So That You Don't Have To Read: The Art of Dramatic Writing

This segment is for filmmakers or readers in general who would like to skip some reading. I am collecting books that are no fun to read and stating the essence of it here also telling you why you needn’t read it. This time the book is Lajos Egri’s The Art of Dramatic Writing: Its basis in the creative interpretation of human motives.

Why you needn’t read the whole book: It is boring. The writing is crap for a book that is telling us how to write a play. It is redundant. The style and format suck. So i will just tell you what the book says that might be useful so that you don’t have to go through the poorly edited 134 pages. I am not joking. There are even spelling mistakes! 

Also, this is a very old book so sexism is all over it. It’s annoying to any sensible person trying to learn something trudging through sexism – however great the book is supposed to be. 

1. Human character is the basis of everything

This is one lesson that the author gives again and again.

2. The most important thing you need to start writing is a premise.

Again something he says over and over again till we feel like murdering the person who coined the word itself. 

About Premise

1. You need to practise penning down the premise. ‘Every good play (or film) should have a well-formulated premise. There may be more than one way to phrase the premise, but however it is phrased the thought must be the same,’ he says. (Paranthetical is mine)

2. This premise is not that difficult to arrive at even though it might sound that way from some examples. For example, ‘bragging leads to humiliation’ is a premise and it sounds stupid. But your story has to have a premise like this.

3. One way to deal with this problem is to understand that the premise has three parts.
a) Character
b) Conflict
c) End

So in the example of ‘bragging leads to humiliation,’ the ‘bragging’ is character, ‘leads to’ is conflict and ‘humiliation’ is the end.

4. There can only be one premise.

About character

1. All characters should have three dimensions

a) Physiology
b) Sociology
c) Psychology

In other words, the physical attributes of a character, the social setting, upbringing influences a character and justifies their actions. The combined effect of these two will reflect in their psychology and that will influence the character a great deal as well.

Throughout the book we are told that the author’s approach is dialectical. I would call it boring but yes, like the book says, this is a method by which something is said, written or done by following the following approach: All movement is comprised of these three steps

‘First, statement of the proposition, called thesis. Then the discovery of a contradiction to this proposition, called antithesis, being the opposite of the original proposition. Now, resolution of this contradiction necessitates the correction of the original proposition, and formulation of a third proposition, the synthesis, being the combination of the original proposition and the contradiction to it.’ 

It is basically what we want our (Facebook) arguments to be but they never are.  

2. All characters should grow

I call it an arc. Egri says, ‘There is only one realm in which characters defy natural laws and remain the same – the realm of bad writing’ I agree. Thanks.

3. This change or arc should match the physiology, sociology and psychology of the characters.

4. These things can be learned through observation or by observing those who have observed before you – which is why we need to read great books by great authors, watch great films by great filmmakers etc. We are observing them to see what they observed and how.

5. Everything – plot, conflict etc. stem from character and all of this should in the end prove the premise.

6. You need to have a pivotal character – also called ‘protagonist’. This person must be the one with the highest stakes. (He says that in A Doll’s House Krogstad is the pivotal character and i vehemently disagree. It is Dora.)

7. Characters should be well orchestrated. That is, they should not all be the same type. ‘If all character are the same type – for instance, if all of them are bullies – it will be like an orchestra of nothing but drums,’ says Egri. Orchestration is having contrasts in characters of your play or film.

8. Even if characters are well orchestrated, they need to have ‘unity of opposites’. It means that both or all characters should have conviction and should not give up on their ideals mid-way. ‘The real unity of opposites is one in which compromise is impossible,’ he says. Unity of opposites is when opposites – for example, the hero and the villain are united by their will. This unity can only be broken by death of the dominant quality in one of the characters. For example, if we have a rational person and a superstitious one in a film or a story or a play, one has to succeed and the other fail. 

About conflict

1. Action cannot happen by itself. It is a result of factors that cause it. ‘We cannot find action in a pure, isolated form, although it is always present as the result of other conditions. It is safe to say, we conclude, that the action is not more important than the contributing factors which give rise to it.’

2. Conflict is of four types.

a) Static
b) Jumping
c) Slowly rising
d) Foreshadowing

The names mean just what they say.

Static is when a character makes a decision but lacks the strength to carry it through

Jumping is when the person decides something all of a sudden provoked by almost nothing

‘Rising conflict means a clear-cut premise and unity of opposites, with three-dimensional characters.

‘Every rising conflict should be foreshadowed first by the determined forces lined up against each other.’

3. It is possible that we do things upon impulse in real life but in fiction, we have to fully justify it using tools used in fiction – like the rising conflict.

4. Conflict springs from character. To quote, ‘…if we wish to know the structure of conflict, we must first know character. But since character is influenced by environment, we must know that, too. It might seem that conflict springs spontaneously from one single cause, but this is not true. A complexity of many reasons makes one solitary conflict.’

5. ‘…if you foreshadow conflict you’re promising the very substance of existence.’ – which is why we should do it, is what he means. ‘Since most of us play possum and hide our true selves from the world, we are interested in witnessing the things happening to those who are forced to reveal their true characters under the stress of conflict. Foreshadowing conflict is not conflict yet, but we are eagerly waiting for the fulfilment of the promise of it. In conflict we are forced to reveal ourselves. It seems that self-revelation of others or ourselves holds a fatal fascination for everyone.’

6. The point of attack – this can be called the inciting incident for screenplay writers – it has to come at the right place. ‘A good point of attack is where something vital is at stake at the very beginning of a play.’

7. Even though transitions happen in seconds in real life, in fiction, it is necessary to make it smooth so the audience can see and understand it. ‘The author has to take all the steps which lead to the conclusion, whether that conflict happened in just that way or in the person’s mind.’

Regarding dialogues

1. ‘…every line of your play, every move your characters make, must further the premise.’

2. In life, people quarrel year in, year out, without once deciding to remove the factor which causes the trouble. In drama this must be condensed to the essentials, giving the illusion of years of bickering without the superfluous dialogue.

3. ‘Only a rising conflict will produce healthy dialogue.’

4. He gives a couple of good examples of good dialogue and how it is achieved.

About Shakespeare, ‘The sentences in his philosophical passages are weighty and measured; in his loves scenes lines are lyrical and flow easily. Then, with the mounting of action, sentences become shorter and simpler, so that not only the sentence content, but the word and syllable content, vary with the development of the play.’

‘The dialectical method does not rob the playwright of his creative privilege.’ I agree with this. A lot of people say that this approach just limits. Especially film school people hold the opinion that anything with structure is death. I disagree. ‘Once your characters have been set in motion, their path and their speech are determined, to a great extent; but the choice of character is completely your own. Consider, therefore, the idiom your people will employ, and their voices, and methods or delivery. Think of their personalities, and backgrounds, and the influence of these on their speech. Orchestrate your characters, and their dialogue will take care of itself. When you laugh at The Bear, remember that Chekhov gained his bombast and ridiculous dignity from a bombastic character played against a ridiculously dignified one. And in Riders to the Sea, John Millingyon Synge sways us to the tragic yet lovely rhythm of people who employ harmonious rhythms which are not identical. Maurya, Nora, Cathleen, and Bartley all use the accent of the Aran Islanders. But Bartley is swaggering, Cathleen patient, Nora quick with youth, and Mauraya slow with age. The combination is one of the most beautiful in English.’

5. ‘The dialogue must stem from the character, not the author.’

Genius

‘The extraordinary mental power of a genius is not necessarily strong enough to create his success. First, one must have a start, an opportunity to deepen one’s knowledge in a chosen profession. A genius has the ability to work at something longer and with more patience than any other man.’

Something to practise while narrating your story

‘If you must read your work to someone, ask that person to tell you the moment he begins to feel tired or bored.’

‘A play should start with the first line uttered’. In films, it should start with the first frame and first sound.

‘…”exposition” should proceed constantly, without interruption, to the very end of the play.’ – cramming information into dialogues in patches here and there will not work. Audience should understand what you are exposing in the flow of the film/play.

Egri says that the ‘obligatory scene’ is not really a thing. It just means a scene that will prove your premise the best – and by its nature, it has to be there in all work of fiction.

 

Hey! I am Second AD!

Bruises. Shoe bite. Muscle pain.

For the first time in my life, i assisted a director on their shoot. I was the second AD (Assistant Director) - the last in hierarchy in the direction team of an ad film shoot.

When i chose filmmaking as my career, one thing i was sure of was that i wouldn't take the path of assisting a director for decades before getting a chance to make a film. That is how most people start off but from those who had done it and i had spoken to, i knew it was a crappy place for me to be in. But in Bombay, the first company i worked for shut down, i couldn't clear any interviews to other jobs, i was already unable to pay my rent and was moving towards abject penury. I would have taken any job.

My only actor friend told me that she might be able to help me. Her partner who also happened to be a director was making an ad film. He immediately asked me to join as an AD and i did. I needed the money. Badly. Little did i know that i was going to do a job that i would grow to love to bits. But yes, you have to keep this in mind. It might not be all that great if your director is bad. Mine was a great one and the best part about it was that he welcomed ideas from everyone. There was no shutting of doors based on hierarchy in that. Even a second AD could make suggestions and if they were good they would be accepted. That is something that doesn't happen very often. 
 
The work started many months ago, in November.The project got delayed and delayed. I had made a promise to myself. That i wouldn't quit this job. This was necessary because i knew for a fact that everyone else other than the director would be a pain to work with. That's the nature of films like these and i knew it the moment i went into the first meeting in the production house. There were a hundred things i wanted to object to. A hundred things i wanted to say and could not. It wasn't easy for me to keep my promise to myself but i did it anyway and i am awfully proud of myself. I did write a complaint letter but come on, one complaint letter in 6 months is nothing for my nature. 

For instance, during tech recce, the person who was the Director's Assistant (DA) shared his sandwich with me and remarked 'perks of having a wife.' I almost choked. I asked him what the perks of having a husband were. He said, with a knowing smile, 'many things'. I think he meant sex. That smile is the typical indian-men-talking-about-sex-smile. I didn't do anything except judge him. 

Till this project, i had only directed others. I had other ADs work for me and i knew how to do that job. But switching places, i realised it is great fun to be an AD too. As the shoot date nears, you have less and less time to think, worry about things, cry, have sex etc. During shoot, you will be required to be like wind. Everywhere and swishing past things and people and often carrying them with you while at it. 

You get to do everything. I got to work on costumes, managing extras, managing people, suffering people, negotiating and a hell of a lot more. This picture that looks like it's taken from a badly made horror film is the only picture i have got of the shoot. I took it to remember the position of actors in the scene while rehearsing with them. 

Everyone hated me and i hung in there. Everyone scolded me and i braved it. I cried only once, when a costume assistant said he wouldn't talk to me after i told on the walkie talkie that he wasn't working. I didn't know he could hear me but i wasn't lying. Even then i cried a lot. Not as much as i wanted to though because there wasn't enough time and not enough bathrooms or nooks to cry in. Everyone was everywhere. 

During shoot at least four people asked me if i was from 'South India'. South Indians work very hard, one person told me. Someone asked if i was from Mangalore. An actor spoke all the malayalam she knew to me. Which was 'do you want tea?' One person told me that he liked the way i worked but was too 'on the face'. I messed up a lot of things and learned even more. Look at this bandage i aged. I learned how to do it there, during shoot.

Even after shoot, after catching up on all the sleep, i can't wait to be back on it. There is no other way than to make a film, now. That's the only thing that will help me get back into that swiftness of action and thought that i so miss already. 
 
I told the Producer that the vanity van for women actors had a sexist sign. It was a sexualised image of a woman. She disagreed with me and said that i was wearing a sleeveless top too. I ignored the stupidity and asked her why the men's vanity van had no such design. Hopefully, that got her thinking. Oh, the letter i wrote, by the way was accusing her of discriminating against me on the basis of my class and colour of skin etc. 

Then there was the DoP (Director of Photography). He was white. When we met, he shook my hand and asked to the Associate Director who was sitting next to him if it was okay to shake hands with women in india. 'I got into trouble in Saudi Arabia once,' he said. It only got worse from there. When the Associate Director told him that living in London changed her life, he asked 'did you get married?' He would call me 'little mini elf'. I was too little to be anything, for him. He would always pinch me unexpectedly. I have a problem of getting startled even when someone calls out my name, pinching would just scare the living daylight out of me. He continued doing it even when he realised it startled me. 

He was very impressed with the perks-of-having-a-wife-DA. And he even called me 'little DA' once when i was anything but. But the strangest and the most annoying thing he did was during tech recce when he said he found out what to do with the DA when he went to pitch his projects. He took a little water and splashed it on the DA's crotch. He held his crotch, affecting embarrassment. I gave a cold look to the DoP and said that it wasn't funny. He said that i didn't count because i didn't have a sense of humour. Excuse me, but didn't he just ask me to look at a fellow worker's crotch after pouring water on it? I still haven't got the joke, honestly. 

I left after the director yelled 'it's a wrap' We had worked for more than 48 hours straight. It had changed my life and i was still unmarried.