Answer one of the following. Please make sure to READ each other's comments and respond to them in your comments.
1.) Why do you think the interviewers/actors from the Tectonic Theater Company decided to include themselves as actual characters in the play? How does this change the story being told? Why didn't they just include comments from the actual residents of Laramie?
2.) Why do you think the graphic description of finding Matthew tied to a fence and struggling for life is included in this play? Why don't you think they did not choose to have a character playing Matthew in the play so we could see and understand the actual circumstances of his death?
Answer to Question 2: I think that the graphic description was to show, in words, the events leading up to Matthew's almost-to-death beating. I don't think they used an actual actor because it might make the movie more gruesome than it already was. Also, the words used could have been more powerful than actually showing Matthew's body after receiving the beating. Also, the fact that the actors told us that it was a message being given to Matthew about not coming on to heterosexuals, it was more powerful when it was described
ReplyDelete1. I think the interviewers/actors included themselves in the play rather than using real people from Laramie because the town was very tight knit, and if people had appeared in the film, they would be instantly recognized by many people they knew. It's also done that way because hate crimes can be a very sensitive subject, and some of the people probably didn't want to be affiliated with who/what they were asked to talk about.
ReplyDelete2. They described finding Matthew very graphically and in detail for a couple of reasons. The first is that they wanted viewers to know just how brutal and unthinkable the nature of the crime was, and secondly, it was an integral part of the experiences of the kid who found Matthew, as well as for the cops who took him in, and the doctors who treated him. I believe they didn't include an actor to play Matthew because it can't be fully known what he was thinking or doing beforehand, or during that tragic night. The only true facts that can be drawn from the evening comes from the testimonies of residents, and so the film crew probably stuck with that to make it more realistic.
1. I think that actors in the Tectonic Theater Company played people in the documentary because Laramie was your typical tiny, Wyoming town. As the documentary depicted, many people, even those not super close with Matthew/who didn't know him were deeply affected by the horrors committed upon him. It is manifest how unaccustomed the people were to the press. Not only were the actors placed in the documentary so that townsfolk didn't have to reopen fresh wounds but also for confidentiality purposes for the townsfolk. Additionally the documentary depicted many people who just kind of wished the media, the pain, the new reputation of the town and ultimately everything about the incident to go away. I don't think people would like to have themselves and their direct reactions on a well-known documentary that could be watched as pleased, bringing back memories of a time most wished could be forgotten.
ReplyDelete2) For a simple (and a pretty shallow) reason is that it'll be hard to reinact the death. It is pretty hard to get a person to look like he has been beaten to death. But the more complicated/deeper reason is because we would never truely know what has happened to Matthew and what he was doing and even what he was thinking. Plus, I believe that the description of it is pretty brutal enough as it is. And by a mere description, it can set off a lot of feelings and allows the viewers to imagine the death of Matthew. Not only does it allow the audience to get to hear about the death of Matthew, but it also engages to audience. I personally think it is unneccessary for another character to act as Matthew. The audiences/viewers has pretty much created this "Matthew character" in their own minds.
ReplyDelete2: The graphic description of Matt's death to show the viewers, and the nation how severe and horrible this event was. People tend to overlook Wyoming, but when you hear a murder like that, it wakes people up and opens their eyes. Having a character play Matt would have made it too personal to watch and relive. Also all the interviews took place after Matt's death, so it wouldn't make sense to have someone play him because the whole documentary takes place after the murder.
ReplyDelete2) I agree with Rosalie that the reason why they didn't reenact Matthew's death was stimulate the imagination of the watchers. By describing his death rather than showing it, emotions are more stirred because everyone sees the image in their head, making it even more vivid than if it was just plain shown to them. Everything comes in to play in creating the vision--the tone of the narrator's voice, the graphic description, and the words of those who were witness to Matthew's fatal injuries. It makes the event have a more powerful impact if the viewers piece it together by themselves.
ReplyDelete2) I think that they included the graphic description of Matthew to show how much it affected people. His death did affect the town in that they were all shocked that a hate crime could happen there, but that probably won’t last all that long. That kid and that policewoman will never forget what they saw, it will haunt them forever. I agree with what other people have said – hearing his gruesome injuries described is far more powerful than seeing it because it makes you imagine what happened. I also think that by never showing him at all, not even a picture, he becomes less of a real, physical person and more of a symbol of humanity. We never see him, we only see the aftermath. We see the way this crime not only affects him, but an entire community. Most importantly, we only see him through the eyes of others, many whom have very different views. It allows you to listen to what the people are saying without making any of your own stereotypes based on appearance.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what has been said about question 2. For question one I also agree but i think there is another element to the actors including them selves. By including them selves and acting as towns people we can get two points of view. There is an insiders view and an outsiders view. One actor included a passage from her journal. It was her first reactions when coming to Laramie. Seeing the sing that said something like.. "hate is not a Laramie value", or something along those lines. I think that by seeing the reactions of the towns people from the actors point of view is what makes the audience see how tight knit Laramie is.
ReplyDeleteFor question 1, I agree with what Sammy said. As it was shown when the townspeople first exited the town hall, the huge mobs of people from the media clearly overwhelmed them, because they obviously were not used to having that much attention on their little town. And like Sammy said, the severe beating that Matthew faced was something that they wanted out of their minds as fast as possible, as to ease the pain. And if they were to partake in the filming of this docu-drama, these memories would last forever.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with what others have said about question two. The graphic description of Matthew's death is extremely powerful, and with a description, you can imagine what happened, which can sometimes be worse then actually seeing something acted out. I also think that the play is more about the reactions of everyone after Matthew's beating/murder, and not really going into flashbacks of his life or showing what was happening that night, except what you can imagine from what people are describing in their interviews.
ReplyDelete1) I think the actors decided to participare in the play one, to provide anonymity for some of the people that they interviewed, since Laramie is a small town in which people know each other, and two, because they wanted to imply how the play impacts more than just the Laramie community. The actors, who seem to all or mostly all be gay, want to show that this incident impacts the whole country, and could happen to anyone in the gay community if discrimination keeps happening, even in town where it's "live and let live."
ReplyDeleteBy not including only comments by people who they intervied, they are adding more of an interest level to the play than just having it be a bunch of interviews. They are engaging the audience, and in some cases, more likely dramatizing responces to get their message across.
The graphic description of Matt’s death is present to show to the viewers how atrocious and severe the crime that took place was. If they didn’t include the description, people may shrug it off as just another murder, however it’s important for people to realize what really went on. Had another character play Matt would have inaccurately portrayed his unknown experiences. No one will ever know how and what exactly happened and what was going through his head during the night of the murder. I would also think it to be impersonal to have someone “be” him for the documentary.
ReplyDelete2) I agree with what Stephanie said, no one really knows what Matthew was thinking that terrible night, so how could anyone really do him justice? It seems to me that by having an actor play Matthew, it downplays his death and makes it seem like he was just a character from a play. By giving the description of Matthew's death, it creates, like Jenny said, a really powerful image in the minds of the viewers. I know that when I read a a book, the messages that the authors are trying to say feel more real in words than watching them on screen if the book is made into a movie.
ReplyDeleteI think the purpose of including the graphic description of Matt's struggle to survive was to really stress how brutal the crime was. If they had just said "Matt was attacked and found the next day", I don't think people would be as sympathetic and as passionate towards the incident. Like lindsey said, know one except the two attackers know exactly what happened that night, and if actors were to reenact what they thought had happened, the information could be totally wrong and misleading.
ReplyDeletelike everyone else said i think they didn't include an actor to play Matthew because there isn't enough knowledge on the subject of what happened before the incident. Just like in the Byrd case, they didn't show the body. on another note i think they made the decision not to get an actor to play Matthew so that people wouldnt pass any judgement based on appearance. Matthew's character was created by memories of him instead of a possibly inaccurate imitation.
ReplyDeleteTo answer question two, like some other people said, I think in this case words were more powerful than an actual picture. I also think having an actor play his unconscious body would not be the same as actual footage, it would only show people what it could have potentially looked like. Maybe it was out of respect too for the family because they didn't want someone recreating what happened to their son, or to have somebody get all into character, because of the seriousness of it. Also like most people said, nobody knows what happened, so the what the actors show as for what happened that night could potentially be very false.
ReplyDeleteI basically agree with most of the people who answered question two. I think that there are two main reasons why the didn't play the dying matt in the movie. On one hand was the description of how he was found so real and powerful that i think that these words create their own pictures in your mind. and the actors did not interview matt (how could they?) so they did not know how he was to be played, look and act like.
ReplyDeleteThe other reason, that goes hand in hand with the first one is that a picturing of matt would have made the movie way more brutal and maybe even disgusting to watch. It would be more like a criminal series instead of a drama/docu. I think also that if matt is not played other cities and towns can identify themselves better with this case in laramie, wyoming.
I agree with what most people have been saying about question one. In my opinion, having the interviewers be characters shows the widespread influence that Mathew's death. The interviewers talk about how they wanted to go do this, but at the same time were worried for their own safety. One of the interviewers was a gay man, and he seemed sort of afraid to go to a community where a hate crime had just been perpetrated against another gay male--understandably. Those fears show that the story and its influence extended outside of Laramie. It was not only a big deal for the town itself, but also for the entire country because it brought up feelings of hate and fear in so many people.
ReplyDeleteAnswering to question two, I believe portrayal of Matthew in the play, emphasizes and solidifies how horrific the crime actually was. Being tied to a fence and struggling for his life, just furthers the representation of how inhumane his beaters were. To choose a character to play Matthew would never have done him any justice. No amount of make-up or special effects could realistically display the conditions he ended up in and how much of a brutal beating he was given. It is better to leave it up to the numerous descriptions of the Laramie population and their shock that such a hate crime occurred in their town.
ReplyDeleteI'm answering the second question. I think that they didn't include a character playing Matthew because they wanted to respect the confidentiality and feelings of those he was closest to. Including a character to play him probably would've brought back immense amounts of sadness and make it hard to move on. However, the graphic details of his death were included, I think, to give people an idea of how brutal and pointless his death was. I believe that Matthew Shepard did not deserve to die, and definitely not in such a brutal way. By using this type of details, the directors are showing viewers the true story "under wraps". We can relate this to the Emmett Till case, and how Mrs. Till chose to leave her son's coffin open for the whole world to see what had been done to her fourteen-year-old son for such an action that was hardly a wrongdoing. Leaving the coffin open was meant to spark a change in the Civil Rights Movement, just like the graphic details in the Laramie Project were meant to spark a change in protesting for the rights of non-straight individuals.
ReplyDeleteI think that they used a graphic description of Matthews death instead of a character playing Matthew because it seems more realistic to have Matthew not be present for the description of his death. It makes the crime seem more realistic than having someone play the character, because Matthew is obviously not alive anymore. The descrition also allows for there to be specific details about his death that might not have been protrayed with a character. The severity of his death can also be described better with words, and the viewer can feel a better connection with this murder rather than looking at an actor playing Matthew.
ReplyDelete2) The producers of the play chose not to include Matthew as a character in the play because it makes the movie more realistic. If they had a Matthew character it also would have been difficult to accurately portray the abuse he received from the two men. As others have mentioned, nobody can be certain of what Matthew was thinking or feeling during his life since only the person can honestly know that. By just describing what he appeared to be thinking makes the play more credible. The graphic description of Matthew’s death is included to convince people that although the character was not included in their rendition, Matthew’s death was once of the most brutal and horrifying. Also, the play does not really include Matthew’s life before his death, it mostly shows the reactions of the people close to him, and so his character would be unnecessary.
ReplyDelete2) As people have said, I think that they described Matthew's death in detail in order to show how brutal the death was. I think that that background and detail gives the whole movie much more impact - I don't know if people have said this, but I really reacted to that description (I'm sort of a wimp when it comes to gore in general, but it was a really horrible crime). Also, I agree that it would not have made practical or logical sense to have Matthew played - I hadn't thought of the practical side of the trouble with staging a death before, but it makes sense. In addition, I think that it wouldn't fit in with the mood of the movie to have Matthew portrayed in it. All of the interviews with the people in the town are after Matthew's death, and about his death. It would be disjointed to have Matthew in the movie when everyone's interviews are about him being gone.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the first question, I would first agree with what everyone has said. Laramie is a small, close knit community and the interviewers wanted to protect the identity of some of the characters in using themselves as characters. In using themselves as characters, they were able to narrate parts of the story and also show an outsider's perspective on Matthew's death. In watching the film, we are able to create our opinions of the tragedy that hit Laramie, but by portraying the interviewers as characters, it shows us the impact of the tragedy on outsiders who were involved/witnesses to the crime. The interviewers provide us with their opinion of what happened and the impact Matthew's murder had on both the people of Laramie and outsiders.
ReplyDeleteThe play isn't exactly about the death of Matthew, but the reaction of the town to his death. The Theater company were able to play out the interviews and have the unedited interactions with the people of Laramie because they chose to have the play in that format, without their characters the play would seem to focused around the court case and it would seem like everyone was giving testimonies.
ReplyDelete2. I feel that the docu-drama is more powerful because they didn't graphically portray Matt's suffering at the hands of McKinney and Henderson. Words are often more powerful than any image, even though the saying goes that a picture is worth a thousand words. But anyone who has ever read a book, then saw the movie based on it, and was horribly disappointed by casting/scene portrayal/etc., would understand. By ultimately leaving it to the audience's imagination, the film provides the best possible depiction of what happened that mind: the vivid image that is conjured up in the theatre of our minds.
ReplyDeleteIt's also more realistic, as many other people have already said, since we don't actually have footage of what happened that night; we only have testimonies and confessions. And personally, I'm very VERY glad they didn't include that scene, because I think that much violence/gore would've just made me numb and unable to process the emotions/reactions of the other characters. The reaction of everyone around Matt and all these Laramie residents--this raw, human response--is really what the docu-drama is about. Matt's death was brutal, yes, but its wider significance was because of these responses, both in Laramie and around the country.
i dont no the answer to question one yet im still thinking about that..but question two i think they included all the crazy details because they want you to know just how baldly mathew was beaten. it was crazy! tieing him down to a fence and the beating him into a coma...yea thats pretty out thier what they had done to him... as for not putting a character ofhim in the film well i think they did that to make it more realistic.
ReplyDeleteThe graphic description makes people visualize the hatred and violence done to Matthew. The description makes people think about the crime and if it were them or there loved one. It makes people think about homosexuality and Laramie as a town. The play doesn't include a character playing Matthew because it is ilrevalant. Matthew is in a coma and dies therefore he cannot testify on his behalf.
ReplyDelete-CANDiCE
in response to question 2 i disagree with what others said, it is a very simple scene to reportay, maybe a little graphic, but at the same time how many images of jesus being tied to a fence are there, because that is what it was ment to represent. i believe they did not make him a character because if i were to write a documentary about peoples responses, i would want people to react to the actual event, what was in their mind, and by showing what i believed was to happen it would be my own portrayal of such an event, thus taking away from some of the peoples comments, because my portrayal could be completly different than someone elses, so by not including it, everyone can say how they feel and use their own description instead of having a set description of the event
ReplyDeleteI think that they included the description of what happened to remind the viewers of what the play is about, how it started. But I think that they chose not to include Matthew to also remind the viewers that this isn't ALL about Matthew, that's just what started it. This play is about us a human race and how we need to be understanding of each other or things like this will happen. If the play were to have Matthew in it, it might simply be a reenactment centered around Matthew. Instead, the play turned out to be about how Matthew has helped us all recognize the hatred and unwillingness to accept others. True, the play is because of what happened to Matthew, but that's not all that it's about.
ReplyDelete