On Monologues
I am not really a fan of monologue plays. To be honest, I like stories with multiple characters in which the story is not only told, but unraveled. Monologues rely on the audience's imagination and the story telling capability of a single actor. To be fair, however, I like the stories in many of the monologues we read; and I understand how monologues can be effective in making a statement, it's just not the presentation I would chose if I were writing a play.
Monologue plays always seem to bring something taboo yet relevant into the light. This is something I do like about this monologue-based structure. I am beginning to wonder why people have abandoned trying to make the same points and bring attention to the same issues in theater with multiple characters on stage. I understand that because the audience is being directly addressed in a monologue play that people feel there is a greater communication of the message the play is trying to get across. Perhaps this is something I can work towards: finding a topic that brings attention to an issue while not having the need for a series of monologues.
Common threads between the readings, other than bringing attention to a taboo subject, were the shared experiences of the characters, even though they might not have ever encountered each other. This brings awareness of a small world to the audience: of the fact that people are not as alone as they often think. No matter how intense and depressing the stories of monologue plays are, there is always this underlying hope. There is a defining event, or realization that brings all of these characters together though they do not know it; they stand on the stage alone, not realizing there are people with similar experiences waiting in the wings. I feel monologue plays often resonate the question, what does it mean to to be human?
In the New Orleans Monologues this question answers by showing people's reactions to a crisis. It shows human nature in a natural disaster: people under pressure in unexpected and grave situations. In the Laramie Project a crisis of a different kind is portrayed, yet although none of the speaking characters were in direct peril, everyone had been effected in some way by Matt's murder. The concept of an invisible and recurring main character is also interesting, and something I hope to play with when writing. By this I mean, the stories and accounts of Matt create in the audience's mind a powerful and well developed character. In the Vagina Monologues, the characters were not connected by an event; sure, one might say they are all connected by having vaginae, but I like to think it is something more than that. I feel each of these women are portraying a realization about their vagina. I like the idea of taking a subject and having diverse characters with diverse stories having diverse realizations about the same subject.
So I have said monologue plays are not my favorite, but that does not mean I do not understand why they are effective. There is definitely an art to these plays, I am not denying that, I just prefer to watch and read plays that show what happens instead of tells.
Lots of interesting observations here Hanna. Your challenge is going to be to find a way to make your monologue play "show" rather than "tell." I think the secret's going to lie in your very smart argument that these characters think they are isolated and all alone, but from the perspective of the audience, we see them all together telling (showing?) a much larger and more profound story as a group than any one of them does alone. I love too your approach of finding an issue, a topic, you want to talk to the audience about directly. Indeed, monologue plays lend themselves beautifully to such directed and intimate pursuit. Your notion of a central but absent character is also a good one.
ReplyDeleteHanna~
ReplyDeleteI can understand why you like to see plays in which a story is more artfully constructed than the clunky monologue form. In some ways, I think that monologues are the easy way out. There's no need for subtlety, and it feels like a play that has well-disguised exposition or gradual character development is a better-written play, because it's so hard to accomplish those things, whereas it's really easy to write one person talking for a good deal of time. But I also think that monologues have their difficulties as well. You have to have clear voices that are very distinct from one another. And I also think that monologues sometimes require more research than a "normal" play, because if you have very strong opinions that you can convey very clearly with minimal obstruction, they better be well researched. Whereas, if you're writing a fictional dialogue between two characters in the antebellum South, you have a bit more leeway (I think) in saying "what would these characters do in this situation". Granted, this better be well-researched too, but because there are two of them (or more) and action can take the scenes more places than in a monologue, I think they have a bit more leeway.
But I liked what you said about having a character that never really shows up. I thought that was a cool idea to play with, and it reminded me a bit of V for Vendetta, where you never get to see what the guy looks like behind the mask. In all the other superhero movies you get to, but in that way, you are somehow distanced from the character, and a lot is left up to your own imagination. Something else monologues are very good at. . . .
MJ
One of your points that I most agreed with, was the idea that monologues often portray a personal experience. I think this works well because when watching a monologe play it seems as if the character is a real person telling you a story. For the same reason that it is interesting to sit in a room and hear a person tell you aobut something that happened to them, monologues let the listener see the image themselves.
ReplyDeleteYour point about how all the characters share experiences, but don't always know eachother is something that I never specifically thought of. Its almost like the event or theme that connects them is the main character of the play, and is developed through different characters views and opinions. The event/theme takes on a life of its own, and we become more emotionally charged towards it because of the other character's experince with it.
I would be interested to see how you deal with the issue of balancing "show" and "tell". Maybe have a "normal" play, with characters who break the fourth wall to give the audince a deeper understanding of the character and their inner thoughts. This was you could advance a plot of a play, but at the same time give the emotional accounts of characters who experienced the events of the play.
Hanna,
ReplyDeleteWhile depending on the audience's imagination to tell a story can be problematic I think at the same time it can show whether or not a play is well constructed or just action packed. By forcing the audience to use their imaginations I feel playwrights are, in a way, returning to the basics of theatre (ancient Greek plays, Japanese Noh).
I like what you said about characters sharing experiences. In the staged NOM I really enjoyed watching characters cross path without anything more then a head nod or eye contact because it shows that while these people do not know each other they do connect because of what is happening in the world. I think this shows a sense of community/connectivity that the audience enjoys watching.