(2am in the morning, Hanna sits facing the patrol Computer in a Security uniform, drinking a mug of Emergen-C. She opens the internet, sneezes, and runs to get a tissue, then returns.)
Hanna: Okay, I'm going to do this before I feel so tiered I'm going to die.
Computer: Error: Address blackboard.ups.edu not responding. In people talk: I hate you.
Hanna: You have got to be fucking kidding me. I need to get this done!!!!! I guess all I can do is wait and see if it is working again in a bit. Damn, I need a cigarette.
(1/2 an hour later)
Hanna: Please work, please work, please work. (takes a deep breath)
Computer: Blackboard Leaning System, login. In people talk: I guess I was being a bit harsh
Hanna: Yeah you were.
Computer: But I still hate you, so I am going to turn all your readings upside down and make the rotate button take forever.
Hanna: Hahaha, I can still print out the readings.
Computer: Not of I freeze first. Now I'm nothing but an hour glass.
Hanna: Nooooooo! Dude, I'm too tiered for this.
Computer: Muahahaha
Hanna: Oh yeah? Well watch this!
Computer: Are you sure you want to log off?
Hanna: Don't play nice with me!
Computer: Logging off.
Hanna: Now this time you better work.
Computer: Logging on.
Hanna: Now on to talking about dialogue. FINALLY!
I love dialogue way more than monologues. Like way more. Pretty much because I feel human interaction is what keeps theater interesting. Yes stories are good, but they are better if they unravel before our eyes.
The scene from Below the Waist was one of those scripts that I laughed out loud reading. I think that says a lot about a play, if it evokes a verbal response upon reading it, because that means when it is acted in front of an audience, the audience will probably respond on even a greater scale. I really liked the contradictions put in place by the Doctor in this scene. In dialogues often nothing is what the audience or the characters expect, and this captures attention. In many of the reading, one or more characters knows something that another does not, and so the power of information is key as it creates a conflict internally and externally in the scene.
In the scene from Boy Gets the Girl, the key thing I took away was a shared experience between characters. While conflict occurs more often than not in dialogue, it is important to note that characters, while different, are sharing this common experience. This scene also brought out the concept of a character's relationship to the surrounding atmosphere, and the solving of a mystery resulting in an unexpected realization.
I really liked the scene from Closer. The concept of having to scenes switching rapidly is a fascinating concept. There is a strong theme of love and the pain that comes with it, and it is clearly a dramatic piece. It therefore is interesting to note that while comedy is filled with contradictions that make a person laugh at loud, drama can use contradictions to make something inspire and compel. When Dan says to Alice he loves Anna because she doesn't need him at the beginning, and then later on, Anna tells Larry she's in love with Dan because she needs him, that is a contradiction that, for lack of a better term, "tugs on heart strings." There is also an interesting unraveling of a story that plays with the audience's knowledge of the situation, as Dan reveals to Alice that he is leaving her almost immediately, while Anna does not tell Larry until the scene is nearing the end. So, the audience knows the chance that Dan is taking, and wonders if Anna will do the same.
In the scene from Hamlet, Hamlet portrays his madness by revealing things that both he and the audience already know. I have always loved the debate as to whether Hamlet is really mad, whether he is faking, or whether he starts by faking and then eventually it becomes a reality; and this scene encapsulates this debate. Also, something we have not yet seen is the use of asides, and the concept of where dialogue is directed (to inform the audience or the character or both.)
The scene from Importance of Being Earnest is the scene I chose. I like it for it's portrayal of passive aggression, bordering physical aggression. There is struggle within the characters as they try not to cross that line. This is most evident in the Sugar and Cake bit. I like the openness of the physical possibilities here given to the director to determine if the line from passive aggression to aggression is ever crossed. Also, I like how the audience knows the misunderstanding between the characters that is causing the conflict, and knows that really there is no need for this enmity the characters feel towards one another.
The scene from The Beauty of Queen Leanne, gives a sample of dialogue in a dialect. While we saw monologuing in a dialect in the New Orleans Monologues, this shows that when writing dialogue one needs to be aware of conversational patterns of the dialect. This scene also demonstrated a conflict build, an arc in the scene, which is something that can easily be lost in monologues. I feel like every interaction has an arc that needs to be drawn upon in order for the scene to reveal the story of the play.
The scene from Much Ado About Nothing shows the importance of character subtext when writing dialogue. While a character might act like they hate another, they might secretly be in love with them, and this needs to be conveyed through subtleties that the audience will pick up and the other character will not. This scene also shows what happens when the truth is revealed, when a character puts themselves on the line. It also shows a character's use of tactics, and of wanting concrete reassurance of this truth from a character, when Beatrice asks Benedick to swear he will kill Claudio.
The scene from The Philadelphia is another creation of atmosphere, but more than that, it is an introduction to a concept the audience is not familiar with. It uses the common threads of the scenes I have described up to now to solve the mystery of this odd atmosphere. This is done by having one character analyze the other's problem, and fully understand the issue, while the character with the problem, like the audience, remains in the dark until informed.
In the scene from Plaza Suite, the conflict between a character's motives for his/herself and for the other characters in the scene is demonstrated. Norma, while Roy is trying to get her to focus on helping their daughter, cannot help but become self involved by petty and over-dramatized issues (such as ripped stockings.) From this, I think it is important to realize it is human nature to think of ones self first, and this needs to be taken into account when writing a dialogue. There is no such thing as a completely selfless character. This scene is also an example of the use of drastic measures in comedy and when a character is motivated enough to cross that line.
The scene from Street Car Named Desire starts with the breaking of an awkward silence. It is clear that Stella and Stanley don't want to talk, and Blanche can sense this but forces conversation anyways. It is then revealed that Stella and Stanly know something they do not want Blanche to know, and so there is a shared subtext between the two about trying to hide it. This scene also uses the concept of conflicting personalities, and poses the question: when do you stop pretending? It is important to consider a character's level of tolerance for the other characters in the scene.
And that is my 2 cents about dialogue.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lots of interesting points here Hanna:
ReplyDeleteGroup reaction is always going to be different -- usually more -- than solo reaction when we're just reading on our own. Along the same lines, it's usually going to appear stronger on stage than in our imaginations. It's tough to imagine all that and plan for it as writers, but we must. I like the power you identify in the audience knowing something the characters do not. How do they communicate something to us that they don't know themselves? Shared experience, conflicting perceptions is also a good setup, a useful tool. Thoughts as to when/how this works best?
You've got interesting thoughts about inserting the physical into the dialogue. One way is through stage direction, but the way you propose has the added promise of really good dialogue. Embedding a sense of the physical right in the language is hard but makes for great writing.
Hanna,
ReplyDeleteYou said at the beginning that you like dialog cause you feel human interaction is what keeps theater interesting. Yes stories are good, but they are better if they unravel before our eyes." Don't monologues do that too? Are you making the distinction that dialog allows us to see the situation/story unravel in real time time whereas monologues are usually describing something that happened or will happen? I guess I agree with you there -- that in monologues, more of the "seeing" is internal--but in defense of monologues I think there is def seeing and unraveling. Maybe even more unraveling as monologues could prove more mysterious... or I guess more easily informative so I guess that depends on how you look at it.
I liked that you picked elements showcased in each, that for you, dialog is so woven into the themes and characters. I'd be interested to see what you found connecting overall or distilled about the construction of dialog from the excerpts as well.
I really like the idea laurie expands on of embedding a sense of the physical right in the language-- it feels like a stanislavski workshop waiting to happen.
I think that you and I my dear are a little bit stuck in reading plays like performers (Damn theatre history! ;) ) and are working on the transition to looking at plays like writers. I think that it is really really hard. :( Anyway, I think that you make a lot of good points although I agree with Emma that dialogue and monologue, depending on how they are written, both allow stories to unfold in front of us. Perhaps what we take away from a compare and contrast of monologue and dialogue is that they are most effective when used in conjunction with one another. For instance, Shakespeare uses monologues within his dialogue (we read a short one from Much Ado analyzing Beatrice's speech.) This monologue enhances both character and plot, while arriving in the middle of lots of dialogue is interesting, unexpected and keeping the audience on their toes.
ReplyDeleteEmma's last comment made me giggle. Embedding physical in words, in that which inherently can be only auditory, seems to be contradictory. And yet I think that it is totally possible and avant gard, which, since you liked Faustus lights the lights, should be right up you ally.
Your intro was muy bien! (thats spanish for "it was funny and made me laugh!")
ReplyDeleteYou said that you like dialogues (more than monologues) because you like human interaction in plays. I think that what makes the human interaction intersting to watch, is because we as an audience (should) have a connection to the characters because of the emotions they make us feel. I think this can be done in monologues as well, and make the audience feel emotionally connected to the characters. But this post is about dialogues, so let me get on with it.
I liked your point about how "information is power". In a monologue, since it it usually inner thoughts, everything is laid out on the table, and not much is left up to guessing. While in a dialogue, we only know what is said by the characters, so we have no clue what is going on inside their heads. This adds a whole other level to the plot of a play, because you have think about who is realiable, who is not, did something happen off stage that the audience hasn't seen yet, etc. Also if there is something that we the audience knows, but another character doesn't, it helps us get into the play more. The audience feels more involved if they are at a higher status then an ignorant character in the play, because they know what happnened, or will happen over soneone in the play.
I found all of your observations about the samples of dialogue interesting, but I would be interested in hearing what they have in common, and what worked for all of them. The dialogues we read are all very different, so I ask you the question, "What are the common themes between them?" Essentially, what are the basics of writing a dialogue?
-t ae why? El or are? Griffin.