I think dialog is probably more accessible to the reader/audience by nature. I noticed right away that it was much easier to be interested in the exchanges of the characters than the monologues -- it’s also much less daunting visually to see text all broken-up versus huge monochunks. It’s like, okay, even if what this character has to say is boring at least I’m only committed to them for a moment, a few lines, and then I get to hear from someone else.
Neil Simon kills me (sorry Caitie). I don’t think I would be as annoyed by him if I hadn’t had to read the entire Volume 1 of his greatest hits in 110, but I did... I think what bothers me about it is the dialog (and situations) are just so perfect. It is witty but in such a cutsy, precious way. That probably is part of its wide appeal, that it’s over the top, farcical, easy laughs, and there is def something satisfying about that. The bit from Below the Waist was very similar in tone with the same kind of “perfect,” somewhat cheap jokes. There is an element to be admired in the construction of the situations as they do tie up so neatly, but I don’t think anyone would get away with writing this kind of dialog as a modern playwright. I think a sort of exception to this is David Ives. I think he plays in the same (or similar) vein as Neil Simon, but he just does it better (or at least in a more contemporary way) by just being so weird. His one-acts present similar kinds of situations with the gratification of quick pay-off, that is just a hint into weirdland.
When I was reading the Shakespeare ones I was thinking that what annoys me about the dialog in Simon and Below the Waist is really even more similar to the pace Shakespeare was playing with. His banter between Beatrice and Benedict, and Hamlet and Polonious was really laying the foundation for these comical exchanges. Hamlet uses the same conventions of malaprops as the Doctor. It was interesting to pay attention to how basic those jokes are (maybe that’s why they annoy me in later works?) Ernest does it too, the tightness of pace and wit, but again, it’s more Shakespearean less Simon. So in that respect, I guess I appreciate the tightness of that kind of joke/dialog. Yes, I appreciate the tightness of all of those.
I didn’t really feel like the dialog itself in Boy Gets Girl was a focus of the script. It seemed as though the dialog served more to carry the story (which very well may be great) but didn’t do anything remarkable beyond that. It neither offends nor excites me. Maybe that’s the point though, to just seem normal -- I mean, there’s something to be said for the dialog not distracting from the story, right?
I love Closer (I mean yeah, I picked it, but c’mon that scene is good...) I just thought about how it’s interesting to read a scene of dialog out of a larger work--I wonder how much that changes my impressions of it? Because I think that scene is really good, but maybe it isn’t quite as affecting outside the context of the play. I think in general I’m more attracted to darker stuff and so I have an easier time taking “serious” dialog more seriously. I’m also a sucker for simultaneous scenes in different places and overlapping thems/dialog. I just think it’s cool that we can do flashbacks (and other things with time) even though we’re confined to the “reality” of the stage. I like that format for a scene or two also, even if all the characters never interact in “real” time cause I feel the simultaneous situations can potentially layer each other, adding the feeling(s) of the dialog from one scene to the other (and v. vs.).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You know, sometimes I think I learn more from what I don't like that what I do. And look at all you've learned here:
ReplyDeleteYou prefer dialogue to monologue because you prefer small bits to large chunks. Good. You prefer messy and realish dialogue to the quick, snappy, perfect, contrived, and cloying variety in part because you prefer dialogue which doesn't call attention to itself. That's a remarkable point. So often the dialogue we praise most is the witty, tight, clever kind or the really pretty kind, but those rarely advance the story, develop the characters much, or blend in in any way. You want dialogue we don't notice. Dialogue we don't notice looks and sounds more real than the other kind. And you prefer serious and dramatic to comic and cute. Where are you on melodrama (which seems the marriage of those two)? Valuable info all.
Me too I love overlapping scenes. Tons of potential there. Maybe you can add a sister and have two on one side of the stage talking to each other about the two on the other side who are talking about them. Or maybe their mom? Boyfriend?
Hey you. Your blog is fun to read. And you make oodles of really good points. I agree with you that there is something less daunting about looking at a script of dialogue as opposed to one of purely monologues. And, to take that a step further, I think that dialoguing pieces might tend to have more that will appeal to more people. Like you said, if you are dissatisfied or bored with a character, you don't have to wait long before you get to hear from someone else in, potentially a rather different scene/scenario. Excellent.
ReplyDeleteI am joining the club of suckers for overlapping scenes. I LOVE them and I loved the closer partly because it was one. I really want to read the rest of the show now. Good fun. Anyway, excellent points, excellent dialogue snippitt.
Emma,
ReplyDeleteI really liked your point that a dialogue can be too perfect. It is something I never really thought of before, but I feel plays are in a way a study and re-enactment of human behavior, and it is important to realize nothing and no one is fully perfect. People have slip ups in speech patterns and actions that need to be accounted for. Also, I liked your point about commitment in dialogues as opposed to monologues. Dialogues unravel characters, instead of throwing them at you, and ease you into making an opinion of them. It's what people do everyday when either having a conversation with someone they might not know very well, or being a creeper and over hearing people talking, as opposed to hearing someone rant or give a lecture. Also, I loved Closer too :) I loved the overlapping, and I am starting to think of other ways to infuse multipul scenes or patterns into a dialogue.
-Hanna
DiaBlog. nice.
ReplyDeleteIts funny how I disaccociate reading a play and seeing a play. When i first read "I think dialog is probably more accessible to the reader/audience by nature." I was going to dissagree and argue that a monologue reads more like a book (which most people are more familiar with than plays) than a dialogue. But then when thinking about seeing a play, a dialogue seems much more natural and expected. I think it is interesting how different it is reading a play, and then seeing that same play. When reading it, everything is up to the imagination, while when seeing a play one has no control over how it looks. I have never speciffically thought about this while reading, but i would be interested to know if most people, while reading a play, imagine the scenes on stage, or in real life, or as a filmed scene?
I can understand your dislike (hate?) of Neil Simon play. You think that the situations are perfect, and where is the excitement in that. A good scene hooks the viewer by making them want to keep watching to see what happnes, and this is usually done by creating conflict. If there was no conflict then the audience might be stuck watching a scene about....oh I dont know....two people happily washing the dishes (aka BOOOOOORING). Now when one of the people drops their wedding ring down the sink....cha ching...thats when things begin to get good.
So you didn't like Neil Simon, nor Below the Waist, nor Hamlet, nor Ernest, nor Boy Meets Girl....OH! Closer. Ok.
I think its great how people can have totally different preferences when it comes to plays (You like darker plays, I like more comical and crazy), but I feel like on some level no matter what we are watching we should have an appreciation of theater as a whole. Even if one saw their "least favorite play ever", there would have to be something that they appreciated about it, whether it was the lights, or set, or concept of the play. One love, dude, one love.
-t ae why? El or are? Griffin.
In my defense, I really did/do like Hamlet, Much Ado, and Ernest... I was just saying that they founded the structure (and quickness) of Simon and were therefore similar to plays/styles I don't like (even though they share the same father), yes?
ReplyDeleteAnother clarification: I don't think that Simon is without conflict or ring-down-the-drain situations. I think that within his situations, some which are very creative, the dialog has a certain snap to it that is simultaneously satisfying and annoying. Witty banter has a pleasing pace and rhythm -- we go to the theater to hear this kind of heightened conversation. But, it can also fall into annoyingland with traps of sounding contrived, cutsy, and too perfect -- in general I think witty banter treads on thin ice.
ReplyDelete