I have opinions on this.

For an example of entertaining theatre that had absolutely no truth to it, I really have to go with last spring's production of Vampire Cowboy Trilogy. As stage manager, this was actually the only show I've worked on that I enjoyed almost every single night--it was a joy for everyone involved, and it seemed to be a joy for the audience, as well. Director Michael Mentz proposed the play with this in mind--"I want to direct a play that doesn't make me hate myself." Honestly, I really think it succeeded in this regard. I have high opinions of all three scenes and the interludes. However, after a few weeks of rehearsal, it really did call to me that, honestly, the show was pretty meaningless. Personally, even if a show is pure comedy, there has to be some form of truth or honesty or relevance for the thing to become worthwhile, and I think Vampire Cowboy Trilogy actually showed itself up with the incredible second act. "The Adventures of Captain Justice and Liberty Lady" was my favorite segment by a mile because it actually brings up some concerns about modern superhero storytelling (i.e., that everything is getting darker, less campy, and more violent because that is what audiences want to see). It's not a particularly profound theme, but there is some substance there, and it really makes that piece stand out so much more than the other two.

Plays that convince me of something "true," however, seem to be less common. The naturalistic-ish pieces that I've seen performed here (August: Osage County, Clybourne Park, Stick Fly) still left me keenly aware that I was watching was theatre. I supposed I'll never achieve that suspended disbelief for a long time (although I do actually get that sometimes with wrestling), but it's certainly the case that August: Osage County and Clybourne Park left me with a feeling of truth. For August, the family dynamics and mannerisms are so real, almost everyone who has seen it remarked that it was like a family reunion. The fact that it included our most ambitious and naturalistic set also helped in that regard. Clybourne Park really felt that it had something to say about race relations, and it was a statement that is not heard very often--that people are too PC and afraid to have the argument. In contrast (and here's where I may be outing myself as some kind of close-minded or bad person), but I didn't see that same level of truthfulness out of Stick Fly because, to me, I have a hard time imagining that it is more difficult to grow up rich and black than to grow up poor and white, which seemed to be an implication of the script. I know I'm reading into that too much--what I mean to say is, as a salty, classist person from a working-class family, it is hard for me to listen to complaints from rich people about growing up rich. That doesn't mean that the arguments and complaints aren't valid, because I know that everyone has their difficulties and money can't solve every issue. However, I can't help but feel some of the monologues started with "Here's what sucks about being rich." So, ultimately, the question of what rings as truthful is answered on an entirely individual basis. I have no doubt that an upper-class black family would find Stick Fly to be incredibly truthful.

There is certainly a difference between naturalist/documentary theatre and "truthful" theatre. Especially if a production is trying to tell an unstated or challenging truth, the ideal way to do so, in my opinion, is with a very stylized slant. The style serves the function, after all. I have no doubt that I would find Next to Normal (with all of its impromptu singing, throwaway jokes, and melodrama) much more truthful than any given documentary theatre about manic-depression. In my opinion, every production should be aiming for some element of truth, and the stronger, the better, but every production certainly should not have to be naturalistic or verbatim.