In Speed-the-Plow, the two central characters are Bobby Gould, the newly appointed head of production at a major film studio, and Charlie Fox, a producer. They have shared a friendship spanning over two decades, which is pivotal to the narrative, influencing their actions and decisions. Gould and Fox started their careers together in the studio's mailroom and have maintained a steadfast loyalty to one another. When Fox unexpectedly secures a 24-hour option for the latest Doug Brown film, he brings the project to Gould. Fox stresses that he could have taken the project "across the street" to a rival studio, but his loyalty and friendship led him to approach Gould first. Gould seizes this opportunity, even though his superior is unavailable until the next morning.

The friendship between Gould and Fox soon faces a challenge. Karen, the attractive temporary secretary, becomes the subject of a $500 bet from Fox, who wagers that Gould cannot seduce her. To win the bet, Gould asks Karen to write a reader’s report on a novel and later come to his home to discuss it. Karen agrees and persuades Gould that turning the novel into a movie would be a more virtuous choice than pursuing the Doug Brown project. The following morning, when Fox returns for their meeting with the studio head, he is shocked to learn that Gould has abandoned their agreement in favor of Karen’s project over the prison film.

Determined to restore Gould's loyalty, Fox takes drastic measures. He ultimately convinces Gould by exposing Karen's true intentions, using her own words against her. Fox reveals that Karen is exploiting Gould for her advancement in Hollywood, while Fox’s intentions are more genuine. He aims to share their success and keep their friendship intact. Fox argues, and Gould concurs, that their mutual interests are more significant than any involvement with Karen, whom they dismiss as an outsider and a manipulator. Speed-the-Plow suggests that the bond between men holds greater importance than any relationship with a woman like Karen, regardless of her motives.

Each character in Speed-the-Plow adheres to their own set of ethical principles, which leads to conflicts among them. Charlie Fox is the most straightforward character in terms of ethics. He openly admits to being a ‘‘whore,’’ driven by a desire for success at any cost, focusing solely on money, power, and prestige. He views Bobby Gould as his means to these ends and holds no illusions about the film industry, accepting movies as mere commodities without pretending otherwise.

Bobby Gould, however, is more conflicted and nuanced. Like Fox, he acknowledges being a ‘‘whore’’ and recognizes that films are commodities. He sees potential in the Doug Brown film, despite its clichéd plot. Yet, Gould harbors some underlying idealism. During a discussion with Fox about their potential earnings, Gould is the one who insists that money isn't everything. Much of his idealism is highlighted by Karen, as Gould expresses his desire to produce ‘‘good’’ films and make a difference. Consequently, he considers approving the novel that Karen finds profoundly meaningful, instead of the Doug Brown project. Although Fox persuades him to proceed with the Brown project by the play's conclusion, Gould demonstrates that he has more profound thoughts and motivations.

Karen, the temporary secretary, initially appears to be the least honest and ethical character. Introduced in Scene 1, she seems naive and idealistic, believing films should be ‘‘good’’ and meaningful for audiences. Gould offers her the chance to do a courtesy read of a novel, and she discovers deep meaning in it, convincing him to choose the novel over the Doug Brown...

David Mamet’s play Speed-the-Plow intricately weaves a subtle moral fabric, as is characteristic of his body of work. In this particular play, Mamet subverts traditional power dynamics by placing a temporary secretary—a woman positioned at the very bottom of the corporate hierarchy—at the center of the ethical struggle. This character becomes the unexpected catalyst for moral reflection as she endeavors to influence the creation of a film that prioritizes ethical values over sheer profitability. Through her actions, Mamet explores the tension between commercial success and the pursuit of meaningful, value-driven art, inviting audiences to ponder the impact of individual agency within larger, often morally ambiguous systems.

Within David Mamet's narrative framework, the character of Charlie Fox emerges as a compelling antihero in "Speed-the-Plow." His success is marked by the absence of internal conflict or altruistic motives, setting him apart in the landscape of moral ambiguity. Fox's singular focus on wealth and power drives him to pursue his ambitions with relentless determination, unencumbered by ethical dilemmas or contradictory desires. As he navigates the cutthroat world of Hollywood, his lack of admirable traits challenges the audience's moral compass. Despite being disreputable, Fox's triumph and adherence to the principle of "money above art" invite viewers to question their own allegiance to traditional values, inadvertently rooting for his unprincipled ascent. This moral confusion underscores Mamet's exploration of flawed humanity and the allure of the antihero.

In the relentless world of corporate ambition, Gould finds himself suppressing any genuine desire to contribute positively to society in favor of climbing the ladder of success. He prides himself on his loyalty, a virtue he upholds only until a more lucrative opportunity presents itself. This self-identification as a “secure whore” illustrates his contentment with the transactional nature of his professional relationships until Karen, an unexpected catalyst, stirs his dormant ideals.

Karen’s influence on Gould is profound but ultimately complicated. Her idealism is tainted by her own aspirations for power, a pursuit deemed unacceptable in the masculine arena crafted by Mamet. Unlike Gould, Karen manipulates her sexuality consciously as a tool to achieve her ends, and in doing so, assumes the role of the play's true "whore." Her methods are particularly insidious because she maintains a belief in her moral superiority. This self-deception positions her, like many characters in Mamet's narratives, as someone who lacks self-awareness, making her a false idealist and exposing her hypocrisy. Within the moral framework of Mamet's universe, this lack of authenticity is portrayed as the ultimate failing.

The narrative subtly conveys that the hypothetical "radiation book," laden with existential musings, is not intended as fodder for a successful film adaptation. Its complexity defies reduction to a simple premise, unlike the straightforward buddy film. When Karen attempts to articulate the fears of humanity in the second scene, her explanation is deliberately convoluted and unsatisfactory. This serves to underscore a poignant truth: the profound anxieties that dwell within people are often beyond the reach of clear or truthful expression. The struggle between art's introspective nature and the commercial world's demand for simplicity is sharply illuminated through this dynamic.