The choice Moises Kaufman and the Members of Tectonic Theater Project to tell the story of Matthew Shepard through monolouges presents both gains and losses. Because the interviews conducted by the members of the Tectonic Theater occurred over a period of a year and a half, a great amount of development occurs for some of the characters over this time. For example, Jedadiah Schultz reflects on his changing perspective of homosexuality during this period through self-anaylsis. Each character telling their own story in their own voice helps to create a sense of place, painting a multi-dimenstional image of Laramie, Wyoming. We undertand how Laramie exists for the Mormon priest, for homosexual citizens, college students, and the workingclass. By allowing each character to present their specific story and response to life in Laramie, the multiple perspectives both defend and condem Laramie. These monolouges feel raw and honest, probably because of the varying voices.
Although these personal monolouges make the playwright feel more removed from the play at times, the inclusion of the members of the Tectonic Theater Project remind the reader (or viewer) of the relationships between members and Laramie citizens which inevitably influence what the citizens feel comfortable saying. Including the members as characters also adds to the convincing honesty of the monolouges because it reminds the audience that citizens were expecting their words to be repeated and this must be taken into account when hearing their stories. As the reader, I did not feel like the playwright was putting words into any of the characters mouths or forcing any of the characters to be someone who they were not in real life. I especially appreciated the way the playwright used the characters request to not condem Laramie, or relay the story of Matthew Shephard in any incorrect way- for example when Father Roger Schmit says "And I will speak with you, I will trust that if you write a play of this, that you say it right. You need to do your best to say it correct."
This play seemed less action driven and I am curious as to how it would translate on the stage. The director seems to have a great deal of liberties in how to include action on stage in order to not solely have actors speaking to the audience. Also there is minimal interaction between characters, other than in interview situations. I am also curious as to how this would translate to the stage in a cohesive manner. Although the subject matter of the play is incredibly thought provoking, engaging, and captivating, I'm not sure how the form and extensive use of monolouges and narrations would aid in engaging the audience to the fullest.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yeah, both of these plays beg questions about who is being spoken to -- arguably monologue plays do this by definition. The text of VM starts with Ensler's talking about the interviews, the project, the process and progress of it, but it's often cut from production (are you all doing that bit?), and then you're right -- without it you have no idea to whom/why these characters are speaking, and even with it, you forget pretty quickly or cease to much care.
ReplyDeleteLaramie doesn't allow you to forget or cease to care by having the interviewers on stage/as characters. But then that's cheating in the opposite way -- it feels like we're seeing what actual people actually said, but we're not. Those interviewers are characters and writers too -- they've made this up. So when the priest says I trust you not to screw with this story, it feels like it validates the text, but really the whole thing is some degree of totally made up. Now how you feel about that as audience and as a writer yourself -- whether that seems dishonest to you or awesomely clever -- is probably a personal call.
Also good questions about how to keep this interesting on stage -- how to put action into plays which are, by their nature, mostly lots and lots of talking.
I love that you mentioned the importance of including the Tectonic Theatre company members as a reminder of the interview process. I hadn't really thought of how significant it was that these are words that people knew would be reproduced, things that people wanted others to hear. It makes me also wonder, what did they leave out because they weren't willing to have people hear it? What points were they hiding? Is there anything they were trying to cover up? It's a really interesting thing to think about.
ReplyDeleteI think the discussion of interviewers as a presence in the shows is also important because it reminds us that the words of the play are NOT completely original. They were interpreted by an interviewer and then reproduced and slightly edited. This is a play written by someone else, and not simply a presentation of stories like in a documentary. I think that's a really important thing to remember.
"Each character telling their own story in their own voice helps to create a sense of place, painting a multi-dimenstional image of Laramie, Wyoming."
ReplyDeleteDefinitely. I like that getting to know Laramie is akin to peeling away the layers of an onion. We start off the play by getting to know some general facts about the town and its citizens, and it seems like Everytown U.S.A. As we go deeper and deeper into the story, though, we begin to see some of the nuances and differing opinions that circulate in the underbelly of Laramie. In this regard, TTP did a great job of illustrating the town for the audience.
"This play seemed less action driven and I am curious as to how it would translate on the stage. The director seems to have a great deal of liberties in how to include action on stage in order to not solely have actors speaking to the audience."
I imagine that with the great flexibility that comes from staging placeless monologues such as these, the possibilities are nearly endless. When I say "placeless," I don't mean to say that Laramie is intangible; I mean that it rings as such a universal American town that it could pretty much look like anything. As Laurie mentioned in class, this play seems like it would fit just as well into a living room as it does in a full theatre.