Summary from Dharmik!

Osi starts us off by reminding us of fond memories of verbatim theatre in our own lives by route of the stories we share with friends and family. But, then she makes the distinction that true verbatim theatre requires real precision and that it’s “literal.” She brings up One More River to Cross: A Verbatim Fugue, which made me chuckle because it uses the word “verbatim” and it makes me wonder how dense the writer thought his audience was, but I digress. Osi played Woman #1 in this production, where she told the story of “13 different ex-slaves.” She even included the poster (she’s in it!)! What she found most interesting about this play wasn’t the exact wording of the source material (people), but the substance behind it. She say’s that she took “verbatim” with a grain of salt making me ask whether she believed these words were spoken or not? If you’d like, Osi shares with us that The Library of Congress has made the “narratives accessible to the public,” and she includes what has been written about the play’s precision and/or interpretation! Osi concludes with what her gut told her early on: “take Verbatim/Documentary Theatre with a grain of salt.” Oh and also that it has a place in our world and lives too.

Lisa skips all protocol and jumps right into the optional assignment. She didn’t even ask for PERMISSION!! Good for you Lisa! Though it might be a crime to record someone without them knowing, but that’s on you and good luck with that. I’m kidding, I’m sure it’s fine. Not sure who the people in her play are, but it’s a text conversation about uploading a file onto Moodle or Google Drive. There’s an arc where the problem is kind of resolved and we reach a stasis, but Lisa shows us that just about anything real in our lives can be turned into verbatim theatre. This conversation, though spoken verbally (I assume?), is via text in the play and the funny thing is that it reads like texts. Lisa comes to the conclusion that she has experienced tons of documentary shows in the form of travel videos. She believes there is “no such thing as verbatim theatre,” under the assumption that verbatim theatre truly literal. She says that it’s actually pretty much the closest thing.

Honestly, I was expecting to see an I, Tonya on Sarah’s post, but it was Emily!! The video she posted shows the comparison between Tonya Harding’s actual routine and what was done in the movie. It’s shown side by side. Here is where interpretation comes in. To my eye, it was pretty close to identical, but the angles were totally different. Because Tonya Harding’s routine was live there were really only wide shots, while the movie consisted of close ups and wide shots. There were also specific shots of her skates in the movie. By showing this Emily is telling us that “verbatim” transcends words and into all forms of communication (I think, correct me if I’m wrong, Emily). She claims that even though something might have actually happened there are still blocks that don’t quite fit together. Also, the movie is designed to take an already controversial and interesting person and make them a bit more thrilling to watch. Or that was what the screenwriter was trying to do. So, it brings to light how much the interpretation and “manipulation” is actually done and/or is necessary to create an entertaining and accurate work of art. Emily even says that there were some parts that need to be changed in order to create the story arc and allow it to move forward. “Honestly, sometimes I think it's better to lean into the fact that you are trying to be persuasive or expressive than to try to present something as a 100% precise recounting.” To me, this though kind of sums up all my feelings about verbatim/documentary theatre. Emily also posted Werner Herzog’s Minnesota Declaration. But now we move onto Queer Eye, Sex and Taxes, by Emily Gray. It’s exactly what the title suggests and I’m thrilled that this was an actual conversation!

Sarah makes a real distinction between the “real” and the “true.” To define “true,” Sarah uses quotes Stacey: “It is true, but it is not real.” She believes that when a production is a work of fiction, she can immerse herself in the story and be free of thought. She basically goes along for the ride. However, when it’s “real” there is a certain sense of civil duty that makes it a bit hard to completely enjoy because in the back of her mind she’s still thinking “omg this actually happened.” Though she does acknowledge that verbatim/documentary theatre blurs the line between real and true. She also brings to light the nature of many documentary pieces and that they are usually about people with/under strange or extraordinary circumstances. For example, Aron Ralston’s story in 127 Hours. Finally, Sarah believes that one person can’t be held responsible for delivering any kind of singular truth because they can only come from their own perspective.

The playwright is in control! In Erica’s eyes documentary theatre can never be done without some sort of spin because the director and playwrights shape the documentaries. Everything is a choice including what is left out. So, nothing is impartial and to aim for that sort of “truth” would be impossible. She also includes the fact that actors are just that – actors. Regardless of how good they are they’ll always be themselves at their very core. One quote that truly sums everything up for me is this. “It is the playwright, rather than the subject, that has the control.” I never thought of documentaries that way, but it makes a lot of sense. Similar, to the play Osi discusses, Erica saw a play written by Iraqi-American woman who plays nine different Iraqi women. There was one that took Erica out of the moment when watching the production. Though it was well performed, the actress was not Iraqi. That made it hard to believe. Once again, it brings up the ongoing theme of how true or real is verbatim/documentary theatre? She thinks there is value in sharing true stories, but it shouldn’t be like a history book.

Mark has a great point. Or question rather. He says it doesn’t matter as much to what was changed when comparing a documentary production to it’s source. What does matter, though, is how the changes alter the perception of the source material. Mark talks about the memoir, You Got Nothing Comin’. He says that it’s pitched as documentary literature and that it’s about a man who is sent to prison for killing another man, name Mark Slavin. Mark harps on the invisible thread or tacit understanding between the audience and the production when we read the sign “based on true events.” We, as the audience, accept that some of the events are true and some aren’t. However, it is still difficult to decipher which parts actually happened. Likewise, there is that tacit agreement when reading a memoir as well.

Austin gives us Exonerated. He discusses the topic of death row and how so many people are opposed to it and so many are for it. There is also that idea where we are brought up with the belief that the justice systems is fair. That if someone is convicted than it must be true. But, we have been shown time and time again that this isn’t the case. However, there are still many people who believe so ardently that it is true. Austin says that the “documentary approach” makes the audience sit up and pay attention. He believes people will actually take it seriously because it conveyed to them as “truth.” And that makes sense because why wouldn’t that work? He ends by saying that verbatim theater is useful with keeping the audience in their seats and allow them to really take in important issues discussed in the play/film/show.

First off, seeing your own words transcribed from a recording is a little jarring. I’m not even sure what I really meant when I said it, and after reading it, it makes even less sense. So, thank you Andrea! You win the Verbatim Theatre prize. It does make me think about people who are interviewed for verbatim shows. Like, how do the people feel about their own words spoken by someone else? Or when the see them on paper? I know I cringed. Anyway, let’s move on! Andrea was really affected by The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs. She talks about how she had a conversation with her stepdad to persuade him to stop purchase so much new tech because it’s wasteful. She was so moved by this piece of work that she shared her feelings about it with so many people. Then she found out that it was fiction. This ties back in with Mark’s question. How does the precision of a play with it’s source material affect how we, the audience, feel about the source material or its message? Also, what about your responsibility to others and at the very least the people you interview? Andrea does say the play was emotionally effective, but at what cost! She’s going to question all documentary theatre now. My only thing with that is, maybe it’s better to go Osi’s route and take it with a grain of salt.

To create theatre/art, it needs to be crafted. The director and playwrights shape everything and present it with a bow to the audience and how do you do that without putting a spin on it? So, Mike grappled with these questions and he starts right off by claiming the only “true verbatim theatre is politics.” It’s interesting and I’ve never thought about politics in that light. Well not completely. I realize there are real theatrical elements in politics, but I never made the connection to verbatim theatre. This also reminds of this quote from Ray Donovan, “Washington is Hollywood for ugly people.” At least I think that’s where it’s from. I can’t remember, and I digress again. Isn’t everything in life theatre? The answer to that question is summed up shortly after with this quote: "This happened. And here are the people and things that caused it to happen. And maybe by sharing the honest experience of what happened with the rest of the world, some people somewhere can learn a little bit about themselves and their communities that they didn't know before." Which is kind of the idea that I struggled to communicate so eloquently. Mike wrote a play about a young man, Andy Martin, battling cancer. Though he never sat down to write a verbatim play, he wanted to really find ways to use Andy’s words. He has included parts of his script and highlighted Andy’s words. He still questions if verbatim theatre is complete doable without spin or anything else, but it’s still interesting. And I share his sentiment in that, “I know nothing.”

My Three Big Conclusions:

“Take it with a grain of salt.”

How do the deviations from the source material change how we perceive the source material?

“DAMN. I KNOW NOTHING”