I think that due to a playwriting I class I recently took that I've been trying to "force" my play to have a definable "story" in a rather cause/effect & linear mode recently. Not sure if this is a problem yet. I've been having difficulty keeping ALFRED as the main character (because he is) with only an internal conflict with which to build an entire story. HENRY, his right hand man, has a arguably more outward struggle with the revelation of his past betrayals (although this, too, is inward). At one point I restructured the story to reflect HENRY's struggles. This, I realized, only served to take away the primary reason for writing the play: ALFRED and the images with which he is associated.
This has been rather fluid. I've written somewhere around 70 pages by this point. The first 40 or so with the initial ALFRED story structure, the next 20 or so with HENRY as the main before realizing this would be detrimental to the reason to write at all. The next 10ish pages have been re-devoted to ALFRED but focused differently. Whether I end up deciding on a structure for the play or not prior to actually writing it the exercise of thinking about various structures has been helpful simply to purify the quality of what actually needs to happen in the play for it to both be effective and what I want it to be.
Just completed my first SPEED-THRU. Sat, wrote, didn't stop, didn't fix, didn't punctuate, didn't think about structure, character, voice, story, etc... just wrote and didn't stop for 30 minutes in a fury. This exercise produced some rather interesting effects. The first reassured me that my journey to incorrect versions of my script had been a good thing. The first scene (what it ended up being) is significantly more clear about what is going on and about the conflict which will emerge. It is, however, less theatrical than the originally thought and planned out version. The original is rather methodical about rhythm and sound, but to a detriment of story. So, while the initially planned writing is more theatrical the SPEED-THRU is more concrete. It will, indeed, be a blending of the two which will be required for success.
While I am insanely interested in what I call "actor candy1" I am hardy convinced that it, alone, is valuable within an entire script. There must be some sort of unifying function (even if it is disunity). This has been a central problem of mine and one which I imagine will take an entire lifetime to correct (meaning never). I wouldn't trade this problem for the gift of perfect cause/effect structure as I believe there are other strengths I possess and hope that cause/effect is a learnable/trainable strength.
Speaking of cause/effect... the two first scenes I've written are equally possessive of future items, qualities, and habits which will, I believe, serve the future of the play in a cause/effect way. Traits will reappear, items will become more important, etc. It is interesting that this is the case. Perhaps I am coming to know these characters better, even if they do have actual historical counterparts.
1Words, ideas, images, meters, rhythms that simply beg to be spoken by someone with talent and patience. Valuable in and of themselves regardless of any larger context of story or meaning. While poetry may be a close approximate to "actor candy" ... what makes the candy special is the actor. It provides all sorts of marvelous words and rhythms and ideas for the actor to play with and is therefore fun and endearing like a children's game.
No comments:
Post a Comment