‘Henry Johnson’ Review: David Mamet Stays in His Rabbit Hole of Cryptic Power Games, but Shia LaBeouf Makes a Striking Convict

by

David Mamet’s body of work, spanning over five decades, is richly diverse yet distinctively his own, making it effortless to label it as “Mametesque.” Consistency permeates throughout.

Upon examining the timeline of David Mamet’s career, I find an immense and striking divide – one that encompasses tone, philosophy, style, and essentially shapes his identity. In his plays that brought him recognition, such as “American Buffalo” and “Sexual Perversity in Chicago,” he aimed to imitate the conversational patterns of everyday people. Consequently, the dialogue emerged in a rough, profane, half-articulate staccato, with characters often interrupting each other’s rhythmic thoughts. This climaxed in Mamet’s 1983 magnum opus, “Glengarry Glen Ross,” a classic exploration/critique of small-time swindlers in sales, transforming the deceptive language of hustlers into a twisted poetic structure. He further explored this style with “Speed-the-Plow” (1988), his biting satire on Hollywood.

The split occurred in 1992, with Mamet penning “Oleanna,” his two-act play exploring sexual harassment within academia. Looking back, the play’s focus on a heated verbal dispute between the characters was surprisingly progressive. However, “Oleanna” seemed as if it was penned by Chatbot Mamet, as the characters tended to disclose themselves – or more frequently, didn’t – through abrupt and staccato sentence fragments.

Mamet’s dialogue was no longer mimicking everyday conversation; instead, he was deliberately dissecting and fragmenting it. Critics often compared him to Harold Pinter, with Pinter being known for his dramatic pauses. However, Mamet seemed to excessively emphasize the opposite – rapid-fire dialogues devoid of pauses, akin to concise shrapnel fragments that may not always cohere. The gritty realism of “Glengarry” was its strength (making it the greatest Martin Scorsese movie that Scorsese never made). However, Mamet appeared to be aiming to transcend into a stylized, Cubist-like form of linguistic play. As his plays progressed, they became more void, enigmatic, and dogmatic. He was no longer portraying human nature; instead, he was preserving it like a pinned butterfly specimen and analyzing it.

The film titled “Henry Johnson,” directed by Henry Johnson after a 17-year break, is based on a Mamet play and premiered in Los Angeles in 2023. For the initial third of the movie, it immerses you into an engaging atmosphere where nothing is more captivating than the dialogue between two characters, employing words as both protection and offense. In this instance, the characters are Henry (Evan Jonigkeit), a junior executive with a peculiar owl-like demeanor and Paul Thomas Anderson’s hairstyle, and his boss, Mr. Barnes, portrayed by Chris Bauer, who bears a strong resemblance to the late ’70s and ’80s character actor Tim McIntire (rumored to be Orson Welles’ illegitimate son). Bauer, with his rounded baby-like features, delivers a powerful performance as a contentious senior company officer who interrogates Henry in such an aggressive manner that it becomes evident, over time, that he is not just talking but also interrogating.

In a typical office setting, filled with old-fashioned lamps and a whiskey cabinet, Barnes inquires about Henry’s connection to a controversial acquaintance who served time for manslaughter. This crime, as we learn, is gruesome and unsettling – the friend coerced someone into having an abortion when she was pregnant, but she refused; he then resorted to violence to force a miscarriage. Initially, Mamet’s political leanings become apparent, as this crime seems to serve as a subtle commentary on the topic of abortions. However, the main focus of the conversation is how psychopathic Henry’s friend appears to be, with his manipulative behavior dating back to his college days when he targeted trusting individuals like Henry, who were easy to deceive.

Henry Johnson” comprises three distinct scenes, each featuring a single character named Henry and structured as a dialogue-like monologue. The play unfolds in various settings, and the opening act delves into human manipulation tactics, culminating in a surprising twist: the accusation of a crime, revealing a deeper friendship bond between Henry and his companion than initially perceived. In the subsequent scene, Henry is imprisoned, donning yellow prison garb, prompting initial doubts about his ability to endure even a few minutes within the confines of this environment.

In this scenario, Gene, Henry’s cellmate, poses an intriguing question: Why does it seem like Henry lacks both street smarts and prison savvy, while Gene appears incredibly street-wise, bordering on criminal genius? He’s a type of brilliant yet creepy strategist who excels in violence, reminiscent of Jack Henry Abbott. Shawn (LaBeouf) brings this character to life convincingly. Gene’s eyes are always observant, almost like a radar, and he seems to grasp everything from the symbolism behind fairytale princesses (he suggests that both the villain and prince are one in the same) to survival tactics in prison yards.

Although LaBeouf delivers an impressive performance, Gene’s intense blend of anger and guidance becomes overwhelming at times. He appears to be Mamet’s spokesperson, yet the narrative begins to lose its focus on its central theme. Evan Jonigkeit, who is Mamet’s son-in-law, portrays Henry as a weak, whiny innocent, leaving us with little reason to root for him. Henry seems to be both easily manipulated by those around him and unimportant to Mamet himself. The production titled “Henry Johnson” showcases numerous theatrical tricks but never fully transforms into an engaging play. As the plot unfolds, it becomes apparent that Henry has been romantically involved with his prison counselor. This revelation, along with Gene’s suggestion for Henry to exploit this relationship for personal gain, feels overly fabricated and lacks authenticity. In fact, Mamet seems to have lost interest in the details of what happens to Henry, making it difficult for the audience to connect emotionally with the story.

Towards the climax, Henry acquires a firearm and seizes Dominic Hoffman, the prison librarian, as his hostage. The events that unfold appear surreal, yet Mamet remains unfazed, eager to deliver another monologue for your ears. However, this time it’s from the librarian, but unfortunately, it fails to resonate or make sense…at all. The film seems to lose its momentum right before your eyes.

As a movie enthusiast, I must confess, looking back on it, the play “Henry Johnson” has left me feeling deflated for quite some time now, even during Shia LaBeouf’s intense performance. That’s because David Mamet, in his own mind, no longer writes plays that resonate as authentic realities. Instead, he’s penning plays that serve as vessels for his complex, almost poetic, verbal concoctions of “ideas.” If you were to design a poster for this play, I’d suggest it should bear the tagline: “Three monologues. One gullible spectator. One verbose playwright who thinks he’s profound.”

Watching “Henry Johnson,” I can’t help but appreciate Mamet’s undeniable talent. Yet, there’s a sense of disdain for the fundamental aspects of entertainment that I can feel emanating from him. He seems determined to push us out of our comfort zones. The problem is, he’s created a unique realm of self-indulgence masquerading as significance instead.

Read More

2025-05-02 06:17