So, I like dialogue. Too much, I think. Haha
When I look back on the first (and, well, the only, for now) full-length play I tried to write, I realize that I was way too focused on the characters just being able to talk to each other and act natural that I kinda... forgot to really have anything substantial happen for, like, an entire act.
(I'm awesome, I know.)
I think I'll go through our dialogue selections piece by piece. This is probably a "digging my grave" warning, but I'm sorry if I offend anyone because I don't like the dialogue you chose. I assure you, it's not you; it's me.
Anyway:
Below the Waist, by Maura Campbell: Shows really good comedic elements, I thought sort of reminiscent of David Ives, in that "don't listen, just talk" sense. That kind of humor, if you keep the characters off in their own worlds, if done right, can be absolutely hilarious. It kinda limits you to just comedy or... Chekhov. (i.e., Cherry Orchard. Haha)
Boy Gets Girl, by Rebecca Gilman: I really liked this dialogue. It's the style or the feel from the characters I strive to achieve -- it's so natural and contemporary, which shows relationships and personality very well.
Closer, by Patrick Marber: So little can convey so much. Monologues, though useful, can sometimes be completely unnecessary, and are (as we discussed) kind of fading out of contemporary plays. This play shows you why that might be happening; the sparse dialogue makes every word that much more poignant and important. However, in my reading of it, I felt it definitely needed a complete context (like, reading it from beginning to end) or to be seen in performance to really understand it. Ehheh
It had great drama, though. It elicits a huge amount of empathy; it's easy to relate to.
Ohhh, David Ives. I love you. Philadelphia isn't one of my favorites, though. It's just weird, it doesn't go anywhere, and frankly, I don't find it quite as funny as most of his other stuff. Same as with that Doppelganger play or whatever.
A Streetcar Named Desire, by Tennessee Williams: I think this is where I go into "Jesse Mode." Not completely; I do like some of Williams' stuff (I put on almost the entirety of Sweet Bird of Youth for my giant Theater 210 project last semester), but this really just doesn't do it for me. I think I'd have to see it to appreciate it, if anything at all. The characters are very clear through the dialogue; they all have distinct voices, but that kinda seems to be the play's only draw for me.
Plaza Suite, by Neil Simon: Quick pacing is the best. A very well-rehearsed, witty scene just oozes ballerifficness. Also, I love sarcasm. ;P Seriously -- it lends itself to tons of emotion, and in this particular case, detail, as well. It's all about layers! This is definitely something you'd have to see a couple times or read and see it or what-have-you to get everything out of it.
(See? YES! I justified being a snarky a-hole!)
Much Ado: Haha, such a famous scene. I remember studying it in Intro to Shakespeare last year. :) (Which... isn't to say I really remember much about that particular discussion. Sorry, Laurie. ^^.'') Anyway, yeah -- very witty. Very literary. Meanings upon meanings and so many symbols/metaphors/etc. It reminds me I need to work on subtext. I'm really not very good at subtlety. I'm either normal/blunt, or so subtle that I may as well be writing my own esoteric inner-monologue. (Check the / writing / on / my deviantART account for proof of that. Heh)
The Beauty Queen of Leenane, by Martin McDonagh: Ehhh... The accent overtook it. The writing doesn't do anything for me.
The Importance of Being Earnest, by Oscar Wilde is soooooo pretentious and ridiculous.
Hamlet Hamlet Hamlet Hamlet Hamlet Hamlet Hamlet
http://beautifuloblivion.deviantart.com/art/hamlet-64721370
http://sana-sama.deviantart.com/art/Hamlet-42661699
http://tidah.deviantart.com/art/Hamlet-29265971 (SPOILER: Reads from right to left, like the nerdy Wasian that I am.)
----------
...I dunno, is anyone gonna be able to make any sort of comment in response to that? I'm sorry, you guys. XD
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You have hit upon the challenge of dialogue Jesse. It has to be interesting in and of itself (witty, clever, moving, pretty, natural, normal...the precise nature of that will vary hugely from text to text), but it must also tell the story and mean something. Themes, morals, points, big ideas, plot, characterization -- all of these things also need to be accomplished by dialogue. It must do BOTH. That's a tall order.
ReplyDeleteCharacters who talk but don't listen are funny but a costly choice. It's less dialogue than parallel monologuing -- they're not really talking TO each other.
I think you're probably not offending anyone by not liking the dialogue they chose, but remember you're not reviewing these plays and what you like/don't like but rather what you learn here about writing.
I'm going to echo Laurie here, you didn't offend me for not liking Beauty Queene. But I would advise you to give it another shot. Irish drama isn't for everyone but I think that the character development and the combination of humour and tragedy that is inherent in Irish drama is something that can be learned from. As for your observation that you would have to see a lot of these plays, I fully agree. Many a teacher has told me that plays are not meant to be seen they are meant to be read. While we can learn from the dialogue excerpts and look at the specific writing style used by different playwrights, to be able to truly appreciate the show I feel the play needs to be seen. Otherwise, why bother writing a play?
ReplyDeleteLaurie, I agree about the parallel monologuing thing. I don't think it's really up my alley, anyway.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I know, sorry. I'm surprised you didn't say anything about my "comments" on Hamlet. :P
Claire, I think part of it might also be that I didn't read the entire play. In some circumstances, the sections we read were just too short to get into the appropriate mood for the play -- I definitely got that feeling for Beauty Queene. I'm definitely a fan of the comedic drama, and I don't doubt I could learn from the character development. (It's just that I didn't feel like I saw any in the section we read.)
I can't believe teachers have told you they're meant to be read. That's just weird.
Jesse~
ReplyDeleteHoly poo, I totally know what you mean about the subtlety thing. It's such a hard balance to strike. You don't want to spell anything out for your audience, but then you wonder - is anybody besides me going to get this?
I thought it was interesting what you said about sarcasm. I never really saw sarcasm as a way to convey emotion, but it does, in a strange way.
I also really liked your point about how character sitting around, being able to talk to each other easily and naturally isn't good theatre. Something has to happen. Nobody wants to watch two coworkers at lunch, because that would be effing boring. But if these two coworkers happen to be mortal enemies working as undercover spies, it might spice things up a bit. So yeah. It's hard to have that action and still keep the naturalistic flow and snap of good dialogue.
KG
...For some reason, I can really imagine you saying that in an English accent.
ReplyDeleteAlso, why "Kenny's Grandma?" I feel like I'm out of the loop on some giant inside joke, here.
Jesse, I just read your blog even though I didn't have to this week. Hmmm....
ReplyDeleteI think I feel like our ideas and feelings (if not about the legitimacy of classic literature) about and plays commonly overlap. I think you might have a bit more of an allowance for comedic antics in plays than I, but I felt like doing a "video addendum" that was much like your annoyance with the vms. (I think I voiced this in class) but I've started to come more to your argument of "but they just aren't good" (not for the vms) but for some of the comedic dialog, with the argument of "but it's annoying." I never thought I say this, but I'm actually coming to appreciate your cynicism and reluctance to "give things a shot." I feel that.
Emma, I love you. Haha
ReplyDeleteI definitely got that feeling in class. And I can certainly identify with the annoying parts of some comedic writing. Like Laurie (and I'm sure you), I was tired of Below the Waist by the time I finished it -- and that can be pretty detrimental to a play, especially considering that particular one is supposed to be around a half hour, and it has the potential to flop after just one scene.
I'm glad I converted you, now we can complain to each other more. ;P Though, I think the major reason I don't give certain things a chance is because I know what genre they are or what era/style they come from, and I've read enough and know my tastes well enough (contrary to certain professor's beliefs) to know I won't like it. It's not a crime to have different tastes than the general populace.
As a complete, aside, I'm disappointed Hudson cut his hair. I think he looks less "him" now. Haha
The question is: does the rat tail give his astute comments more or less legitimacy?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I sort of think the reading-enough-to-have-appreciation argument always semi-applies in that, as you noted, we tend to "know we won't like something" when we haven't experienced enough of it to cultivate an interest, right? Like scotch or campari? you can't like it without drinking it for years? Well, that's what my papa tells me.
Huck finn here we come?