September 25, 2018
Bradley: Do you use our names?
John: Of course not, Pop.
Bradley: But it’s recognizably us.
John: By people who know us.
Bradley: What about people who don’t know us?
John: They’ll sense it’s a personal play.
The Cocktail Hour, A.R. Gurney
Writers are known to draw on their own lives for inspiration. When you read a play and then read the writer’s biography, the similarities can be striking. Playwrights have been criticized for portraying their life on the stage. For example, Arthur Miller was heavily criticized for writing After the Fall because the characters strongly resembled public figures, including Marilyn Monroe and Elia Kazan. People particularly saw the play as an attack on Monroe and were displeased that Miller would write such a play. In his autobiography, Miller says that the reviews of After the Fall were “…about a scandal, not a play.” Instead of solely focusing on the play itself, such as its characters, plot, set, staging, etc., people were more focused on the similarities to real life. They were unable to separate Miller’s history from the story of the play. The play therefore suffered.
On one hand, knowing a playwright’s background can be a very enriching experience, changing how one sees the play. On the other hand, comparing the play to the playwright’s background can also hurt the perception of the play, as demonstrated by the reviews of After the Fall. By focusing on the similarities to real life, critics and viewers were unable to see how innovative and poignant Miller’s play was. Though I admit it is fascinating to delve into a playwright’s biography and compare it to her works, one must still look at the play as a separate entity from the writer. As someone who wrote and directed an original play, I know this all too well.
In A.R. Gurney’s, The Cocktail Hour, the character of John agrees to not produce his play about his family because his father, Bradley, refuses to give his permission. In my opinion, John did not need his father’s permission. John is a playwright and his works are his own. Yes, I understand why Bradley is upset that his life would be portrayed on the stage, but it is theater. No matter how close the action on stage relates to what happened in real life, events and characters are still dramatized. The playwright tells the story through her own eyes and then gives her characters voices. It is a dramatization, where what happens on stage is a separate unit from what happened in real life. It is therefore why playwrights should not be restricted on what they can write because they fear those close to them will be mad at them. It is art.
People must recognize that a playwright’s work is personal and is always going to have a piece of herself in it, even if the play is about fantastical events that could never happen in real life. It is particularly difficult for the playwright to produce a very personal piece of work because people will often compare the work to the playwright’s life. My original play was a personal one, and those who know me would clearly know who the characters were, and those who do not know me would “sense it’s a personal play.” That was very difficult for me to come to terms with, because though I knew there was no escaping the comparisons, I wanted people to see my play as a separate entity from myself. When I was working with my actors on character work, my actress said she was hesitant to make judgments about her character because she was afraid she would be insulting me. However, I told her that the character of Girl is just that – a character. I needed her to separate the character from the person she perceived to be as the real-life counterpart. The play was not going to work if people focused too much on the similarities to real life. I strive to write plays that people can connect to and see themselves in, and that was the goal of my play. Thus, if people focused too much on how I relate to the character of Girl, it would hinder their connection to the play. (Luckily, I think I mostly escaped the comparisons, as I heard from women afterwards about how much they related to the play).
I did not set out to write an autobiographical play, and I do not think any playwright does. Playwrights set out to write plays that speak to them, and many times their life seeps into the story. It is inevitable. I also know that it is inevitable that people are going to compare the playwright’s history to her play. However, the play should be first and foremost looked at as a play, because if one spends too much time trying to connect the similarities between the play and the playwright, it can take them out of the world of the play. After they have looked at it as a play, then, if they want to, they may look at the play through an autobiographical lens, as long as it is recognized that the play and the playwright are two separate entities.
Additional thought – Looking at a play through a historical lens is different than looking at it from an autobiographical lens. Connecting a play to its historical context can be necessary to fully understand a play, such as Miller’s The Crucible or Alice Childress’ Florence. While both approaches can change an experience, a historical lens provides a necessary foundation in understanding the play. In my opinion, looking at a play through an autobiographical lens can at times hurt one’s perception of the play, while looking at it through a historical lens can only enhance one’s experience.
Comentarios