...Is the idea that, as you move forward through a play, there are many options available in terms of where the plot may go next -- but WHEN YOU LOOK BACKWARD AT A PLOT FROM THE END OF THE PLAY, you see that each moment had to occur the way it did in order for the story to reach its inevitable end.
Yes? Thoughts?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
What Is A Play?
It may be useful to think of a play as a SERIES OF EVENTS with a BEGINNING, MIDDLE and END.
This is not the only definition, and it isn't enough to guarantee "Good Theatre" by any means, but I have found that keeping this short definition in mind can get out of hot water when you get stuck in a draft.
It's a good place to START.
This is not the only definition, and it isn't enough to guarantee "Good Theatre" by any means, but I have found that keeping this short definition in mind can get out of hot water when you get stuck in a draft.
It's a good place to START.
BLOG GROUPS, FYI
ARISTOTLE
Kat
Autumn
Joanna
Celso
BECKETT
Michael
Ashley
Chibbi
Margot
CHEKHOV
Lily
Amber
Burkard
Joshua
DIETZ
Andy
Bryan
Sara
Julia
Kat
Autumn
Joanna
Celso
BECKETT
Michael
Ashley
Chibbi
Margot
CHEKHOV
Lily
Amber
Burkard
Joshua
DIETZ
Andy
Bryan
Sara
Julia
Aristotle Notes, FYI
*Note: What follows is a cut-and-pasted, cribbed distillation of the Poetics based on my own interpretation of them, several different online sources, and the notes of a couple of smart friends.
Aristotle was a painstaking observer, believing nature never created anything without a reason. He dissected animals and studied them in their natural habitat, then did the same thing with Politics, logic, art. This approach to anatomy led him to look for correlations between structure and function and to a belief that each biological part has its own special uses.
Besides his work in the field of biology, Aristotle also was the first to define and classify the various branches of knowledge. He sorted them into physics, metaphysics, rhetoric, poetics, and logic. In doing so, he laid the foundation of most of the sciences, and is sometimes called the “father of logic.”
What matters for OUR purposes is that he tried to define and classify performance and drama.
What was “POETICS?”
It was Aristotle’s attempt to break down, classify, and define one of the predominant art forms of his time, POETRY. Not just Robert Frost back then.
But for him, in his time, poetry included Epic Poetry (think of Homer, the recited stories), tragedy, comedy, music…all forms of IMITATION. They differ in what they’re imitating (something serious or not serious), and what they use (musical instrument versus language).
Aristotle says that our interest in Poetry and performance comes from two deep-seated instincts: our love of IMITATION and our desire for HARMONY…that man learns by imitating, and that there’s a universal pleasure in seeing things imitated (think about how a baby learns language, and to walk…etc). So we put things on stage that mirror what we see in the world. With Harmony, he means both literal harmony (think about hearing a chord with one note off), and the desire for things to “fit.” We like things to make SENSE. We put stories onstage to make SENSE of what we see off stage.
Aristotle says that we imitate two things: noble things, and base things. You imitate base things, you’re in the land of comedy (think slipping on a banana peel, somebody opening a closet and there’s people inside kissing). You imitate noble things (a king faced with a difficult decision, star-crossed lovers), you’re in the world of tragedy.
Of all kinds of Poetry, says Aristotle, the highest form is Tragedy.
Definition of Tragedy: “Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish its katharsis of such emotions. . . . Every Tragedy, therefore, must have six parts, which parts determine its quality—namely, Plot, Characters, Diction, Thought, Spectacle, Melody.”
OF THESE, says Aristotle, the most important is plot, which is inseparable, for him, from action.
“Tragedy is an imitation, not of men, but of ACTION and of LIFE, and LIFE CONSISTS IN ACTION, and ITS END IS A MODE OF ACTION, NOT A QUALITY.”
Aristotle says that “character determines men’s qualities, but it is by their actions that they are happy or unhappy.” So Character is less important than action.
He says “Hence the incidents and the plot are the end of a tragedy; and the end is the chief of all things.” So there CAN be a tragedy without character, but not without action.
He rank-orders everything for us (1) Plot and ACTION, (2) Character, (3)Thought (WHAT is said) (4) Diction (HOW it is said) (5) Song and (6) Spectacle.
Then Aristotle spends a LOT of time talking about Plot…what is a story, what should a drama have going for it. A lot of these things should sound really familiar – Again, his definition: Complete, and whole, and of a certain Magnitude.
So it should have a beginning, a middle, and an end.
What’s a beginning? Something that doesn’t HAVE to come after something else, but once it happens, there are other things that naturally follow. (get examples from class)
What’s an end? Something that naturally HAS to follow something else, but that nothing else HAS to happen after to feel complete. (get examples from class)
A middle has to have stuff before it and after it.
MAGNITUDE…he meant a couple of things. First that it should be long enough, but not too long. How long is that “long enough for bad fortune to change to good, or good fortune to bad.” IE walking onstage with a suitcase, handing it to a character, and saying “congratulations! You won the lottery!” doesn’t make a good play, in and of itself.
“It is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen – what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity.”
Other things you’ll hear about when people talk about Poetics:
Unity of Plot/Action – people will say this means the whole thing needs to happen in the same place, but my reading of it is more that everything in your play should be necessary…if you can take something out of your play, without missing it, then it should go. A play is like a Jenga game, where you remove anything, and it falls apart.
Complex/Simple/Episodic plots – think of a TV show where you can skip a couple of weeks and the whole thing still makes sense – that’s “Episodic” and Aristotle’s not a fan. Simple plots roll out where something happens, then something else happens, then a third, and the end. COMPLEX is Aristotle’s favorite kind of plot, and it’s basically one where there are REVERSALS and RECOGNITION
Reversals – is what it sounds like. Things are going one way, something happens, and suddenly they’re going the other way. Example?
Recognition – change from ignorance to knowledge. A lot of times these go hand in hand with a reversal.
Here’s the most important thing: Aristotle’s been dead for more than 2,000 years. Think of a million examples that break these rules, and remember, they’re not RULES: they’re hypothesis based on observation. You may want to break all of them. I’ll say this: actually constructing the kind of plot he’s talking about, and doing it well, is a lot harder than it sounds. There’s something to be said for mastering some of these rules before you break them.
Aristotle was a painstaking observer, believing nature never created anything without a reason. He dissected animals and studied them in their natural habitat, then did the same thing with Politics, logic, art. This approach to anatomy led him to look for correlations between structure and function and to a belief that each biological part has its own special uses.
Besides his work in the field of biology, Aristotle also was the first to define and classify the various branches of knowledge. He sorted them into physics, metaphysics, rhetoric, poetics, and logic. In doing so, he laid the foundation of most of the sciences, and is sometimes called the “father of logic.”
What matters for OUR purposes is that he tried to define and classify performance and drama.
What was “POETICS?”
It was Aristotle’s attempt to break down, classify, and define one of the predominant art forms of his time, POETRY. Not just Robert Frost back then.
But for him, in his time, poetry included Epic Poetry (think of Homer, the recited stories), tragedy, comedy, music…all forms of IMITATION. They differ in what they’re imitating (something serious or not serious), and what they use (musical instrument versus language).
Aristotle says that our interest in Poetry and performance comes from two deep-seated instincts: our love of IMITATION and our desire for HARMONY…that man learns by imitating, and that there’s a universal pleasure in seeing things imitated (think about how a baby learns language, and to walk…etc). So we put things on stage that mirror what we see in the world. With Harmony, he means both literal harmony (think about hearing a chord with one note off), and the desire for things to “fit.” We like things to make SENSE. We put stories onstage to make SENSE of what we see off stage.
Aristotle says that we imitate two things: noble things, and base things. You imitate base things, you’re in the land of comedy (think slipping on a banana peel, somebody opening a closet and there’s people inside kissing). You imitate noble things (a king faced with a difficult decision, star-crossed lovers), you’re in the world of tragedy.
Of all kinds of Poetry, says Aristotle, the highest form is Tragedy.
Definition of Tragedy: “Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish its katharsis of such emotions. . . . Every Tragedy, therefore, must have six parts, which parts determine its quality—namely, Plot, Characters, Diction, Thought, Spectacle, Melody.”
OF THESE, says Aristotle, the most important is plot, which is inseparable, for him, from action.
“Tragedy is an imitation, not of men, but of ACTION and of LIFE, and LIFE CONSISTS IN ACTION, and ITS END IS A MODE OF ACTION, NOT A QUALITY.”
Aristotle says that “character determines men’s qualities, but it is by their actions that they are happy or unhappy.” So Character is less important than action.
He says “Hence the incidents and the plot are the end of a tragedy; and the end is the chief of all things.” So there CAN be a tragedy without character, but not without action.
He rank-orders everything for us (1) Plot and ACTION, (2) Character, (3)Thought (WHAT is said) (4) Diction (HOW it is said) (5) Song and (6) Spectacle.
Then Aristotle spends a LOT of time talking about Plot…what is a story, what should a drama have going for it. A lot of these things should sound really familiar – Again, his definition: Complete, and whole, and of a certain Magnitude.
So it should have a beginning, a middle, and an end.
What’s a beginning? Something that doesn’t HAVE to come after something else, but once it happens, there are other things that naturally follow. (get examples from class)
What’s an end? Something that naturally HAS to follow something else, but that nothing else HAS to happen after to feel complete. (get examples from class)
A middle has to have stuff before it and after it.
MAGNITUDE…he meant a couple of things. First that it should be long enough, but not too long. How long is that “long enough for bad fortune to change to good, or good fortune to bad.” IE walking onstage with a suitcase, handing it to a character, and saying “congratulations! You won the lottery!” doesn’t make a good play, in and of itself.
“It is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen – what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity.”
Other things you’ll hear about when people talk about Poetics:
Unity of Plot/Action – people will say this means the whole thing needs to happen in the same place, but my reading of it is more that everything in your play should be necessary…if you can take something out of your play, without missing it, then it should go. A play is like a Jenga game, where you remove anything, and it falls apart.
Complex/Simple/Episodic plots – think of a TV show where you can skip a couple of weeks and the whole thing still makes sense – that’s “Episodic” and Aristotle’s not a fan. Simple plots roll out where something happens, then something else happens, then a third, and the end. COMPLEX is Aristotle’s favorite kind of plot, and it’s basically one where there are REVERSALS and RECOGNITION
Reversals – is what it sounds like. Things are going one way, something happens, and suddenly they’re going the other way. Example?
Recognition – change from ignorance to knowledge. A lot of times these go hand in hand with a reversal.
Here’s the most important thing: Aristotle’s been dead for more than 2,000 years. Think of a million examples that break these rules, and remember, they’re not RULES: they’re hypothesis based on observation. You may want to break all of them. I’ll say this: actually constructing the kind of plot he’s talking about, and doing it well, is a lot harder than it sounds. There’s something to be said for mastering some of these rules before you break them.
Burkard's CHEKHOV TEAM BLOG
I want to focus on two things. 1. I thought Celso's comment on the connection of boners and theatre interesting. If I understood him, Greg Allen and Jose Rivera, then one important aim of theatre is, to produce any emotion. Emotions are precious for the producers of music, movies, plays, newspapers etc. If the people are able to put themselves in the position of a certain figure of a play or can imagine the play's actions, then it is a success. This also connects to Aristotle, who wanted to reach pity (eleos) and fear (phobos) by staging a tragedy. Of course many other aroused emotions are imagineable.
But I think it is also important to really aim the whole play at something bigger. If you lose the red ribbon, the firework of effects the playwright lights up flies meaningless in all directions and might hit himself or herself. That is, because the audience is going to recognize the lack of any, possibly moral, fundament. This kind of theatre is in my opinion meaningless and short-lived.
2. The second point I want to focus on is our blindfolded guided tour. I realize now that it was similar to the "white sheet of paper" which lies empty in front of the painter. That is, because the guide could have created any kind of reality, could have told e.g. (like mentioned in class) the stairs we climbed were African mountains. I connect this exercise to Rivera's # 18 (own genre) and # 23 (theatre = explanation of life to living). I think it is important, to create a world of its own in every play. And if we do so, we have to be aware of all the consequences of every idea, move, turn, dialogue etc. we write down on the white paper aforementioned. In my opinion this might also be, what Aristotle had in mind with his order of beginning, middle and end of the drama and the term "retrospective inevitability" Jenny mentioned in today's lesson.
I want to focus on two things. 1. I thought Celso's comment on the connection of boners and theatre interesting. If I understood him, Greg Allen and Jose Rivera, then one important aim of theatre is, to produce any emotion. Emotions are precious for the producers of music, movies, plays, newspapers etc. If the people are able to put themselves in the position of a certain figure of a play or can imagine the play's actions, then it is a success. This also connects to Aristotle, who wanted to reach pity (eleos) and fear (phobos) by staging a tragedy. Of course many other aroused emotions are imagineable.
But I think it is also important to really aim the whole play at something bigger. If you lose the red ribbon, the firework of effects the playwright lights up flies meaningless in all directions and might hit himself or herself. That is, because the audience is going to recognize the lack of any, possibly moral, fundament. This kind of theatre is in my opinion meaningless and short-lived.
2. The second point I want to focus on is our blindfolded guided tour. I realize now that it was similar to the "white sheet of paper" which lies empty in front of the painter. That is, because the guide could have created any kind of reality, could have told e.g. (like mentioned in class) the stairs we climbed were African mountains. I connect this exercise to Rivera's # 18 (own genre) and # 23 (theatre = explanation of life to living). I think it is important, to create a world of its own in every play. And if we do so, we have to be aware of all the consequences of every idea, move, turn, dialogue etc. we write down on the white paper aforementioned. In my opinion this might also be, what Aristotle had in mind with his order of beginning, middle and end of the drama and the term "retrospective inevitability" Jenny mentioned in today's lesson.
Creating Good Theatre
1. Sorry for my late blogging.
2. I have written all kinds of texts, but never a playwright. Of the three texts we focussed on, one thing seemed thus important to me. It is Jose Rivera's point 2: "Theatre is closer to poetry and music than it is to the novel." That means to me, I have to imagine the stage and all its possibilities and my audience more than in any epical form of text. Greg Allen hints at this in his Rules # 11, 12 & 16 in my opinion.
3. Both, Greg Allen and Jose Rivera stress the fact that you can only create really good theatre by aiming your script at something you really believe in. Thus I think, it is not necessarily important which idea triggers the creation of a drama. But you must introduce a topic you are seriously into, interested in and believe in.
4. The German author Thomas Mann used in his novel "Buddenbrooks" about the decline of a bourgeoise family many often repeated motifs and some compare this novel to a musical composition. I recognize that it is important to repeat motifs. What the authors in the script not mention is, that it also makes it easier for the audience to follow the plot. That is important, because it is not easy to follow a plot (possibly) for hours, not having the possibility to re-read lines or scenes you missed. I thought about this reading Greg Allen's Rule # 23.
5. In my eyes, Jose Rivera contradicts himself, if he pleads for writing "from your organs . . . your liver, your ass" (#15) vs. him telling us, "a play must be organized" and have a structure (# 26). I think, first you should learn how to structure a play roughly and it needs much routine and skill, just to write from your "organs".
6. From the Oedipus page, I learn that you should already know about the most important turns of your plot to structure the rest of your theatre piece.
2. I have written all kinds of texts, but never a playwright. Of the three texts we focussed on, one thing seemed thus important to me. It is Jose Rivera's point 2: "Theatre is closer to poetry and music than it is to the novel." That means to me, I have to imagine the stage and all its possibilities and my audience more than in any epical form of text. Greg Allen hints at this in his Rules # 11, 12 & 16 in my opinion.
3. Both, Greg Allen and Jose Rivera stress the fact that you can only create really good theatre by aiming your script at something you really believe in. Thus I think, it is not necessarily important which idea triggers the creation of a drama. But you must introduce a topic you are seriously into, interested in and believe in.
4. The German author Thomas Mann used in his novel "Buddenbrooks" about the decline of a bourgeoise family many often repeated motifs and some compare this novel to a musical composition. I recognize that it is important to repeat motifs. What the authors in the script not mention is, that it also makes it easier for the audience to follow the plot. That is important, because it is not easy to follow a plot (possibly) for hours, not having the possibility to re-read lines or scenes you missed. I thought about this reading Greg Allen's Rule # 23.
5. In my eyes, Jose Rivera contradicts himself, if he pleads for writing "from your organs . . . your liver, your ass" (#15) vs. him telling us, "a play must be organized" and have a structure (# 26). I think, first you should learn how to structure a play roughly and it needs much routine and skill, just to write from your "organs".
6. From the Oedipus page, I learn that you should already know about the most important turns of your plot to structure the rest of your theatre piece.
Viceral Theatre Is Good Theatre; or not
What makes theatre "good theatre" is, in my opinion, completely subjective. But what makes theatre a special kind of entertainment is its importance on the present moment. Art alone is just that: art. Are with an audience is alive, capable of inspiring, creating, and evoking an audience to change, either themselves or others.
Good theatre should provide a mirror to reality. It should present different perspectives that raises more questions than it answers. It shouldnt present solutions, but force the audience to find them for themselves. Good theatre should explore the concept of living itself: what makes up everyday life and why people do the things they do. Once that is achieved it should challenge people to question themselves and others as well. I don't mean that it should be out to change people's beliefs, ideals, or opinions, but it should force people to know why they believe and do what they do.
Good theatre should never be safe. Life is chaotic, passionate, and unpredictable, and the theatre should act as a parallel to life. Good theatre should be a juxtiposition of itself, varying in tempo, emotions, ideas, etc. It should take the audience on a backwards roller coaster ride. What makes theatre execptional is its ability to draw in an audience, bringing down their defenses with comedy, and then slapping them in the face with tragedy. A particular brand of theatre that I have fallen in love with is known as "In-Yer-Face Theatre:" a no-holds-barred, agressive, brutal, and honest portrayl of life. As Peter Brook said, the intention is to ‘crack the spectator on the jaw, then douse him in ice-cold water, then force him to assess intelligently what has happened to him, then give him a kick in the balls, then bring him back to his senses again.'
Theatre is a communal effort. Very rarely can one put on a complete performance entirely on their own. Along the same lines, theatre should be reflective of the community in which it is created. It should be conscious of communal concerns as well as raise concern for communal consciousness.
Good theatre is a balance between the technical, the vocal, the spatial, the visual, and the emotional lives of the performers AND the audience. One element cannot overpower the other, but each must compliment and combine to empower the performance as a whole. But again, each person will have their own definition of what is and isn't good theatre. It could be painful, but good, enjoyable, but terrible. But what it NEEDS to be, immediate. That is what makes people come to the theatre: the connection formed between the actors and the audience.
Good theatre should provide a mirror to reality. It should present different perspectives that raises more questions than it answers. It shouldnt present solutions, but force the audience to find them for themselves. Good theatre should explore the concept of living itself: what makes up everyday life and why people do the things they do. Once that is achieved it should challenge people to question themselves and others as well. I don't mean that it should be out to change people's beliefs, ideals, or opinions, but it should force people to know why they believe and do what they do.
Good theatre should never be safe. Life is chaotic, passionate, and unpredictable, and the theatre should act as a parallel to life. Good theatre should be a juxtiposition of itself, varying in tempo, emotions, ideas, etc. It should take the audience on a backwards roller coaster ride. What makes theatre execptional is its ability to draw in an audience, bringing down their defenses with comedy, and then slapping them in the face with tragedy. A particular brand of theatre that I have fallen in love with is known as "In-Yer-Face Theatre:" a no-holds-barred, agressive, brutal, and honest portrayl of life. As Peter Brook said, the intention is to ‘crack the spectator on the jaw, then douse him in ice-cold water, then force him to assess intelligently what has happened to him, then give him a kick in the balls, then bring him back to his senses again.'
Theatre is a communal effort. Very rarely can one put on a complete performance entirely on their own. Along the same lines, theatre should be reflective of the community in which it is created. It should be conscious of communal concerns as well as raise concern for communal consciousness.
Good theatre is a balance between the technical, the vocal, the spatial, the visual, and the emotional lives of the performers AND the audience. One element cannot overpower the other, but each must compliment and combine to empower the performance as a whole. But again, each person will have their own definition of what is and isn't good theatre. It could be painful, but good, enjoyable, but terrible. But what it NEEDS to be, immediate. That is what makes people come to the theatre: the connection formed between the actors and the audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)