An interview with Jeff Meyers, creator of "Mass Murder."

Q: Where did the concept for Mass Murder come from?

Meyers: A couple of places. Originally, there was a similar show in Chicago in the late '80s/early '90s that I saw. The quality of writing was mediocre, except for a piece by Chicago artist/actor Tony Fitzpatrick. His piece was insightful, critical and very powerful. Not only did he examine the psychological and emotional landscape of mass murderer James Huberty, he also managed to comment on the social and economic injustices of the Reagan '80s-all in 20 minutes. He won the Chicago Jefferson Award for his role as Huberty. It was much deserved.

At the same time, I was reacting to the popularity of Silence of the Lambs. As a piece of film, I found it extraordinary. Terrific direction, acting and a very compelling script. Morally, however, I found it bankrupt. It celebrated the serial killer as the ultimate rebel, a diabolical genius to be respected and even admired. In short, Hannibal Lecter was cool. I found this attitude disturbingly callow. To suggest that some of the individuals who became his victims "deserved" to die (i.e. the obnoxious hospital administrator) was reprehensible.

Furthermore, it cast serial killers as supernatural monsters or forces of greater justice, rather than the very real and very screwed-up human beings they are. One has only to look at the incredible slew of serial killer films that followed (and still continue) to see the misguided attitudes that developed about these people. They are not otherworldly monsters; they are disturbing byproducts of our culture.

When I moved to Portland and became involved in the theater scene, I decided to create a piece that would, at least, attempt to present a complex examination of these criminals. I spoke with Tony several times about the project and developed the template for how the piece would be created.

Q: What kind of criteria were the writers given?

Meyers: The basic concept was that each piece was to be created with the caveat: If these killers were given 15 to 20 minutes to make their case to a captive audience (no pun intended) what would they say, what wouldn't they say and what would they accidentally reveal?

Originally, I tackled 12 killers with seven writers. The original murderer list included: Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, The Zodiac Killer, Ed Gein, Aileen Wuornos, Genene Jones, Andrei Chikatilo, Gerard Schaeffer, Carolyn Napoleatano, Richard Ramirez, Ed Kemper and John Wayne Gacy.

I explained to each writer what I was looking for in regard to social commentary, moral responsibility and how they might approach the research on each killer. I encouraged them to be creative but true to the nature of the individual. In some cases, I helped provide them with the narrative framework. For instance, for the Chikatilo monologue I suggested to Brian Christopher the "pick a number" motif.

I personally wrote five of the monologues, then spent much of my time editing and rewriting portions of the other pieces. In some cases, I barely touched the pieces; in others, I pulled what they wrote apart and reassembled the monologues to half their original size. Working with each writer was different and wonderful. I love the collaborative process and the work that can be generated when several artists create something together.

After cutting a few monologues (Gacy, Kemper), I assembled a cast for the other 12 killers. This original cast helped to further shape the monologues during the rehearsal process. Often an actor would suggest ideas for cuts or alternative line choices. They were able to internalize what was written and see what emotionally made sense and what didn't. During this time, I dropped the Shcaeffer piece. Monologues were dropped not for lack of quality, but usually because of redundant themes or aesthetics.

Q: How was research conducted?

Meyers: The writers, actors and I researched our roles as thoroughly as possible. The web was a good tool for this. So, too, were the numerous "True Crime" books on the subject. Interviews with the killers, trial transcripts, newspaper articles, TV biographies-just about anything we could find on these individuals-was used. For four months, each of us became a minor expert on depraved and cruel behavior.

Q: Is the show threaded with a message?

Meyers: There is no one specific message. Instead, I wanted to dispel a few notions. I wanted people to rethink the dark romance that surrounds the concept of the serial killer. They are not vampires. They are defective human beings. I want the audience to realize there are forces in society that lead to this behavior and that these individuals should not be celebrated, but rather cautiously approached as a testament to how completely a person can derail. Ultimately, I wanted these killers to be seen as people, not monsters. Their actions are monstrous but they are living among us as neighbors, co-workers, family and friends. I think the best True Crime books achieve this.

Q: Did you ever stop in the midst of writing and ask yourself, "what the hell am I doing writing a play about serial killers?"

Meyers: Oh yeah. I definitely worried that I was doing the very thing I was criticizing others of doing. Not to mention that the research can get a bit disturbing. There were definitely days when I simply had all the dismemberment, depravity and denial I could take. But part of art is taking risks and dealing with uncomfortable themes and concepts. Ultimately, I live for that experience.

Q: Were you ever spooked while writing?

Meyers: Spooked, no. Disturbed, yes. There was one time — it was when I was reading a lot of Gerard Schaefer's horrific short stories (yeah, he wrote short stories) — when I started to get a bit freaked out. I was preparing to play the role myself, and it became hard not to see all the opportunities where a killer could get alone and murder someone without detection. I kept imagining scenarios where this woman or that child could be abducted or attacked.

In many ways we're a paranoid society, but it became very, VERY clear to me how easy it would be to lethally and covertly commit these crimes. There's no real genius to it. All you need is the desire. That revelation messed me up for a few days.

Q: Did you ever find yourself sympathizing with the killers?

Meyers: Not really. I sympathize with some of the experiences they were forced to endure as children. I couldn't help but think of how they were, in many ways, created by the cruelty and evil of their parents and some of the adults around them.

Q: How has the show been received? Any controversy?

Meyers: When we first opened the show in Portland it was around Halloween. A group of young Christians decided to perform a prayer ring outside the venue. Other than that, the only complaints came from friends' wives who said the show kept them up a few nights and had them rechecking window locks.

Critical response has been good. Almost everything said about the show has been positive. The writing is strong and the actors do a good job with difficult material. The audiences seemed very taken with the production. Some even returned to see killers featured on different nights. That spoke volumes about their reaction to the piece. They liked it enough to come back.

Q: Why should folks see Mass Murder?

Meyers: They're damn good stories. That's really what much of theater is about. Telling a compelling story. I think people will find our approach to the material fascinating, chilling and even (occasionally) funny. Even though these killers' motivations, justifications and denials can get pretty ridiculous, their observations about society can be quite witty and sometimes profound.

Windows Media
(68 seconds, 2.2MB)

Quicktime
(68 seconds, 2.2MB)