FUNDAMENTALS OF DRAMA

 

    Drama has significantly evolved over time that not only has it considerably expanded in scope, but diversified into an ever increasing array of types and sub-types. The upshot is that it is practically impossible to devise a foolproof definition for it nor is there one available readily, which could account for its nature in a complete sense. The best we can hope for is a working definition that sets forth its essence, and in this regard, that purported by the English literary historian Arthur Compton Rickett most ideally suits the purpose. As he puts it, drama may be defined as an articulate story presented in action. A drama thus basically relates a narrative, which may be fundamentally understood as an event or string of events. However, unlike in a novel or epic, the narrative in a drama mandates to be performed or enacted not recounted. A narrative enacted nevertheless only signifies a pantomime, it truly becomes a drama only when supplemented with dialogues. So a narrative acted out with dialogues, this is what a drama is all about. Taking this characterization as the founding premise, it could be stipulated that there are four basic elements that go into the making of a drama. These are, an idea that could be developed into a narrative, actors to enact the various roles involved, a physical setting or space where the enactment could take place, and finally an audience to view the performance. It is notable that though not overtly acknowledged in the definition by Rickett, the last two elements are indeed integral if a drama is to truly become a play. The point is, contrary to common belief, drama and play are not identical in character. A drama becomes a play only when it is enacted, and not all dramas are meant to be done so. Closet drama signifies a dramatic specie that is primarily written with the avowed intention of being perused not performed. So in a strict sense, though all dramas are plays, not all plays are dramas. Realising this disparity is extremely vital in that it underpins the performative aspect of a drama, which is what that makes it distinctive.

 

GENRES: During the era of classical antiquity, drama was essentially conceived as falling into two principal types or genres, tragedy and comedy. Then in 16^th century England a third emerged into prominence which came to be known as tragicomedy. Though many varieties of drama have come to prevail since, none have risen to the extent of being accorded the status of a full-fledged genre. So it might be said that drama as a literary form could be essentially divided into three genres, tragedy, comedy and tragicomedy. Apparently unproblematic as the classification may seem, distinguishing the genres in categorical terms is nevertheless practically impossible. The point is each of them have undergone several telling modifications and changes concerning their features, that the demarcation between them has become indelibly blurred. Hence the only viable way through which the genres could actually be set apart is by considering them from a strictly conventional point of view. In this regard, there are four different aspects in which a tragedy could be differentiated from a comedy. Firstly, a tragedy represents a play that engages life from an utterly serious perspective, while a comedy does so wholly in a lighthearted vein. Secondly, a tragedy typically involves as characters people from the upper class or those holding eminent social positions, while comedy characteristically deals with the lives of people pertaining to the middle and the lower walks of life. Thirdly, a tragedy is characteristically composed in a style that is self-consciously lofty or poetic, while a comedy is primarily written in a medium that is humble or prosaic. Finally, a tragedy concludes with a sad ending, while a comedy does so with a happy ending. A tragicomedy is essentially a hybrid genre, which typically intermingles these distinct features of a tragedy and a comedy together. Keeping this logic in view, the four quintessential features that bear out its essential character could be set forth as follows. Firstly, it typifies a play in which serious and light hearted elements are mixed together. Secondly, it involves characters of noble birth and prominent standing such as kings, queens, princes and generals unreservedly rubbing shoulders with those pertaining to the common classes as merchants and shepherds. Thirdly, it upholds a style of composing dialogues that epitomizes a hotchpotch of both poetry and prose. Finally, it typifies an ending that is basically happy, but one that is arrived after several close shaves with death.

 

TRENDS: Trend signifies the literary ideal or character that a play invariably exemplifies. There are basically two trends to contend with in drama, these are the classical and the romantic. The disparity between the two lies in that the former is characterized by a tendency to uphold the classical principles concerning drama outlined by such scholars as Aristotle and Horace, while the latter is on the contrary informed by a disposition to deliberately flout or overlook them. So by discerning whether a play adheres to or violates the classical principles, it could be identified as being either classical or romantic in character. It must however be noted that this discerning does not necessarily entail taking stock of all and every classical principle there is, but essentially comes down to doing so with regard to one quintessential tenet. This is the ideal of the three unities, or to state it fully, the unity of action, time and place. According to the classical theory of dramatic composition, a play is stipulated to exclusively deal with a single theme or action. It is therefore required that the sequence of events which constitute a play must be devised in such a manner that they are interlinked to form a unified whole. The logic being that even if one of the event is removed or shifted, the whole network of events would collapse. Such an arrangement would of course ensure that no digressions are accommodated, which in turn would confirm that the play’s focus on a single theme or action is not compromised. This insistence on arranging events to consolidate the play’s concentration on a unilateral theme or action is known as unity of action. Among the three unities, the unity of action is by far the most important. The unity of time is a mandate that the plot of a play should span a time period that roughly spans a single day, or in any event, must not exceed 24 hours. The underlying logic is that for unity of action to be effectively ensured, the time period spanned by the play is required to be as brief as possible. After all, if the plot is allowed several days to span, it would be practically impossible to confirm a rigorous link between the events portrayed, without overlooking many of them along the way. Unity of place is a stipulation that the play’s setting must be restricted to a single locale, or at the most, two that are located in close proximity to each other. This of course is warranted by the time constraint in place. After all, with the limited mode of transport available during classical times, it was not considered feasible to travel extensively between places far apart within such a short duration. There are apparently several strategies by which the romantic playwrights disrupt the rigorous framework enforced by the ideal of the three unities in a play. Probably the most popular and pervasive in this regard is the manifestation of one or more sub-plots. A sub-plot basically refers to a subsidiary narrative strand that branches off from the main storyline, and develops into an independent thread of events in the course of the play’s progress. By introducing sub-plots into a play, romantic playwrights thus willfully disrupt the dictum laid down by the unity of action, which demands for a dramatic plot not to include any event or events that deviate from the main action. Comic relief represents another frequent strategy by which romantic playwrights countermand the dictates of the unity of action in a play. A comic relief basically exemplifies a standalone comic scene peculiar to a tragedy, which is introduced with the expressed aim of breaking the monotony of seriousness in the plot. It must be noted that fracturing the ideal of strenuous interlinkage between events demanded by the unity of action, though strictly need not involve violating the other two unities, invariably does so. Thus a play seeking to uphold the romantic ideal would characteristically be foregrounded with multiple plots, span a time period that blatantly stretches beyond a day and involve settings that are mutually far apart from each other.

 

STRUCTURE: Structure implies the formal pattern that underlies the plot of a drama. It is noteworthy that as with defining it, setting forth a foolproof structural framework for drama is practically impossible. However, speaking from a strictly conventional view point, drama could be characterized as consisting of essentially three sequential parts. Stated by the order in which they occur, these are exposition, conflict/complication, and catastrophe/resolution. The middle part which is by far the most important and largest could be further subdivided into three sub-parts, rising action, climax and falling action respectively. Exposition exemplifies the opening part that serves as an explanatory introduction to the play. It typically encompasses those initial scenes that furnish the necessary details required by the audience to understand the basic situation in the plot. The exposition culminates at what is known as the point of attack, from where the real action of the play commences in the form of the conflict/complication. The difference between conflict and complication lies in the point that the former epitomizes a struggle or collision between two opposing forces, while the latter conversely refers to an entanglement or confusion involving two or more characters. Conflict therefore constitutes the middle part of a tragedy in which the outcome is bound to be sad, while complication makes up the middle part of a comedy in which the eventuality is a happy one. Though conflict and complication are understandably different in scope, both are animated by what is called tension. Tension may be characterized as a feeling of stress or strain that the audience experience in the course of viewing the play. The initial segment of the conflict or complication, starting from the point of attack, is invariably dubbed the rising action because during this phase the tension gradually begins to mount. The point at which this tension reaches its peak is called the climax that more or less occurs at the centre of the play. After reaching its peak, the tension naturally begins to decline or fall steadily, and this phase is called the falling action or denouement. The denouement draws to a close at the point where the declining tension becomes completely diffused, at which point the conflict/complication may also be said to conclude. After denouement comes catastrophe/resolution that brings the play to its finish. This eventual part of the play is characteristically the shortest by far, and encompasses those final moments required to bring the plot to an ending in the formal sense. It is noteworthy that the idea of the climax occurring at the centre of a play might sound slightly strange in that in general conception, it is invariably recognized as occurring towards the end of the plot. Perhaps it is here that we need to blame our popular movies, in which the directors to ensure the audience remain interested in the plot right till the very end, deliberately stagger the climax to the final segment of the film. However, ideally speaking, the climax must occur more or less at the mid-point of the plot, so that the gradual mounting of tension that precedes it, is counter balanced by the gradual decline of the tension that follows it.

 

ILLUSTRATION:     The structural blueprint of a drama set forth above in theory, would perhaps make more sense if illustrated with a practical example. Let us therefore consider Shakespeare’s play Hamlet in the light of the five part structure that dramas conventionally exemplify. The exposition part of the play that begins with the formal opening of the plot, could be said to extend till the final scene of the first act, more specifically till the episode of Hamlet’s meeting with the ghost of his dead father, in which the former is not only appraised of the fact that his uncle Claudius is the murderer, but is also extracted with an oath of revenge by the latter. It is noteworthy that in the course of events leading up to the episode, the basic situation of the play is clearly laid forth, and the episode itself which represents the point of attack, sets up the foundation for the conflict most ideally. After all, now that Hamlet knows the truth, and has sworn to avenge his father’s death, not only have the two opposing agents in the plot been clearly identified, but a sense of foreboding is also induced in the audience. The foreboding feeling of course emanates from the anticipation as to how Hamlet would proceed, and his efforts to confirm himself of what the ghost had told him only serve to heighten the sensation. This initial phase in the conflict commencing from the point of attack, during which the feeling of foreboding continues to mount, represents the rising action. The rising action culminates in the second scene of the third act, during the play within the play episode, in which Hamlet finally becomes convinced of his uncle’s guilt. The point in this episode, at which Claudius storms out of the court, provoked obviously by the spectacle of Gonzado’s killing in the play which exactly replays his own act of treachery, epitomizes the climax. From this point on, the feeling of foreboding steadily starts to recede, as Hamlet plagued with indecision, continues to delay his act of revenge. This phase of Hamlet’s indecision signifies the falling action in the play. The falling action of the conflict could be said to extend till the eventual scene of the fifth act, till the point at which Hamlet finally fulfils his oath of revenge by killing his uncle. With the tension fully diffused, the conflict comes to a close, and the reminder of the play that includes Hamlet’s inevitable death and the Norwegian king taking over the Danish throne, constitutes the catastrophe.