I do value it. But it should be vital, not academic, organic, not
mechanical. Still, even mechanical construction is better than none
at all. A play without plot is invertebrate, without bones. It is
at his peril that a dramatist departs from accepted rules, even
those respecting "strong" curtains and "strong" exits, though in
certain cases weak curtains and weak exits may be more really
dramatic. Then, valuable as dialogue is, it may be redundant, and
make a play "flabby." The actor's rule, that all talk that does not
carry on the action is bad, is worthy of all due respect. "You
literary fellows want to say everything twice over," was the shrewd
criticism of a stage-manager in a certain case. But an actor is
often so absorbed in his own part that he does not easily estimate
the bearing of any given speech, even his own, upon the whole play.
"Cuts" at rehearsal are not unfrequently found to be too hastily
made. Then, what is the action? Not merely the external incidents,
but the shifting phases of thought, emotion, character, in the
_dramatis personae_. It is these that give the incidents their value,
and so give dramatic interest to the plot, or story.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25