Another thing I really liked about this play is that it is essentially telling two stories: one, the most obvious, being the life and death of Matthew Shepard; the other being the nature and fate of his tormentors. While Shepard is described in detail, almost just as much time goes into describing Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney. The third act is basically framed by the question of whether or not Henderson and McKinney will receive the death penalty for their crime. I think this is important for not only telling the audience what kind of tragedy happened, but also for shedding light on why it happened.
I worried that by including themselves in the narrative, the TTP would make the play too much about their personal experiences with Laramie's citizens. Thankfully, they managed to keep their appearances at about the same level as all the other people interviewed.
Unfortunately, their inclusion adds to an already overflowing cast of characters. By allowing everyone to get their say about the string of events in Laramie, many of the characters do not get a lot of time to establish their identities. I kept forgetting who some of the people were and turned back to the cast list a number of times. I have no way of knowing, having not seen this play before, but I imagine that the confusion might be even worse if actors did not characterize well. Thank goodness they had the initiative to include a narrator, or Laramie Project would be a mess.
"But from a theatrical standpoint, I also saw these moments mostly as dialogues that are composed of monologues...at times, the way the lines were weaved together, it seemed like completely unrelated characters were having indirect conversations with each other. I found this to be a very compelling way of telling the story."
ReplyDeleteThis is really interesting, but why? This play is not quite dialogue, but it's not quite monologue either. In a lot of ways then, it has the benefits of neither one. What does it buy by splitting the difference? How does it compare to the other two monologue plays which do not feel like dialogue?
To some extent, you answer that question later in your post here. It buys confusion -- which is also, of course, a cost -- we can't keep all these characters straight. It buys a play which is also about its writers -- again, interesting but, as you point out, worrisomely self-focused and distracting. And it buys a play which is about many things rather than just one. Worth it? Other less costly ways of getting these benefits?
I like that you mentioned that you felt the play was telling two stories, that of Matthew Sheppard and his killers. I felt the same way as I was reading. I would argue that it makes it even more shocking to learn exactly what Russel and Aaron did. By humanizing them, the humane act becomes an even greater surprise.
ReplyDeleteYou talked about how you felt the multitude of characters coupled with the break-up of the "monologues" made a lot of the play confusing as to who was talking. I would argue the exact point we mentioned in class, that this blurring together of the characters was on purpose. We start to see the town as a whole, and I would also argue that is a third story: the story of Laramie itself. With that, I think some of the confusion would actually be cleared up a little bit when it is performed. On stage, an audience will hear the names and then see a visual representation of each character, making it slightly easier to follow. Or at least, I believe it would be.
I agree that the TTP cast did not overwhelm the play, or take over and distract from the town of Laramie. However do you think their consistency adds to the play or detracts? Do you think they should only appear at the beginning to set the context, or that there continuing presence and scattered lines are beneficial to the show? I have no idea.
ReplyDeleteAlso I agree that this play tells the story of the two murderers, but I don't think it really tells Matthew's story in the same way. We never hear from Matthew directly. Instead we hear from everyone else ABOUT Matthew. With the two murderers, we hear from both of them. Instead I feel like this is the story of Laramie, of the different people who make up Laramie, and how this incident affected the town as a whole. I feel like this is about the town's experience with Matthew Shephard's murder, not Matthew's story. It reminds us that this event doesn't end with the devestating loss of innocent life, that it extends beyond and affects an entire community on a profound and lasting level.