Well, this is officially my first blog ever. While reading The Laramie Project, it took me a while to get into it, which was probably my fault as I was trying to read in a room where my roommate and her boyfriend were watching some movie about vampires and werewolves and such, but that's beside the point. What did I learn about writing plays?? I am very familiar with the story of Matthew Shepard, mostly because I remember when it happened. When I began to read the play by Moises Kaufman, I found that it was very scattered and hard to follow, and throughout the whole play I had a hard time making a distinction between the smaller characters. As I continued to read I found that the style in which the play was written was the best way to portray the actual people and locations at which this horrible event occurred. Overall i was very pleased with the structure and format of the play.
There are a few things that I found very interesting about the structure of this play. At first look, I thought it was interesting that it was in three acts, all of different length. I personally did not find a clear distinction as to why they were split up that way. The story is so choppy and jumps around from character to character, that I feel that it would have been possible to break it up into two acts, both of equal length. Then after a second look I realize why Kaufman split it up the way he did. There are three sections to Matthew’s story. There is the initial crime, where he is found, brought into the hospital and the whole world hears about what has happened. The second section is about his death and the response of the world. The third section is the resolution, the trial of the accused, along with statements from the people who cared most about Matthew.
Another thing I learned about writing is that they easiest way to portray the feelings and thoughts about real life individuals is to use their actual words. I found the parts where the actual actors were talking about their experience with the interviews kind of boring because it pulls the reader out of the chronological line of the actual story. Because of the direct quotes and characters that are real people, the personal accounts are extremely heart breaking even just on the page. I cannot even imagine the emotion involved with watching this play on a stage. The statements of the people who had direct contact with this horrible event: the kid who found him, of the accused, of Matthew’s father, of the policemen and doctors who dealt with him , etc were extremely powerful. However, I also found a lot of power in the statements of other people Matthew’s age, like Matt Galloway, Jedadiah Schultz, and Zubaida Ula. They each felt like they had a connection to Matthew, even though only Matt Galloway was the only one who knew him personally. I found it interesting that such minor characters to the actual story line could have such a powerful interesting insight and opinions to the story itself. For example, Jedadiah Schultz did not necessarily agree with a homosexual lifestyle, but for some reason had a great connection to Angels in America, which made him feel closer to Matthew.
I found the end of the play very haunting. This was the one place that I loved that Kaufman used the insight of the people from the theater company conducting the interviews. One of the things that had stuck in their minds was that Doc had said that Laramie sparkles. Doc explained that Matt had told him this one night on a drive, and I think the most haunting part of this play is Doc’s last quote: “Matt was right there in that spot, and I can just picture his eyes, I can just picture what he was seeing. The last thing he saw on this earth was the sparkling lights” (99). I love that Kaufman leaves us feeling haunted. He could have written some concluding monologue talking about the amazing response of the people of the world in result of Matthew’s death. He could have written some cheesy ending about how Matthew’s story will live on through this play and such, but instead, Kaufman leaves us as one of his crew members looks in the rearview of the car and sees the sparkling lights.
Good inaugural blog post! I'm especially struck by how criticisms turn into strengths here. The play's being hard to follow, the act breaks not making sense, the choppy flow, the fact that it's hard to get into at first, the fact that it pulls you out of the story -- these start as negatives of the play and turn into positives. Nifty trick by the play, and it begs the question as to whether these are devices you want to use, avoid, or modify.
ReplyDeleteYou've got other practical stuff here too: what you like in an ending, what sorts of stories and language and characterizations you find moving on stage. You've made good points here about using minor characters -- everyone on stage has to be doing at least two things for the play at once, minor characters included. The Angels in America bit is indeed a good example.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI liked the way you talked about the impact of personal relationships on the strength of the monologues. I think that you are correct in your analysis of how the acts were broken up, and your rationalization makes a lot of sense for future projects you might work on yourself. The power of the characters is also an interesting idea. The way a character's power must impact his or her monologue is probably one of the first things to consider when writing their monologue.
ReplyDeleteI did feel haunted when reading the end of the play. You made a good point; the play would have been extremely cheesy if there had been a character whose job was to sum up the previous monologues and give some repercussions of the murder. I think a good thing to take away from this play is to give your audience credit. They don't need or even want a play tied up in a little bow. They can make conclusions themselves, and it may be best to leave it up to them.
Rachel,
ReplyDeleteI didn't notice the 3 act split like you did, and thats very interesting. I actually found the inter-splicing of the monologues very smooth and entertaining. It was as though many people were progressing one conversation, and I really enjoyed that. There are definitely some times when I had to check the character list for the minor characters, but I thought that was just part of the assimilation process, and I bet it would be easier on stage when you see a character attached to a name.
That line on page 99 stuck with me too. That and when the police officer said that he was covered in blood, except for where his tears had washed it away. gooood. i almost lost it. its definitely more striking when it is told by the actual person. Overall, I thought it was really effective as well, but I'm a minimalist at heart, so anything that takes little to know costumes and scene changes, and is as grounded in realism as possible is good with me.
annie