There are many different ways for a monologue to be presented; within a larger context, or self-sufficient; thematically related and compiled; interview style; or structurally similar. All of these are presented between the three works The Laramie Project, The Vagina Monologues, and Sonnets for an Old Century. It is The Laramie Project that is most contextual, and, therefore, I think, the most effective. However, there are good and bad elements to all three compositions.
The Laramie Project is useful in that it plays interestingly with both theme and chronology. It takes a series of private interviews from over a year, about a past event, and arranges it so it is as though the present is merging with the past, and all the characters are inter-related, although they may have never really met. In this way, it builds a common identity, and allows a more developed character relationship, and an idea of universal values (or a shared common experience). I also like how the interviewer is present and interacting with the characters, because it gives a good representation of the real conversation, and the process. It adds to the context and makes the realism of their project that much more poignant. However, the purpose of a monologue is that it should be self-sustaining, (or understandable sans background and context), and I think these examples kind of tow the line because they are dependent upon each other to understand not only themes, but chronology, and the importance of multiple viewpoints.
On the other hand, The Vagina Monologues are completely independent from one another, yet linked thematically. It is very good at illuminating the scope of one topic by depicting multiple viewpoints. However, the target audience is difficult to understand, because there are certain times when the character is responding to a direct question, almost as though there is an invisible interviewer the audience cannot see or hear. This, to me, is isolating the audience, and putting them in the role of ignorant outsider, rather than the 3rd person omniscient that allows the audience to feel included. Also, its very disjunctive, and thus breaks up the flow of the piece. I think this way of unseen interviewer is not effective, and detracts from the idea of a personal relationship between the character and the audience. I do, however, think that these monologues are self-sustaining, and thus more effective of being independent viewpoints.
Lastly, Sonnets for and Old Century is yet another experiment with independent viewpoints, where there is no obvious thematic or chronological connection between these monologues, yet their structure and honesty is what makes them relate to one another, and allows the audience to relate to them all as a whole and cohesive entity. Also, the lack of a set identity allows the monologue to be more accessible and universal because of its malleability to different characters. Depending on who is playing each character, it gives the monologue new meaning and context, because each person comes with their own background. Thus, it is a very effective way to get many different viewpoints just from one piece of work. Both other works were confined to the original speaker, which works and was a specific choice. However, this openness allows the monologue to, itself, be void of context, yet as soon as someone begins to recite it, it gains their own context, and is thus grounded in realism more so than either of the previous works.
Because of these useful yet distinct differences between these three works, it shows the versatility of the monologue, and allows playwrites to manipulate and mold to serve one of many different purposes for a story or idea.
Hmm, okay so you've lost me at the end here: "Also, the lack of a set identity allows the monologue to be more accessible and universal because of its malleability to different characters. Depending on who is playing each character, it gives the monologue new meaning and context, because each person comes with their own background." Does this strike you as different than the other two plays (do the other two not change depending on who you cast? Or not change as much? If so, very interesting idea and worth nailing down for sure.)
ReplyDeleteAlso not quite sure what you mean when you say that Laramie is most "contextual," but I think it might relate to your general observation that monologues need to be able to stand on their own to some extent, and that's a great observation.
I'm also getting this from you: you like a narrator; you like a clear reason why these folks are telling their stories; you like monologues that overlap and intersect rather than completely discrete ones. All good things to know going in (and I happen to agree with you). You've got good ideas too about including rather than excluding the audience.
I'm interested too in the realism you find in Sonnets -- you say it is more "grounded in realism" than the other two which is interesting in that the other two are, by conventional definition, much more "real" (that is, vaginas are pretty real and Laramie tells an event which actually happened whereas Sonnets is people chatting after death.)
I liked how you focused on the audience and speaker of each of the monologues.. I agree that this is a very important aspect of monologues. Especially in a play like Vagina Monologues and the Sonnets, Not only must a performer be able to make it applicable and descriptive so that another person understands the context, but also the character must embody the emotions, time and place at which the event took place, so that the character itself becomes real. I think this also touches on the idea of the reality and the absurd. that we talked about in class.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you that the sonnets are more realistic. I think they are in one sense just because they talk about more realistic situations and ideas that those of the Vagina Monologues and the Laramie Project. I mean, no one would probably blatantly start talking about their vagina in any class here... and things like hate crimes seem so far away to those of us who may have never experienced them. However, I think that the sonnets are less "grounded in realism" than the others. The vagina monologues are very blunt, the Laramie project is very creepy, but very real. I feel that the sonnets are more a collection of memories.
I like how distinctly you are able to view the different forms of the monologues we read. It makes me think that the term 'monologue' is altogether an unhelpful one, and that further delineation is needed. I liked the way you ordered the level of connectedness of the monologues and talked about how each conveyed a different thing.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your post I am left wondering about which ones are actually monologues and which ones are some sort of hybrid between monologues and dialogue. Do characters with intertwined monologues actually have monologues, or is the author just changing the form of dialogue? Does a monologue need to stand on its own, or can it be supported by a plot that the monologue itself in complicit it? These are questions I will ask myself when writing the monologue play.