So I find it extremely interesting to be reading both The Laramie Project and Vagina Monologues. I have seen performances in some way of both, but have never actually read the physical scripts. Especially with The Laramie Project, I found a sudden new connection to the show. Somehow, reading the written transcripts right there was so much more powerful than watching a movie, or seeing a (not so great) production. I found myself focusing on the religious aspect of the piece and how the different characters connected to God.
The way the religious theme was presented in this show was really interesting to me. It seemed to be the one thing all the characters had in common: they all believed in something bigger than themselves. Whether this influenced their beliefs on homosexuality or not was almost secondary to me. I, instead, wanted to focus on the connection. Almost every person mentioned God, but there are a few that I found most compelling. One was Aaron Kreifels who found Matthew. He never once mentioned his beliefs about homosexuality, but instead focuses on why God chose him, of all people, to find Matthew. And I loved that he said it was because God didn’t want Matthew to die alone. Now take this and contrast it to the monologue that Dennis Sheppard says when addressing Aaron McKinney. He says quite clearly that Matthew was never alone when he was out there. The entire time he had his closest friends: the beautiful night sky, the daylight and the sun, the scent of the pine trees, the wind, and most important, God. These two monologues happen so close together, and present a view that God was not only with Matthew the entire time but also guiding someone to his rescue. And while I understand that these words were originally spoken by a real person and not made up by a playwright, it almost seems as if it was pre-meditated and written to be a specific contrast. Here, I must congratulate the playwrights on their editing and placement of the texts. This was one instance where I really felt that had a powerful affect on the reader and how they thought about Matthew Sheppard’s time on that fence.
On that note of the writing and editing on the piece, I just want to touch on how impressed I was with the overall presentation of this production. I love that theoretically, all of the words spoken by individual characters, if listed consecutively, would end up being one giant monologue. Yet these playwrights perfectly ordered each block of lines, compiling them into scenes focused on specific thoughts or moments. That was really beautiful to me. In a lot of ways, the whole show reminds me of documentary filmmaking. The writers/editors are given piles upon piles of interviews and speeches and then set with the task of somehow editing it down to one coherent, powerful piece of art. Using the moments as a way to order the play was extremely compelling to me. It allowed for the play to feel as if it moved chronologically and yet, we were probably jumping all over time with these different interviews. But by making it seem chronological, the reader or audience is able to a) follow the story better and b) keep track of all the characters better. Certain characters appeared at certain times, depending on the nature of the moment, and we were able to associate those characters with that subject matter. I think then moving it onto the stage it is even more clear. Here we see different distinct attributes of people, they are physically before us, so having the visual and the thematic connection of a character to a moment allows for further clarity.
I congratulate Moisés Kaufman and the entire Tectonic Theater Project on taking large amounts of interviews, often in monologue form, and turning it into a comprehensive dramatic show. They allowed us to know and connect to the characters, to feel as if we were seeing dialogue and not monologue, and still feel a deep and relevant connection to Matthew’s story. Makes me want to read more by him J
It's always interesting when what strikes you on the page and what strikes you on the stage are different. Sometimes the reason is obvious -- the director has cut all the religious references say. But as playwrights, it's worth looking into when the reason isn't something obvious like that. It's worth noting how successful playwrights make sure audiences get the point -- point-getting often being much easier on the page than on the stage. So maybe it was your mood and maybe it was the production, but it would be really interesting to understand why the religious stuff didn't work for you in this text until now. And how, as a writer, you could make it do so on stage.
ReplyDeleteGreat observations about the pacing and arrangement here. I should add that they DID write it too -- these aren't verbatim interviews; they aren't just culled and compiled. They are, in fact, fictionalized. Ditto the vagina monologues. So they FEEL like documentary and they're telling about true events, but nope, they're faked. So another good question here is how these two pieces do such a convincing job of seeming real -- also rather a challenge on stage.
I definately agree that the Laramie Project leaves reader (for I have no experience with this play as a viewer) feeling as if they have just experienced a documentary. This play offers individual opinions and belief systems that compile an entire town, including a variety of Christian ministers with varying reactions to homosexuality. I also think the idea of Matthew not dying alone (with the company of nature and by being found by Aaron)is assisted by the very existance of this play. Not only did vigils occur around the country alongside news updates, but today we are still discussing this play-Matthew Shephard is still surrounded by voices and ideas, still has company. This play aids in connecting the readers/viewers and actors to, not only Matthew Sheperad, but all that this incident in this small town represents.
ReplyDelete"I love that theoretically, all of the words spoken by individual characters, if listed consecutively, would end up being one giant monologue."
ReplyDeleteThat would certainly be an interesting staging, wouldn't it, if somebody decided to perform this show on their own? They'd read from the script and perform all the characters by themselves. I wonder if that would help or hinder the impact of the story, or just make it different.
"That was really beautiful to me. In a lot of ways, the whole show reminds me of documentary filmmaking."
I had the same thought. The thing that bugs me about this show is that identity is difficult to keep straight. In a documentary, every time someone reappears on camera, you can stick a little box of text below their face to tell the viewer what their name is and who they are exactly. In this play, we only get both names and occupations once--good luck keeping things straight for the rest of the show.