Symbolism In David Mamet's The All-Encompassing Duck

The All-Encompassing Duck

David Mamet’s, The Duck Variations, provides a metaphor for nearly every aspect of human existence. The conversation between Emil and George, two old men on a park bench included topics ranging from air pollution to the ancient Greeks. There appeared to be no deliberate progression of subject, as the two men always seemed to be searching for the next thing to say. In doing so, the dialogue was presented as if unscripted and the actors merely improvising as they went along. This, coupled with Mamet’s acclaimed use of “Mamet Speak,” defined by the characters’ constantly cutting one another off, with sentences in rapid succession and in an oftentimes-tense tone, produced a natural dialogue that mimicked what one would surmise to be a real interaction between the two old men. Even though the topic was mentioned only a few times, the main theme of the play seemed to be concerned with death and its inevitability. The idea of death is intrinsic to the mind of every human being, particularly older people as they reach the end of their lives. The mention of death evoked a sensation of pity and empathy from the crowd, as it seemed to weigh heavily on the minds of the characters. As the play drew to a close, George began to speak of the
ancient Greeks, more specifically the old men of Greek culture who served no purpose to society. As with the rest of the play, the sentiment was a blatant analogy to his life. Yet this one seemed to elicit the greatest response of sympathy from the crowd, as it was meant to be the most obvious in terms of relation to his role in society. The play was rather mundane in terms of action, serving only to depict a realistic casual conversation. With this in mind, the setting of the play contributed immensely to the dialogue throughout. Consisting of nothing more than a bench and a bag of popcorn, the actors and director were able to focus the crowd’s undivided attention on their words.
In conjunction with the dialogue and set, each actor’s ability to engage in their roles made the play very believable. Both actors did an excellent job of performing the roles of old men. Their stiff movements and rigid conversation captured the essence of old men. While speaking they would often ramble on or drift off as one might expect from someone whose mind has lost its edge. In voicing their frustration with the limits of their feeble minds and bodies, each character’s emotional reactions was often expedited, as they would jump up as quickly as their bodies would allow when angry. At one point in an argument, both men walked off the stage in opposite directions in a comedic manner. The mental states of the characters coincided well with what one would expect; as they presented themselves as afraid to be alone, frightened by life’s uncertainties and unsure of their minds. Although both characters functioned similarly in the play, they had specific mannerisms that differentiated them.
George seemed to be slightly less emotionally reactive throughout and didn’t work himself up too much when in a dispute. As opposed to these behaviors, the man on the left side was more quick to anger and had a much firmer stance in his opinions. Emil would state an idea or belief with little supportive information and an unwillingness to change. For these, reasons I could easily see myself acting as George, I don’t generally react with sadness or anger to events or people in my life and am usually malleable in my beliefs and point of view. I also find it difficult to act angry which Emil often
did.