THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF TWO-ACT MATERIAL
It is very likely that in your study of "The German Senator" and
"The Art of Flirtation," there has crossed your mind this thought:
Both the monologue and the two-act are composed of points and gags.
The only difference--besides the merely physical difference of two
persons delivering the gags and the greater amount of business
used to "get them over" [1]--lies in the way the gags are constructed.
The very same gags--twisted just a little differently--would do
equally well for either the monologue or the two-act.
[1] To _get over_ a vaudeville line or the entire act, means to
make it a success--to make it get over the foot-lights so that the
audience may see and appreciate it, or "get" it.
I. THE INDIVIDUAL TWIST OF THE TWO-ACT
There is just enough truth in this to make it seem an illuminating
fact. For instance, take the "janitor point" in "The German
Senator." We may imagine the characters of a two-act working up
through a routine, and then one saying to the other:
A child can go to school for nothing, and when he grows up to
be a man and he is thoroughly educated he can go into the public
school and be a teacher and get fifty dollars a month.
The other swiftly saying:
And the janitor gets ninety-five.
There would be a big laugh in this arrangement of this particular
gag, without a doubt. But only a few points of "The German Senator"
could be used for a two-act, with nearly as much effect as in the
monologue form. For instance, take the introduction. Of course,
that is part and parcel of the monologue form, and therefore seems
hardly a fair example, yet it is particularly suggestive of the
unique character of much monologic material.
But take the series of points in "The German Senator," beginning:
"We were better off years ago than we are now." Picture the effect
if one character said:
Look at Adam in the Garden of Eat-ing.
2nd
Life to him was a pleasure.
1st
There was a fellow that had nothing to worry about.
2nd
Anything he wanted he could get.
1st
But the old fool had to get lonesome.
2nd
And that's the guy that started all our trouble etc. etc. etc.
Even before the fourth speech it all sounded flat and tiresome,
didn't it? Almost unconsciously you compared it with the brighter
material in "The Art of Flirtation." But, you may say: "If the
business had been snappy and funny, the whole thing would have
raised a laugh."
How could business be introduced in this gag--without having the
obvious effect of being lugged in by the heels? Business, to be
effective, must be the body of the material's soul. The material
must suggest the business, so it will seem to be made alive by it.
It must be as much the obvious result of the thought as when your
hand would follow the words, "I'm going to give you this. Here,
take it."
Herein lies the reason why two-act material differs from monologic
material. Experience alone can teach you to "feel" the difference
unerringly.
Yet it is in a measure true that some of the points and gags that
are used in many monologues--rarely the anecdotal gag, however,
which must be acted out in non-two-act form--would be equally
effective if differently treated in the two-act. But often this
is not due so much to the points themselves as to the fault of the
writer in considering them monologic points.
The underlying cause of many such errors may be the family likeness
discernible in all stage material. Still, it is much better for
the writer fully to recompense Peter, than to rob Peter to pay
Paul inadequately.
Nevertheless, aside from the "feel" of the material--its individual
adaptability--there is a striking similarity in the structural
elements of the monologue and the two-act. Everything in the
chapter on "The Nature of the Monologue" is as true of the two-act
as of the monologue, if you use discrimination. Refer to what was
said about humor, unity of character, compression, vividness,
smoothness and blending, and read it all again in the light of the
peculiar requirements of the two-act. They are the elements that
make for its success.
II. THINKING OUT THE TWO-ACT
The two-act--like all stage material in which acting plays a
part--is not written; it is constructed. You may write with the
greatest facility, and yet fail in writing material for the
vaudeville stage. The mere wording of a two-act means little, in
the final analysis. It is the action behind the words that suggests
the stage effect. It is the business--combined with the acting--that
causes the audience to laugh and makes the whole a success. So
the two-act, like every other stage form, must--before it is
written--be thought out.
In the preceding chapter, you read of the elements that enter into
the construction of a two-act. They are also some of the broad
foundation elements which underlie, in whole or in part, all other
stage-acting--material. A few of the two-act elements that have
to do more particularly with the manuscript construction have been
reserved for discussion in the paragraphs on development. In this
chapter we shall consider what you must have before you even begin
to think out your two-act--your theme.
1. Selecting a Theme
Imitation may be the sincerest flattery, but it is dangerous for
the imitator. And yet to stray too far afield alone is even more
hazardous. Successful vaudeville writers are much like a band of
Indians marching through an enemy's country--they follow one another
in single file, stepping in each other's footprints. In other
words, they obey the rules of their craft, but their mental strides,
like the Indians' physical footsteps, are individual and distinct.
2. Fundamental Themes
Experience has taught effective writers that certain definite
themes are peculiarly adaptable to two-act form and they follow
them. But success comes to them not because they stick to certain
themes only--they win because they vary these fundamental themes
as much as they can and still remain within the limits of proved
theatrical success.
(a) _The Quarrel Theme_. Search my memory as diligently as I may,
I cannot now recall a single successful two-act that has not had
somewhere in its routine a quarrel, while many of the most successful
two-acts I remember have been constructed with a quarrel as their
routine motives.
With this observation in mind, re-read "The Art of Flirtation" and
you will discover that the biggest laughs precede, arise from, or
are followed by quarrels. Weber and Fields in their list of the
most humorous business, cite not only mildly quarrelsome actions,
but actually hostile and seemingly dangerous acts. The more hostile
and the more seemingly dangerous they are, the funnier they are.
Run through the Cohan list and you will discover that nearly every
bit of business there reported is based on a quarrel, or might
easily lead to a fight.
(b) _The "Fool" Theme_. To quote again from Weber and Fields:
There are two other important items in human nature that we have
capitalized along with others to large profit. Human nature,
according to the way we analyzed it, is such a curious thing
that it will invariably find cause for extreme mirth in seeing
some other fellow being made a fool of, no matter who that fellow
may be, and in seeing a man betting on a proposition when he
cannot possibly win. We figured it out, in the first place,
that nothing pleased a man much more than when he saw another
man being made to look silly in the eyes of others.
For example, don't you laugh when you observe a dignified looking
individual strutting down the street wearing a paper tail that
has been pinned to his coat by some mischievous boys? [1]
[1] From the Weber and Fields article already quoted.
Note how the "fool" theme runs all through "The Art of Flirtation."
Go to see as many two-acts as you can and you will find that one
or another of the characters is always trying to "show up" the
other.
(c) _The "Sucker" Theme_.
As for the quirk in human nature that shows great gratification
at the sight of a man betting on something where he is bound to
be the loser: in inelegant language, this relates simply to the
universal impulse to laugh at a "sucker." It is just like
standing in front of a sideshow tent after you have paid your
good money, gone in, and been "stung," and laughing at everyone
else who pays his good money, comes out, and has been equally
"stung." You laugh at a man when he loses the money he has bet
on a race that has already been run when the wager has been
posted. You laugh at a man who bets a man ten dollars "receive"
is spelled "recieve," when you have just looked at the
dictionary and appreciate that he hasn't a chance. . . . Comedy
that lives year after year--no matter whether you choose to call
it "refined" or not--never comes to its exploiters by accident.
The intrinsic idea, the germ, may come accidentally; but the
figuring out of the elaboration and execution of the comedy takes
thinking and a pretty fair knowledge of your fellow men. [1]
[1] From the Weber and Fields article.
Although there are very many two-acts--among them "The Art of
Flirtation"--which do not make use of this third fundamental theme,
there are a great many that depend for their biggest laughs upon
this sure-fire subject.
In common with the "fool" theme, the "sucker" theme lends itself
to use as a part or bit of a two-act. And both these themes are
likely to be interspersed with quarrels.
There are, of course, other themes that might be classed with these
three fundamental themes. But they tend to trail off upon doubtful
ground. Therefore, as we are considering only those that are on
incontrovertible ground, let us now turn our attention to the act
themes which we will call:
3. Subject Themes
What can you bring to the vaudeville stage in the way of themes
that are new? That is what you should ask yourself, rather than
to inquire what has already been done.
Anything that admits of treatment on the lines of the two-act as
it has been spread before you, offers itself as a subject theme.
In the degree that you can find in it points that are bright,
clever, laughter-provoking and business-suggestive, does it recommend
itself to you as a theme.
Here is the merest skimming of the themes of the two-acts presented
in one large city during one week:
Flirting: done in a burlesque way. Our own example, "The Art of
Flirtation."
Quarrelsome musicians in search of a certain street. One is always
wrong. Gags all on this routine subject.
Getting a job: "sucker" theme. One character an Italian politician,
the other an Italian laborer.
Wives: one man is boss at home, the other is henpecked. Furthermore,
the wives don't agree. Quarrel theme.
Old times: two old schoolmates meet in the city. One a "fly guy,"
the other a simple, quiet country fellow. "Fool" theme, in the
old days and the present.
Note the variety of subjects treated. If my memory serves me
correctly, everyone of these acts had a quarrel either as its
entire subject, or the usual quarrels developed frequently in the
routine. These quarrels, as in most two-acts, were fundamental
to much of their humor. But no two of the acts had the same subject
theme.
It would seem, then, that in thinking out the two-act, the author
would do well to avoid every theme that has been used--if such a
thing is humanly possible, where everything seems to have been
done--and to attempt, at least, to bring to his two-act a new
subject theme.
But if this is impossible, the writer should bring to the old theme
a new treatment. Indeed, a new treatment with all its charm of
novelty will make any old theme seem new. One of the standard
recipes for success in any line of endeavor is: "Find out what
somebody else has done, and then do that thing--better." And one
of the ways of making an old theme appear new, is to invest it
with the different personalities of brand new characters.
III. TWO-ACT CHARACTERS
From the time when vaudeville first emerged as a commanding new
form of entertainment, distinct from its progenitor, the legitimate
stage, and its near relatives, burlesque and musical comedy, there
have been certain characters indissolubly associated with the
two-act. Among them are the Irish character, or "Tad"; the German,
or "Dutch," as they are often misnamed; the "black-face," or
"Nigger"; the farmer, or "Rube"; the Swedish, or "Swede"; the
Italian, or "Wop"; and the Hebrew, or "Jew."
Not much chance for a new character, you will say--but have you
thought about the different combinations you can make? There is
a wealth of ready humor waiting not only in varying combinations,
but in placing the characters in new businesses. For example,
doesn't a "Jew" aviator who is pestered by an insurance agent or
an undertaker, strike you as offering amusing possibilities?
But don't sit right down and think out your two-act on the lines
of the combination I have suggested on the spur of the moment.
Others are sure to be ahead of you. You can only win success with
new characters that are all your own. Then you are likely to be
the first in the field.
As a final warning, permit the suggestion that bizarre combinations
of characters very probably will be difficult to sell. Make your
combinations within the limits of plausibility, and use characters
that are seen upon the stage often enough to be hailed with at
least a pleasant welcome.
IV. THE TWO CHARACTER PARTS
"Comedy" and "Straight"
The characters of the two-act are technically called the "comedian"
and the "straight-man." The comedian might better be called the
"laugh-man," just as the straight is more clearly termed the
"feeder."
In the early days of the business the comedian was always
distinguishable by his comedy clothes. One glance would tell you
he was the comical cuss. The straight-man dressed like a "gent,"
dazzling the eyes of the ladies with his correct raiment. From
this fact the names "comedian" and "straight" arose.
But today you seldom can tell the two apart. They do not dress
extravagantly, either for comedy or for fashion effect. They often
dress precisely alike--that is, so far as telling their different
characters is concerned. Their difference in wealth and intelligence
may be reflected in their clothes, but only as such differences
would be apparent in real life. Indeed, the aim today is to mimic
reality in externals, precisely as the real characters themselves
are impersonated in every shade of thought and artistic inflection
of speech. There are, to be sure, exceptions to this modern
tendency.
The original purposes of their stage names, however, remain as
true today as they did when the two-act first was played. The
comedian has nearly all the laugh lines and the straight-man feeds
him.
Not only must you keep the characters themselves pure of any
violation of their unity, but you must also see to it that every
big laugh is given to the comedian. If the comedian is the one
"getting the worst of it"--as is almost invariably the case--he
must get the worst of it nearly every time. But that does not
influence the fact that he also gets almost all the laugh lines.
Note the working out of the laugh lines in "The Art of Flirtation."
You will see that only on the rarest of occasions does the
straight-man have a funny line given him.
The only time the feeder may be given a laugh line, is when the
laugh is what is called a "flash-back." For example, take the
point in "The Art of Flirtation" beginning:
COMEDIAN
And does she answer?
STRAIGHT
She's got to; it says it in the book.
COMEDIAN
Does she answer you with a handkerchief?
STRAIGHT
Yes, or she might answer you with an umbrella.
This is a flash-back. But, the comedian gets a bigger laugh on
the next line--worked up by a gesture:
COMEDIAN Over the head.
Or take this form of the flash-back, which may seem an even clearer
example:
COMEDIAN
Oh, I know how to be disagreeable to a lady. You ought to hear
me talk to my wife.
STRAIGHT
To your wife? Any man can be disagreeable to his wife. But
think--,
and so on into the introduction to the next point. It is always
a safe rule to follow that whenever you give the straight-man a
flash-back, top it with a bigger laugh for the comedian. How many
flash-backs you may permit in your two-act, depends upon the
character of the material, and also varies according to the bigness
of the roars that the business adds to the comedian's laughs. No
stated rule can be given you. In this, as in everything else, you
must carve your own way to win your own business.