In a play like Fences, the characters are the only things capable of driving the plot. There weren’t a large amount of deadlines or impending circumstances or devices that would push the plot in a new direction, so the characters had to do it themselves. I guess this was another example of a play whose work was done after a serious evaluation of the character list. I am not sure how I think about that style because I have always been a fan of a journey or the introduction of a new and strange character, but this play is a realistic and everyday kind of play. It is useful to think about plays that don’t have constant action because they help to develop your ability to write dialogue that propels a story rather than plot points.
Fences has an interesting structure. The best way I can think to describe it is as a set of yearbooks stacked together. We get to see a few interactions and characters before we have to look at the next yearbook. This structure fits the characters really well, but I wonder how hard it is to write such a play. As soon as Wilson finished discussing whatever he wanted the characters to say he would just move onto a new yearbook and leave the audience wondering.
The thing I am left wondering after reading this play is how does one go about creating the characters that will essentially dictate the plot of your story. Do you begin with a vague idea of plot and then go? Did Wilson start with Troy, then create Rose, then Lyons and Cory, and then added in an affair, then Bono for support, then Gabe to spice things up? I would like to learn how to do create a character string that can completely support a story before the story is written.
I think its possible that Wilson knew the plot of the story and built the characters around it. Of course, it was the way that he wrote it that made it work the way it did. He could have written the story with all the characters that are talked about with different locals etc, however, he has the characters just sit around and tell us the story instead.
ReplyDeleteI like that nothing happens in this play. And i do agree that writing a play like this would be a challenge. It is hard to have dialogue that drives the action with out the characters actually going through the action at the time they are talking about it. However, i think this allows you to open up and tell the audience more through the dialogue instead of it having to be represented through the actions of the characters.
If I remember correctly, in the interview we watched in class, Wilson said he had the image of a big man holding a baby, and a few of the lines he says to Rose while he is off stage(although he didn't know at the time who the lines were said to). This seems to start a little with both plot and character. A man with a dificult history, and a man acquiring a newborn infant (his or someone elses).
ReplyDeleteIt's such a great, specific image to start with too. Pulling out the rest of the plot and the rest of the characters from a moment would certainly be an interesting way to go about writing.
I tend to go for a more active/involved plot too, but I do love how strong this style makes the characters, which are easier to sacrifice some in a more "plotty" story.
One thing I wonder is whether character and big plot are necessarily mutually exclusive and, along those lines, whether realistic characters necessarily lead to realism on stage. (How) can we have character AND journey, characters we buy AND surprise? Some of that boils down to figuring out how to show someone acting out of character when we have such a short period of time in which to show any character at all. This is a great goal though: creating characters who obviate the need for their own play; they're that good. Did you try this last time?
ReplyDelete