I think visual action is just as important as speech on stage. In Oedipus, there was little action on stage, but that is mainly because the audience was huge, so those in the back would miss a lot of action, but they could hear the speech, so Sophocles had to rely on speech to carry the plot. Also, he was trying to stay consistant with the way those stories were told, which is orally, so there would have been no acting then.
In the Wild Duck, there is a lot of talking, but there are some stage directions. On page 124, Gregers grips Hjalmar's arm. It may seem like a tiny thing, but when you talk to someone, you don't normally do that, so it shows the intensity of the moment. You can tell from Gregers' action more than his words, that this is a very serious matter. Also it reveals the difference between what he is saying and what he thinks. He is telling Hjalmar that maybe he misjudged his father, and maybe he is a good person, but through the arm gripping, the audience can see that it is not a pleasant happy moment, revealing that he doesn't actually believe his father is a nice person.
So while neither plays use much action, it is still incredibly important in showing the audience the true thoughts of characters. Also, it keeps the audience engaged. The few actions that are mentioned in "The Wild Duck" are not trivial actions to make the play look better, that is the director's job, the stage directions are important insights into characters and help to move the plot forward.
I thought most of your points were very accurate and true to both plays. I had never really thought about the size of the audience playing a role in how the writer conveys the plot. However, you said that neither play uses much action, and I wasn't quite sure what you would define as "action". I felt that Wild Duck was alot more specific and had quite a bit of action compared to Oedipus, and I felt that the stage directions helped portray the characters on a deeper level. Anyways, that's just my opinion.
ReplyDelete