The split scenes are a frequent tool employed by the creator of Angels in America which I found to be unique, entertaining, and insightful. Often throughout the play, the stage is divided into two different settings and two scenes occur simultaneously, with characters from different scenes speaking right after the other; action continues in one scene even when all the dialogue is in the other. Though I am familiar with the technique of a split scene, I have not seen this extent of sharing the action between two scenes this frequently, and I found it unique and additive to the story.
This serves to highlight the parallels between the two scenes that are occurring. For example, when both Joe and Louis told their respective lovers that they were going to leave them, the stage was split for both of these discussions to occur simultaneously. The playwright intertwined the two scenes by intent and meaning, but also with similar words and phrases placed successively but in opposite scenes. In this instance, I found that this split scene technique helps to connect the stories of two very different couples.
An opposing example to this was when the scene was split between a conversation between Roy and Joe over dinner and an elicit encounter between Louis and another man. Though the subject matter of the two scenes could not have been more different, the writer connects them through repeated dialogue again. Fitting these two scenes together enhances the feeling of unease and peril that both try to convey.
I totally agree with the parallels that are found in AIA. They bring a new perspective to the play and add extra details that us readers would never be able to see before hand. It is not just entertaining, but it shows each characters strong desire to leave the past behind and accept the truth.
ReplyDeleteSplit scenes are certainly interesting. I mean, the main technique they use is sensory overload: by increasing the amount of information the reader is taking in, it makes the scene seem faster and more dramatic. It would be easy to criticize them, if one wanted to: they don’t reflect real life, they’re unnecessarily complicated, and a master playwright could probably have better methods at his disposal. However, in an unorthodox play like this, they have their uses: it’s particularly interesting to watch rhythm shifts between scene-halves, I think; they create parallelism, as you said; and they do succeed at creating drama. They’re probably necessary in this play, too; the storylines are distant enough from each other that the play benefits from using split scenes to create that parallelism. Besides, it’s probably best not to criticize a technique just because it uses sensory overload, lest we start to attack music on the same grounds. Oh cynicism....
ReplyDelete