First of all, to preface, I have a little bit of a problem with Aristotle's definition of beginnings and ends, because there really seems to be a lot of wiggle room. That may be the point of these open definitions, but I find it difficult to deem the start of a play a "good" beginning or a "bad" beginning based on this because you can frame it in so many different ways. For instance, in "Shift," Tracz could have chosen to write the fight that Dane and Kelly have, rather than implying it in the first stage directions/dialogue. This could have been a fine beginning, depending, of course, on how effectively it was written. Although I like Tracz' decision to imply the fight, I'm not sure Aristotle would approve because, according to his definition, beginnings do not need to follow anything. So, then, I guess the question is, does this scene create the post-argument tension effectively enough to consider the fight itself unnecessary? And while there are answers for this from a playwriting perspective only, a huge part of this also relies on the performance/direction/etc. Hmm...
So, while I do like the play beginning with the post-argument tension, I'm not sure that Aristotle would agree. I feel this way, too, about the ending of "An Indiscretion." I am a believer of the "arrive early, leave late" dogma, but I think that it can be argued that Dohrn leaves a bit too early; we don't get to see the relationship out. We don't even get to see the man's response to his wife's confession.
So anyway, I think the main point of what I'm saying is that I see a lack of Aristotle's lessons in both of these two plays, but I think that this might be because I'm confused or dissatisfied with these open definitions.
C --
ReplyDeleteIt could also be because you're right; there's a difference, I'd imagine, in both of these plays, between what Aristotle sets forth and how these playwrights have fulfilled their task (or the task I'm setting them, at least) of telling us a good, thought-inducing story.
Again and again, we will find ourselves in tension, of one form or another, with Aristotle's definitions -- and that, to my mind, is a good thing. There's the theory (Aristotle) and the practice (our work, the work of the playwrights we're seeing. There's also, too, your own manifesto, your own relationship to art, your own observation and reflection. Our task -- to observe, classify, assess -- is Aristotle's. Our opportunity is to take it one step further, and create.
-jc