I loved this play. Oh my gosh. I thought it was incredible. I thought it had everything a play needed: humor, tragedy, character development, plot development, suspense, everything. I liked this so much more than Vanya, because the characters were just as strong, but stuff actually happened. I really wanted to find out what was going to happen by the end (even though I already technically knew, because I'd seen the film before).
My playwriting teacher in London said that character drives plot. I've never really understood what this meant until I read Amadeus. In this play, the characters motivations really determine what happens in the play. It is such a clear example of conflicting objectives and how they clash. I think that most of the time, when I write, I have a few characters, and they do stuff for a while, and then something happens. The plot isn't usually determined by whether or not they achieve their goals/objectives. I think it's usually some kind of outside force. And I think it would help a lot more if I had my characters' motivations be the driving force behind the plot.
Since we're talking of character development specifically, I'll just mention that I thought the pacing of the play was interesting. The entire first act is exclusively character development. Nothing really happens until the second act, and the reason why the audience cares what happens in the second act is because of what has been established in the first. It reminded me of the movie "Match Point", a thriller by Woody Allen. The first 3/4 of this 2+ hour movie was exclusively character development. NOTHING HAPPENED. But it kept me hooked until the point of no return, after which I was on the edge of my seat for the rest of the ride. I think the exact opposite would be The Da Vinci Code. This book gave you the point of no return on the first page. And character development mattered very little. All Dan Brown had to do was make the protagonists likable enough to make the readers want them to win, and not the bad guys. But other than that, it was all plot development.
I read the preface by Shaffer, and I thought it was so interesting how many endings this play has gone through since its opening in London however many years ago that was. Alternative endings have always been a bit weird for me. Even on the extra features of DVDs, I like the one ending, because that's how it should be. It wigs me out when movies start to become "choose-your-own-adventures." It was just weird for me to think of the play with so many different endings. I'm afraid that I'd like one over the other, and that one wouldn't make it into the final cut. It's also weird for me to think about as a writer, because while it's awesome to have a range of options for where the play can go, sometimes options suck, and it's nice to know how this current project is going to end. Sometimes options suck, because you have to choose, and choosing is hard.
Ok, I think that's about it from me. Woot.
KG
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Choosing IS hard. It's funny because 1) I like Shaffer's first ending best personally and 2) by the time I got to the plot part of Match Point, I hated the movie SO MUCH because I hated the characters and the setup SO MUCH that I watched the end in fast forward. So I like your goal here: let characters drive the play and what happens in it rather than the plot. What's so amazing to me about all of Shaffer's endings is that they don't really matter. The rest of the play is so good that his widely hugely varied endings have very little impact. You know you've written a good play when the ending -- what happens -- doesn't even matter at all! Write good characters and the rest is gravy.
ReplyDelete