HowlRound: After the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, I felt like I’d felt after 9/11: grief stricken, traumatized and voiceless. In all the categories I fall in: woman, mother, playwright, human being, the events of that day, remain unbearable. The blessing and the curse of the writer is her imagination. At every mention and at random moments of every day in those first few weeks, I would begin to imagine what occurred in those classrooms, what was waiting for the first responders, and for those children’s parents. Even now, I have to harden my heart to put these words onto paper. While I avoided most of the news on cable, I did venture onto Facebook where I discovered some of my “friends” were anti gun control. I do not understand this position, so I started reading (and posting) all the articles I could find on gun legislation. I read some very cogent, practical and common sense articles like New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof’s, op-ed. Then I read Porochista Khakpour’s essay, “Why Did Nancy Lanza Love Guns?” In it, she describes her personal journey of love and obsession and ultimately rejection of guns: guns made her feel safe, guns made her feel powerful, guns were sexy, guns were fun.
5 comments:
I'm sure this playwright would be really interested to hear about the article concerning the festival regarding gun violence which was posted earlier this week. I can definitely see how this woman was so strongly effected by the tragedy at Sandy Hook in December. To be honest, I think that tragedies such as the Sandy Hook shooting greatly impact all of our lives. It is plain terrifying to hear that someone would kill innocent 6 year olds, and those types of tragedies really open up people's eyes to the fact that anything can happen at any time, to anyone and anywhere. Whether we need to turn to mental health or gun regulation is a political issue, and I don't think the author of this article is trying to make a political point. I respect the fact that this woman is consciously recognizing how her work in the part may not have worked to "shape" our world. I agree with this playwright that as artists, one of our jobs and objectives is not to reflect reality, but to shape it.
This author makes such a good point, especially in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting and amidst heated debate on gun control. We live in a culture of violence and particularly after the recent shooting I have been so much more aware of the blatant use of guns and violence in the media, films, books, plays, etc. I think we have, as a society, become desensitized to violence and almost come to expect it and enjoy it as a form of entertainment, and yet are so shocked when something so horrific happens in real life. I commend this author for recognizing how her work could have an impact on society and I especially admire the fact that she demands that her students so not use weapons or violence in their plays, at least initially. This is such a controversial subject, and it is not to say that violence should be eliminated from all forms of art and media, but it is important to become more aware of its presence and possible effects.
To me this sounds like an author who is more concerned with the impact of her stories than the stories themselves. I don't believe this is entirely a bad thing, but it can be tricky for the artist trying to tell a truthful story. Theater has always been tasked with reflecting and reshaping the political climate of the world that it exists in, but all the we can do as artists is tell stories as we see them. How guns are perceived by an audience is always going to change, so what really matters is that you use them truthfully within your story. It seems to me that while removing guns from student work can be a helpful exercise in finding new ways of dealing with violence theatrically, it isn't a good standard policy because it places restrictions on the creative flow of the author, and thus can infringe on the truthfulness of the story. What the world really needs to alleviate violence is honesty and understand, so shouldn't artists simply seek to be as honest as possible with their work rather than trying to fit a mold around the ever-changing perspectives of audience members?
I think this author touched on some very important issues not on guns but on the cultures where we place guns. I had never really though about how we place weapons in stories and instantly how the play changes based on the semiotics of the weapon. I also love the rule she created with her writing students on not using weapons I think this clearly illustrates how even as artists we put guns and weapons in stories is common if not cliche, and that we should move away from that and find other ways of communicating our ideas of fear, and tension in a story.
I think that this author is completely right. Guns and violence are everywhere and it's pretty crazy how desensitized we all are to it, and it's even crazier and, frankly a lot more upsetting, that it took a massacre for us to realize it. I think her idea is interesting on having her students write plays without any guns. In someways I think that leaves more room for graphic and horrific deaths on stage. I also think her points on violence and comedy are very interesting. Why is it that violence is accepted when it's done comically? Or when it is done to be ironic? Why is it that people hardly even blink an eye at an episode of Family Guy where a baby is shooting a gun, but when guns are in movies with younger audiences it's horrifying? (Of course i agree that subjecting kids to gun violence is definitely horrifying but why doesn't it matter when it's on a TV show like Family Guy?) to be perfectly honest I don't understand the world we live in when things like this occur. I don't know how to accept that things like the Sandy Hook shooting happen and I don't understand why it's so hard to do something about it. Maybe there should be more plays about that.
Post a Comment