No. It is based on a 1982 play of the same name by David Mamet. The play received its initial theatrical run at the Cottesole Theatre in London on September 21, 1983, where it was directed by Bill Bryden. It premiered in the United States at the Goodman Theatre in Chicago on February 6, 1984, and moved to Broadway on March 25 of that year, running for 378 performances at the John Golden Theatre, directed by Gregory Mosher. The Broadway production received the 1983 Laurence Olivier Award for Best New Play, the 1984 Pulitzer Prize for Drama and the 1984 Tony Award for Best Actor (Joe Mantegna). It was also nominated for the 1984 Drama Desk Award for Outstanding New Play, and the 1984 Tony Awards for Best Play, Best Director and another Best Actor nomination (Robert Prosky).
The original British cast featured: Derek Newark as Shelley Levene; Jack Shepherd as Richard Roma; Trevor Ray as Dave Moss; James Grant as George Aaronow; Karl Johnson as John Williamson; Tony Haygarth as James Lingk; and John Tams as Detective Baylen. The original American cast featured: Robert Prosky as Shelley Levene; Joe Mantegna as Richard Roma; James Tolkan as Dave Moss; Mike Nussbaum as George Aaronow; J.T. Walsh as John Williamson; William Petersen as James Lingk; and Jack Wallace as Detective Baylen.
The original British cast featured: Derek Newark as Shelley Levene; Jack Shepherd as Richard Roma; Trevor Ray as Dave Moss; James Grant as George Aaronow; Karl Johnson as John Williamson; Tony Haygarth as James Lingk; and John Tams as Detective Baylen. The original American cast featured: Robert Prosky as Shelley Levene; Joe Mantegna as Richard Roma; James Tolkan as Dave Moss; Mike Nussbaum as George Aaronow; J.T. Walsh as John Williamson; William Petersen as James Lingk; and Jack Wallace as Detective Baylen.
For the most part, the film follows the play exactly. Most of the dialogue from the film is taken verbatim from the play, most of the characters in the film come directly from the play and much of the narrative comes directly from the play.
There are a couple of differences however. Most obviously, the film contains a character not in the play - Blake (played by Alec Baldwin). Mamet (who also wrote the script for the film) created this character and the "Coffee's For Closers" scene to give the sales force some added pressure in their attempts to close sales; it is in this scene where it is revealed that the lowest ranking salesman will be fired, thus ensuring they have a more important motivation than simply wanting to get commission.
Another addition to the film is the scene where Levene (Jack Lemmon) goes to see Larry Spannel (Bruce Altman) to try to close a deal. A few of Levene's phone conversations are also longer than in the film.
The setting of the film also differs from the play, as does the time of year in which it is set. The play is set in Chicago in midwinter; the film is set in New York in the Fall.
The very end of the film is also slightly different to the play. In the play, Roma flatters Levene and suggests that they work together (as he does in the film). At this point in the play, Levene enters Williamson's office, and as soon as he is inside, Roma reveals that the only reason he suggested he and Levene work together was so he could get half of Levene's sales. In the film however, after Levene enters Williamson's (Kevin Spacey) office, Roma (Al Pacino) makes no such revelation, and it is left open-ended as to whether or not his flattery of Levene was sincere.
There are a couple of differences however. Most obviously, the film contains a character not in the play - Blake (played by Alec Baldwin). Mamet (who also wrote the script for the film) created this character and the "Coffee's For Closers" scene to give the sales force some added pressure in their attempts to close sales; it is in this scene where it is revealed that the lowest ranking salesman will be fired, thus ensuring they have a more important motivation than simply wanting to get commission.
Another addition to the film is the scene where Levene (Jack Lemmon) goes to see Larry Spannel (Bruce Altman) to try to close a deal. A few of Levene's phone conversations are also longer than in the film.
The setting of the film also differs from the play, as does the time of year in which it is set. The play is set in Chicago in midwinter; the film is set in New York in the Fall.
The very end of the film is also slightly different to the play. In the play, Roma flatters Levene and suggests that they work together (as he does in the film). At this point in the play, Levene enters Williamson's office, and as soon as he is inside, Roma reveals that the only reason he suggested he and Levene work together was so he could get half of Levene's sales. In the film however, after Levene enters Williamson's (Kevin Spacey) office, Roma (Al Pacino) makes no such revelation, and it is left open-ended as to whether or not his flattery of Levene was sincere.
The title of the play and film comes from two different sets of leads which are mentioned.
'Glengarry' refers to 'Glengarry Highlands', which are the properties to be sold using the much coveted new leads which Blake delivers to the office.
'Glen Ross' refers to 'Glen Ross Farms' which was land that Moss (Ed Harris) and Aaronow (Alan Arkin), and presumably some of the others, had great success selling at some stage in the past (Moss mentions it to Aaronow in the coffee shop).
'Glengarry' refers to 'Glengarry Highlands', which are the properties to be sold using the much coveted new leads which Blake delivers to the office.
'Glen Ross' refers to 'Glen Ross Farms' which was land that Moss (Ed Harris) and Aaronow (Alan Arkin), and presumably some of the others, had great success selling at some stage in the past (Moss mentions it to Aaronow in the coffee shop).
Although there is an element of debate amongst fans as to the exact nature of the work, most seem to subscribe to the notion that Levene, Roma, Moss and Aaronow are not entirely legitimate real estate agents. The name of the company for which they work is Premier Properties (seen on the door several times as characters come and go); "a real estate office full of shabby, desperate swindlers - low-life ''businessmen'' who pass off swampland as the buy of a lifetime" (quoted here). As such, it seems as if the main task of the characters is to try to sell what is described in director James Foley's DVD commentary as "swamp land in Florida" for far more money than it's worth. The land is real, however, it is most likely worthless (cannot be built on or developed in any way etc), and in promoting it as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that can change lives they are in fact con-men; the con is not in the fact that the purchase itself is fake, but in that the quality of that which is purchased is considerably lower than advertised. The film is set in New York, yet the land is in Florida, as this ensures the potential buyer cannot go to see it prior to purchase. Only after they buy do they realize that it's wet-land or something similar, and that they have been duped. This is why the sales force lie about who they are, who they work for and why they're in town every time they try to close a sale; because they're trying to hide the fact that what they're selling is absolutely worthless; they make out they're from a large, well known company so as to enhance the legitimacy of their claims.
More specifically, in the film, they are engaged in what is referred to in the industry as cold calling; where they literally ring random people and try to talk them into buying the land; oftentimes people who have no interest whatsoever in making such a purchase. Spannel mentions that his wife filled out a form over a year ago, and that they've been plagued ever since. Obviously, Premier Properties gets its leads from forms, competitions, surveys, registration of products etc, and these leads are then randomly given out as potential buyers to the sales force at some point in the future, without the customer actively seeking contact.
However, if they are not entirely kosher real estate agents, and if they are trying to sell genuine, if worthless, land, who owns the land in the first place? Most likely the company that employs them, Mitch and Murray. The company buys up tracts of worthless land at knockdown prices and then sells it off at way above its market value by duping people into thinking it's worth more than it really is. The company buys the lot from the owners (possibly a county council), paying them market value, then sell it for many times that value, thus making a massive profit. Levene mentions in the film that the agents' commission on each invididual sale is 10%, meaning Mitch and Murray take 90%. As such, the land must be sold for a considerable amount in order to make 10% such an attractive figure to the agents (Levene mentions that the Nyborgs deal was $82,000, meaning he would earn $8200 himself; Roma tells Williamson that he closed a deal for $6000, implying the Lingk (Jonathan Pryce) deal was worth $60,000).
However, some fans have expressed displeasure with the film, stating that it gives a false impression of genuine real estate agents and how they do business. But such criticism fails to take into account that Premier Properties is not a legitimate real estate agency; it is a cover to sell worthless land to clueless people by unscrupulous salesmen. Glengarry Glen Ross does not depict the real world of real estate sales. Premier Properties is not a real estate firm. These men are not realtors. The film is about a company of con-men who try to rip people off and convince them to buy into "investment opportunities" which are in fact simply worthless plots of lands miles away from civilization.
Indeed, there are in fact several signs throughout the film that Premier Properties is not a genuine firm. For example, real estate firms tend to employ only well trained and fully licensed and bonded real estate agents. The men in the film are none of these things (at least, there is no evidence that they are licensed or bonded). They do not behave in any way like typical realtors. Real realtors do not cold call. They do not lie about who they work for, and why they have got in touch with the customer (by claiming that the customer has won some sort of prize for example). Another difference is that in traditional real estate agencies, agents are able to solicit for sellers and advertise for buyers on their own, and they are able to earn money from both sources. The men in the film have no way to either solicit for sellers or advertise for buyers. Their only income is the 10% commission that comes from the company provided leads. As such, they are completely dependent on company itself. This is not how a genuine real estate agency works; the notion that a real estate agent would feel the need to steal leads as a last recourse is impossible because agents do not depend on company purchased leads in the first place.
As such, obviously, the film does not accurately depict how real estate agencies work, but the point is that it never claims to. These men are con-men working for a firm of con-men.
More specifically, in the film, they are engaged in what is referred to in the industry as cold calling; where they literally ring random people and try to talk them into buying the land; oftentimes people who have no interest whatsoever in making such a purchase. Spannel mentions that his wife filled out a form over a year ago, and that they've been plagued ever since. Obviously, Premier Properties gets its leads from forms, competitions, surveys, registration of products etc, and these leads are then randomly given out as potential buyers to the sales force at some point in the future, without the customer actively seeking contact.
However, if they are not entirely kosher real estate agents, and if they are trying to sell genuine, if worthless, land, who owns the land in the first place? Most likely the company that employs them, Mitch and Murray. The company buys up tracts of worthless land at knockdown prices and then sells it off at way above its market value by duping people into thinking it's worth more than it really is. The company buys the lot from the owners (possibly a county council), paying them market value, then sell it for many times that value, thus making a massive profit. Levene mentions in the film that the agents' commission on each invididual sale is 10%, meaning Mitch and Murray take 90%. As such, the land must be sold for a considerable amount in order to make 10% such an attractive figure to the agents (Levene mentions that the Nyborgs deal was $82,000, meaning he would earn $8200 himself; Roma tells Williamson that he closed a deal for $6000, implying the Lingk (Jonathan Pryce) deal was worth $60,000).
However, some fans have expressed displeasure with the film, stating that it gives a false impression of genuine real estate agents and how they do business. But such criticism fails to take into account that Premier Properties is not a legitimate real estate agency; it is a cover to sell worthless land to clueless people by unscrupulous salesmen. Glengarry Glen Ross does not depict the real world of real estate sales. Premier Properties is not a real estate firm. These men are not realtors. The film is about a company of con-men who try to rip people off and convince them to buy into "investment opportunities" which are in fact simply worthless plots of lands miles away from civilization.
Indeed, there are in fact several signs throughout the film that Premier Properties is not a genuine firm. For example, real estate firms tend to employ only well trained and fully licensed and bonded real estate agents. The men in the film are none of these things (at least, there is no evidence that they are licensed or bonded). They do not behave in any way like typical realtors. Real realtors do not cold call. They do not lie about who they work for, and why they have got in touch with the customer (by claiming that the customer has won some sort of prize for example). Another difference is that in traditional real estate agencies, agents are able to solicit for sellers and advertise for buyers on their own, and they are able to earn money from both sources. The men in the film have no way to either solicit for sellers or advertise for buyers. Their only income is the 10% commission that comes from the company provided leads. As such, they are completely dependent on company itself. This is not how a genuine real estate agency works; the notion that a real estate agent would feel the need to steal leads as a last recourse is impossible because agents do not depend on company purchased leads in the first place.
As such, obviously, the film does not accurately depict how real estate agencies work, but the point is that it never claims to. These men are con-men working for a firm of con-men.
Although the plot of the film and the narrative trajectory are very straightforward, some fans feel that the film is about more than what it appears on the surface; ie it isn't simply about a group of salesmen fighting for their job, there is a more symbolic/metaphoric meaning behind the relatively simple facade. Various theories have developed in this sense, each one tending to see the film as commenting on a much larger milieu than the offices of Premier Properties, and referring beyond these few salesmen.
One theory is that the film is a lament for the traditional door-to-door salesman; that the film depicts a new kind of American salesmanship, based in offices and corporations, using telephones and computers, without much personal contact. The constant tension in the office, the lack of a shred of honor or moral integrity amongst the men all point to the fact that the film is lamenting how selling has changed in the America of the 1980s/1990s.
Another theory is that the film is about the tendency to equate masculinity with a successful job. This theme is introduced by Blake who comments that it "takes brass balls to sell real estate" and then asks Levene if he is "man enough" to take the customers' money. In this scene, Blake is the alpha male, and he is in that position because he is a more successful salesmen than any of the others - he is the superior male because he is the superior seller; masculinity is in direct proportion to success.
Another theory is that the film is about the American Dream, just as was its famous predecessor on the stage; Arthur Miller's 1949 play, Death of a Salesman. This theory argues that the film is about men who want to become quick successes rather than persons of genuine accomplishment and worth; ie men who feel that a quick (and dishonest) sale automatically means success despite the fact that by the very nature of what they do, a sale means someone has been duped into buying something worthless. This is presented as a corruption of the American Dream, where hard work is supposed to bring its just rewards; you get back what you put in. The men in this film lie and attempt to con people, and they equate genuine life-success with their success at conning. The better a liar you are, the more successful you'll be, and the more successful you are, the happier you'll be - a complete distortion of the very foundation of the American Dream, where honesty is as much a part of a successful life as successful work is.
It is also worth pointing out that on his DVD commentary, director James Foley likened the film to a nature documentary: I always thought of the film as being animalistic in a way, where everybody, every being that appears on screen, is an organic beast, an animal that's trying to survive, and will do what it has to do to survive. Morality is a secondary issue. The moral consequences of their actions are secondary. I always thought of it as a nature documentary, as if one is watching the Animal Planet channel, seeing predatory beasts trying to survive.
On the other hand, it could just as easily be a deceptively simple essay on how people can be both admirable (because they work hard and provide) and despicable (because they con) at the same time. The film is thus about human frailties - a pointer towards the propensity to throw stones at glass houses - which is within everyone. It is likely that no one in this film began their careers as a cheat or a liar, but that is what they have become. However, the audience seems encouraged to think that they are good people away from work, and thus ask the question does their work or their home life define them as either a good or bad person, or both, or neither? Shelley, for example, is trying to make sales to get money for his daughter. However, he is also trying to dupe people to get it, and his eagerness to 'do the right thing' perhaps clouds his judgment to the point where his only consideration is how he can keep his job and put food on the table. His motives are honorable, but his practices not so. This raises the question of what constitutes morality? Where do we draw the line between caring for our family and taking advantage of others? Ultimately, this could be the very question which the film is asking.
One theory is that the film is a lament for the traditional door-to-door salesman; that the film depicts a new kind of American salesmanship, based in offices and corporations, using telephones and computers, without much personal contact. The constant tension in the office, the lack of a shred of honor or moral integrity amongst the men all point to the fact that the film is lamenting how selling has changed in the America of the 1980s/1990s.
Another theory is that the film is about the tendency to equate masculinity with a successful job. This theme is introduced by Blake who comments that it "takes brass balls to sell real estate" and then asks Levene if he is "man enough" to take the customers' money. In this scene, Blake is the alpha male, and he is in that position because he is a more successful salesmen than any of the others - he is the superior male because he is the superior seller; masculinity is in direct proportion to success.
Another theory is that the film is about the American Dream, just as was its famous predecessor on the stage; Arthur Miller's 1949 play, Death of a Salesman. This theory argues that the film is about men who want to become quick successes rather than persons of genuine accomplishment and worth; ie men who feel that a quick (and dishonest) sale automatically means success despite the fact that by the very nature of what they do, a sale means someone has been duped into buying something worthless. This is presented as a corruption of the American Dream, where hard work is supposed to bring its just rewards; you get back what you put in. The men in this film lie and attempt to con people, and they equate genuine life-success with their success at conning. The better a liar you are, the more successful you'll be, and the more successful you are, the happier you'll be - a complete distortion of the very foundation of the American Dream, where honesty is as much a part of a successful life as successful work is.
It is also worth pointing out that on his DVD commentary, director James Foley likened the film to a nature documentary: I always thought of the film as being animalistic in a way, where everybody, every being that appears on screen, is an organic beast, an animal that's trying to survive, and will do what it has to do to survive. Morality is a secondary issue. The moral consequences of their actions are secondary. I always thought of it as a nature documentary, as if one is watching the Animal Planet channel, seeing predatory beasts trying to survive.
On the other hand, it could just as easily be a deceptively simple essay on how people can be both admirable (because they work hard and provide) and despicable (because they con) at the same time. The film is thus about human frailties - a pointer towards the propensity to throw stones at glass houses - which is within everyone. It is likely that no one in this film began their careers as a cheat or a liar, but that is what they have become. However, the audience seems encouraged to think that they are good people away from work, and thus ask the question does their work or their home life define them as either a good or bad person, or both, or neither? Shelley, for example, is trying to make sales to get money for his daughter. However, he is also trying to dupe people to get it, and his eagerness to 'do the right thing' perhaps clouds his judgment to the point where his only consideration is how he can keep his job and put food on the table. His motives are honorable, but his practices not so. This raises the question of what constitutes morality? Where do we draw the line between caring for our family and taking advantage of others? Ultimately, this could be the very question which the film is asking.
The R1 US Special Edition DVD, released by Lions Gate in 2002, and the R2 UK Special Edition DVD, released by Granada Ventures in 2005 both contain the following special features:
Feature length audio commentary with director James Foley
Scene specific audio commentary with actors Alec Baldwin and Alan Arkin, director of photography Juan Ruiz Anchía, and production designer Jane Musky
Theatrical Trailer
"A.B.C. (Always Be Closing)"; a 30 minute collection of interviews with real life salesmen who are all fans of the movie
"Magic Time: A Tribute to Jack Lemmon (2002)": a 30 minute overview of the career of Jack Lemmon, made in 2002
"J. Roy: New and Used Furniture (1974)": a 10 minute documentary made in 1974 about salesman Jimmy Roy
Clips from Jack Lemmon's 1993 appearance on Charlie Rose (1991) and Kevin Spacey's 2000 appearance on Inside the Actors Studio (1994).
Feature length audio commentary with director James Foley
Scene specific audio commentary with actors Alec Baldwin and Alan Arkin, director of photography Juan Ruiz Anchía, and production designer Jane Musky
Theatrical Trailer
"A.B.C. (Always Be Closing)"; a 30 minute collection of interviews with real life salesmen who are all fans of the movie
"Magic Time: A Tribute to Jack Lemmon (2002)": a 30 minute overview of the career of Jack Lemmon, made in 2002
"J. Roy: New and Used Furniture (1974)": a 10 minute documentary made in 1974 about salesman Jimmy Roy
Clips from Jack Lemmon's 1993 appearance on Charlie Rose (1991) and Kevin Spacey's 2000 appearance on Inside the Actors Studio (1994).
Yes it is. There are two versions available in the UK, both released in 2012 by Granada Ventures. The standard edition has the same features as the special edition DVD. The Steelbook Collector's Edition features a Blu-ray copy of the film, plus the two DVDs from the Special Edition DVD set. However, both sets are Region B locked. There is no Region A Blu-ray at the moment.
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
