I have to be honest, I much prefer reading and writing dialogue. Although I do think there is a time and a place for monologue form and I’m sure throughout the rest of this semester I’ll be desperately wishing we could write monologues again, dialogue is much more realistic and portrays it’s messages in much subtler ways, which I prefer.
Angels in America is a favorite of mine, hands down, particularly the scene chosen by Georgina. Freshman year in Proehl’s freshman seminar class I actually performed as Harper in this exact scene, so it has a special place in my heart. It was a very moving play, overall, and an incredibly moving experience for me. Until now, however, I have never really addressed the question why it was so effective and moving. It was for the obvious reasons of powerful subject matter, etc., but there had to be something more. In real life, humans do not give all of their thoughts and emotions away at once while speaking. The pacing throughout the scene builds the suspense and the use of repetition accentuates how little the characters listen to each other, fueling their frustrations. The character Harper is enthralling because she is so unpredictable. The audience never knows what she is about to say or do. The use of short, snappy, sentences is also very effective in revealing the tension between Harper and Joe right at the beginning of the scene.
I am not a huge fan of Arcadia, unfortunately. I actually find it quite boring. I do enjoy the witty dialogue between the characters, it keeps the audience and readers on their toes, I just prefer more action and to be honest, characters who wear their emotions on their sleeves a bit more. The language is very stilted. Tom Stoppard’s plays tend to be very pretentious and over the average person’s head, but at the same time I do respect him for refusing to “dumb it down.” Despite the unnatural language, I think the play can be brought to life and become convincing with strong actors, accomplishing the difficult task of keeping a diverse audience interested.
I very much enjoyed the excerpt from Closer. I have never read that play, but now would like to. This supports my realization that I prefer emotional, dramatic plays about humans and the entanglements of their difficult relationships. However, it is such a delicate balance to strike between realistically dramatic and melodramatic. I thought the dialogue between both couples, particularly between Anna and Larry was well done. Their language was very subtle and passive aggressive and I felt as if all the characters maintained their individuality throughout, reacting to the news differently and in their own ways. I enjoyed the overlapping of the dialogue. I thought it was a very effective mechanism to keep the audience interested and highlight the differences in the characters’ reactions to similar and overlapping issues.
As embarrassing as this is to admit, I have never actually read Death of a Salesman. I enjoyed the excerpt and thought it was well written, but probably would have gotten a lot more out of it if I’d had a little background context.
Things that worked for me:
-Maintaining consistent characters throughout so that their reactions to things and events are, even if surprising, always believable; Unique characters; Subtlety; Repetition, if used sparingly and thoughtfully; Pacing, not revealing too much right off the bat; Short, snappy sentences; Tactfully messing with time and space (overlapping dialogue)
"This supports my realization that I prefer emotional, dramatic plays about humans and the entanglements of their difficult relationships."
ReplyDeleteThis sentence cracked me up. As opposed to what? I feel like this is what all plays are about by definition, so it's a great insight, but it's worth nailing down what you include and what you exclude here and why. Arcadia is a great example. Is it emotional, dramatic, and about human relationships and entanglements? Yes. It also, you'll notice, "tactfully mess[es] with time and space." It is subtle and repetitive for sure. So what is your objection? It's boring. Figuring out why will be a huge help to you (too much math? too much 18th century poetry? too long speeches and exchanges? subject matter? characters? message?).
Unique or surprising characters is a much more solid self-tip, and the effort towards making them believable is a valiant one. How? Yes Harper's unpredictability is enthralling which is great. How does Kushner also make it believable?
You've got lots of good stuff here so you know how to proceed, lots of good what-works-for-you vs. what-doesn't ideas. It's worth paying attention, as you read, to how too (in addition to the what). When you like something, when it works, how has the playwright pulled it off and made it work?
Haha, yes, as opposed to plays about math- my nemesis.
ReplyDeleteI very much agree with you in alot of your views of the plays read. I couldn't quite tell what about Arcadia was off for me, but you hit it on the head, it is very stilted and almost wooden. But it does bring up the interesting question of how different classes talk to one another. I know I myself have a very different speech pattern when I'm talking to family and friends of my parents as opposed to my own friends. I think each of these readings do a great job of giving you an idea of the characters' backgrounds without actually telling you.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time I too would have liked a little context with the readings. Even those that I have read were years ago and I'm sure the details I've forgotten would have assisted in "close-reading" the texts. I could have gotten a better sense of how the dialogue aids in the overall story, rather than guessing from a faded memory.
I agree that mantaining an aspect of unpredictability in characters, as you state about Harper in Angels in America, is key in mantaiing audience engagement and attention. I imagine keeping the characters consistent while mantaining this unpredicitability could be a challenge. I think this is part of the power of the scene from Angels in America that we read.
ReplyDeleteI agree that individuality is powerful, as you write in regards to Closer. I think that portraying very different characters through these short lines that you mention will be quite a challenge- so much is conveyed through so little!
I thought it was kind of hard to read the excerpts, especially because the only play I was familiar with in its entirety was Death of a Salesman and I can totally realte to the challenges you mention that arise from reading only exceprts.
I think I'm starting to agree with you about dialogues exploring complicated human relationships being the most interesting. The readings from Closer and Angels in America seemed like they drew you in the most, and they certainly dwelt in a place of high emotional turmoil. It seems like the reason people like complex relationships is because they simultaneously do and do not understand them. The reader has been in a similar situation but perhaps acted differently and reading the dialogue is like an exploration in a time machine.
ReplyDeleteAbout Angels you said "The character Harper is enthralling because she is so unpredictable. The audience never knows what she is about to say or do." I have found that I am really frustrated with characters who I can't predict even slightly. I don't necessarily dislike it, but it often makes me more confused than drawn in. At the same time, however, it motivates me to think about the character's motivations, so maybe the unpredictability is just my lack of understanding.