I have written down that Aristotle thought a beginning does not require things to have happened for before it. In An Indiscretion, I think this certainly is the case. However, at first I disagreed with that notion. I thought that if the writer of An Indiscretion were following Aristotle’s “rules’ for good theater, he or she would have started with the accusations against the man, or even with the scene where he allegedly has an affair, since these scenes would truly be the beginning of the story. But then I realized that the story of this short play wasn’t about the affair or accusations: it was about a couple trying to work something out together. The writer’s choice to start with the couple coming up with a solution while arguing, it then seemed, was a sufficient beginning according to Aristotle’s guidelines because it kicked off the plot (which, again, is about only couple coping in a bad situation) and didn’t require anything to happen before it. I realized that a beginning that started with accusations or the affair would be irrelevant to the plot, proving my initial conclusion wrong.
The same thing is the case with Shift. While the setting of the play may be in a “shifting” New York City, this is not Shift’s plot. Again, the plot revolves around two people that have to cope with outside forces pushing them apart. Nothing in the couple’s relationship has to be shown before the writer begins the play, so I think Shift also has a beginning that Aristotle would respect.
Aristotle thought an ending should have events leading up to it. I don’t think this is very clear explanation. For instance, if I were sitting down in a chair and then stood up, would my standing up be an ending? Technically, going from sitting to standing would count as an event resulting with me standing up. However, I don’t think Aristotle would think that this was an ending. Or maybe he would think it’s an ending, but not a very good one. I feel like his definition for an ending is too broad (I understand he probably purposely made it like this) and could be applied to anything. Since I’m a little confused on what Aristotle thinks an ending is, it’s a little bit hard to determine whether or not I think Shift and An Indiscretion follow it. However, from what I can tell, both plays have events that lead up to the endings, so I guess they do follow Aristotle’s rules.
Aristotle believes plays often have a reversal, meaning things are going one way, something happens, and then things turn around. While both plays don’t uses an extraordinary amount of reversal, I believe Shift definitely this uses more. As Kelly speaks to the audience and gives us glimpses of flashbacks, we learn a lot more about this couple. Dane previously “dreamed of coming [to New York City] his whole life” and saw the city as “possibilities.” Even Kelly was envious of the way Dane viewed things and wished she “could see the city through [Dane’s] eyes.” After the shifting occurs, not only has the city shifted, but the characters have as well. Now Dane wishes to leave the city, a place that once seemed like a dream for him and Kelly wants to remain. The shifting was the event that caused the reversal, and I think this definitely categorizes under Aristotle’s views on reversals.
As for recognition, it is mostly used in An Indiscretion. The woman and man are trying to find a solution to situation that has arisen due to the man’s bad choices. At first the woman seems willing to help her husband and wants to believe that he has not had an affair, as has been claimed. In a way, the woman is almost ignorant for not believing or not wanting to believe the claims against her husband. Through an argument with her husband, the woman begins to realize that her husband is not the man she thought he was, admits that she doesn’t believe his side of the story and thinks that marrying him was one of her “mistakes.” I think Aristotle’s lesson on recognition is certainly present here.
No comments:
Post a Comment