I have read and performed in The Laramie Project before and it is a play which I believe is fabulously put together and therefore a striking piece of theater. The way in which the monologues are arranged in The Laramie Project works extremely well when it comes to presenting a powerful production. The monologues intertwine with each other beautifully; melding different characters in with the plot seamlessly to make an extremely captivating play. The play is formatted so that the audience will be following along with one character and then right when they are becoming fully entranced with that person the play switches to another character. However, in doing this the play never loses the train of thought or the momentum of the plot from the previous monologue. This works perfectly because we as an audience want to hear other people speak and we want to hear different perspectives but we also want to simultaneously continue to follow the story we have become so engrossed with.
What bothered me about The New Orleans Monologues was that the different monologues did not merge as well together as they did in The Laramie Project. When one person finished telling their story another person would appear onto the scene only to completely remove you from the last story you had heard; their monologue would not continue with the flow of the previous speeches. I also did not like how long most of The New Orleans Monologues were because I found myself losing interest in certain people’s stories. The Laramie Project allowed you to constantly see different perspectives of the community while still presenting it in a cohesive manner, whereas often times The New Orleans Monologues did not feel like each separate monologue had a purpose or fit together with the general flow of the play.
The Vagina Monologues present a completely different and classic style of plays presented in monologue form. Each monologue does not try to fit in cohesively with the last, instead the play is merely a composition of very different monologues whose only real connection is the fact that they are all about vaginas. I think the reason why this technique is able to work with this play without the story feeling dull is because the subject matter is so shocking. Due to the fact that each monologue has a significant amount of in your face presentation it is less important that the monologues fit with each other. One singular story is not being told (unlike the story of Mathew or the event Hurricane Katrina) so therefore the play has more freedom in relation to presenting each monologue in a disjointed manner.
The Laramie Project and The New Orleans Monologues also made me consider the idea that plays of this nature seem to work much better in monologue form. What I mean by this is that plays which depict graphic violence or a huge natural disaster are difficult to present on stage in a realistic form. If these plays were to be acted out and set in the present it would have been extremely challenging to fool the audience into believing what they were seeing was real. It is the same idea as putting on a play which is all about war; it is a huge and daunting task due to the fact that the stage is based on the notion of imagination instead of realism. I therefore believe that monologues are a great way to remember the powerful stories that need to be told but cant necessarily be acted out on stage. The stories are told with the same intensity, however, the audience is required to use their imagination which puts them on the same level as the characters; both the audience and the characters are using their minds to picture the event that is being described. The audience can seamlessly step into the world that is being presented to them. They are willing participants of the theatrical experience and they therefore do not step back and judge the production for its realistic presentation, instead they are immersed in the story itself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting observation Caitie that the characters are using their imagination just as much as the audience. I want to hear more about that, and I'm eager to see how it plays out in your own writing. You write at the end here, "They are willing participants of the theatrical experience and they therefore do not step back and judge the production for its realistic presentation, instead they are immersed in the story itself." Interesting to think about how that's true for characters as well as audience and interesting to consider how that's different for monologues than for any other kind of play. How do they/we/any of us become immersed? Your preference for shorter interspersed monologues and more flow between them (i.e. LP over NOM) will be very useful information for you as you write. Good observation. Figure out what makes LP flow so well, and you'll have the key to start your own play.
ReplyDeleteHey Caitie,
ReplyDeleteI really liked your observation that you were able to lose yourself in the story of the Laramie Project, but you found this was not the case with the New Orleans Monologues due to the segmented yet connected structure of the play. I definitely felt the same way, though I have seen neither of the plays performed. I also liked your point that the monologue form is great for stories that would be too drastic and scarring to see staged; instead it allows the audience to go as far as their imaginations will let them. I also agree that you have to pick between the two styles of monologues: having them weave completely as in the Laramie Project or totally separate as in the Vagina Monologues, I think that's a great jumping off point to start developing a structure for your own monologue play.
I can definitely recognize that Laramie Project is a great, polished piece. I think that was part of what detracted from New Orleans Monologues for me -- it seemed a little too disjointed, even with the flow of Elaine's narrative all the way through.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about The Vagina Monologues... I guess I'll that it isn't even really a play. It's so separated now from "theater;" it's too coupled with a cause, or with just straight up activism. I think that detracts from it's literariness, and basically just makes it a vehicle for something that happens to be a collection of monologues. (If I were REALLY playing devil's advocate, I might go so far as to say that there isn't even really very much creativity in VM, because it's all just true/verbatim stories/monologues.)
It all boils down to shock value for that.
Lastly, I know others said it, but I also really like the idea of the character using their imagination as much as (if not more so than) the audience. That's a really cool idea not only to see, but one that could potentially bring about some really interesting writing. :)
unlike Hanna, I really don't think an author needs to chose either all stand-alone monologues (VMs) or interwoven (LP) to be successful. That was actually one of the things that I like about NOM reading it a year later--I was quite thankful for Elaine's through-line. But actually, I think overall I would prefer if the formats were all closer to LP--it's just more interesting, as you note, not to have huge blocks of single-person text.
ReplyDeleteI know that 3 people have commented that they're interested in the concept of the characters using their imagination as much as the audience, but I'm not really sure what you mean by that. That the character is picturing the story he/she is telling or that the actor is? oh okay, I think I just got it...
You say towards the top that "The New Orleans Monologues did not feel like each separate monologue had a purpose or fit together with the general flow of the play." I can see where you're coming from as far as flow, but I definitely think each separate mono served a purpose in fleshing-out and furthering the story.
I actually agree with most of Jesse's characterization of The VMs, I just don't think it's a bad thing that it's theater for social change vs. theater as literature. I don't fault it for its "straight-up activism" and I think that the theater should be utilized even more as that kind of vehicle of social change -- in the Artaudian way of "lancing the boil" of societal suffering -- without so much concern for its literariness.
I like your ideas and your own first person narrative on being involved in the Laramie Project and how it affected your view on the script as a whole. I, myself, saw the same things arise being apart of NOM. I did want to take issue with your ideas on NOM as a play. You set up a system of judgment by placing both LP and NOM in the same category, following a linear path with an underlying story. Then you go on to say that VM is in its own separate category because it is a combination of disjointed monologues about the same subject. I understand that VM is not to be directly compared to LP and NOM but why is LP the same as NOM. I see NOM as a combination of both types of genres. First you have the linear progression of LP and then you have the separate stories interspersed like in VM. I think these plays are in three separate categories. You say. “I also did not like how long most of The New Orleans Monologues were because I found myself losing interest in certain people’s stories.” I understand that some stories like Lenora’s came across as bland and much like other monologues but in the course of play you are not ever going to see everything you want to see. It is because of those bland moments that take shape to make the other ones so powerful. But then again I understand that I am biased as I did work on NOM.
ReplyDelete