The Superheroine Monologues
Apr. 19th, 2009 11:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xiphiasLis and I saw The Superheroine Monologues at The Boston Playwrights' Theatre today. (Downtown, near BU.)
It's a sort of parody of The Vagina Monologues, I suspect, though, having never seen The Vagina Monologues, I can't be sure. All I can do is take it on its own merits as an experimental play. And, as such, it works. Mostly.
It's a series of eight scenes, each set in a different decade, each with a different superheroine telling her story. Each decade having a different way that the culture interacts with women -- and specifically, strong women, such as superheroines. And I felt that about four of the scenes really worked. And the other four? Well, none were bad, but they weren't up to the others.
It starts with a scene set on Paradise Island in 1941, with Princess Diana finding Steve Trevor, and follows the Wonder Woman origin story, more-or-less, with a few . . . digressions. But, although it's played for laughs, the core of it is what we recognize, and with an emotional sense that is what I'd expect. And I felt it worked.
The next scene, with Lois Lane in the mid-Fifties, was decent, but not AS good. The Fifties, of course, were an era where the culture tried to present a very narrow view of women's roles, and is also an era in which some of the most ridiculous Lois Lane stories were written -- the era of giant gorillas, and all that. We're presented with a story of a woman who is TRYING to narrow her horizons, a woman who is, herself, a powerful, world-beater go-getter, but who is convinced that she doesn't want to be, and that she WANTS to be a simple housewife. (Married to Superman, of course -- no matter how much she tries to shrink her personality, she DOES have standards.)
I felt it was well done, but, to me, it didn't engage me as much as some of the others.
For the Sixties, we have Catwoman. Now, of course, Catwoman has, in the comics and other media, at LEAST three completely divergent origin stories (bored, rich playgirl who steals for fun, dominatrix hooker who steals to survive, to protect other street people, and for revenge on men, and whatever the heck the origin was in the movie), and this sketch doesn't reference ANY of them, and makes up its own. Which is fine, of course, but the story they created didn't work for me. I was able to get into a bit as the sketch went on, but the disjointed story of a woman losing touch with reality (or, perhaps, gaining touch with a different reality) through drugs and sex . . . it felt like they could have done more with the character.
Batgirl is set in the Seventies, but without any real connection to the zeitgeist of the decade, or any real connection to anything significant about the character. To me, this was the weakest section of the whole thing. The story they had her tell wasn't that interesting, the character they gave her wasn't that interesting, the sketch wasn't that interesting.
As Lis and I were discussing the play afterward, she felt that they should have swapped Catwoman and Batgirl. As Lis put it, in the Batgirl dynamic, Batman tries to exert patriarchal control over her, as he does over Robin, but she resists and is a free agent. Even her own father, who, as Commissioner Gordon, exerts some measure of control over Batman, can't exert control over her. Lis felt that that dynamic, of a woman seeing a world different than that of the older men around her, working WITH those men, but not FOR them, is a dynamic which could fit with some of the shifting power dynamics in the Sixties.
And the story of a woman who has decided that she WON'T sacrifice herself for others, that she DESERVES pretty things and good things for HERSELF, the story of Catwoman, fits better with the Seventies.
Anyway, the Eighties brings us an eighteen-year-old high school student Supergirl. Super-Valley-Girl, more or less. And with this piece, I felt that the play got itself back on track.
And then we get Storm, for the Nineties, and that and the next one are the strongest pieces in the play. Storm, discussing what it's like to be a strong Black woman, and how threatened Charles Xavier feels by her, and how he, unknowingly, cuts her down. And her relationship with Black Panther. And what it's like to go from "worshiped as a goddess" to "glorified gym teacher in a boarding school in Westchester, New York." That may have been the highlight of the play, the strongest piece, and the one that we most wanted our friends to see and get their reactions.
Or the highlight might have been the next, and should-have-been-final piece. Of Jean Grey/Phoenix/Dark Phoenix. And what it's like to actually have ultimate power. And the FREEDOM of being able to destroy without consequence, to kill entire worlds. And why you would give it up. What would drive you to it . . . and drive you away from it.
And then, they finish the piece with a depressing and entirely unneccessary coda bookending it with an aged Wonder Woman who DID manage to retire and live a normal life, only to have that life destroyed by nosy journalists. Which gives them an excuse to bring all the other heroines out to talk to her, but I feel that the final piece is not really worth it.
Final score? Batting .500, or maybe a bit better, since the Lois Lane piece wasn't bad, just not as engrossing as some of the other bits. Re-writing the Catwoman and Batgirl pieces, possibly on the opposite order, and cutting the downer ending would strengthen it.
That said, it is nonetheless a lot of fun, and worth seeing as it is. It's $25 a ticket, not bad for live theater. (Plus $2 to the ticket broker, so it's actually $27.)
It could be better, but I recommend it even as is.
It's a sort of parody of The Vagina Monologues, I suspect, though, having never seen The Vagina Monologues, I can't be sure. All I can do is take it on its own merits as an experimental play. And, as such, it works. Mostly.
It's a series of eight scenes, each set in a different decade, each with a different superheroine telling her story. Each decade having a different way that the culture interacts with women -- and specifically, strong women, such as superheroines. And I felt that about four of the scenes really worked. And the other four? Well, none were bad, but they weren't up to the others.
It starts with a scene set on Paradise Island in 1941, with Princess Diana finding Steve Trevor, and follows the Wonder Woman origin story, more-or-less, with a few . . . digressions. But, although it's played for laughs, the core of it is what we recognize, and with an emotional sense that is what I'd expect. And I felt it worked.
The next scene, with Lois Lane in the mid-Fifties, was decent, but not AS good. The Fifties, of course, were an era where the culture tried to present a very narrow view of women's roles, and is also an era in which some of the most ridiculous Lois Lane stories were written -- the era of giant gorillas, and all that. We're presented with a story of a woman who is TRYING to narrow her horizons, a woman who is, herself, a powerful, world-beater go-getter, but who is convinced that she doesn't want to be, and that she WANTS to be a simple housewife. (Married to Superman, of course -- no matter how much she tries to shrink her personality, she DOES have standards.)
I felt it was well done, but, to me, it didn't engage me as much as some of the others.
For the Sixties, we have Catwoman. Now, of course, Catwoman has, in the comics and other media, at LEAST three completely divergent origin stories (bored, rich playgirl who steals for fun, dominatrix hooker who steals to survive, to protect other street people, and for revenge on men, and whatever the heck the origin was in the movie), and this sketch doesn't reference ANY of them, and makes up its own. Which is fine, of course, but the story they created didn't work for me. I was able to get into a bit as the sketch went on, but the disjointed story of a woman losing touch with reality (or, perhaps, gaining touch with a different reality) through drugs and sex . . . it felt like they could have done more with the character.
Batgirl is set in the Seventies, but without any real connection to the zeitgeist of the decade, or any real connection to anything significant about the character. To me, this was the weakest section of the whole thing. The story they had her tell wasn't that interesting, the character they gave her wasn't that interesting, the sketch wasn't that interesting.
As Lis and I were discussing the play afterward, she felt that they should have swapped Catwoman and Batgirl. As Lis put it, in the Batgirl dynamic, Batman tries to exert patriarchal control over her, as he does over Robin, but she resists and is a free agent. Even her own father, who, as Commissioner Gordon, exerts some measure of control over Batman, can't exert control over her. Lis felt that that dynamic, of a woman seeing a world different than that of the older men around her, working WITH those men, but not FOR them, is a dynamic which could fit with some of the shifting power dynamics in the Sixties.
And the story of a woman who has decided that she WON'T sacrifice herself for others, that she DESERVES pretty things and good things for HERSELF, the story of Catwoman, fits better with the Seventies.
Anyway, the Eighties brings us an eighteen-year-old high school student Supergirl. Super-Valley-Girl, more or less. And with this piece, I felt that the play got itself back on track.
And then we get Storm, for the Nineties, and that and the next one are the strongest pieces in the play. Storm, discussing what it's like to be a strong Black woman, and how threatened Charles Xavier feels by her, and how he, unknowingly, cuts her down. And her relationship with Black Panther. And what it's like to go from "worshiped as a goddess" to "glorified gym teacher in a boarding school in Westchester, New York." That may have been the highlight of the play, the strongest piece, and the one that we most wanted our friends to see and get their reactions.
Or the highlight might have been the next, and should-have-been-final piece. Of Jean Grey/Phoenix/Dark Phoenix. And what it's like to actually have ultimate power. And the FREEDOM of being able to destroy without consequence, to kill entire worlds. And why you would give it up. What would drive you to it . . . and drive you away from it.
And then, they finish the piece with a depressing and entirely unneccessary coda bookending it with an aged Wonder Woman who DID manage to retire and live a normal life, only to have that life destroyed by nosy journalists. Which gives them an excuse to bring all the other heroines out to talk to her, but I feel that the final piece is not really worth it.
Final score? Batting .500, or maybe a bit better, since the Lois Lane piece wasn't bad, just not as engrossing as some of the other bits. Re-writing the Catwoman and Batgirl pieces, possibly on the opposite order, and cutting the downer ending would strengthen it.
That said, it is nonetheless a lot of fun, and worth seeing as it is. It's $25 a ticket, not bad for live theater. (Plus $2 to the ticket broker, so it's actually $27.)
It could be better, but I recommend it even as is.