The first thing I noticed when reading through the dialogue was how different it was from monologue. I’ve gotten in such a mindset of the single character onstage being able explicate on anything and everything they are thinking that suddenly reading scenes where people are speaking to someone else, who are not revealing everything in such an obvious way, was a bit of a shock.
What I liked about all these scenes was that each set of dialogue expressed a clear relationship between the people involved. You could tell when someone was familiar with the person they were with, or if something was uncomfortable, even if they were once happy and now upset. What I also loved was how the way they spoke to one another no only reflected their current relationship or feelings, but also foreshadowed what was to happen. Once scene I especially saw this in was the dialogue from Closer by Patrick Marber. Here, we saw two different couples both talking about one person involved committing adultery. The dialogue was very choppy, it didn’t seem as if the people involved in each couple related to each other in any way. Marber separates the dialogue into short lines, with spaces in between them, even when one person is continually speaking. For me, this expressed a feeling of distance and separation, which was fitting for what was about to happen in the scene. Only in the beginning, when Larry has just come home and has no idea what Anna has done does he talk in long, put together sentences. Here, Marber does not separate lines, but instead keeps them together in one block. This is the only time where there is cohesion, at least for Larry. However, Anna stays in short, to the point sentences. She is uncomfortable because she has a secret: she is in love with Dan.
I also find the scene from Angels in America by Tony Kushner to be another great example of dialogue reflecting character relationship. Here, a married couple is growing farther and farther apart. The husband is in the closet about being gay, and the wife is addicted to Valium. Kushner shows this extremely well in not only the words themselves but the structure as well. When Joe first enters, hey seems very non responsive. He is reluctant to talk, because he is frustrated with his wife and not happy in his marriage. Also, he is keeping the secret that he is actually homosexual. But Harper is frustrated and wants to know the truth. She speaks in much longer sentences and larger chunks of dialogue. She is also always the person asking questions at first. But Joe won’t acknowledge what she wants to know, so their dialogue seems disconnected, as if they are not talking about the same thing. Once Joe does realize, he speaks more. He is suddenly quick to defend himself and the image he has of himself, whereas Harper doesn’t want to hear his excuses. She wants to hear the truth. At the end she expresses that she is having a baby. Joe asks if this is true and she says, “No. Yes. No. Yes. Get away from me. Now we both have a secret”. This one sentence expresses her frustration and the entire reason Joe and Harper have problems: both keep secrets. They no longer talk, they are no longer happy. There is no communication. Even in this scene, where Harper tries to confront Joe, nothing is really resolved and neither leaves happy or satisfied in any way.
It was nice to read dialogue again after dealing with the monologues. It showed the subtle nuance of how a conversation can say so much without saying anything. By giving an actor this foundation, the playwright can express the past, present, and even the future of characters in one simple conversation.
I agree with you 100%. I thought Angels and Closer were the most helpful dialogues we read. It's so interesting to me that we can have a dialogue (two people talking in a room) about the inability two people have to communicate.
ReplyDeleteI didn't really notice, at first, that Larry's speech pattern was more fully formed in the beginning. Not only is this because he doesn't know Anna's secret, but I think it's also that he's feeling guilty about what he's done (which he admits fairly quickly, in comparison). Just an interesting idea that you made me think of.
:)
It's interesting that you observe the same phenomenon to opposite effect here -- that the longer sentences belong to the calm one in Closer but the crazy one in Angels. Actually, I suppose the effect is the same -- highlighting tension, distance, divide, difference -- but the reasoning behind it is different. One speaks long and much because he's calm and, for the moment, ignorant. The other speaks long and much because she's furious, insane, and knows too much. Does it work better for one character or another? One play or another? One mood or another?
ReplyDeleteThe message, in any case, is a good one: there are no rules here; you can manipulate whatever you like to whatever ends you like. That's a little broad though, so whatever self-hints you can nail down (what works for you; what communicates the most; what's most interesting) are worth doing.
Georgina,
ReplyDeleteYou very insightfully point out how these authors get their point across in a way that doesn't depend on the novel like exposition of Monologues. I too was very excited to begin reading these dialogues for much of the same reason.
"By giving an actor this foundation, the playwright can express the past, present, and even the future of characters in one simple conversation." I totally agree with you here, the authors we read did an excellent job of this. While I think it's amazing how the authors do this, something I'm having trouble accepting is that it doesn't seem very "real." Half of the excerpts we read were from plays I had never heard of before, yet I had no problem picking up on what was going on just based on a few lines (With the exception of Arcadia and The Shape of Things, which I'm SUPER intrigued by). This doesn't seem to take advantage of the fact that, once you get them in the theater, the audience is more or less yours, you don't have to make every scene a microcosm of the whole thing.
Georgina,
ReplyDeleteI never noticed before you mentioned it the change in structure and pacing that occurs. You are right that, in multiple scenes it is short and choppy versus a more long, rambling person. Then, as the scene builds to a climax, there is a very definitive shift. it is in Angels, Closer, and Death of a Salesman. I think that is a point of no return for character development, where the character that is being dominated can no longer take it. That is a very interesting idea.
You mention how, at the end of the scene in Angels, nothing is resolved, and they both are unhappy. Do you think monologues have the tendency to be more satisfying, because the characters can draw their own conclusion? Is it just a hazard of dialogues that there must always be an argument or disagreement in order to build tension and character development? Because that is not true for monologues, but I feel it is a go-to for dialogues, just in order to build to a climax.