Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Fires in the Mirror

There is no way around the fact that if you cut out the monologues from this play you're essentially cutting out the very soul of the play itself. I can understand that it's easy to disassociate oneself from the individual monologues especially if you can't relate to them on a personal level in any way. I'll even entertain the notion that sometimes production/time restraints sometimes elements of the play have to be cut. I'm afraid these separations from personal investment do not justify stripping this play of it's soul. I say this because the monologues are what establish a steady tempo early on in the play, they set the overall tone of the by adding representation of the two distinct races involved in the later mentioned riots letting us delve further into their psyche and further providing insight into the racial prejudices that plague them. So, all that being said, not only are these monologues important for their part in grounding the play and setting the tone they even further enhance the play due to the fact that they are all given by a single actress. This play is a tour de force for any individual to perform. It's a play that is taylormade to be presented by an individual and it's in that performance that so much of the heart of the play is invested in. If you were to take away the majority of the monologues there is no doubt in my mind that the play would suffer overall because the impact will be lessened due to the fact that it would become more of a documentary instead of a play. I would suggest that if it is absolutely necessary to cut down the monologues then it should be more a condensing of the monologues instead. That is to say that, the monologues could just be edited down a bit in order to save some time and perhaps whittle down a few of the lesser impactful moments. Again, I strongly disagree with the idea of cutting any of the monologues because I really believe that it would have a profound negative impact on the play.

4 comments:

  1. I really like that you referred to those first few monolgues as the soul of the play. It makes sense. Their cultures ultimately speak for their actions and are vital parts of who they are. While we were doing an activity in class pertaining to which monologue would we cut, etc. my group said that same thing you did. We would rather cut down the individual monologues themselves rather than cut out whole pieces.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree you can't cut these monologues and I was in Sara's group in class so I agrees may some lines here and there could be eliminated but you can't cut anyone of the monologues as a whole because Anna Deavere Smith wouldn't have put these monologues there is they had no meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I love the way you phrased it as "grounding the play." I agree completely that the scenes in the beginning give us much needed context to the relationship of these two groups. I don't think that if you take them away the rest of the monologues would have no meaning, but I think that the incident would seem much more as acts of hatred instead of a result of misunderstanding and fear.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that you hit the nail on the head when you made your statement about the play becoming more of a documentary than a play without those monologues at the beginning. I agree with all that you said about them being the very soul of the play. It truly does set the tone for how everything else feels and is viewed after them. There is a sense that you now know some of the people involved in these incidents, rather than just seeing them as a face-in-the-crowd eye witness.

    ReplyDelete