"Insensitive" play.

I think every subject is a fit subject for theatre (or satire, or comedy for that matter) - its not required that the artist 'should' take the reactions of people who may or may not have been affected by something, into account when creating art (in this case, a play).

That just feels like unnecessary additional quite artificial 'moral' requirements to have to consider, which aren't really the concern of the artist. There's enough weight that any artist is carrying, without having to tolerate and cater to conservative bourgeois sensibilities and sensitivities as well.

In the context of theatre, all that matters is: Is it a GOOD story, well told, good characters, gripping characterization and dialog..

And the fact that its a story woven about a real tragedy, just makes it doubly interesting. Nothing more, nothing less. Is the original event a tragedy? Sure. Now pass the popcorn. Tell the story, lets see if the end result happens to be Art or gratuitous.
And even if it is gratuitous, so what? There's a lot of art that I find repulsive, but I'm not going to ever suggest that artists and writers should ever avoid writing that which I find repugnant.

Its up to the whims and desires, of the writer, as to what they choose to make real life characters say, feel, or symbolically represent. That's art in action. Its not social work 101, its an attempt to use a pre-existing ready made story, to create ... something else entirely perhaps. That's art.

I think its immoral and counter-productive to the creative process, to even attempt to suggest or infer that writers should try and 'avoid' creating a good story, even if they're inspired to, just because the central plot points are woven around tragic events which happened to involve real people.

'Equus' was a pretty entertaining, and successful play as I recall, even though the central reality which inspired the play, revolved around a boy blinding and stabbing horses.

What's that old saying? 'Drama is life with the dull bits cut out'.

Maybe it's not strictly "entertaining." It may be thought-provoking, anger-inciting, educational, or any number of other positive things. The case is similar to several that have been in the news in the past ten years. Similar enough to dismiss the idea that this play is about this case and this case only. These tragedies are becoming increasingly common. It may be that, rather than seeking to inflict trauma on the survivors, the playwrite hopes to become part of the solution.

Someone might say about The Vagina Monologues, "Oh, they use all those dirty words and talk about women's privates. We should keep women's privates hidden in their underwear, where they belong!" But if you see the performance and understand what it's all about, you can appreciate its importance, on a larger cultural scale.

"she felt it provided her with a framework through which to explore the issues of accountability and self interest."

Sounds very timely and addresses important issues of the day. Presenting contemporary subjects for consideration, imo, is some of theatre's best work. I would be interested to read the script -- as the odds of me being able to see the show are very slim.

Perhaps the family is concerned that it will be more sensation than anything else.

(Polly said this all much more eloquently than moi but I still had to clog out a response. )

Cheers,

I have to wonder if the family has seen any of the play, or read any of it. I'm not saying it isn't offensive, but without seeing/reading it, I can't comment either way.

It's a bit like when Show Boat premiered in Toronto (and then moved to Broadway) there were all these protests because it used the N word. What the people didn't realise was how a major part of the play is about fighting racism, and there was a point in using that word. Once the show opened, the protesting virtually stopped.

I think the main thrust of my grumble against the idea of using phrases like 'insensitive' when it comes to Art - is that one (in my view) shouldn't countenance trying to censor oneself according to social norms, or consciously avoid 'offending' people, when it comes to projects. One can then end up with 'lowest common denominator' material, thats lost its uniqueness, and become arbitrary mainstream fodder.

Nothing wrong with making mainstream fodder, given that the mainstream needs its constant supply - but one can't try and make all Art fit into an inherently conservative mainstream framework.

I've got a play that won an award in the UK (the 'AcidTheatre Freedom of Speech Monologue competition 2007') and is going to be staged sometime this year in London - and the title is deliberately provocative, confrontational, and conscious misdirection.
It's called "Putting the Fun Back into School Shootings".

A title that continues to become more and more relevant in surreal ways, as the school shooting concept continues to erupt 'unexpectedly'.

Initially the theatre asked me if I'd be okay with changing the title, for fear of causing major problems for them - I said sure, no problem (I don't believe in cutting off nose to spite face) but they've since gotten used to it, and I'd imagine, its going to raise hackles all round when it emerges in production.

As its about CIA and a coup in the US, and from the point of view of a teacher, about to unleash some very serious slaughter - its a ghoulishly fun bit of misdirection, as well as using the title to overtly prod those who have knee-jerk reactions to things.

I'm a fan of art that causes 'emotion' - in various ways. It can be fun to experience art that challenges me, or outrages me, or forces me to rethink positions, and feel active emotions. I also like art that overtly at times, wants to pick a fight, and cause heated debate, as my preconceived ideas get turned upside down, and I'm having to re-evaluate what I thought was reality.

Anything but art where the audience walks out afterwards, utterly unaffected, as if they were watching an advert on TV. I'm not a fan of art that pushes all the wish fulfilment buttons in the audience, who thinks that because they're experiencing the totally familiar, that this means they're part of a creative experience, and afterwards they trudge out saying "Oh that was nice wasn't it' - and go about their normal lives, with no genuine impact having occured between them and the art in question. (Whether its a play, a film, a book or 'other').

So bring on the insensitive, the appalling, the misbehaved work, the 'immoral' work - the 'disgusting concepts', anything which challenges one or another of the accepted ideas of the status quo in some interesting ways.

The world's big enough for all types of writing to find its audience.

Mandy-Jane, go look at the Greeks. A guy unknowingly kills his own father and has children with his own mother; in penance, he gouges out his own eyes. A woman, angered by her husband's betrayal with another woman, murders their children to get back at him. And let's not even talk about the Grand Guignol plotlines of many of Shakespeare's best. Let's face it: we playwrights are all ghouls at heart, and no tragedy is immune to being co-opted by us and recycled as "material."

That kind of stuff happens ALL the time, I think the play is doing a good thing by shedding light on the kind of reality that was often choose to ignore.