The Pittsburgh Tatler: While there are several guns conjured to the imagination in EM Lewis’s one-person play The Gun Show (Can we talk about this?), the most frightening moment of the play (for me, at least) doesn’t involve any weapons at all. That moment comes when Andrew William Smith – my colleague at the CMU School of Drama, whom I know to be a reasonable, rational, calm human being – becomes red-faced with fury as he channels conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’s incoherent and illogical rage at the prospect of even the most minor regulation on guns.
5 comments:
I had not heard of this play before but I am now very interested in seeing it. As the article points out, there is a sort of standoff between both sides of the gun debate; neither side seems particularly interested in seeing the opinions of the other side and, as such, there is no room for conversation. I think this play is a good step in the right direction for this debate. As someone who understands both sides of the debate, the playwright was able to create a play that balances both perspectives, hopefully in an understanding and patient way. It is so easy to just write off people who disagree with you as angry and wrong but I hope that this play makes the argument that everyone believes what they believe for a reason. Even when the topic is so controversial and fraught with anger and tragedy, as the gun debate is, I would hope that people can try and put their feelings aside and have honest and productive conversation.
As someone who is a similar situation to the playwrights perspective I can easily see the importance of having these sorts of discussions and in fact have had a lot of discussions about this very topic with people. I have grown up in a household which had multiple guns within it and have target practiced with some of them myself and is it a difficult position to be in when the argument is frequently painted in such black and white ways. I have been raised around responsible gun ownership and know it is very possible and guns do have a purpose in some settings. I have also, as has the rest of the country, been subjected to seeing this tirade of mass shootings that have become commonplace in America today. Both sides have valid points and having this sort of play to discuss these points further is vital in bringing people together in this discussion. One of the biggest downfalls in this argument is the defensiveness of both sides that seem to pin rational people against each other when I feel that really if we had just talked about the ultimate goals both sides would be in agreement for almost all the issues at hand.
The guns regulation debate is a topic that I had little understanding, but it has been there for a quite long time. However, even being an outsider of this debate, I am really familiar with this kind of social issue clashes. Just like most of the issue that divide societies, both side make their points clearly, which is a proper starting point. The reason of the continuing conflicts usually lie in the mental state of supporters from each side. One group will accuse the other as unreasonable, and refuse to accept any form of advice or agreement. This is not an unusual scenario, and often both side would perform some kind of blockade to certain propaganda while performing their own. Also, the government and the politicians find the issue almost untouchable for the potential radical response from the people involved. This is a stalemate and I don't see an easy way out of this.
I think this entire concept is tricky in itself. Given the circumstances with the lack of gun regulations, I think a “gun show” is something that would actually not attract very many people. I, for one, wouldn’t voluntarily go to a gun show if I had only heard those two words. Guns scare a lot of people, and rightfully so. I think that this show concept is an inherently difficult one to market as well as execute well because of the risks that automatically comes with it. This kind of subject, as mentioned in the article, is also a sensitive one for many people. I think in most cases the show were remind people of times where they were in distress and not times of happiness and enjoyment like theater does. I had the same thought as most audiences which is, who does guns truly intrigue? And this question still stands for me.
This is a perfect example of how writing what you know can yield some of the most authentic and impactful works. Based on the article, it seems that the strengths of this piece-- aside from the intensity of the content itself-- is the personal connection that the author has to the dilemma. Because “she has lived-- and deeply gets-- both sides of the debate,” audience members who may be totally convinced of one side are forced to consider new perspectives. I think that this is a really unique piece in that it isn’t straightforward protest or commentary on a social or political issue but encompasses the entire debate through a personal lens. It offers more room for debate, dialogue, and reactions so that audience members might more authentically and naturally find their place in the discussion. I hope to see this show, especially to see our own CMU Drama faculty at work!
Post a Comment