Having another character to interact with in a dialogue can help flesh out another character. It also gives answers to an audience for questions they might be asking. In Orphans, Treat revels in the purchasing power of Harold's American Express card, which causes Harold to say, "You're developing a sense of style, Treat, that's fine...but remember, please, everything in moderation." Treat replies that he doesn't know much about moderation, to which Harold responds, "I can see that, Treat." From these lines, we can deduce that Treat has probably never been able to buy the sorts of clothes he has been buying, and he is very naive about how money and consumption work.
Whereas monologues are fairly straightforward in their narrative, dialogues allow for more of a dramatic build. In Angels in America, Harper confronts Joe about his sexuality. It would be boring if the interaction consisted of nothing more of, "Are you gay?", "Yes/no." Instead, Harper anxiously has to try and pull his confession out. Joe denies that he is a homosexual, and then deflects her question by stating that he is "a very good man who has worked very hard to become good" and accusing her of wanting to destroy his image. In dialogue, the verbal back-and-forth gives the audience a much more complex narrative.
Dialogues also provide a chance for juxtaposition. In Closer, the audience observes two couples at once--Dan and Alice, and Anna and Larry. Dan has cheated on Alice, and Anna has done the same to Larry. While both sets of dialogue start out fairly the same, they come to very different ends. Alice, while still angry, is mostly in grief over Dan's decision to leave her. Larry, on the other hand, is much more furious and distraught over Alice's actions.
Okay, Josh, externalized conflict. What do you want to do with it? In fact, you're pointing at things that work here, but I want to know more about why. For instance, surely we could get the same build and suspense from Joe if his musings about his sexuality, his struggles to be good, were presented to us as monologue (they almost are -- he's only sort of talking to Harper there). Similarly, surely we get juxtaposition too from monologues -- more easily, in fact, than traditional dialogue. So with this latter, one of the things you've learned you like is dialogue presented like monologues -- juxtaposed, parallel, reflective of one another.
ReplyDeleteLet me also make a plug for asides within dialogue -- often very very funny.
How does the back and forth yield more complexity?
Hm, I wonder whether or not the characters in dialogue have a chance to "Vent" their problems like you say. From my point of view at least, we are more frank with ourselves--which is basically what a monologue is-- and things can be said in the monologue form that couldn't be said in dialogue because we're too afraid of what people will think of us if we, for example, admit we actually might not approve of homosexuality. I think this is what the Vagina monologues do so well. If the characters were talking to each other, there is no way a sort of topic like vaginas would ever come up, because you just don't talk about that with people in everyday conversation.Often, and what I think make the most sucessful dialogue, is when there is a consistent internalization of the conflict(for example, not telling the audience what it is, not talking about it but manifesting itself in this tension palpable to the audience member in the back row, that's true theatre.) it makes a better, and in the end, more realistic, show.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with you that dialogues make for a more dramatic show, there's something so artistically wonderful about internal conflict building up onstage until it explodes and people actually talk about it(although, often people don't, and in my mind this is sucessful theatre as well).
Cant we still juxtapose the monologue form in a simplistic sense? I mean, if i'm writing one monologue of a woman that's losing her house and one about a man that's losing his job, couldn't we connect their voices through the theme of losing?
I agree that a dialogues provide good situations for juxtaposition, but I think their strongest part in this aspect is showing the contrast between two (or more) voices speaking to each other rather than two sets of characters paralleling each other like in Closer. The juxtaposition in Closer, I think, is more similar to the juxtaposition that you can find in monologues. The two sets of characters do not interact with each other, but when you look at the juxtaposition available to voices when they speak TO each other, the possibilities, in my opinion, increase significantly.
ReplyDeleteBut that's not to say that the juxtaposition between two situations involving multiple characters is not good. It is important, and can be very effective too.
I agree that interaction with another character can “flesh out” the character. Their responses to other people and active situations can show so much that a monologue might not show as dynamically.
And definitely yes to teasing out the dialogue. Not just “Are you X?” “Yes, I am X,” but something that tells how they feel, what they thing, and what they might do about it.
I think in dialogue it is easier to internalize conflict and make it less blunt and obvious to the audience, but i think the conflict also needs to be externalized. In Angels in America, I agree that Harper internalizes the question of "are you gay" but she does not internalize the conflict. We see her passive aggressive crazy self instead. This is what allows us to learn about Harper's character. Another character does help to flesh out another character. Unlike a monologue another character in the scene shows the relationship between the two along with the two characters. However this Def a challenge because your right, you can't just say "are you x?", "yes im x"
ReplyDelete