I'm Proud of You by Tim Madigan adapted for stage by Tim Madigan and Harry Parker - 3m, 1w
Tells the story of Tim Madigan's friendship with Fred Rogers, the creator of "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood." The play is based on Madigan's memoir and explores the profound impact Rogers had on Madigan's life during a difficult period. It includes themes of friendship, support, and the transformative power of kindness.
Labels: adaptation, comedy, drama
posted by Jim Vogel at 4:05 PM
8 Comments:
I have heard of Mr. Rogers, but don't believe I ever saw his show. It was a pleasure to read a script where the major concern was how to help others and to be available for those in need. I've become tired of the scripts where the main concern is how to advance oneself with no concern for others. It could work as a family show. Keep it in the mix
I started out liking the script very much. It has a good beginning and drew me in. However, as it progressed I couldn't help feeling that it was too self indulgent on the part of Mr. Madigan and was really far more about him than Fred Rogers. It reminded me of the friend who constantly needs to "name drop" to impress. Madigan was clearly very proud of his friendship with Rogers.
But Madigan had a perpetual need to hear the "I'm proud of you" of the title from Mr. Rogers, and Fred Rogers was always ready to provide it. He was clearly a generous man. However, in this extended friendship it seemed that Madigan took far more than he gave back to Mr. Rogers. His articles about Fred Roders made him a more successful writer because Rogers was so willing to give of himself and take the time that Madigan needed with him. But Madigan had a lot of demons to deal with and he seemed to use Mr. Rogers more as a therapist than an actual friend. Yes, Fred shared his childhood experiences as "Fat Fred" but only to support Madigan as he dealt with his childhood demons. By the time Madigan learned that Fred was dying there was no opportunity for Madigan to reciprocate.
I think audiences would find the play charming because it does provide some insight into Fred Rogers (when else would we hear Mr. Rogers use the word "shit?"). But it is a play that is really only about Tim Madigan and his relationships with his father and his brother. But the resolution of those relationships felt trite, overly pat and unrealistic. I found the dialogue overall to be quite saccharine and after a while I wanted less "sweet" talk that sounds like platitudes and something more gritty and genuine. Fred Rogers' mission was to teach kids to be kind and show love to everyone, and to truly "see" other people. But, sadly, I don't think Madigan learned the lesson by being kind and loving and truly "seeing" Rogers in return. He only seemed to see him as the person who would say "I'm proud of you" to him. Did he ever say it back?
I'm not opposed to keeping it in the mix, because it does have a charm and the Fred Rogers character could be a draw. However, I'm undecided as to whether it fits the definition of a family show simply because it includes Mr. Rogers as a character. I can't help wondering, if the play used someone other than Mr. Rogers as the "therapist" for Mr. Madigan, would we even think of it as a potential "family" show?
P.S. One other comment I had in my notes was this, If the movie "Saving Mr. Banks" demonstrated that Mary Poppins really showed up to salvage Jane and Michael's dad, then the title of this play, "I'm proud of you," should really be that it's what Mr. Madigan needed to hear from his own father. However, at the end of the scene when he learned about his father's childhood it ended with his dad saying "Tim, may God bless you." And Tim saying "It was the benediction I had waited all my life to receive." The father should have said, "I've always been proud of you. I see that as a lost opportunity to give deeper meaning to the title of the play.
Reading the play two things stood out - it made me cry, which isn't a given when just reading a text vs. seeing it. It has a very overtly Christian message - which honestly gave me pause. But it is actually fairly rare that we even read a piece so specifically portraying American people of faith as kind. I don't see this as belonging in the family slot so it would need to be in the season as a contemporary one. This story is a look at once person's relationship with Mr. Rogers, and because I grew up with Mr. Rogers (and 3 of those childhood years in Pittsburgh, no less), I found his incredible kindness and care for others celebrated in this play in a really touching way. I remember him looking right at the camera and talking to me. My worries are for staging it - as it could easily be directed as one note and sickeningly sweet and the director chosen will have to really push against that with pacing, and staging. I think it could be really beautiful, and slow, and a unique offering in a season as long as it stands out from the other choices. So I would leave it in as a possibility.
Fred Rogers stood for kindness and respect. That's something we don't see much of anymore. Yes, this play takes a religious tone that some people may turn their noses up to. But it was sincere and that's what he was all about. It wasn't hypocritical or forced. He didn't talk about religion in his shows with the children but rather he truly practiced it with his actions. This is a play for all ages - not just children.
After I read it in initial reads I never slated it specifically as a family slot show, just like the Mr Rogers movie from a few years ago wasn't really a family movie. And just like the movie this play is really more about the other character than Mr Rogers - I think the title of the book kind of gives that away "I’m Proud of You, My Friendship with Fred Rogers". I didn't like the story as well as the movie's story but I think it is worth considering.
I think there is some name recognition here that would help this be a draw. It is very sincere and wholesome. The religious themes are very sincere and dealt with respect, which I think is rare in contemporary theatre. It upends current stereotypes of modern American Christianity, which I think is interesting. It hit on some things that touched and moved me personally. That being said, I think it would be hard to stage. The adaptation from memoir to playscript isn't entirely successful. It reads like a book and I can't imagine having some of these lines in my mouth as an actor - it is awkward dialogue and too much direct address/narration. Too much "tell" not enough "show" - a good director could make it work and make it more engaging as a play, but it does have flaws as a script. I think it is worth leaving in the mix for right now, but would need to be carefully considered.
I have a great love for Mr. Rogers, but I did not like this script. Felt very nostalgic and preachy.
Post a Comment
<< Home