One thing I thought Fences does particularly well that I have always had trouble with in my own fiction writing is aggressive characters. Aggression is both too easy and too difficult to write. It's easy to build a character to the point where he's shouting, but it's hard to make that shouting “real” or anything that adds to the character, often it can just be affecting for the audience––shocking and frightening for the audience because there's someone right there and they're aggressive. However, in Fences Troy's anger is more of the fascinating bent. Wilson nailed the character as someone who would draw people around him and into his life. Seemingly nothing about Troy's anger and behavior is written simply as an easy emotional out, or to be demonstrative, his anger is truly in his character and fits both metaphorically and neatly into the plot. Also, in terms of “giving the director leeway” as we discussed in class, this play has led me to the conclusion that all the director really needs for leeway are the lines, everything else can be clearly defined, but I thought of many ways in which Troy can be played. So in the future I am going to avoid any uncertain phrases like “Need not” in my stage directions.
Another thing the play does well that I thought I could learn from is the way the characters persuade each other. The play seems to be in constant power struggle, constant conflict, yet it's never easy, never melodramatic. Some of the most powerful persuasive moments come from Rose (Convinces Troy to give Lyons money, convinces Cory to come to the funeral), who is much subtler than Troy yet in a different way a force in her own right. Not even Rose is really passive character here, even though she is not confrontational the same way Troy is. I would like to write a play with no passive characters like this. Too often all my characters are passive.
Like in Eurydice, I'm again impressed by the use of symbols on stage. For instance, the fence. It seems symbolic of many things, prominently the new found stability of Black American communities. We see this literally in the play, when Bono talks about how Rose is trying to keep Troy in; this interpretation from the stage gives the symbol power, yet it never seems like artifice. Brilliant. It seems that grant symbolic meaning is another of the things a character's speech can do.
On a technical note, something that I know I'm going to have a hard time getting a sense of is timing. For instance, the action on the page of Act 2 Scene 1 seems to read way to quickly, yet because it has a lot of physical direction like sawing I'm sure it would stretch out on stage. How are beginning playwrights to get a sense of this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you're absolutely right about agression. The realness of Wilson's characters is often their most appealing aspect. Although I don't much like Troy(far from liking him, actually) I find myself appreciating Wilson's talent in staging the fights to not sound too fake. Of course there is exaggeration--what play has no exaggeration at all--but I think it's done in a way that isn't too obvious and that still keeps you grounded in the central point.
ReplyDeleteI also loved the use of symbolism in the play.The numerous references to the fence were also interesting, especially when Wilson put them in a song that Rose(I believe it is Rose) first sings.
In a sense, I would say that the lines are both the director's and actor's leeway. Because(from directing experience) you can't make an actor act a certain way. You can tell them to, and shout it from the back of the theatre over and over again during rehearsals, but if it doesn't look good with the actor acting that way as the character, it doesn't look good. The director has to be wiling to transmit their "image" onto the actors who are then going to transmit it to the characters who are then going to transmit it onstage. So, in my opinion, a director has to be willing to accept the fact that their "image" of Troy is probably not the image that's going to end up onstage during final performances. A good play allows for this constant molding of image, and I think it's something that Wilson does very well.
Let me answer your last question first: you watch a lot of plays, especially plays you've read. We'll know so much more after we all go see this play. You'll also start to know more as you write longer pieces and see them workshopped -- you'll start to get a feel for how long it takes people to perform however many pages of your dialogue. So that's coming -- don't fret.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, almost everyone here is an aggressive character if in entirely different ways so that the play begs the contrast between Troy's aggressions and his sons' (themselves very different) or his wife's. The anger not only buys us drama and character development but also plot, background info, history, setup, point, theme, and metaphor. Impressive for yelling. I also wonder (speaking of director leeway) about staging this yelling and anger quietly, and I wonder if trying it that way would help you write useful aggression rather than the cheap, easy, pointless kind. Imagine it and workshop it in whispers -- if it still works, that seems like a really good sign.
The symbolism here, like the yelling, buys us so much. I am all for your incorporation of symbols on stage. They must do as much as you can shove in them. Here we get theme and character development but, again, also history, motivation, backstory, foreshadowing, and a fabulous title. Work your symbols. Or make them work for you.
I like your discussion of the passive vs. aggressive character. I think it's a really interesting thing to think about, because generally when you have a lot of aggressive characters, you'd think that a lot of things would happen because they would inspire action with their aggression. But here, we see a bunch of aggressive characters talking about all the things they have done. Rose, honestly, is the one who does the most plot wise and she seems to be the passive and subtle in her aggression. Really sets the character relationships very clearly.
ReplyDelete"all the director really needs for leeway are the lines"
Such a true statement. No matter what the stage directions say, directors will often do whatever they want. Every director I have had has always said "stage directions are just loose guidelines, not rules." My feeling about it is that playwrights might as well right extremely specific stage directions because a director can choose whether to follow them or not, so as long as you give them they idea there's a small chance they'll follow them.
I think the point you bring up here about agression speaks to Wilson's artful, clever writing. I think writing agression and anger etc is a little daunting because the scary result of a deteriorated screaming match looms as a possiblity. I agree that the way these aggressive fights could be staged could downplay volume...other ways to show agression than just yelling (although it could also be butchered...eek). I think it also shows how the writing is able to focus on the point of WHAT is upsetting/inspiring the agression instead of getting distracted by the sheer agression. The meaning of the words shine through the emotional fog.
ReplyDeleteI think part of the reason this play is able to contain (FENCE in) a majority of non-passive characters is BECAUSE its a character driven play. It needs these inspired, opinionated characters for anything to happen, for any growth, for any change, for any struggle. If it was a plot driven play this might be different...could a plot driven play contain purely non-passive characters? Maybe. I guess it would depend, in part, on the amount of characters.