Over my 2 week holiday (back to work today, boo!) I read David Mamet’s Three Uses of the Knife. I can’t say I understood it all completely, but I got most of what he was saying*.
One thing he mentioned was that the English language lends itself very neatly to the Iambic Pentameter, and that we often converse and complete each others sentences to complete the 5 pairs of syllables.
This piqued my interest, so once I’d had searched around in my foggy brain for what the hell Iambic Pantameters were, failed to remember anything of use apart from fives and something to with Shakespeare, and taken quick look at the Wikipedia definition to get up to speed I started listening to peoples converstaions. You know what, he’s right. Most peculiar.
Anyhow that got me thinking about dialogue as I strolled between our offices at work today (a pleasant meander that crosses the Royal Military Canal). I’ve always loved the way Shakespeare wrote, and often wondered why he wrote the way he did. And then it struck me. If he was ‘being poetic’ and forcing everything into five pairs of syllables, he’d have to start twisting things around a little to make them fit and still make sense.
I know, thinks I, I could try that with some of the dialogue for that there new sci-fi film wot I am writing.
So this evening that’s what I did; rewrite the dialogue of a random scene in Iambic Pentameter. My god, it really gets the old brain ticking. If you want a good warm up exercise to get both sides of the brain going, try it. The only thing I could think of was it was like doing Sudoku with words.
And the best part was that it led to some very stylised phrasings and word patterns that a) flowed nicely when read back without the dahDUMdahDUMdahDUMdahDUMdahDUM rhythm going on in your head, b) sounded like how people possibly might speak in the future and c) naturally created quite dense dialogue which conveyed a lot of meaning in a short space.
I might just keep it up…
* That life is a pointless bag of crap, and good drama (well, tragedy) should show that it’s OK to think this and allow us to secretly identify with characters who also realise this on the stage/screen (I think, but I’m going to have to read it again some time to be sure).
2 comments
Fun Joel says:
August 31, 2005 at 3:58 pm (UTC 1 )
Interesting! Perhaps you could post a few lines of the iambic dialogue that you wrote so we can hear how it sounds/see how it reads in a “regular” script?
Andy Coughlan says:
August 31, 2005 at 11:17 pm (UTC 1 )
Ooh blimey, put me on the spot! Oh well, here goes.
Disclaimer: this is a first attempt, so is probably all wrong, with the emPHAsis on the wrong sylLABles much of the time:
ORIGINAL TEXT:
NATALIE
Isodore! Where were you last night?
Isodore smiles thoughtfully, but does not answer.
NATALIE
You missed a fabulous evening. Jeremy was telling the most outrageous stories, it was such a hoot!
ISODORE
That’s nice.
NATALIE
So where were you?
ISODORE
Oh… Out.
NATALIE
With who? Doing what? Don’t keep secrets!
ISODORE
Oh, with no-one, doing nothing much.
NATALIE
Liar!
Isodore looks at Natalie for the first time.
ISODORE
I was out walking, by myself. Thinking.
IAMBIC PENATAMETERED VERSION:
NATALIE
Isodore! Where were you last night my friend?
Isodore does not answer.
NATALIE
You missed a night of such delight and thrills. Jerome was telling the tallest stories, it was such fun! Oh, but what care have you! Did you chance upon your mystery man?**
ISODORE
It is perhaps not good to dwell on dreams, especially in daylight where they dim and one wonders if they ever occurred.
NATALIE
So what may you tell me of this x**** man?
ISODORE
Oh, that he is famed and framed and out of reach.
NATALIE
What mysteries you speak!
ISODORE
Perhaps I do, but mysteries pervade my every thought.
NATALIE
You are a strange one Isodore, no doubt.
ISODORE
Strange to myself it seems, as well as you.
** Yes I know, one too many syllables (but not if you pronounce mystery, mys’try). Anyway it needs to be changed as I use the word mystery a bit later… properly.
**** Couldn’t think of as good word here…
It’s probably a bit weak and seriously in need of revision, but there were two things I realy liked about doing it:
Firstly, the way I felt compelled to make the character speak what they were feeling in a not-particularly-expository way and,
Secondly, the way that I didn’t feel compelled to put direction in (which I would immediately take out if I were directing this anyway). Suddenly it all became about the two characters and their verbal/intellectual interactions.