Monday, January 26, 2009

Monologue Mania

I always thought monologues were an odd form of theatre, mostly because it doesn't seem very natural. It seems like the form would lend itself to a naturalistic setting - natural speech patterns, good opportunity for distinct voices, room to develop a strong character - but who on EARTH would pour out their inner soul to a room full of strangers? Makes no sense to me.

Hamlet does this all the freakin' time. Pretty much everyone in Shakespeare does. But that's a completely different style of theatre than what us naturalistic-loving Americans are used to. In an Arthur Miller play, you're not likely to see the main character break away from the action and discuss his inner turmoil with the audience.

But even in naturalistic theatre, monologues serve their purpose. Connor McPherson's The Weir is made up almost entirely of monologues, but it still maintains the fourth wall. That play showed me how monologues can be really effective for storytelling. It's really distracting when a character is trying to tell a story, but other characters are always interrupting to remind the audience that they are active listeners.

But New Orleans Monologues, The Laramie Project, and Vagina Monologues are different. They understand that they're monologues, and they embrace it. (I mean, two of them have the word "monologue" in their title - doesn't get much more obvious than that.) I thought it was interesting how you can still drive narrative without actually showing the audience the action. A lot of it is storytelling techniques; how to make the narrative interesting in monologue form. One thing NOM was good at, I thought, was telling the story in past tense, but making it feel like the story is taking place now. Both NOM and LP were telling stories that the audience already knew the outcomes to, but because they were personalized accounts, the audience didn't know how the stories would end for those particular characters.

Another thing that I need to bear in mind with monologues is what LP does really well - telling several sides to the same story at the same time. So when Reggie Fluty is describing how she found Matthew Shepard, Dr. Cantway is telling his story of when he first saw Matthew. Not only does it break up the monologues (which is easier on the actor and the audience), it provides a suspense, almost, drawing out the conclusion a little longer and making the audience wait just a tad bit more for the resolution to that particular account.

The Vagina Monologues is the only one of the three that I'd never read or seen or been in before. To me, women standing around telling stories about their vaginas is a bit odd. Kinda weirds me out, I'm not gonna lie. But in the select few monologues we read there were some very distinct voices.

My playwriting class I took last semester was frustrating in some ways, partly because we started out with monologues, but they were all too "prosey" for my prof. She wanted them to be more immediate (still not entirely sure what that means, because it's hard to right a monologue in the past tense but keep it immediate), and she said mine was more like a short story told in the first person than a monologue. I still don't really know how to fix that, but after reading some of those selected monologues, I think one thing I can work on is voice. This will make any monologue I write more textured, even if it isn't "immediate." Maybe immediacy will come in time. How ironic is that?

KG

6 comments:

  1. Ahh, KG, it's an age old question: how to make something feel immediate before you've had the time and experience to develop the skill to write immediacy. (Check out King Lear for advice and a model.) That said, I'm not entirely sure what "immediacy" means or how it is the hallmark of monologues but not of first-person short stories. Figuring out the difference between monologues and first-person short stories, however, seems a useful endeavor. I think you're right that voice is a hint, though strong voice is a hallmark of all good writing I think. The overlapping voices, more than one story at a time approach, will also solve some of those problems. Your arguments here about why that scene in LP works so well and why it's interesting to hear the same story from many perspectives also speak to this monologue vs. first person account conundrum. Does it make the writing "immediate"? I'm not sure. You're onto something too with your point that we're hearing stories we know and also don't know the outcomes of. This is narrative we know and don't know, see and don't see played out before us. That tension is worth exploiting for sure. Meantime, go see VM on campus, and we'll talk after.

    ReplyDelete
  2. KG

    Sometimes the sense of anonymity makes people more open towards sharing their feelings (blogs, postsecret, support groups etc.). That sense of anonymity makes a person unafraid of people's opinions and give people the courage to truly speak their minds/hearts/knee caps.

    I like what you said about monologues being able to show several sides of same story at once. It feels like this is harder to do in a dialogue driven play because actions/time/place have to match up better, while in a monologue you could have characters separated by space/time but still delivering monologues about the same events on stage in tandem.
    I feel like it is a really brilliant tool once one has mastered it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My Dearest Matthew,

    Its interesting how you think that monologues don't seem very natural. I think the idea of a person talking directly to a group of people is more natural than people on a stage pretending the 100s of other people in the room (the audience) don't exist. As "theater kids" we have come to accept the latter as "normal" theater, but in our reality it is anything but normal.

    I like your point that plays that are monologue based have different feeling monologues than monologues in a dialogue based play. The fact that the point of the play is to tell the story through monologues changes the way the monologues are delivered. These monologues must develop story as well as define the character to make the audience connect (vs. a dialogue play where the character is already developed previously).

    The point you brought up about the tense that the monologue is spoken up, is the point that got my brain thinking the most. It would be interesting to hear the same monologue but wrtitten in the past tense (with the character reflecting on the event and how they feel about it now) and in the present tense (with the character focusing more on how they feel at the moment the event is happening)

    'atta babe.

    -t.g.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Matt,

    So, I really liked what you had to say about the believability of a monologue play. The fact that in Shakespeare it works, and people do not question it, but in American naturalism the audience wonders why on earth the character is pouring their soul out the them. I think this is something a monologue play has to work on justifying in one way or another. They have to tell the audience where they are and what they should expect, what their relationship with the character is. As you said, monologue plays have to embrace the fact that they are such. Also, as being someone who believes in theater showing as opposed to telling, I really thought your point of feeling like you are actually there in the monologue is interesting, and I am wondering how much that has to do with acting and how much with writing.

    -HK

    ReplyDelete
  5. For another take on the monologue's place in theater - this time as a free-standing art form - have a look at www.monologuemania.com which will tell you about a monologue cabaret in New Jersey. And if you live near by, come on down!

    ReplyDelete
  6. For another take on monologues, have a look at the monologue cabaret in New Jersey - details at www.monologuemania.com. And if you're in the area, come on down!

    ReplyDelete