Characters

A. MAJOR AND MINOR CHARACTERS

Since drama presents us directly with scenes which are based on people’s actions and interactions, characters play a dominant role in this genre and therefore deserve close attention. The characters in plays can generally be divided into major characters and minor character, depending on how important they are for the plot. A good indicator as to whether a character is major and minor is the amount of time and speech as well as presence on stage he or she is allocated.

As a rule of thumb, major characters usually have a lot to say and appear only marginally. Thus, for example, Hamlet is clearly the main character or protagonist of Shakespare’s famous tragedy as we can infer from the fact that he appears in most scenes and is allocated a great number of speeches and, what is more, since even his name appears in the title (he is the eponymous hero). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, by contrast, are only minor characters because they are not as vitally important for the plot and therefore appear only for a short period of time. However, they become major characters in Tom Stoppard’s comical re-make of the play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstren are Dead (1966), where the two attendants are presented by bewildered witnesses and predestined victims

Occasionally event virtually non-extent characters may be important but this scenario is rather exceptional. An example can be found in Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, where the action centres aroun the arrival of the mysterious Godot, whose name even appears in the title of the play although he never actually materialises on stage.

B. CHARACTER COMPLEXITY

Major characters are frequently, albeit not exclusively, multidimentional and dynamic (round character) while minor characters often remain mono-dimentional and static (flat character, see Character Dimentions in narrative prose). Multi-dimentional characters display several (even conflicting) character traits and are thus reasonably complex. They also tend to develop throughout the plot (hence, dynamic), though this is not necessarily the case. Hamlet, for example, is marked by great intelectual and rhetorical power but he is also flawed to the extent that he is indecisive and passive. The audience learns a lot about his inner moral conflict, his wavering between whether to take revenge or not, and we see him in different roles displaying different qualities as prince and statesman, as son, as Ophela’s admirer, etc.

Mono-dimentional characters, on the other hand can usually be summarised by a single phrase or statement, i.e, they have only few character traits and are generally merely (see also ch. 2 4 3). Frequently, mono-dimentional chracters are also static, i.e, they do not develop change during the play. Laertes, Ophelia’s brother, for example, is not as complex es Hamlet. He can described as a passionate, rash youth who doesn’t hesitate to take revenge when he hears about his father’s and sister’s deaths. As a character, he corresponds to the convetional revenger type, and part of the reason why he does not come across as a complex figure is that we hardly get to know him. In the play, Laertes functions as a foil for Hamlet since Hamlet’s indecisiveness and thoughfulness appear as more marked through the contrast between the two young man.

C. CHARACTER AND GENRE CONVERSATIONS

Sometimes the quality of character can also depen on the subgenre to which a play belongs because genres traditionally follow certain conversations even as far as the dramatic personae, i.e, the dramatic personnel, are concerned. According to Aristotle’s Poetics, characters in tragedies have to be of a high social rank so that they downfall in the and can be more tragic (the higer they are, the lower they fall), while comedies typically employ ‘lower’ characters who need to be taken so seriously and can thus be made fun of. Since tragedies deal with difficult conflicts and subject matters, tragic heroes are usually complex. According to Aristotle, theey are supposed to be neither to good nor to bad but somewhere ‘in the middle’ (Aristotle, 1953: 1453a), which allows them to have some tragic ‘flaw’ (hamartia) that ultimately causes their downfall. Since tragic heroes have almost ‘average’ characteristics and inner conflicts, the audience can identify more easily with them, which is an important prerequisite for what Aristotle calls the effect of catharsis (literally, a ‘cleansing’ of one’s feelings), i.e, the fact that one can suffer with the hero, feel pity and fear, and through this strong emotional involvement clarify one’s own state of mind and potentially become a better humman being (Aristotle 1953: 1450a, see Zapf 1991:30-40 for a more detailed exploration of Aristotle’s concept). Comedies by contrast, deal with problems in a lighter manner and therefore do not necessarily require complex figures Furthermore, types are more appropriate in comedies as their single qualities can be exaggerated and thus subverted into laughable behaviour and actions. In A mindsummer Night’s Dream, for example, the weaver Bottom, who foolishly thinks he can be a great actor, is literally turned into an ass and thus becomes the laughingstock of the play.

D. CONTRAST AND CORRESPONDENCES

Characters in plays can often be classified by way of contrast or corresepondences. In Middleton’s and Rowley’s The Changeling, for example, the character in the main plot and the ones of the subplot are exposed to similar conflicts and problems and thus correspond with one other on certain levels, while their reaction are very different and thus show the contrast between corresponing figures. Beatrice, the protagonist of the main plot, and Isabella, Alibius’ wife in the subplot, are both restricted by their social positions as wives and daughters. However, while Beatrice oversteps the boundaries by having her suitor, Alonzo, killed in order to be able to marry Alsemero, Isabella fulfis her role as faithful wife and does not break the rule even when two suitors make advances to her. The themes of sexuality and the adultery play and important role in both plots, yet they are pursued in different way. While Beatrice commits adultery, albeit somewhat involuntarily at first, Isabella resist the temptation and remains virtuous. Sexuality is discussed with subterfuge and only implicitly in the main plot and yet sexual encounters take place, whereas the same topic is discussed in an open and bawdy manner in the subplot where ultimately nothing happens.

The husband is the two plot-lines can also be described in terms of contrast and corresponences. While Alsemero trust his wife and does not see what is really going on between her and De Flores (it is only through hints by his friend that he start to feel suspicious), Alibius is highly suspicious are groundless since Isabella remains firm and faithful, whereas Beatrice in a sense cheats on her husband even before they are married.

By presenting corresponding characters in such a contrastive manner, their individual characteristics are thrown into shaper relief and certain qualities are highlighed with regard to the oveeral plot. We can say that the characters in the subplot of The Changeling function as foils to the characters in the main plot because they bring out more effectively the main characters’ features (a foil is a piece of shiny mental put under gemstones to increase their brightness)

E. CHARACTER CONSTELLATIONS

Characters can also be classified according to their membership to certain groups characters both across the entrie play as well as in individual scenes. In other words, questions like ‘Who belongs to whom?’ and ‘Which character are friends or foes?’ are also essential in drama analysis. If one consider the overall structure of the play and groups of characters therein, one deals with the constellation of the dramatic personnel. Constellations can be based on sympathies and antipathies among characters, on how they act and react to one other, etc. Usually, one can make the distinction between heroes and their enemies or protagonists and antagonists, and one can find character who collaborate and support one another, while others fligh or plot against each other. Obviously, character constellation is a dynamic concept since sympathies/antipathies can change and groups of people can also change. On stage, groups can be presented symbolically by certain distinctive stage props or costumes and also through their gestures and relative spatial position to one another. In the following picture from a lay performance of Sharman MacDonald’s After Juliet, the opposing members of the houses of Capulet and Montague can be identified by the fact that they appear in differenly coloured spotlights (green and red respectively), and by their final positioning in the play, which already marks their newly aroused antagonism: They have picked up their swords and face one another, ready for a new flight.

F. CHARACTER CONFIGURATIONS

In contrast to character constellation, the term configuration denotes the sequential presentation of different characters together on stage. Configurations thus change whenever character exit or enter the stage. In the first scene of Shakespare’s Richard III, for example, Richard appears on stage alone first, followed by the entrance of his brother Clarence and Brakenbury with a guard of men, after whose exit Richard is own again before Lord Hastings joins him. Before the first scene closes, Lord Hastings exits and Richard remains once again alone on stage.

Configuration typically underlie the overall structure of scenes but, as the example of Richard III shows, configurations can even change within scenes. Configurations are important to extent they show up groups and development among groups of characters which, in turn, is essential for the development of the plot. In Richard III, Richard’s frequent appearances alone on stage already reveal him as a loner and an outsider but also as a cunning schemer, whose interaction with other characters are thus unravelled to be false and underhanded.

G. TECHNIQUES OF CHARACTERISATION

Character in drama are characterised using techniques of characterisation. Generally speaking, one can destinguish between characterisations made by the author in the play’s seqondary text (authorial) or by characters in the play (figural), and whether these characterisations are made directly (explicitly) or indirectly (implicitly). Another distinction can be made between self-characterisation and characterisation through others (see also characterisation techniques in narrative prose ch 2 4 1) The way these different forms of characterisation can be accomplished in plays can be chematised as follows:

Of course, the characterisation of figures usually works on several levels and combines a number of these techniques.

An example of an explicit authoral characterisation can be found in John Osborne’s Look Back in Anger, where the author provides a detailed description of Jimmy in the introductory secondary text:

JIMMY is a tall, thin young man about twenty-five, wearing a very worn tweed jacket and fannels. Clouds of smoke fill the room the pipe he is smoking. He is a disconcernting mixture of sincerity and cheerful malice, of tenderness and freebooting curelty, restless, importunate, full of pride, a combination which alienates the sensitive and insensitive alike. Blistering honestly, or apparent honesty, like his, makes few friends. To many he may seem sensitive to the point of vulgarity. To others, he is simply a loud-mouth. To be as vehement as he is is to be almost non-committal. (Osborne, Look Back in Anger)

Since the explicit authorial characterisation is obviously not available for viewers in a theatre, Jimmy has to be characterised implicitly through the audio-visual channel, i.e in his interactions with the other chracters, the things he talks about, the way he talk etc. One means of indirect characterisation is already provided in Jimmy’s physical appearance. The fact that he contrast sharply with Cliff (tell and slender versus short and big boned) suggest to the audience that he meght be different in terms of personality as well. The two men’s divergent characters are most visible in the way they interact, however, and in their respective behaviour towards Jimmi’s wife, Alison:

JIMMY: Why do i do this every Sunday? Even the book reviews seem to be the same as last week’s. Different books – same reviews. Have you finished that one yet?

CLIFF: Not yet.

Jimmy :I’ve just read three whole columns on the English Novel. Half of it’s in French. Do the Sunday papers make you feel ignorant?

CLIFF: Not’arf.

JIMMY: Well, you are ignorant. You’re just a pleasant. [To Alison] What about you? You are not a pleasant are you?

ALISON : [absently] What’s that?

JIMMY: I said do the papers make you feel you’re not so brilliant afer all?

ALISON:Oh – I haven’t read them yet.

JIMMY: I didn’t aks you that. I said –

CLIFF: Leave the poor girlie alone. She’s busy.

JIMMY: Well se can talk, can’t she? You can talk, can’t you? You can express an opinion. Or does the white Woman’s Burden make it impossible to think?

ALISON: I’am sorry. I wasn’t listening properly.

JIMMY: You bet you weren’t listening. Old Porter talks, and everyone turns overturn and goes to sleep. And Mrs. Porter gets ‘em all going with the first yawn.

CLIFF: Leave her alone I said.

JIMMY: [shotding]. All right, dear. Go back to sleep. It was only me talking. You know? Talking? Remenber? I’m sorry.

CLIFF: Stop yelling. I’m trying to read.

JIMMY:Why do you bother? You can’t a word of it.

CLIFF: Uh huh.

JIMMY: You’re too ignorant.

CLIFF : Yes, and uneducated. Now shut up, will you? (ibid)

In this introductory scene the audience already forms an impression of Jimmy as an almost unbearable, angry, young man because he insults his friend and tries to provoke his wife by making derogatory comments about her parents. The fact that he even starts shoutingt at Alison shows his ill-temper and that he generally seems to be badly-behaved. By contrast, Cliff tries to ignore Jimmy’s attacks as far as possible in order to acvoid further conflicts, and he protects Alison. While Jimmy criticises and humiliates his wife, Cliff shows through his words and gestures that he cares for her. Thus, he asks her to stop ironing and to relax from her household chores:

CLIFF: [ ...] [Puts out his hand to Alison] How are you, dullin ?

ALISON: All right thank you, dear

CLIFF : [rasping her hand] Why don’t you leave all that, and sit down for a bit? You look tired

ALISON:[SILING] I haven’t much more to do.

CLIFF: [kisses her hand, and puts her fingers in his mouth]. She’s a beautiful girl, isn’t she?

His gestures and body language show Cliff as an openly affectionate character. This character trait, which is conveyed in an implicit figural technique of characterisation here, again contrasts with Jimmy’s behaviour and thus brings Jimmy’s lack of loving kindness into sharper relief.

The outward appearance of characters is often used as an implicit means of characterisation. Melodramatic plays, for example, generally present the ‘goodies’ as fair and good-looking, while ‘baddies’ are of dark complexion, wearing moustaches, etc.

In Shakespare The Tempest, this device is also used for the characterisation of Caliban is an extrimely ugly creature, which already signifies the evil traits in his character. Furthermore, Caliban’s language reveals him as ambiguous. While he speaks verse and is generally a capable retorician, his speech is also marked by frequent swearing, insults, vulgar and ungrammatical expression. Thus he says to Prospero: “All the charms/Of Sycorax, toads, beetles, bats, ligh on you!” (The Tempest. I, 2: 398f) and later: “You taugh me language, and my profit on’t/Is I know how to curse. The red plague rid you/ For learning me your language!” (ibid:424-426). Caliban’s evil character traits are also implicitly revealed to the audience when Prospero Relates how Caliban tried to rape his daughter, Miranda, and when Caliban tries to inveigle Stephano and Trinculo into usupring the island. This example shows that dramatic figures can be characterised in a number of ways and that the audience is usually given several signals or cues concerning the personality of characters: gesture, behaviour, looks, etc.

Dramatic language is another important means of indirect characterisation in plays. Characters are presented to the audience through what they say and how they say it, their verbal interactions with others and the discrepancies between their talk and their actions. In an actual performance, an actor’s voice and tone thus also play a major role for how the audience preceives the played character. This can also be seen in plays where dialect or specific sociolects are used. Dialect indicates what region or geographical area one comes from, while sociolect refers to linguistic features which give away one’s social status and membership in a social group. An example is Sean O’Casey’s Juno and the Paycock where the characters speak with a board Irish accent and use a lot of local colloquialisms (even the title already employs accent: ‘playcock’ instead of ‘peacock’). Their language immediately categorises the characters as members of a lower social class and it also underlines one of the major themes of the play patriotism.

Sometimes, character traits can already be anticipated by a character’s name. So-called telling names, foe example, explicitly state the quality of a character (e.g, figures like Vice, Good-Deeds, Everyman, Knowledge, beauty, etc. In the Medieval morality plays), or they refer to characters’ typical behaviour. Tus some of the characters in Congreve’s The Way of the World are identified as specific types through their names: Fainall = ‘feigns all’, Mirabell = ‘admirable’ and also ‘admirer’ of female beauty’, Witwoud= ‘would be witty’, and Millamant = ‘has a thousand lovers’

SO WHAT?

Characters represent the most important analytical categories in drama since they carry the plot. In other words: there cannot be a play without characters. Characters’ interactions trigger and move the plot, and their various relationship to one another form the basic of conflict and the dynamic processes. A lot of the term used for techniques of characterisation is narrative are also applicable in drama but one needs to be aware of fundamental differences related to the different medium, when we read a novel, foe example, the narrator often describes characters which we than have to imagine and bring to life in our mind’s eye. While this exists in drama to extent that wwe often find stage directions or or introductory comments in the secondary text, characters in actual performance are always already interpretation of stage directors and actors who bring characters to life for us. Our review of characters in stages plays is thus inevitably influenced by the way an actor looks, how he speaks, how he acts out his role, etc. Other influential factors can be costumes and make-up, the overall setting in which a character is presented, etc.

Consider in what ways the different realisations of Hamlet in the following pictures can potentially change the viewers attitudes towards the character

The first photo shows Hamlet played by Laurence Oliver inthe 1948 film version of the play (photo from Dent (1948) found on [Dent, Alan (1948) Hamlet-The Film and the play. London: World publications]. The costume and the set in general try to render the scenes as authentically as possible, i.e, this production aims at realistic presentation of the play. Hamlet id dressed in traditional costume, a courtly outfit which displays his social rank and dignity. He wears a highly ornate doublet, jewellery and stockings as would befit a mighty prince. His posture is upright, only his head stoops sightly towards Polonius who lies dead at Hamlet’s feet. Hamlet facial expression is serious and his eyes are fixed on the dead body. This expression suit the tragic circumstances of Polonius’ death, but it also underlines Hamlet’s shock when he discovers that it was not the king he killed but Polonius. Hamlet’s face does not display sadness, however. It is as through Hamlet was wearing a mask behind which hides his emotions. He seems to preceive Polonius’ death as an unfortunate, but inevitable, event imposed on him by fate. At the same time, Hamlet’s facial expression reveals his serious and melancholic character. Generally speaking, one can say that Hamlet’s character appears as dignified through the princely costume and Oliver’s body language.

The second photo shows a modern version of Hamlet (“Shakespeare in Performance”, photo by Joe Cock Studio, Stratford-upon-Avon, 1989, found on http://www.geocities.com/markaround/stagepics.htm). In the scene depicted here, Hamlet talks to Rosencrantz and Guildenstren. While the two attendants are dressed in formal contemporary suits, Hamlet is wearing pyjamas. Hamlet’s outfit, which is not normally acceptable in public because it belongs to people private and event intimate spheres, already signals to the audience that something must be wrong with him. In a way, Hamlet’s madness is epitomised by his inappropriate and somewhat slovenly dress. This interpretation takes into account and even surpasses the original text where Ophelia also comments on Hamlet’s changed appearance: “with his doublet all unbrac’d,/ No hat upon his head, his stocking foul’d,/Ungarter’d and down-gyved to his ankle” (Hamlet, II, 1:70-80). In addition to the ‘costume’, Hamlet’s facial expression represents ‘madness’, yet in a different way from the first photo.

Hamlet grins while he is shaking both Rosencrantz’ and Guildenstren’s hands, thereby expressing mockery and foolish madness rather than melancholy or serious derangement. Of course this suit the occasion, as Hamlet pokes fun at the two attendants who were sent by the King to find out what is wrong with the prince. At the same time, however, Ahamlet is generally portrayed as less dignified than in the first photo, and the stage set also trivialises the conflict by placing it in the present-day and indeed, everyday, context. One has the impression that tragic heroes in the traditional sense are simply no lonnger possible in our modern day and age.

This example shows that the audience’s perception of a play’s character largely depends on the way the character is interpreted by the actor, director, make-up artists, costume designers etc. Costumes as well as facial expression and gestures but also the stage set already convey or emphasise certain character trait and create an atmosphere For this reason, different production of a play can lead to divergent results.