A Writer's Notebook, Day Four-Hundred-And-Fifty-One
Earlier today I was contemplating the ways the different possibilities within particular mediums. Neil Gaiman is fond of pointing out the silent panel in comics as distinct from anything one can do on a novel, for example.
The particular incarnation of this problem that came to mind for me, today, was that of the difference between a flashback and a retelling, as each exists on the page verses in performance. In a book, as well as in a film or theatrical piece, one can implement either device; however, on the page, a retelling is not different as an experience for the reader than a direct flashback. That is, because both are read, the flashback and the spoken version are parsed into experiences. A prose writer can choose to include elements of the events around a retelling, and still gets the reader to experience the events as described with equal experiential fidelity to the rest of the story.
In film, a clear difference is apparent: if a character only describes an event that is markedly different from seeing it depicted. Their isn't a clear way too allow that same kind of duality as exists in pross.
I do think that there are interesting possibilities if one chooses to experiment in a drama. The idea which struck me was to present the actor performing in both the dialogue scene and the recalled scene at the same time. In simplest form, one side of the stage is the present scene, in which the character is describing events, on the other is the past, in which the scene being described is occurring. The central character is in the middle and is taking part in both scenes, with dialogue for both scenes. This would, of course, be a very different experience for an audience, unlike the normality of the prose original, but it seems an interesting concept.
I am not certain how these methods would transpose to film, so I am considering this in terms of the stage, and I am guessing that these are not unique ideas, but ones that have likely been explored before. Still, I think it is worth describing a first though, if only to get it out.
What is more, I think it illustrates one way of considering possibilities that press against some the ideas and limitations inherent in this work, as I discussed a few nights ago. It is a step towards making new possibilities in my work, and that is a question that interests me more and more.
The particular incarnation of this problem that came to mind for me, today, was that of the difference between a flashback and a retelling, as each exists on the page verses in performance. In a book, as well as in a film or theatrical piece, one can implement either device; however, on the page, a retelling is not different as an experience for the reader than a direct flashback. That is, because both are read, the flashback and the spoken version are parsed into experiences. A prose writer can choose to include elements of the events around a retelling, and still gets the reader to experience the events as described with equal experiential fidelity to the rest of the story.
In film, a clear difference is apparent: if a character only describes an event that is markedly different from seeing it depicted. Their isn't a clear way too allow that same kind of duality as exists in pross.
I do think that there are interesting possibilities if one chooses to experiment in a drama. The idea which struck me was to present the actor performing in both the dialogue scene and the recalled scene at the same time. In simplest form, one side of the stage is the present scene, in which the character is describing events, on the other is the past, in which the scene being described is occurring. The central character is in the middle and is taking part in both scenes, with dialogue for both scenes. This would, of course, be a very different experience for an audience, unlike the normality of the prose original, but it seems an interesting concept.
I am not certain how these methods would transpose to film, so I am considering this in terms of the stage, and I am guessing that these are not unique ideas, but ones that have likely been explored before. Still, I think it is worth describing a first though, if only to get it out.
What is more, I think it illustrates one way of considering possibilities that press against some the ideas and limitations inherent in this work, as I discussed a few nights ago. It is a step towards making new possibilities in my work, and that is a question that interests me more and more.
Comments
Post a Comment