In "Conceiving the Forms, Play Analysis for Production Dramaturgy," Lee Devin gives you a concise review of the kinds of analysis you probably encountered in Principles of Dramatic Structure. How does his review of the basic terminology begin to help you understand the role of dramatic analysis for a dramaturg? Now take a moment to review the kind of "reverse engineering" of structure that Kevin Becerra examined with you in class on Monday. How do the methods he employed mesh with these traditional structures? How do they differ?
Which entry points into analysis are most comfortable and accessible to you? How do you visualize the structure of a piece?
12 comments:
Kevin's methods mesh with Devin's traditional structures mainly through content. Each wish to accomplish the same goals, and tackle a play in the similar means of breaking it into actions over words, blurbs, if you will. They then use these pieces, cut from the whole, to reconstruct the play in an analytical manner. This is a manner in which the goals of the character and playwright can be more clearly viewed, the dramatic question more clearly heard and the dramatic actions of the characters lit for the audience.
For me, personally, the biggest difference was age. Kevin's breakdown made much more sense for my generational experience. The feeling was dynamic, the life clearly audible and each action visually defined. Devin's seemed to belong to the previous generation of academia. It wanted much more analysis for analysis sake. It may have just been the feel of the writing, for although the goals are the same, Devin seemed to break things into more categories then necessary for explanation. His separation of each moment into beginning, middle and end made a great deal of sense. It gave the moments meaning within themselves, to eventually construct a scene. On the other side of this, his decision to combine this with Aristotle's poetics seemed to cut the other wise digestible pieces into intangible slivers. Kevin's method of plot beading specifically simplified analysis for me. Though eventually more information will be needed, it is an excellent intro to a production. The play becomes perfectly sized dramatic moments, ordered by chronology and sized by importance. It lends itself to the general understanding of an audience. Devin's seems geared toward the analyzer.
I found the pyramid to be the easiest entry point, though the plot bead was very useful. Its basic and well known structure simplifies a play to its core pieces. Beginning here allows me to see what's important, where emphasis needs to be placed, and where the audience will be directed throughout the process. Also, being so intertwined in the birth and growth of a production, it is often hard to remember the big pictures and goals, separate from the minute details. So, as can be assumed from above, I visualize the basic structure of a piece through the pyramid form.
I thought "Conceiving the Forms" was a very useful refresher of our dramatic, analytical vocabulary. The refreshment helped to put all the information into proper context. Kevin Becerra's method for analysis is extremely useful. At first glance, the diagram was daunting and didn't seem to make sense. However, with about 30 seconds of explanation, the diagram (The Plot Bead) proved to be genius. The principles of dramatic structure are present in the plot bead, however much more interpretable. I think the plot bead is just an easier, more simplistic way that converts the traditional essay form of analysis into an accessible diagram. The two methods differ in that the plot bead is, even though more complicated looking, is more straight forward than traditional analysis. The plot bead method is now a preferred method for me. Now, after seeing a plot bead, it is easier for me to visualize structure.
Kevin's method and Devin's traditional structure are almost identical when it comes to content and what they are trying to figure out but I like Kevin's method of play beads a lot better and find it more understandable. Having learned Kevin's method first, reading this article made a lot more sense because i could visualize what Devin was trying to do and how he was breaking down a play. I personally prefer Kevin's method because it simplifies the whole process while still getting the same result. I also really liked it because it created a more visual analysis which i find to be more accessible.
Devin's article seemed to have a strong emphasis on repeated events throughout a play and on the progression of action in a play and each parts relation to all other parts. Kevin's Plot-Beading method goes hand and hand with the fore mentioned traditional requirements of play analysis while providing visualization for the information Devin requires. The major difference, I believe, is that Kevin's plot-bead seems to simply progress in chronological order of the story, he lists what action comes next and after that etc, etc, while Devin feels very strongly that the middle actions should be related to the beginning actions directly, and the end to the middle and the beginning etc. In short, Plot-Beads seem to simply progress while if Devin were to design something visual like the plot bead it would probably contain a lot of arrows pointing from one action to the proceeding, and following actions that happen way earlier or way later in the show that all relate. Both methods provide a way for tracking repeated actions, in the Bead for example Kevin used an envelope every time the action of sending or receiving a letter was repeated.
I think I visualized the structure best as a plot bead triangle! Because all the moments of dramatic action in a play add to its progression leading you to the tip of the triangle (climax) and all the actions following the climax are likewise important to understanding how the story ends and sometimes why it began.
I feel like the basic terminology mentioned in the article helps me see the role of a dramaturg in analysis by putting the information needed to be found in a simple list form. These terms are what, essentially, all forms of plot analysis are trying to explore. Kevin's plot bead was a more visual way to describe the same plot structure Devin was describing. The plot bead employs the use of symbols to organize thoughts when doing an analysis of the show. I also thought that Devin's structure is easier to use when looking directly at text. As Kevin mentioned in class, a plot bead is a good way to organize the analysis while watching a run of a show as well as looking at pure text.
For me, the best analysis is just a list. I am not good at looking at a play and seeing everything in order. I am more likely to find something that sparks my interest and work around that back to the beginning and to the end. I like making lists and then reorganize my thoughts that I wrote down at a later date. I am not a particularly visual person so I don't tend to use diagrams and such. However, I do like to use color to help me remember related information.
Devin universalizes dramatic analysis through these basic terms in order for the members of a production team to be precise within discussion.
Kevin’s method meshes with traditional structures in many aspects. Kevin used the same terminology of traditional structure, which is from the well-made play model, to present action analysis. Both Devin and Kevin recognized and indicated the distinction between the terms story and plot. Devin addressed common structural aspects, such as the isolating moments in each journey as if they were separate parts. Kevin addressed how to recognize these moments through analysis using the plot-bead. Both Kevin and Devin acknowledged the audience as an integral part of the process.
While Devin mentions an array of forms in which dramaturgy can be applied, Kevin’s discussion seemed to focus on textual analysis. Kevin also encouraged the personalization of analysis. For example, Kevin likes to use visuals as an aid in analysis. Devin, on the other hand, simply presented the information without this encouragement.
Action analysis with the use of plot beading is accessible to me because it is a formulaic model. Using a formulaic model is like an equation. Once you have the equation, all that’s left is application.
Previous to Kevin’s lecture, I visualized the structure of a piece as a two dimensional timeline, which is not conducive to analysis for me. Using Freytag’s pyramid is a better way to visualize structure because it doesn’t just list the order of events; it also classifies events by location on the pyramid.
Lee Devin’s review of the basic forms of dramatic analysis helped me remember where a lot of the core ideas came from. I appreciated the section of his article where he reviews Aristotle’s six parts to a production, because I had forgotten that so many of the key ideas that we use in analysis and even just discussion come from Aristotle’s work. Devin’s work helped me to more fully grasp how a Dramaturg could approach a work and begin to critically think about a piece. I also really appreciated the warning that he gives at the end about not imposing a “discursive meaning” onto a production because it can greatly stunt the creative process and growth of the show. I could see how as a Dramaturg one could easily get lost in this aspect of the process.
Kevin’s explanation of the different structures and ways to outline a plot was quite a bit easier for me to grasp. I think that his use of visuals and his ability to explain the concepts in an interesting, Kevin Becerra, way really helped the class as a whole understand how a dramaturg should approach a play and work alongside a director. A lot of the methods that Kevin taught us on Monday, for example the triangle and Plot Bead meshed fairly well with the explanation of plot towards the end of Devin’s piece. Kevin talked about how while doing a plot bead one really has to focus in on the dramatic sequence of events and not get lost in the dialogue or story. He used Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost as an example and I think that his lesson really helped illuminate the point that Devin was trying to get across. I think that the two differ mostly in that Kevin really focused in on identifying the key areas of the plot, whereas Devin addressed several different forms and aspects of dramatic analysis.
The entry point of analysis that I find most comfortable definitely lies within plotting the dramatic sequence of the play. I like to start with some sort of action plot so that I can visually have the sequence of events before me in a basic form. Then I like to start diving into the details of the piece and determining the motivations behind the characters actions and the inner-workings of the characters’ relationships with one another. After learning the plot bead structure I think that I will forever visualize the structure of a piece in this format. The process just makes everything clear and concise and I find it to be an extremely useful tool in visualizing the structure of a play.
For the most part both Kevin and Lee Devin have similar views on the approach to the break down of the script. Both use the concept of breaking down the script in to smaller points, “finite” if you will. But the one idea that I thought stood out as a large difference between what Kevin reviewed in class and what Lee was discussing in the reading was the idea of “the smallest and most important of these finite parts doesn't appear in the script: the gesture.”
Obviously the idea of the gesture goes beyond the scriptural analysis because it involves the actors getting up in the rehearsal space and putting the play on its feet. What seems most interesting to me was that Kevin was discussing the small clues a writer will throw into the text; for example, the line in Lost In Yonkers that portrays the loving brotherly relationship. In a completely different playing field the gesture is a way for the director of the show to throw clues to the audience.
Between the analysis of the text, or dialogue from the audience’s point of view, and physical action on stage the theme of the show is practically spoon feed to the viewers.
Devin's technique was more minute; it seemed more important to notice tiny details, like gestures and conceits than it did to find the larger ideas and action sequences. Kevin's procedure was quite the opposite; the plot beads encouraged a methodical approach to writing down the major events, in the order that they happen. But the plot bead system is still looking to find major interruptions in story, like in the excerpted scene from "Lost in Yonkers," whenever Eddie entered and interrupted and the Grandmother's influence was felt, a graphic was made on the paper.
I am always more comfortable analyzing words and more literary based conventions, so Devin's methods of Necessity and Likelihood were interesting to me. I also liked Diction being mentioned, when he recognizes the six Aristotelean parts. I just wish he would have written more in that section. I visualize the structure of things more like Freytag's pyramid than I do anything else. Plot beads I understand, but I think I would have to practice with them and get used to them before feeling comfortable enough to prefer that method over the pyramid.
I think that it is interesting that a production (director) can overlook parts of a play and change the meaning or lose the audience. I believe Kevin mentioned in class that sometimes the dramaturg has to gently tell the director when they overlook or brush over a part of the plot that needs more attention. Devin reminds us that all stories have a beginning, middle and end, an that they all must coincide in order to make the story flow.
I liked the visual aspect of the plot bead as well as the ability to add and delete from it in a structured manner. Principles Of Dramatic Structure made me incline to draw a inciting incident, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution plot of the play. I think that is a good start to analyzing a piece before moving into the more detailed structure of the bead. The bead structure gives you the ability to go into what is really going on in those points of the piece.
Devin's structure involved far too much for me to be comfortable with. He used an almost unnecessary amount of information in order for his model to be of any real use. Kevin's was realistic, easy to follow, and appropriate. I feel as if Kevin's model provides an informal reference that may be easier for its creator to revisit and develop at a later time. On the whole both Kevin and Devin are creating ways to better understand action in a play. Even though Kevin's allows you a more visual progression of action, Devin creates an interconnected web of action that I feel is almost confusing and hardly productive.
-Amber Lynn Justmann
Kevin and Devin both have different ways of thinking but I think each have the same point. Both Kevin and Devin focused heavily on the content of the text and how important it is to work and reconstruct and rethink the action of the plot structure. By doing this the goal is to figure what is the purpose of these characters; why are they here? And why are they do what it is that they are doing?
Overall I think I better understood they way that Kevin explained his way of breaking down the dramatic structure of the play. I think this has a lot to do with the way in which he described it. He used a language that I am more used to in my everyday life. I think this helped me pay attention as well as understand better than Devin who used a more sophisticated language, one that I can understand but I don’t use everyday. Kevin’s explanation also involved more visuals, which I tend to respond better to. The plot bead helps me to actually see a progression in the action of a show.
Post a Comment