Dramatic Structure in Cinema

Dramatic Structure in Cinema

What is Dramatic Structure?

The Origin of Dramatic Structure

The word drama, which in Ancient Greek means “to do something” or “to act,” has gone through many stages to reach its current form. It is thought to have originated from primitive rituals, and Ancient Greek theater had a great influence on its development. Drama owes its development and material within Ancient Greek theater to the Dithyrambos Chorus. The Dithyrambos Chorus is described as an anonymous community that recited hymns about the birth, death, and rebirth cycle of the Ancient Greek god Dionysus in unison.

Dithyrambos and Dionysus

We can summarize the myth of Dionysus, which provided the content for the hymns recited by the Dithyrambos Chorus, as follows:

“Dionysus is the son of Zeus and the Theban princess Semele. Zeus loved Semele madly and swore to do whatever she wanted. It was such a great oath that it was impossible even for Zeus to go back on his word. Semele expressed her desire to see Zeus in his true form. Zeus could not refuse due to his oath and appeared to her in all his splendor. Semele could not bear this brightness and died; thereupon, the god Zeus took the unborn Dionysus from Semele’s womb and placed him in his thigh. To protect him from the wrath of the jealous Hera, he hid him there for a long time, then disguised him as a goat and entrusted him to the water nymphs on earth. Dionysus, who grew up among the Nymphs, learned to make “wine” there and became the God of Wine. However, Hera learned of Dionysus’ existence and gave the terrible Titans the task of killing him. The Titans caught Dionysus, tore him to pieces, and devoured him. Thereupon, those around him revived Dionysus.”

The myth of Dionysus held great importance for the Ancient Greek people. The tyrant Peisistratus, aware of this, chose to support the god Dionysus—mostly embraced by the merchant and peasant classes—as an alternative to the Olympian religion embraced by the Aristocracy. The Dionysian festivals, which developed thanks to Peisistratus, were celebrated with great enthusiasm every year. In these festivals, wine flowed from the barrels, people reveled wildly, and the rebirth of the God Dionysus was reenacted. Peisistratus initiated the Great Dionysia festival, also known as the City Dionysia, and this festival began to bring people together from all over Athens.

The Dithyrambos Chorus in the Dionysian festivals was initially a moving chorus. Arion, one of the Dithyrambos poets, fixed this moving chorus at a certain point. According to the Ancient Greek scholar Pickard-Cambridge:

“Arion was the first to form a chorus and to fix it at a certain point (in a circle around the altar) instead of letting it wander aimlessly in the revelry like a group of people; he made the song of the chorus a regular poem with a certain subject from which it took its name.”

With this arrangement made by Arion, we see the formation of the “stage,” which made the narrative perspective possible. We can speak of “Tragedy” as the first fruit of this stage.

The Birth of Tragedy

According to legend, the friends who lamented the fate of Dionysus consisted of goat-footed satyrs. Therefore, the chorus that sang hymns at the Dionysian festivals also dressed as “goats.” This is why the songs of the chorus were called “goat song” (tragos+oidie). The word Tragedy comes from here. Tragedy competitions also began with the Dionysian festivals. We see that the poet Thespis, who participated in these competitions, brought a great innovation. Thespis was the first poet to stand opposite the chorus and sing the hymn with them in a reciprocal manner. In this way, the narrator turned into an actor, and dialogue, one of the cornerstones of dramatic structure, emerged. Thanks to dialogue, poets stopped dealing only with the fate of the God Dionysus and gradually began to address other stories in mythology. The innovations initiated by Thespis reached their peak with Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides.

Aristotle and Poetics

In his work Poetics, Aristotle, based on the works of great Ancient Greek tragedy writers such as Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, produced the first theoretical study on the basic features of dramatic structure. This work, being the first, holds a very important place in terms of dramatic structure.

Poetics: On the Art of Poetry

The key concept in Poetics is the concept of imitation (mimesis). Aristotle explains all his ideas in Poetics based on this concept. According to him, there are two natural reasons for the emergence of the art of poetry. The first is that imitation is an innate human characteristic, and the second is that imitation gives pleasure to humans. Aristotle expresses the place of the element of imitation in terms of the arts as follows:

“Epic poetry and tragedy, as also comedy, dithyrambic poetry, and the music of the flute and of the lyre in most of their forms, are all in their general conception modes of imitation. They differ, however, from one another in three respects—the medium, the objects, the manner or mode of imitation, being in each case distinct.”

Among these arts based on imitation, Aristotle focused most on the art of tragedy and defined tragedy as follows:

“Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation (katharsis) of these emotions.”

The most important element that stands out in this definition is the emphasis on the importance of action. With this approach, Aristotle states that it is more effective to directly imitate the action (dialogues and actions performed one-to-one, “mimetic”) rather than narrating it (as in the epic, “diegetic”). We will return to the diegetic and mimetic narrative. But before we do that, we need to detail the art of drama through tragedy.

The Features of Tragedy

According to Aristotle, the basic quantitative features of tragedy are as follows:

• Prologue: The part before the entrance song of the chorus.
• Episode: The complete part of a tragedy between two whole choral songs.
• Exode: The complete part of a tragedy that is not followed by a choral song.
• Choral Song (Parodos, Stasimon): Parodos is the entrance song. Stasimon is the stationary song.

Exposition, Complication, and Resolution

Among all the criteria listed above, Aristotle considered the plot first and placed the main emphasis on it. According to this, the plot must have an appropriate length and integrity. Also, for a tragedy to be complete, it must have a beginning, a middle, and an end:

The structure that Aristotle expresses as beginning, middle, and end can be seen as the method of exposition, complication, and resolution, which is at the center of the art of drama. Aristotle explains this situation as follows:

“Every tragedy falls into two parts—Complication and Unraveling or Dénouement. Incidents extraneous to the action are frequently combined with a portion of the action proper to form the Complication; the rest is the Unraveling. By the Complication I mean all that extends from the beginning of the action to the part which marks the turning-point to good or bad fortune. The Unraveling is that which extends from the beginning of the change to the end.”

All these elements expressed about tragedy are the elements that form the essence of the art of drama. We see that Aristotle, while examining tragedies, distinguishes between drama and epic through the concepts of diegetic (telling) and mimetic (showing). This distinction is very important for the art of drama. Therefore, we should explain the general features of the epic and drama genres and reveal their differences.

Epic

When we look at the epic genre in general, we see that it is the narrative of a society where a developed division of labor has not yet emerged. For this society, social interest is more important than individual benefit. Therefore, it is seen that comprehensive main ideas are at the center of the works in this genre. These ideas are ideas that move society forward and reproduce the collective beliefs and values of society. The epic genre has a concrete function in this respect.

In the epic genre, the conflict element passes between enemy communities rather than individuals. The driving force behind the heroes at the center of this conflict is the consciousness of collective action. The hero fights for society and social values. He mostly fights this battle against supernatural beings (gods, imaginary creatures).

Another feature of the epic genre is that it looks at events from a bird’s-eye view. In this perspective, general phenomena are in the foreground rather than details in the narrative. Therefore, the act of telling comes before the act of showing. The epic is only interested in the answer to the question “What happened?“. Therefore, the plot is not strictly determined. The epic writer is freer in this sense than the drama writer. However, these writers, as a requirement of the genre, have often remained anonymous because the epic genre is a genre dedicated to society.

Drama

The drama genre (and tragedy), on the other hand, is a narrative where the fate of the individual begins to separate from the fate of the community. Therefore, in the narratives in this genre, there is a perspective from the point of view of the individual, not the community. The conflicts that arise as a result of the individual’s action are dealt with in terms of the effect they have on the individual.

The drama genre, unlike the epic genre, does not look at events from a bird’s-eye view; it focuses on close examination. Therefore, details become important, and the sequence of events begins to be arranged in the space of the eye. With the transition from the space of the word (diegetic) to the space of the eye (mimetic), the person in the narrator position gradually begins to disappear.

Drama, in addition to the question “What happened?”, must also answer the question “How did it happen?” in all its details. Therefore, it is based on a detailed plot. The arrangement of events in the narrative is given with the illusion of “present time.”

The drama genre, which centers on the individual, has a much more rule-based structure than the epic genre. This makes drama a more sensitive and fragile structure against the mistakes of the writers. The writers of the drama genre, unlike the anonymous bards of the epic genre, are people known by their names and life stories.

In conclusion, the origin of the art of drama begins with the Dithyrambos Chorus in Ancient Greece. After a while, the Dithyrambos Chorus gives way to tragedy. In his work Poetics, Aristotle, based on famous tragedy works, determines the rules that define the structure of the art of drama. According to these rules, tragedy and therefore the drama genre are positioned in a different place from other genres (epic, etc.) and have continued their existence to the present day.

What is Dramatic Structure in Cinema?

As can be understood from the historical perspective drawn above, the origin of drama lies in the art of theater. The art of cinema, which emerged much later than theater, is a mimetic art that shares common points with theater in terms of its use of dramatic structure, although it has its own tools and principles. Semir Aslanyürek, in his work Screenplay Theory, states the following:

“With cinema starting to tell stories, the art of drama has also become one of the narrative forms of cinema.”

“Like any work of art, a film is created to tell something; to reflect an idea, a view; to convey a certain message to the audience. The theme, which constitutes the content and essence of the film, forms the core of the film’s dramatic structure. The dramatic structure here, just as in plays, is established by following the general rules on this subject in films with a story. The drama here is also necessarily about conflict. The filmmaker establishes the dramatic structure of the film by introducing his characters in depth; by arranging the relationships between his characters and between the characters and the environment; by arranging the tying of the knots, the unraveling of the knots, the lulls and pauses, and the phenomena arising from all these in the most appropriate way.”

The biggest difference that separates theater and cinema is the aesthetic and narrative quality of cinematography. In the art of cinema, cinematography is included in the story, becoming one of the constituent elements of storytelling, and thus the dramatic structure in cinema evolves to a different dimension.

Cinematography, which creates a near-perfect likeness of reality, has a very important place in the development of the art of drama. Because the cinematographer makes it possible to create a realistic image of a moving image, and thus provides an opportunity beyond the possibilities of the theater stage in creating decor, atmosphere, and characters. This new opportunity is the opportunity to create a new narrative that emerges by connecting the recorded images to each other.

“Therefore, the main point where cinema transcends the most powerful dramatic medium before it, the theater (stage), is not in creating an imitation of images, but in the brand new possibilities that emerge in the editing of these images. Because cinema, unlike theater, has the possibility of breaking down and reassembling a certain scene. In this way, it can detach the movement from the compelling (imperative) effect of “real time and space,” and free it by establishing it on a brand new cinematographic time and space plane. This is what ensures the originality of cinematographic narrative.”

It is seen that the narrative language that the art of cinema establishes with new possibilities has basically three different structures. These are separated from each other as the classical narrative of mainstream films, the modern narrative of art films, and the experimental narrative of art-house films.

Films based on classical narrative generally contain the popular expression and subjects of cinema. In this narrative, the approach that has been ongoing since Aristotle is preferred. The plot is built on a cause-and-effect relationship, and a closed story type is used. The characters are psychologically distinct and action-oriented. The conflicts in films with this narrative are also clearly set forth.

Modern Narrative and Classical Narrative Comparison

Films with a modern narrative are films that prioritize aesthetic concerns in their narrative and use thematic, spatial, and temporal parameters differently from classical narrative. The plot of these films has an episodic but relational approach. The end of the story is open-ended and left to the viewer. Character design is complex, and conflicts are on a social level and of a vague structure. Films based on experimental narrative define narratives that experiment with new techniques in narrative as independent productions and are aimed at an elite audience.

The narrative structures we will address within the scope of this study will be classical and modern narrative. Birger Langkjaer, in his cinema writings, expresses the relationship between narrative and style as follows:

Classical Narrative Cinema

Films based on classical narrative generally have popular expression and subjects and follow the dramatic structure rules set by Aristotle in his Poetics. The dramatic structure shapes the storytelling by creating consistency in the unity of event, person, time, and place. The basic feature of classical narrative cinema is that the events progress in a tightly connected cause-and-effect relationship and ensure the viewer’s participation (catharsis) in the dramatic process by enabling them to identify with the characters.

Classical narratives also include secondary subplots alongside the main story. The main character has a goal, and there are characters who help or hinder him in achieving this goal. The setup of time and space is arranged according to the storytelling model. If the main character does not achieve his goal, the story ends clearly.

According to Sözen, the following elements are necessary in classical narrative:

1. The disruption of the main character’s (protagonist) life or the social status quo,
2. The character’s effort to achieve a goal to correct this negative situation,
3. People who help the character trying to achieve the goal and the opposing character (antagonist) who creates conflict,
4. People other than the main character who will be affected by the failure or success of the goal.

David Wark Griffith and Classical Narrative

David Wark Griffith is considered the founder of classical narrative in cinema. Griffith played an important role in the birth of the concept of Hollywood Cinema and the studio system. He developed narrative techniques in cinema and laid the foundations of dramatic structure.

Griffith’s contributions to cinema and classical narrative are categorized below:

Griffith’s contributions to the history of cinema have made the classical narrative model permanent by forming its basic elements. One of the most important features of the classical narrative is to make the viewer perceive the events as real. The narrative mechanism and the narrator are completely invisible; thus, the viewer directly accesses the content and identifies with the characters.

Every technique used in the classical narrative model serves to strengthen the reality effect. The actors and technical crew also adhere to this model so as not to distance the viewer from reality.

Modern Narrative Cinema

Although it is not possible to detail modern narrative with strict rules, some of its main features can be mentioned. At the basis of the modern narrative thought lies a fragmented understanding of life. At the basis of this fragmented understanding of life lie the wars experienced by the Western world. It is seen that after World War II, tendencies that changed the traditional structure of classical cinema narrative emerged. The biggest innovation in this new narrative structure, of which we see the most effective examples in artists such as Godard, Fellini, Bergman, and Antonioni, is the way artists approach the plot.

The plot, in modern narrative, is generally established in an episodic way. This situation is related to Brecht’s Epic theater. Therefore, the concept of Epic Narrative is also used for modern narrative. While the dramatic structure theorized by Aristotle follows a linear process, Brecht’s Epic structure follows a complex order:

“In classical narrative, the plot continues in a straight line and without interruption in a way that gathers the viewer’s interest and tension at the end of the story, while in modern narrative, the events draw curves in a jumpy way, and the viewer’s interest is drawn to the development of the play. Thus, with an interrupted narrative, stopping points are created, and the viewer is directed to think, and identification is brought under control through episodic narrative.”

The reality of modern narrative is multidimensional compared to classical narrative. While films in the classical narrative form make an evaluation from the limited perspective of a single character, polyphonic narrative is present in modern narrative films. Directors present different aspects of reality through the characters. This situation leads to the establishment of more than one plot.

In films based on modern narrative, a new open-ended story order that presents sections from real life is established instead of the story order formulated with the introduction, development, and conclusion sections, which has been based on Aristotle’s Poetics and has been ongoing for years. The final part is designed as open-ended or with a new beginning.

“The typical feature of open story narratives is that they disregard the concept of ‘unity’ to a certain extent and therefore offer a very free structure in terms of general arrangement. In this type of narrative, the viewer is not given any information about previous events, and the story ends with an uncertain ending. In other words, viewers cannot deduce from the story what will happen (if anything) and what the main point of this action is.”

With the emergence of modern narrative, where the viewer participates in the aesthetic process of the film without experiencing identification, the role of the director increases. Directors such as Truffaut and Chabrol advocated this situation as the “Cinema d’auteur” theory. While in classical narratives, “whether justice is served” is in the foreground, in the films of Auteur directors, a philosophical inquiry is made on the concept of “justice.”

Although classical and modern narrative are intertwined in many films, the differences between them are sharp. Thomas Shatz summarizes the differences between classical and modern narrative as follows:

Despite these clear differences, some filmmakers have developed hybrid narrative models that bring together classical and modern narrative. Asghar Farhadi stands out as an important director who applies this hybrid narrative model.

Bibliography

1. Aristoteles. (2016). Poetika. İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
2. Aslanyürek, S. (2007). Senaryo Kuramı. İstanbul: Pan Yayıncılık.
3. Özön, N. (2008). Sinema Sanatına Giriş. İstanbul: Agora Kitaplığı.
4. Ünal, Y. (2015). Dram Sanatı ve Sinema. İstanbul: Hayalperest Yayınevi.
5. Langkjær, B. (2011). As quoted by: Mustafa Sözen, Realism as a Third Film Practice. MedieKultur, 51, 40-54.
6. Oluk, A. (2008). Klasik Anlatı Sineması. İstanbul: Hayalet Kitap.
7. Sözen, M. (2007). Sinemasal Anlatılarda Dramatik İnşa ve Dramaturji. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 22-45.
8. Altundağ, S. (2006). Türk Sinemasında Anlatı-Kurgu İlişkisi: 9. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Radyo Tv-Sinema Anabilim Dalı.
9. Abisel, N. (2007). Sessiz Sinema. Ankara: Deki Yayınları.
10. Parkan, M. (1991). Brecht Estetiği ve Sinema. İzmir: İdeart.
11. Derman, D. (1989). Jean-Luc Godard’ın Sinemasında Kadının Yeniden Sunumu. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
12. Erhat, A. (1996). Mitoloji Sözlüğü. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi Yayınları.
13. Nutku, Ö. (1997). Dram Sanatı. İstanbul: Kabalcı Yayınevi.
14. Nutku, Ö. (1985). Dünya Tiyatrosu Tarihi 1. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi Yayınları.
15. Thomson, G., & Çev. Doğan, M. (2021). Tragedyanın Kökeni. İstanbul: Yordam Kitap.
16. Şener, S. (1998). Dünden Bugüne Tiyatro Düşüncesi. İstanbul: Dost Kitabevi.