CHUD.com Community › Forums › ARTS & LITERATURE › Books and Magazines › Martin McDonagh
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Martin McDonagh

post #1 of 38
Thread Starter 
Since In Bruges seems to be getting a lot of people's attention, and the tone threw people off, I thought I'd start a discussion thread for the dude's plays.

If you're interested in getting into his work, start with The Pillowman, which is probably his finest. Read it, then kick yourself you missed the production with Crudup and Goldblum. Hope for a movie, but wonder how it's ever going to be done.

After Pillowman, I'd recommend either The Lieutenant of Inishmore or The Beauty Queen of Leenane. Both are part of two separate trilogies, but function well as individual plays, too.
post #2 of 38
The Lieutenant if Inishmore is being performed here this summer. Guess I will be checking it out
post #3 of 38
I saw Beauty Queen Of Lenan on its original run on broadway. It remains one of my theater highlights along with see Alan Cummings in Cababret
post #4 of 38
I just picked up The Pillowman and I was blown away at how amazing it was. It flat out kicked me in my ass. I think I'm gonna have to go back and read it again.
post #5 of 38
The Pillowman is the worst.
post #6 of 38
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
The Pillowman is the worst.
Discuss.
post #7 of 38
The Pillowman is a must read. I pass it off to everyone I know.

I thought In Bruges was flawless, but maybe it's because I knew what I was getting into.
post #8 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu View Post
Discuss.
It's really really bad.
post #9 of 38
Thread Starter 
Intriguing. Would you mind explaining your thesis a bit further, Mr. Ripoll?
post #10 of 38
It's the opposite of really really good.
post #11 of 38
It's fucking amazing.
post #12 of 38
Seconded.
post #13 of 38
In the last few days I've read five McDonagh plays. I will try to write a bit about each without spoiling much.

The Beauty Queen of Leenane is a drama, about a woman and her mother who live together and hate each other, that turns very violent towards the end. It hints at the characters of the town which show up in the next two plays, and it establishes the idea that you can never ever trust what a McDonagh character says about what happened offstage. This is useful information, but all too easy to forget.

Next is A Skull in Connemara, which turns up the violence but takes it less seriously and is more of a comedy in general, and is to my mind the funniest and most In Bruges-like of the plays. A man, hired by the church to dig up bones to clear space for more graves, ends up being assigned the grave of his wife, who died under questionable circumstances and is the subject of much hushed, mean-spirited gossip around the town. Don't know how that could be so funny? That's the magic of McDonagh.

To complete the Leenane trilogy we have The Lonesome West, about two feuding brothers in the aftermath of their father's "accidental" shotgun-to-the-face death. It introduces a major character we've only heard about in the previous plays, and does a great job wrapping up the themes and subplots of the trilogy. I'd definitely recommend these three together if you read any one of them. (You can get all three in one book for ten bucks at Amazon. And if nothing else, you wanna read a lot because the Irishness takes a while to get used to.)

Next I read The Lieutenant of Inishmore (and out of order I was, ya fecking feck, but that's the order I read 'em). A cat - who happens to be the pet and "best friend" of an absolute beast of an Irish rebel - dies, and this rebel comes to town looking for vengeance. This is by far the most over-the-top violent and crazy of McDonagh's work, and consequently it was my least favorite. There's just less room for humor and heart when people and animals are getting blown up, chopped up, etc. every few pages, and the plot is falling over itself to make that happen. I have to admit I'm verrry curious about how this was pulled off on the actual stage, though.

The Cripple of Inishmaan was the last I read, and luckily so, because it was my favorite of the plays (nearly up there with The Pillowman, IMO) and the only one that could be described as anything close to "heartwarming." A crippled, orphaned boy gets a glimmer of hope in his awful life when a film crew comes to a neighboring island looking for native actors and extras. He fights against his health and against stifling small-town attitudes to get out there and take his chances for fame. That plot could make a bad tv movie or a great South Park episode, but this play is really nothing like either of those possibilities.
post #14 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
It's the opposite of really really good.
Patrick, I'm not trying to claim I'm an expert...however...

I have an MFA in creative writing with a concentration in playwriting. I've written my fair share of plays and a couple have even been produced in Boston.

I love the Pillowman and think it's one of the best plays I've ever read. Many of my friends (most of whom went to grad school for theatre, writing, or a combination of the two) agree, as did many of my professors.

So, try to understand why dropping into a thread and saying that a play, which many hold in high regard, as "the opposite of really really good" can come off as condescending and unnecessary. Unless you can back up your thesis with some, you know, critical theory you're just jerking yourself off.

Besides, words like “good” and “bad” and ‘fucking amazing,” etc, don’t really bring much into a discussion of a play, or any work of art for that matter. If you don’t think it’s good, why do you think others find it good, and why do you find it bad? If you think it’s good, why do you think it’s good? The why is where the discussion lives. Everything else is just invisible pull quotes on a dust jacket nobody will ever read.
post #15 of 38
Patrick is just flat out wrong. Objectively wrong. Pillowman is genius.
post #16 of 38
Parker,

Patrick was just a-funnin' ye. Well, he was funnin' Rath, which is more fun. Anyway, let us actually talk about these plays which are great. I have a question for you and Rath and everyone:

What is it about The Pillowman that makes it so great? I agree that it is, and I know it's more than being funny and scary. I admit that most of my love comes from the immediately compelling nature of the dialogue and the stories within the play. I'm just having a hard time putting into words my thoughts on what the meaning is when it comes to the play's take on art/storytelling, which seems to be the overarching theme. It makes me think about fables, how they're violent but somehow 'better' and more archetypal than most modern stories. Certainly Katurian's pieces grabbed my attention on a basic level every time, even though I knew about the murders that should have been tainting their effect. It feels like the play is saying that violence in fiction is not harmless and comes at a price, and yet this a violent play so what does that mean and you know there's so much to think about and just how much of a good guy is Katurian etc. etc.? It's not about anything but the stories' existence and apparently that's not always a good thing, but how and why? I could go on forever but you know.
post #17 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
It's the opposite of really really good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post
Patrick, I'm not trying to claim I'm an expert...however...

I have an MFA in creative writing with a concentration in playwriting. I've written my fair share of plays and a couple have even been produced in Boston.
I'm not sure which of these I hate more.
post #18 of 38
Whatever, it's hard to tell when these young-uns are kidding or serious. With their damn cell phones and text messaging and irony and all.

As for the play, the key theme is storytelling in general. Do artists have a moral responsibility to society? Is the Matrix to blame for Columbine? I mean, that's a clunky analogy, but putting the play in that context sheds some light on it I think.

It's also about our need to tell stories, to create art, to express ourselves. Where does that comes from psychologically...and how it makes us more human. Every character in the play tells stories. Even the cops. And in all of their stories, something revealing, something personal about themselves, is revealed. It's also about how we often delude ourselves with stories to escape from harsh reality.
post #19 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyarz View Post
I'm not sure which of these I hate more.
Oh, hate me more please!
post #20 of 38
OK. I have a BA in Hatin' from Haters University. I hate your reply more.
post #21 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post
As for the play, the key theme is storytelling in general. Do artists have a moral responsibility to society? Is the Matrix to blame for Columbine? I mean, that's a clunky analogy, but putting the play in that context sheds some light on it I think.
Not that this is something you haven't thought of, but it really seems like more than that. It seems like just the existence of the stories is the issue. Even if no one saw The Matrix, or if they did and committed no violence, would creating that pain in the fictional world somehow add to the total suffering in the universe? (It's almost like Funny Games in that way, that the characters have real pain even if they aren't real.) Thinking up a crime and writing it down is not as bad as doing it, but it's still worse than never having thought of it at all, maybe.
post #22 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyarz View Post
OK. I have a BA in Hatin' from Haters University. I hate your reply more.
I have a PhD in I Give A Fuck from You're Not As Funny As You Think You Are Community College.

Seriously though, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the play. Or did you just come in here to piss in peoples lemonade and leave? Like usual.
post #23 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Kimbell View Post
Not that this is something you haven't thought of, but it really seems like more than that. It seems like just the existence of the stories is the issue. Even if no one saw The Matrix, or if they did and committed no violence, would creating that pain in the fictional world somehow add to the total suffering in the universe? (It's almost like Funny Games in that way, that the characters have real pain even if they aren't real.) Thinking up a crime and writing it down is not as bad as doing it, but it's still worse than never having thought of it at all, maybe.
The Matrix thing was an admittedly weak analogy, and you're right...it is "more than that." The best part about the play is that it doesn't really have an answer on our relationship with how we perceive reality and how we view reality through fantasy. As Katurian says about one of his own stories, "it's a puzzle without a solution." He also says that his stories don't mean anything, but obviously everyone around him applies meaning to it. His brother takes them literally. The cops treat them almost like confessions, obviously thinking Katurian is guilty. And of course although he denies it, Katurian has written the stories for a reason. It's just not the reason everyone thinks it is.
post #24 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post
I have a PhD in I Give A Fuck from You're Not As Funny As You Think You Are Community College.

Seriously though, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the play. Or did you just come in here to piss in peoples lemonade and leave? Like usual.
What a generous invitation to participate in the discussion -- you're so kind!

But to explain myself: it's ridiculous to introduce your degree and schooling as a reason why someone should listen to what you're saying. With all of that schoolin', I'd hope you know that it's the argument -- not that piece of paper hanging on your wall -- that is important, not the degree.

And thus, that's why I called you out on your bullshit introduction to your post. Or no, I just like picking on random people. Yeah, that's it.
post #25 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyarz View Post
What a generous invitation to participate in the discussion -- you're so kind!

But to explain myself: it's ridiculous to introduce your degree and schooling as a reason why someone should listen to what you're saying. With all of that schoolin', I'd hope you know that it's the argument -- not that piece of paper hanging on your wall -- that is important, not the degree.
Trust me, I'm the first to tell anyone that degrees (especially MFA degrees) aren't necessary, certainly not to articulate a good argument. Bush has degrees from Harvard and Yale and that means absolutely nothing. Degrees are just another consumer product at this point, anyway. I didn't try to insinuate that Patrick should change his mind about the play because I went to school and therefore know better.

I only meant to provide quick hand background info about my familiarity with the subject After extensively studying it, hearing someone stick an easy "good" or "bad" label on something as complicated and culturally significant as the Pillowman is intellectually vacant.

In one of my fiction workshops, the professor would assign us to read a new short story every week. And each week, someone would kick the discussion off with, "I really didn't like this story," and then proceed to rip it apart without using much critical analysis, trying to prove their superiority to the content somehow. Finally, one week, after another "I didn't like it" intro, the professor stood up and said, "Who gives a shit if you liked it or not? What can you learn form it?"

Also, in all seriousness, I respect your opinion and would like to hear your thoughts on the play.
post #26 of 38
Thread Starter 
It's been a while since I read Pillowman, so I'm rusty, but my impression of it was that it was similar to what's been said -- that it's a story about why we tell stories. With kiddie murder.
post #27 of 38
So, speaking of which. The Pillowman is opening in a few weeks here. With local actors. And i'm wondering if it would translate well? The actors are very good ones, but is there anything in the material that might suffer from being translated? I have the same concern with Glengarry Glenn Ross, which opened a few months ago, again with very good actors, but there's something about seeing or reading a play translated that unsettles me.
post #28 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyarz View Post
Or no, I just like picking on random people. Yeah, that's it.
Is this UPLIFT?!
post #29 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tati View Post
So, speaking of which. The Pillowman is opening in a few weeks here. With local actors. And i'm wondering if it would translate well? The actors are very good ones, but is there anything in the material that might suffer from being translated? I have the same concern with Glengarry Glenn Ross, which opened a few months ago, again with very good actors, but there's something about seeing or reading a play translated that unsettles me.
IMO, it'd be okay. The Pillowman is not set in a specific place or time. The substories are very old-fashioned and archetypal and would strike a chord regardless of the wording, and the interrogation scenes have some complicated, circuitous dialogue, but a good translator could probably get their point across. Of course some of the play will be lost in translation, but definitely not as much as with GGR or any of McDonagh's other plays.

Of course, I don't really know what I'm talking about. Anyone else have an opinion on this?
post #30 of 38
Unlike McDonagh's other plays, I can Pillowman translating very very well. But mostly, you should just see it because it's The Pillowman, and even a production that fails will still be interesting.
post #31 of 38
So, has anyone heard anything about the third part of the Aran Trilogy, The Banshees of Inisheer? Never been done anywhere, maybe not even written. But the final word on that whole thing.
post #32 of 38
Just saw The Pillowman performed here on campus. My first time seeing it/reading it/hearing it etc.

It literally just ended five minutes ago so I don't really have a well-written response yet but I will say this:

Fucking wow.

More at 11 (not literally you see, it's a news joke, aw fuck it).
post #33 of 38
I'm super jealous, 'Speare.
post #34 of 38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XUz6G6nrVw

I stumbled upon this YouTubed Charlie Rose show where he interviews McDonagh, back when Lonesome West was on Broadway. (It's three interviews and Martin is the middle one, so skip to 19:50.)

edit: and here's one with Crudup, on The Pillowman
post #35 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakespeare View Post
Just saw The Pillowman performed here on campus. My first time seeing it/reading it/hearing it etc.

It literally just ended five minutes ago so I don't really have a well-written response yet but I will say this:

Fucking wow.

More at 11 (not literally you see, it's a news joke, aw fuck it).
Saw this bitch performed on Broadway, starring Billy Crudup, Jeff Goldblum, and Zeljko Ivanek. Twice. No exaggeration, it was the best thing ever.
post #36 of 38
Thread Starter 
For those who care, McDonagh's new play, "A Beheading in Spokane" is opening on Broadway soon. And which fabulous actors will be performing McDonagh's dialogue in the grand tradition of Fiennes, Goldblum, Crudup, and Gleeson?

Ms. Zoe Kazan!
Mr. Anthony Mackie!
Mr. Samuel "Sam" Rockwell! (in his Broadway debut)
and
Mister!
Christopher!
Walken!

So. Excited.
post #37 of 38
I have not heard good things. Of course that was from theatre snobs. It also had an iffy Times review.
post #38 of 38
This thread reminded me why I don't miss Ripoll at all.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Books and Magazines
CHUD.com Community › Forums › ARTS & LITERATURE › Books and Magazines › Martin McDonagh