Latest Art Forum Topics:

  • help on poem thingy? (4 posts)
  • Who is the MOST FAMOUS person you have ever seen in a cloud formation? (6 posts)
  • How's this one? (10 posts)
  • my newly published poem. tell me what you think? (5 posts)
  • A Good Night Poem ... Care to comment? (12 posts)
  • Does Acrostic Rondeau sound good for supper too? (6 posts)
  • It got deleted. Will you rebel and read? (19 posts)
  • Are you bored yet? (18 posts)
  • Another Acrostic Sonnet...I think. How do I improve it? (8 posts)
  • Finally, time to go to the Central Resource Library. Wanna' go? (4 posts)
  • First line ever in a movie. How can I prepare? (5 posts)
  • How long for paper mache'? (4 posts)
  • Which Pantone Color book suit for me? (2 posts)
  • How can I improve this poem? (20 posts)
  • How can I make Part 4 better? (7 posts)
  •  

    Dialogue And Details

    The average quality of modern dialogue bears witness to the extraordinary progress made by drama in the English language. The playwright realizes that it is possible to combine naturalness with vivacity, vigor and verbal wit, and get away from the labored, flowery dramatic writing that English plays suffered under for ages. Language then was a newly discovered and irresistibly fascinating playground for the fancy and had to be thick-strewn with verbal quibbles, similes, figures, and flourishes of every description, else it was deemed unworthy to be spoken on the stage. Shakespeare freely yielded to this convention, and so helped to establish it. His genius helped him to present it delightfully, b0075t in most of the Elizabethans it is an extremely tedious mannerism. After the Restoration, when modern light talk came into being in the coffee houses, it became fashionable to strain after wit, and the dramatists did the same. There was a keen desire to write brilliantly – if it wasn’t successful, then it was for lack of talent.

    Goldsmith, Farquhar and Steele, realized the superiority of humor to wit. With Byron it degenerated into mere punning and verbal horse play. In the early plays of Sir Arthur Pinero there was a great deal of extrinsic ornament, especially metaphor-hunting. Some of the later Elizabethans, notably Webster and Ford, cultivated a way of abrupt utterance, whereby an immensity of spiritual significance, generally tragic, was supposed to be concentrated into a few brief words. This did not last – and the plays also not. No play of which the dialogue places a constant strain on the intellectual abilities of the audience ever has held a place in living dramatic literature. It remains a constant challenge to the dramatist to keep his dialogue necessarily concentrated, but also plausibly near to the everyday language of life, and to achieve style in the process. Style, in prose drama, is the sifting of common speech to achieve a beauty of cadence and phrasing.
    To be really dramatic, every speech must have some bearing, direct or indirect, upon individual human destinies in future, the present or the past. Where the audience doesn’t perceive this connection, the play, scene or speech may be experienced as dull.

    To use blank verse as a medium rather than prose can be problematic, difficult and dangerous. Shakespeare "chose" verse as his medium, in the same sense in which Ibsen chose prose. They accepted it just as they accepted the other traditions of the theatre of their time. The history of the blank verse play proves that this medium is thoroughly dead and so incompatible to modern life and living language. If verse has any function on the stage, it is that of imparting lyric beauty to passionate speech. For the mere rhetorical "elevation" of blank verse we have no use whatever. It consists of saying simple things with pomposity. The idea that the poetry of drama should be sought specifically in verse has long ago been exploded by Ibsen and Maeterlinck and D'Annunzio and Synge.

    Israel Zangwill, in his symbolic play, “The War-God”, has put blank verse to a new use, with noteworthy success. He writes in very strict measure, but without the least inversion or inflation, without a touch of Elizabethan, or conventionally poetic, diction. He managed to use modern expressions, and even slang, without incongruity, while at the same time he is able to give rhetorical movement to the speeches of his symbolic personages. In passages of argument, he can achieve that clash of measured phrase against measured phrase which the Greeks called "stichomythy," and which the French dramatists sometimes produce in rapid rapier play with the Alexandrine. Zangwill's practice suggested that blank verse, to be justified in drama, should be lyrical. His verse is a product of pure intellect and wit, without a single lyric accent. It is measured prose and if it ever tries to be more, it fails. He has shown a new use for blank verse, in rhetorico-symbolic drama - no small literary feat.

    There is nothing more irritating on the modern stage than a play which keeps on changing from verse to prose and back again. It gives the verse-passages an air of pompous self-consciousness. It is most destructive for a dramatist to pass, in the same work of art, from one plane of convention to another.

    A drama with “soliloquies” and “asides” is like a picture with inscribed labels hanging from the mouths of the figures. The challenge of the playwright is to make his characters reveal the inmost workings of their souls without saying or doing anything that they would not say or do in the real world. In serious modern drama the “aside” is now practically obsolete, such that actors are puzzled how to handle it, and audiences what to make of it. To read a letter aloud have validity, but a soliloquy has no real right of existence. It is a purely artificial unraveling of motive or emotion.

    As absurd is the "one room one door" rule - the stage scene should provide a probable locality for whatever action is to take place in it, and doors in practical places where they are deemed functional. The prejudice that exists in some fields against the use of any form of written document on stage is as absurd. Letters play a gigantic part in the economy of modern life. Why banish them from the stage? Bernard Shaw, in an article celebrating the advent of the new technique, once wrote, "Nowadays an actor cannot open a letter or toss off somebody else's glass of poison without having to face a brutal outburst of jeering." The playwright's sole and sufficient safeguard is to use his good intellect and common sense, and not to be intimidated with absurd ideas, and use whatever tools are needed on stage to deliver a good job.

    Sponsored Ads:

    Related Articles:

    Also In This Category:

    Currently Online :

    8 member(s), 18 guest(s):
    Bluberry, DawnsAwaken, Foxglove, Hunter, Pebble, SecretHoarder, SpeedDemon, TheProposal, Google, MSN.com, Cobion.com, Slurp, Speedy Spider

    Search :

    No comments yet