Monday, March 8, 2010

Fencing in Characters

It is interesting reading the script of this. There are minimal directions on how to speak the lines, so reading them from the script seems very straight. However, letting the lines speak for themselves, the emotions in the words and situations truly work themselves up. Reading the script without looking for the emotion, and without knowing what emotions are supposed to be building or to what degree, some of the revelations are rather abrupt. One spot that sticks out is Troy's revelation to Rose that he's going to father another woman's child.
TROY: Rose!
(She stops and turns around)
I don't know how to say this.
(Pause)
I can't explain it none. It just sort of grows on you till it gets out of hand. It starts out like a little bush... and the next think you know it's a whole forest.

ROSE: Troy... What is you talking about?

TROY: I'm talking, woman, let me talk. T'm trying to find a
way to tell you... I'm gonna be a daddy. I'm gonna be somebody's
daddy.

ROSE: Troy... you're not telling me this? You're gonna be...
what?

Just from a cold read, it is very abrupt, and not very empathic. However, the words lend themselves to creating such a subtle and complex character web. The script seems to leave much of the essence of the characters to the actors and directors. This scene especially brings out that choice of character. The only “stage directions” on how to say the lines are the ellipses. Weather it is fast, loud, angry, quiet, sad... all these things would define the characters, but are not given to the actors, readers, or directors.

The dialogue does have several ways that it defines its characters though. The events themselves do say a lot about who these people are. Even beyond the concrete are the stories that the characters tell. Troy especially reminisces about the old days, which reveals his character now and who his character might have been then also. Rose's character is often added to by her contradictions of Troy's stories. Together, the play out a development that, actually, makes the revelation quoted above more surprising.

The fullness of the characters keeps the play grounded in reality. They all are flawed and react to each others flaws. A strong example is Cory and Troy's relationship. They both have different views about how they should behave and what dynamic they should have. It is the contradictions like this and between Troy and Rose that flesh out the whole characters.

Gabe's character is also an interesting dynamic. He seems to function as the role of comic relief most of the time, but with a tragic comedy rather than purely light-hearted. These characters can be so strong (if played well) because of these multi-dimensional aspects they all posses. As a reader, it was difficult to picture some of these scenes, but as an actor, the freedom to posses the character as your own would be a great experience. There are so many choices to be made that are not always available to the performer to the same extent.

Off topic of character, the ending was a bit confusing to me. I understood it up to Gabriel's dance. It seems both sad and hopeful, and very ambiguous as to what it should look like. It will be interesting to see the performance and how they do that part.

3 comments:

  1. I agree that the lines speak for themselves, but there are very few plays that have directions on how to speak the lines in most plays. (with the exception of people adding in a beat.) which is interesting in this play because they use ellipses more than an actual insertion of a beat. I think that when Rose contradicts Troy it not only builds her character but builds his as well. This contradiction makes Roy stick out from the rest of the characters more.

    I agree with what your saying about Gabe that he is an interesting dynamic. I'm not sure if he acts as comic relief as much as he represents everything that Troy is not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I liked your statement about the character web. A circle of characters can be completely interwoven to create a compelling story that is completely driven by their interactions. This is a great example of a script that is finished after the character list. Once Wilson figured the unique traits out he could essentially sit back and let the characters work themselves out.
    How does Wilson begin this type of play? Who does he start with?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Do you mean that it doesn't say "angrily" or "quietly" or whatever? Interesting. Do you miss that as reader? Would you miss it as writer? It's a great tool, and I'd never want to take it away from you -- in many ways, your job as playwright is communication -- but it would be an interesting exercise to write without those emotion tags -- even those emotion expectations -- and see what happens. It's not so much up to your actors as up to your characters perhaps whether they are quietly angry or throwing things angry, whether they are obviously defeated or subtly so, etc.

    We'll wait and see whether that ending makes more sense on stage. And how you feel about things which (potentially) work on stage but don't on the page -- also a really good (hard) question.

    ReplyDelete