"Visual action can be as important on the stage as speech." How far do you agree with this claim?
I believe that how applicable this quote is depends on the particular play.
For example, in Oedipus, there is minimal stage directions and most of the plot can be found in the dialogue. While some stage directions definately accent the dialogue (for example: Jocasta's "turning sharply" during the messanger's part emphasizes her shock and her moment of realization.). These accents however are not nearly as important as the dilogue.
In The Wild Duck this quote is much more applicable. Much more suddle things can be found in the stage directions that assist in giving clues to the attitudes of certain characters. For example, after an argument with Gina, the stage directions describe Hjalmar as "glum" and "listless" while working. This assists in the reader's knowledge of how Hjalmar feels after the argument, he is truely upset about this. The stage directions could have just as easily shown him being angry or restless, but the stage directions that contribute to the visual aspect of the play play a major role in the reader/watcher knowing how a character feels.
I agree with what you said about Oedipus the King and The Wild Duck. I think the speech in Oedipus is more important, although there can be stage directions that help enlighten what's going on, like you said. The stage directions are much more important in Wild Duck because they help the audience understand the characters' reactions when that isn't always clear from their dialogue.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your point of view here. I can see where you would think that in Oedipus there are few crucial stage directions, but in Wild Duck even the smallest detail on the stage is significant. Also, you spelt subtle wrong- "suddle"- in the second paragraph. Sorry, grammar freak.
ReplyDelete