As I started to read the various snippets of dialogue I was caught up in how interested I was that all dialogue is so different. Seemingly obvious thing to say- but there you have it. However- as I continued to read I started to notice more and more the various ways of how dialogue is so similar. Again, a rather obvious answer, but when the two thoughts are put together it creates a rather interesting juxtaposition. One that has left me rather confused, but pensive which I figure is a good thing when trying to discover the secrets of good playwriting.
Take Shakespeare for example. He is a well known guy - or at least should be by this point in any college students career (having graduated from High School and presumably taken an English class) - and is a pinnacle for good writing. Yet there is not a huge difference between his tragedies or comedies - barring the ending. At least not on the surface. Take Much Ado and Hamlet- seemingly different pieces, and they are, but they share similarities. In the scene between Hamlet and Polonius where Hamlet either is mad or is trying to convince Polonius that he is mad (depending on what you want it to say... I'm personally all for Hamlet is ingeniously trying to convince the world and then ends up ruining his life because it all goes hideously wrong) the scene reads much like a comedy. The lines are funny and Hamlet is really pulling a number over Polonius. And it works. It works because Hamlet's language convinces Polonius that he is crazy but Hamlet reminds the audience that he is tricking them all. Whereas, in Much Ado About Nothing, the play is a comedy but Beatrice tells Benedick that if he wishes to prove his love he needs to kill his friend Claudio. Not very funny for a comedy. Both bits of dialogue share similarities but the dialogue style and content goes against the style of the piece. In this way, both bits of dialogue are similar but also drastically different. What is important to me about this convoluted conception is that funny works in drama and drama works in funny. Much Ado becomes more powerful than just a romp in the Italian countryside, just as Hamlet breaks up the three hours of "Oh Woe is Me." Now- not everyone is Shakespeare (in fact, only Shakespeare is Shakespeare...) but the concept can work in other ways.
Take Closer for example. In a way I see the snippet of Closer as being sort of like what happens after the close of Much Ado only in the 20th century. There is comedy and tragedy within the lines, which adds a depth to the characters, the story line, and the emotional pull of the audience for the characters. Before, in monologues, I discussed the issue of distance. In Closer it would be very easy to make the characters all dispicable and distance the audience from them. Yet even while saying absolutely dreadful things to eachother and ruining each other's lives- they are still human. There are moments of humour and moments of weakness. The humanity that is so essential in monologues is also essential for dialogue. Basically for all writing. Below the Waste is similar. In a way, Below the Waste is much like Hamlet- is Allen crazy? Is he a Vampire? Is he crazy for having identity issues about being a Vampire? And while the scene is very humorous and utterly rediculous- the audience does not write it off as both have humanity underneath the rediculous. There is a real need that creates pitty, which allows the humour to be more poignant than pure slapstick.
Really, the need is what it all boils down to. All dialogue is the same in the case that all dialogue (or at least- all good dialogue) is about NEEDING something. Call it the character's want, the motivation, the intent, whatever. The fact is- if a character didn't want something they wouldn't say anything. That would be silly and a waste of stage time. Shakespeare is all about one character trying to make another character (or the audience) listen. Permenant state of needing something. In essence, that concept hasn't changed. In The Importance of Being Earnest, Gwendolen and Cecily are verbally sparring throughout the entire scene. And while they are wanting to demean the other, scope out the competition, and rise their own self-worth, they are also trying to make sure the other is listening to them. Otherwise, why bother dithering about spades or what is or isn't fashionable? The same applies to Beauty Queen. There are multiple facets of needs and wants and intents and whatever else you wants for Mag and Maureen, but it all rolls down to trying to get the other's attention. Mag has assured that she is all Maureen has, and needs to keep Maureen's attention in order to remain dominant. Maureen needs to get her mother to listen long enough to understand the hell she is being put through. Now, they make eachother's lives living hells, but the basis is all about getting the attention of the other. The importance of need. Every scene invovles the intense needs of the characters. As mundane as trying to make a daughter come out of the bathroom and get married in the Plaza Suite to trying to make sense of a strange culture in The Philidelphians.
Be it Tennessee Williams or William Shakespeare, the need is the essence of drama. That is a point that every drama class I have ever taken has stressed. Even contemporary plays like HamletMachine, Hey Girl!, or anything by Beckett, or any play where dialogue is not immediately central, if there at all, the characters are trying to get someone's attention. And the dialogue that is there is all about getting attention. What that attention is- I usually have no idea, but usually the people in all black sitting next to me find it divinely inspiring. The point of this small tangent is that, without the need there is no point in theatre to me. I don't want to direct a play where the characters don't want anything. That's boring. If Stanley never wanted to kick Blanche out of the house, or Blanche never wanted to protect Stella from being abused, or whatever other wants you wish to read into Streetcar, the play would be immensely boring and I doubt I'd be reading it. Action is relative, but desire is essential.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My first plea, Claire, is that dialogue (and all writing really) be moving and understood by everyone paying attention rather than only by the theater folks all in black. I feel like that kind of writing (deep to the clove cigarette set, tiresome and/or opaque to everyone else) is pretentious writing but not good writing. We want good writing.
ReplyDeleteYou have made a number of very simple observations here that are going to be useful to you. Tragedy needs some comic relief. Comedy can't be just silly but has to have some real humanity and emotion behind it. Pinpointing and highlighting the humanity is key. Your definition of "need" here is pretty vague and wants either nailing down OR perhaps eliminating from your tool box. If everything is need or want -- even to be heard, even to speak, even to be paid attention to -- is it still a useful idea? This is worth nailing down.
Claire~
ReplyDeleteI really liked what you said about comedy and drama. I never noticed how similar Much Ado and Hamlet are, even though they are two of my favorite Shakespeares. It's something Shakespeare is very good at - blending comedy and tragedy. It's something the Irish are very good at, too. What do you get when you get people with amazing senses of humor living through some of the toughest hardships ever? Great theatre.
But in comedy too, it's important to have a base-level of humanity. I think that's something Niel Simon is very good at - the audience can really relate to each of the characters he creates, even if they could never think as quickly as them. One comment about the Shrek franchise that I thought was fascinating is that the first was the best, because it was very funny and had a lot of heart. The second two were just as funny, but didn't have the same kind of charm, and were thus not as good as the first. I think this ties into what you observed about drama/humanity in comedy, because without it, theatre becomes very two-dimensional.
I also liked what you said about need or motivation. It's what makes any theatre theatre. Without the motivation, why should I care? It also helps drive the scene, and when in doubt in writing dialogue, I think it'll help to take a step back from the scene and ask - what does each of my characters want? If they're conflicting interests, it'll probably provide some good drama to the scene.
KG
I kinda think it's hilarious that you pointed that out about Shakespeare, because I would use that exact example to express my disdain for him. It's something I never noticed before, anf fairly deep into the script yet obvious now that you point it out -- so, thank you for providing me with ammunition. Haha
ReplyDeleteIn all seriousness, I liked and agree with your point about Closer and the characters easily coming off as despicable and distant. That's such a broad idea, but it's one we want to avoid so much and are so scared of that I believe we overthink it, and it isn't actually that hard to steer clear of.
I like your equation of a character's objective as a want for attention. That puts a really interesting spin on "accomplish your super objective by the end of the play, or justify why you could not." Whether that figures into the way the actor might portray a character or how the characters are actually written might make an interesting difference, as well. I guess that's why theater is all about experimenting. :)
Also, tangent, but I absolutely love that Laurie used the phrase "clove cigarette set." I definitely know a big group like that. They're excellent writers and great people, but, admittedly, fairly pretentious.
Additionally, I agree with Matt's point about Neil Simon -- his characters, even the weird ones like those in The Odd Couple, definitely have their distinct, real humanity. If they didn't have it, I think a lot of us would be hard pressed to care about his plays.
The Shrek comment is interesting, too; I noticed that, but didn't really realize it.
Again, me noticing things but being too inarticulate. I'm sure I'll get a lot out of our little critique group. I'm excited. ;)