Lisa Loomer is a prize-winning playwright whose plays include Distracted (OSF, 2007), Living Out and The Waiting Room. Roe is an American Revolutions commission. Here Loomer talks with Media and Communications Manager Amy Richard about the complexities of writing about the polarizing subject of abortion and choice.
Amy Richard: American Revolutions asks playwrights to select a significant event in American history. How did you land on this one?
Lisa Loomer: Fate. I was taking a walk with my husband and I picked up a message that Bill wanted to talk to me about an American Revolutions commission. I said to my husband, “How much you wanna bet they want to talk about Roe v. Wade?” It turned out that Bill wondered if I might have interest. Initially, though, I was not interested in doing a play about a case or a courtroom drama. I take the issues very seriously, and I write about very serious issues, but my plays often have an unusual theatrical style. I was not going to write a straight drama. But then when I did the research—and it’s a little hard to talk about, because I don’t want to give away Norma’s story, Norma McCorvey, who was Roe—but her story, her real story was so amazing. It was so inherently theatrical, so . . . bent . . . that following this fascinating character allowed me to tell the story from a unique point of view.
AR: And without giving too much away, the way it was bent then allowed you to show the vastly different perspectives around Roe v. Wade?
LL: Yes, right, which is certainly something that I’m always interested in. It gave me all the perspectives in one play. The true story gave it to me. I didn’t have to manipulate it.
AR: What was your research process?
LL: I love research. I read Sarah Weddington’s book and Norma’s two books and everyone else’s books about Roe v. Wade. I did a lot of research on the net. I did a residency at University of Texas (UT) in Austin and went to classes on feminism and spoke to young feminists. I read books on feminism, watched documentaries, and I went to churches. I spoke to people on both “sides.”
AR: Tell me more about the residency.
LL: Sarah Weddington, the lawyer who argued Roe v. Wade, studied at UT and also taught there. Scholars talk about three waves of feminism. Sarah Weddington was part of the second wave, as were Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem. The third wave is more about women of color. When I went to UT, I was so moved by the young feminists I met. One young African-American woman told me frankly, “I probably wouldn’t see a play if it was all white women, middle-class, second-wave feminists.” I so much wanted those young women to go, to feel a part of the play, to feel invited, to relate. So I created a character that would be closer totem, to their experience, in the present.
AR: Yes, your play moves fluidly through the years. Why cover so many years?
LL: Roe v. Wade was argued in the early ’70s, and it’s still being argued today. Sarah Weddington was 26 when she went before the Supreme Court; Norma McCorvey was close to her in age. They started out lawyer and plaintiff on the same side. But their divergent journeys reflect the larger cultural divide, so it was important to me to not stop at 1973, but to stay with them.
AR: That big cultural divide, do you see that changing?
LL: I don’t think the two sides will ever agree because their response to the issue comes from such different life perspectives. Some people see Roe v. Wade as about the law, about choice. For others, it is about religion, morality. For Norma McCorvey, it was about her.
AR: How do you move from research to writing?
LL: When I sit down to write a first draft, I sort of just let it come through. The characters start talking. The story emerges. Then I will look at what I have and see what it, the play, wants to be. Once I know what it’s really about, I’ll go back and reread the research that is most relevant. Then I’ll go on to a second draft.
AR: What was it really about?
LL: It’s about an issue that has sparked—or reflected—a huge cultural divide. It’s about how hard it is for us, as Americans, to talk to each other. Some people see the issue as abortion, others see the issue as being about choice, about allowing people to make up their own minds.
AR: And your commitment to showing both sides, what was your thinking on that as you wrote?
LL: I see theatre as people sitting together in the dark to look at the human condition. Perhaps to consider a question together. If we are really considering the questions that are evoked by Roe v. Wade, don’t we have to hear from both sides? I don’t kid myself that a play will change minds. It happens, but very rarely. But if we can open our minds enough to even consider a position that is different from the one we brought into the theatre—that is the beginning of compassion. Compassion and curiosity are, I think, great things to leave the theatre with. If we go to the theatre just to encounter what we already believe, what’s the point, really?
AR: Did you find your attitudes and perspectives changing as you did your research?
LL: For one thing, I began to think about “choice” in broader terms. How the act of making a choice is so much a part of what it means to be a human being.
AR: In spite of the serious issues addressed, you have put quite a bit of humor in this play.
LL: There are a lot of “serious” or highly dramatic scenes. But something in me does always seem to find what is funny about people. I guess I just don’t have a “straight” or “serious” approach, there’s always something a little wacky in my plays. I don’t think it’s even intentional. My way of seeing may just be a bit skewed. I have found, though, that humor does open people up. People start laughing, and then they are more open to considering the more serious issues of the play. Laughter opens our minds and maybe even our hearts.
AR: What are your thoughts on staging this in an election year?
LL: First of all, people will be fighting over the issue in the election year, and there is a scene in the play that addresses that. There’s a media circus, and certainly we will have seen a media circus if we have turned on the news earlier in the day. So that resonates, and the way people use this issue for political ends will be extremely resonant in an election year. I’m also aware that it’s all but a fait accompli that we will have a woman running, and there are things that Sarah Weddington goes through on her journey in this play that I think—certainly if Hillary Clinton is running—we’ll have Hillary in mind. There’s this speech that Sarah has to the press when they’re all about “Tell us about your hair,” and “Tell us about your divorce,” and “How do you feel about your own . . . ?” It becomes absurd. And I think that will resonate as we see the kinds of questions that Hillary Clinton will be asked. It’s exciting to be working on a play that illuminates this issue at this particular time, and I hope the play will draw attention to the importance of the topic. On the other hand, I suspect the issue will continue to be argued long after the election.
AR: Bill Rauch is directing your play. What’s your history with him?
LL: You know, we do have a history. I think we share a desire to humanize all sides of the question, and a proclivity to not want to demonize, and a lot of aesthetic proclivities as well. And we have a bit of a shorthand because we have worked together before [at Cornerstone Theater Company and the Mark Taper Forum], and we’re friends. So even though we’ve just started our design meetings, they have been wonderful. Everyone is so involved in this play. That has surprised me, and you can feel that in the room. Everyone’s got a very personal stake in a play about Roe v. Wade.