Prize are being diluted. Are there really that many works that are of such high caliber that they all deserve to be recognized with this esteemed award?

Or is there something else going on behind the scenes? These are questions that come to mind when hearing such a comment.

It is important to maintain the integrity and credibility of awards like the Pulitzer Prize to ensure that they continue to hold the respect and admiration of the literary and journalistic communities.

From David Mamet’s Glengarry Glen Ross, Act I, Scene II, the intense dialogue between Moss and Aaronow unfolds. Moss is in a desperate situation as he has to obtain the leads that night. He warns Aaronow that if he doesn't cooperate, he will come and rob the place. Aaronow is shocked and protests, saying he thought they were just talking. Moss then reveals that if he is caught, he will name Aaronow as an accomplice, which Aaronow finds ridiculous. However, Moss argues that in the eyes of the law, Aaronow is an accessory before the fact. Aaronow doesn't understand why he is being dragged into this and pleads with Moss to stop. Moss, on the other hand, dismisses his concerns, saying it's none of his business.

The dialogues in this play, especially this part, are a prime example of contemporary American English spoken by people in this line of work. It has a unique coherence and pace that creates an immediate response or repartee. The real estate agents' language is full of slangs and street talk, making it very dynamic. It is based on real fieldwork and what the playwright has heard himself. Aaronow's boredom is palpable through his sentences.

This kind of language and dialogue could be a great model for Iranian films and plays. It shows how to create a realistic and engaging conversation that reflects the true nature of the characters and their environment. By reproducing this style, Iranian filmmakers and playwrights can bring a new level of authenticity to their works and connect with their audiences on a deeper level.

Glengary Glen Ross by David Mamet

Superb! It is truly one of my favorite plays. About fifteen years ago, I was completely mesmerized by one of the best movies I've ever seen, Glengary Glen Ross. The dream team on that masterpiece was truly remarkable. Al Pacino played Richard Roma, Kevin Spacey was John Williamson, Moss was portrayed by Ed Harris, Jack Lemmon took on the role of The Machine Levine, and Alan Arkin was also in the cast, along with the unforgettable Alec Baldwin. Even Alec Baldwin had a chance to shine as the guest from Mitch and Murry, setting guidelines for the sales team: ABC - Always Be Closing and AIDA - Attention Interest Decision Action. The fabulous play is a hyperbole, giving the audience the impression that salesmen are heartless and criminals, at least when push comes to shove. In the movie, Alec Baldwin announces a competition. First place gets a Cadillac, second a set of knives, and the third is fired. His aggressive attitude may be old school and exaggerated for artistic purposes. He brags about his watch costing more than their cars and driving an eighty-thousand-dollar BMW while they get in a Hyundai. His lecture is insensitive, arrogant, and rude, and one wonders how effective it really is. But as he brags, he does get their attention. All the sales people are interesting, clever, and complex men. They are liars, yes, but with their own issues. The Machine has a sick daughter in the hospital who requires more money than he has. When he seems to close a great deal, it turns out the clients were nuts. It was said that all is fair in love and war, and it seems like every trick can be used in real estate as well. Ricky and The Machine play act to save a deal. The client signed by Ricky wants to get his money back. In the movie, he is played by Jonathan Pryce. To keep his six-thousand-dollar commission, Ricky Roma is putting on a play within the play. He says that The Machine is the Vice President of American Express and a VIP customer. As they move along, they invent a birthday, a flight, and more to make the customer miss out on the legal limits for cashing checks and meeting the three-day deadline. Then Williamson comes in and blows everything away. Why? Because, as Roma points out, "You never open your mouth when you don't know what the deal is." The play has everything: humor, tragedy, excellent acting, a detective story, and even a strange incursion into philosophy, morals, and ethics. Roma, as he signs his client, talks about the relativity of various concepts. He says, "- you are queer? So what, we all are - you cheat on your wife? It happens." He gets outrageous when he talks about young girls. As mentioned, the characters are both hateful and entertaining at various times. I loved the movie, with the script signed by the same stunning David Mamet, and the play.

The ending of 3.8 was rather anticlimactic.

It left many people feeling disappointed and unfulfilled.

After all the anticipation and build-up, the conclusion seemed to fall flat.

There was a lack of excitement and drama that one would have expected from such a significant event.

Perhaps the organizers could have done more to make the ending more memorable and impactful.

They could have added some unexpected twists or surprises to keep the audience on the edge of their seats.

Alternatively, they could have focused on creating a more emotional and engaging conclusion that would have left a lasting impression on everyone.

As it stands, the anticlimactic ending of 3.8 serves as a reminder that even the most well-planned events can sometimes fall short of expectations.

It is important to always strive for excellence and to continuously look for ways to improve and enhance the overall experience.

Let me begin by making it absolutely clear: I am not a devotee of David Mamet.

I read Oleanna and didn't have any affection for it. I read his perspectives on actors, acting, and women and completely disagreed with him.

However, it cannot be denied that he is an iconic figure in post-Cold War American Theatre. And until now, I had no motivation to pick up this 1984 Pulitzer Prize winner that is coveted by almost every male colleague I have ever worked with in the theatre.

So, I gave him one last chance. And this turned out to be the final nail in the Mamet coffin for me.

The story is meager. There isn't a single redeeming quality in any of these characters. They mumble through their dialogue as if they're intoxicated, cutting off nearly every thought - sometimes, several times in one "sentence".

And then there is the language. Honestly, it wouldn't bother me if it weren't so excessive that it completely detracts from the story itself. It's unpoetic and, quite frankly, untheatrical.

Of course, there are those who will advocate for his realism, his unrestrained reflection of American nature. But doing so with grace, poetry (however subtle), and catharsis is the key to truly dynamic theatre. Albee, Miller, Wilson, and Williams, to name just a few, understand this.

I'm sure if Mamet were here, he would happily tell me to go f*** myself, and that's okay. However, I would politely suggest that I received enough of that sentiment from the play.

Honestly, I initially had the perception that I would despise this play. However, everything changed when I witnessed it performed by Liev Schreiber and Alan Alda. Their acting was so captivating that I became completely engrossed in the story.

This play is extremely challenging to stage successfully. The reason lies in Mamet's stylized dialogue, which demands truly talented actors to bring it to life. In fact, I would say that this production is probably among the ten best that I have ever had the pleasure of seeing.

I specifically mention the staged version because when you read the play, you can really get a clear sense of its "feel". It's important to note that this play may not be to everyone's taste. The language is quite strong and it has a very distinctively male perspective. Nevertheless, despite these aspects, it is still well worth reading. It offers a unique and thought-provoking experience that can expand one's understanding and appreciation of different types of drama.

The analysis of this exhibition will encompass all the concerns of modern humans.

This exhibition holds great significance as it delves deep into the various aspects that trouble the minds of contemporary individuals. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the complex web of issues that modern humans face on a daily basis.

From the challenges of work-life balance to the impact of technology on our relationships and mental health, this exhibition leaves no stone unturned. It presents a thought-provoking exploration of the human condition in the modern age, inviting visitors to reflect on their own lives and the world around them.

By examining these concerns, the exhibition hopes to inspire discussions and encourage individuals to take action to address the problems that plague modern society. It serves as a reminder that we are all interconnected and that our actions have consequences, not only for ourselves but for future generations as well.

Definitely not my style - I'm a Shakespeare kind of gal - but I really enjoyed it nonetheless.

It never feels dull, as Mamet's style is fast-paced and surprising. His dialogue is sharp and witty, cutting through the clutter and getting straight to the heart of the matter.

The characters are vividly drawn, each with their own unique quirks and personalities.

You can't help but be drawn into their world and become invested in their stories.

Despite not being a fan of this particular style, I found myself completely engaged from start to finish.

It's a testament to Mamet's skill as a writer that he can create something so compelling even for those who may not initially be inclined to like it.

I would highly recommend this work to anyone looking for a fresh and exciting read.

Meh!

This whole concept seems a bit too much like the American dream for my taste.

It's that typical narrative of striving for success, wealth, and a perfect life that sometimes feels a bit overdone.

However, I have to say that I really loved the play by Parsa Piroozfar.

His work had a certain charm and authenticity to it that really captured my attention.

The characters were well-developed, and the story had some unexpected twists and turns that kept me engaged from start to finish.

It was a refreshing break from the usual fare, and I'm looking forward to seeing more of his work in the future.

Overall, while the idea of the American dream may not resonate with me, Parsa Piroozfar's play was a pleasant surprise and a great example of the power of good storytelling.

Similar to "The Wolf of Wall Street," this play seems to be a rather nonsensical one.

It has elements of racism and homophobia sprinkled in, presumably for shock value.

I really don't know why this particular play was included on my syllabus.

Nor do I understand why it won the Pulitzer.

And to top it off, the fact that the playwright is a Trump supporter just adds to the confusion.

Here we are, trying to make sense of it all.

Perhaps there are deeper meanings or interpretations that I'm missing, but on the surface, it just seems like a strange and rather concerning choice.

It makes me question the values and perspectives that are being promoted through such works.

Hopefully, through further analysis and discussion, we can gain a better understanding of why this play holds the significance it does.