Reading each play was a bit of a weird experience for me. "Ironic" isn't quite the right word, but I think it's close to the kind of sense I got.
I read The New Orleans Monologues first, and it really showed me what I do in my own writing (or, what I did the last time I tried to write a play) -- too much character development. That's not to say that the plays had too much, it's just that's the major thing they're all really good at portraying. It seems like it's easier to get into a character when it's just a monologue rather than a play. (Uh-oh, now look at me, I'm already saying "just" a monologue...)
You know, sometimes, with a play, you can feel like you're really there. Or, at least, that you could have been. With the monologue-formatted story (Okay, it's time for me to hit "copy" on monologue so I don't keep having to re-type it.), you get a lot of emotion, and it can be powerful, but it doesn't feel like it quite... means as much? I guess what I'm trying to say is while monologues are nice, I'm trying to boil it down to that whole "show, don't tell" mantra -- all the monologues are doing is telling you. In that sense, it's almost better to read the plays than to see them, because then you can make sure you get the most out of the story (even if you lack some of the emotion that might be present in a performance), which is the overarching feeling I got out of The Laramie Project's excerpts.
Who knows; I might just think this way because I haven't seen either of the former performed ever.
And now, I get to show you how un-cultured I am. :P I've only seen The Vagina Monologues here, and I was going to say it ruined it for me (Still not a good performance, though. You can't cast EVERYONE. One monologue should not be split up between five people. I mean, people make memorizing easier by cutting down lines, but this is ridiculous; everyone only says, like, two sentences.), but after reading it, I really can honestly say I just don't want to read about puffy vaginas, I don't want to imagine that obnoxious Jewish Queens accent (because I always think of that woman on Seinfeld that always says "You gotta see the bay-bee!"), and I don't want to hear about a "connoisseur" of vaginas. Don't get me wrong, I like vaginas, but I don't need to, like...
...Never mind. All I'm saying is, sure, writing's fine, but to have something just for the sake of having it and trying to make people uncomfortable and then be all, "Oh, but it's so great! Embrace weirdness/yourself/vaginas/it's a social experiment!" and all that crap is just annoying.
But, okay, yeah, writing. I feel like I've been fairly critical, but I do have a lot of respect for monologues. They're hard as hell to write. I've only really ever written one that I've liked, and that was luck-of-the-moment inspiration. From an acting standpoint, though, they're not *that* tough, I just suck at memorization, so they're a bit difficult for me, at first. :P
And, these plays are not necessarily bad plays, by any means. They're good. I think I would like NOM, and be blown away by LP, if it were done right. I liked the consistent narrator in NOM, but the other characters seemed a bit out of place at times. LP was certainly more polished with all its' characters, but that could also be attributed to our copy of the former being a draft script.
So, what did we learn, kids? I liked the narration, I really like the character development (I'm a big fan of that, sometimes too big. Haha), monologues are indeed impressive and hard to write, but... Not my thing. I want dialogue to do all the work for me, yes, and all these plays gave me a really good window into natural language, but this format probably isn't for me.
ADDENDUM:
EDIT: I added annotations to the video. Heh
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hmm, the idea that monologues tell rather than show is an interesting one Jesse. I think it's not quite that simple, but it's a useful approach and a good challenge for you to surmount in your own monologues. I see how it would be really easy to write monologues that slip into telling rather than showing, but in other ways, it seems like maybe the individual monologues seem to tell whereas taken together as a larger narrative they're all about showing. I wonder too if you can nail down what you prefer about dialogue (maybe next unit) and then find a way to do that with monologues.
ReplyDeleteMostly, let me encourage you to give all of this -- the monologue form and the texts we used as examples -- a chance. One performance of The Vagina Monologues, three short excerpts, a few shots at writing monologues yourself just isn't enough to know yet. Read sympathetically (you don't have to like it, but try thinking about why other people do). And try nailing down exactly what bugs you about what bugs you. Your language is super vague here -- fine for a blog -- but it might help you to know exactly what it is that isn't working for you so that you can find another way. Finding another way is your goal for this unit. As you say, the characters and the story are strong here. Figure out how to do the rest of it so it works for you.
I understand that the monologue play shows rather than tells, and I know some monologues are good at doing that just by themselves; what I was trying to say is it's difficult for me to stay away from the "telling" in the monologues I've written. :)
ReplyDeleteI think I have a pretty good idea of what I like about dialogue, but I'll definitely try to make it more concrete and be able to articulate it. Haha
Giving things a chance is my hugest issue. Haha
I think I've just become so jaded/burnt out on classic tests and things that everyone loves, just because... well, I guess I feel like I have pretty different tastes than most people. What bugs me is if EVERYONE loves a certain thing, then they expect you (read: me) to, or don't see why you couldn't/think you're wrong/dumb.
I admit what I've had experience with so far isn't much to go off of -- I just have such high hopes and expectations for this class that I'm really banking on getting a lot out of it, but I'm hoping a lot of that is in writing, not just analyzing. I've done way too much of the latter and not nearly enough of the former.
Jesse,
ReplyDeleteI loved your video! Like really, a lot. I really liked your honest critisizm of monologue plays, and I admit, I am not the hugest fan either. I also agree that one of the many things plays have going for them that monologues don't is that plays are rarely considered to be over-done or cliche (unless it's a high school production of Guys and Dolls, but even so.) Also, you are so right when you say they tell and don't show, and that's like writing 101 (at least it was in my school system.) As an audience member, I like feeling like I'm really there, watching people in every day life as well, and monologues definitely take and audience member out of this. Hurrah for disliking monologue plays! I though I was the only one.
Jesse,
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you consider monologues to be mostly mono-faceted (haha) as far as mostly only doing character development well and that mostly via telling. Do you mean you want more showing in a larger sense of acting things out more and interacting with other characters or showing through words--just more vividly?
as far as your vid: I think a lot of people, especially theater people, have a hard time taking The VMs as serious drama. I mean, how many theater majors consistently audition? (I honestly wouldn't...) I think it's kinda gotten that rep from, as you mention, everyone getting cast, etc. But really, I think it serves its purpose(s) well: it gives young women who would normally not be involved in theater an opportunity, it can be a collective community experience, and I think it does have the potential to change or at least start to change ideas about womanhood and all of its accouterments. I think it's totally fine for you not to think it is a "good" play, but I think it's because you want and expect it to be something it isn't. You can't compare it to the UPS mainstage shows--they're not going for the same things, just as I don't think ensler and chekhov were. It think when judging a play like this, even though it isn't as radical anymore, it's important for you to think about its potential value in other areas (not just as dramatic literature) before you write it off as just annoying (though I feel yah, I really do)
Jesse,
ReplyDeleteI, too think that the video blog is a nice touch and I agree with a lot of things you have to say. I like the always present, consistent narrator that presents itself in The New Orleans Monologues. I also enjoy that you can have respect for an art form even if you don’t like it. I don’t like a lot of J.S. Bach compositions, but I do understand why they were written and why they are such an integral part of music history.
One thing that I do want to discuss is your idea that in a play we are suppose to be taken there as you say. Then you reply that the same effect is not there when it is a monologue play. How is it not there? Are you not encapsulated by the words of one person, someone deeply expressing their inner emotions for the betterment of the stage. I saw what Hanna commented on about plays not having the cliché issues that a monologue series contends with. I fail to see this idea. The same clichés that appear important in regular drama lends themselves just as easily to monologues. I understand your criticism and concur that you don’t have to like something to respect it, but I fail to comprehend your entire argument. In making an emotional monologue are we not just as captivated as an engrossing play?
One of the points that you touched on which I agree with is the fact that plays with dialogue do a great job of "show not tell." It is true that monologues involve a lot of imagination on both the actors part as well as the audience whereas shows involving dialogue allow the audience to become more immersed in the story in terms of the present situation; we are focused on what is happening in the moment because the characters are experiencing everything at the same time we are. I therefore think it is true that with plays like this it is easier to lose yourself in the performance because you feel as if you are right there with the characters. Whereas with monologues there is more of a distance between the experience of the characters and the affect their stories have on the audience.
ReplyDeleteHowever, with saying all of this I do believe that it is possible for monologues to completely suck you in...and The Laramie Project is a PERFECT example of that. The characters and the story are so extremely powerful that even though the whole play is told through different peoples memories of matt and of the horrible event you find yourself hanging on every line of each characters speech.