CHAPTER 1

Action Analysis

Why action analysis? In the Introduction we said that

formalist analysis proceeds by gathering lots of detailed
information from the play and then drawing general
conclusions about the whole work. It uses a systematic
1
collection of close-ups to assemble at last the big picture.
Because it attempts to cover all the dramatic potentials of
a play, formalist analysis is time-consuming and thorough.
This attention to detail almost guarantees its practical
success. Unfortunately, attention to detail is also lengthy and
loaded with ins and outs. In the middle of a project readers
can become so involved in the details that at times they
lose sight of the whole play. They cannot see the forest for
the trees. At some point they may need to step back and
consider what result their project is leading to. The method
of action analysis offered in this chapter provides that
opportunity. Action analysis is a reduced type of formalist
analysis based primarily on the events in the plot. It is not
intended as a shortcut to creativity, however. It may be
quicker and simpler than formalist analysis, but by the same
token it is also less complete. Action analysis and formalist
analysis are meant to complement each other. They are
 arranged so that they operate together to obtain the level of
knowledge necessary for professional work.
Action analysis will also introduce readers to some of
the features of formalist analysis treated at more length
starting with the next chapter. For example, to evaluate the
events accurately, it will be necessary to consider the given
circumstances (Chapter 2), background story (Chapter
3), action (Chapter 4), and structure (Chapter 5), which
are the lifeblood of a play. By determining the main events
from which the behavior of a character develops, readers
will begin to understand the motives behind the actions
and start to learn about character (Chapter 6). In addition,
learning the sequence of the events and its logic, readers
will come to an understanding of the main idea that governs
the play (Chapter 7). The close association between action
2 analysis and formalist analysis also means that each method
can be learned and used in any order the reader’s needs
require.

Events
The easiest and most accessible way to come to terms with a play is
through the events in the plot. That is why action analysis starts with
the process of identifying and explaining the play’s events and then
builds on this foundation. An event is something that generally would
not or should not happen. As a result, it changes everything, causes
new ideas and feelings in a character, forces a character to see life in a
new way, and changes the direction of a character’s life. The bigger the
event, the bigger the change is. To distinguish an event from an ordi-
nary fact is quite simple. Stanislavsky suggested looking back on any
stage of our own life and trying to remember what the main event
was in this interval of time and understand how it was reflected in
our relations with others. Of course, it is easy to appreciate what this
or that event is in one’s own life. But just try to appreciate the value
of a similar fact not for oneself but for another person, and how mis-
taken we can be in our estimation of the fact from the other person’s

SCRIPT ANALYSIS FOR ACTORS, DIRECTORS, AND DESIGNERS

point of view. Even for that of a close friend or relative, it is not very
easy. Empathy — the capacity to recognize or understand another’s
state of mind or emotion — is necessary to appreciate what is impor-
tant in someone else’s life. And for empathy to be real, it is necessary
for us to study all the circumstances that predetermined the given
fact, all the motives that led the person to perform this or that action.
It would be necessary to interview this person and obtain some very
personal information for this purpose.
So it is with actors, directors, and designers, who by definition
must work with unfamiliar characters. How do we learn what consti-
tutes a major event or a passing episode under these circumstances?
For this purpose it is necessary to remove the specified fact from the
play, and after that try to understand how it would affect the life of
the characters. Again, empathy. What would happen, for example, if
Ophelia did not allow her father and Claudius to eavesdrop on her
conversation with Hamlet? She would have another destiny. Sad and
unfair, perhaps, but not tragic. There would not have been the shock
of rejection from Hamlet that extinguished Ophelia’s last hope. She
would not have suffered the terrible truth of her isolation that led
her to suicide. Ophelia’s sad destiny in the play is linked to her role
3
in the eavesdropping scene. Understanding what constitutes a dra-
matic event requires readers to think eventfully (consistent with the
action), instead of just verbally (consistent with the dialog).
Action analysis also requires a special understanding to be able to
distinguish the essential events from the less essential. A simple illus-
tration will help to explain. An express train traveling, for example,
from Boston to Washington, D.C. stops only at major cities along
the way: New York, Philadelphia. But there is also a local train, which
stops at the medium-size cities: Hartford, New Haven, Baltimore, etc.
To study the regions lying between the major cities — between Boston
and New York or between Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. — the
traveler needs to stop at the smaller cities, where one contains shop-
ping districts, another suburbs, a third hills and valleys, a fourth lakes
and rivers, a fifth factories, etc. It is also possible for the traveler to get
off the train and take an intercity bus, stopping at each small town, vil-
lage, or rural community along the way. There the traveler can obtain
an even better understanding of the regions lying between Boston and
Washington, D.C. Then again, it is also possible for a non-stop train
to travel straight from Boston to Washington, D.C. without any stops
along the way. A feeling of great momentum and speed will be the
result. But this “train” is for the rich — the geniuses, as Stanislavsky put
it. We might say that the express train is action analysis (Chapter 1),

ACTION ANALYSIS
 while the local train is formalist analysis (Chapters 2–7) and the inter-
city bus is advanced formalist analysis (Chapters 8–10). Most of us do
not need to concern ourselves with the nonstop train.

Sequence of External Events

The sequence of events begins with a list of the most important exter-
nal events in their original order. External events are the basic social
interactions that are taking place, for example, arrivals or departures,
meetings, announcements, discussions, quarrels, etc. External events
exist on the primary, material level of the play; however, they must
be significant in the context of the play and not just routine. There
is no need to be too exacting when describing the external events at
this point, as long as the descriptions are generally accurate. The goal
of action analysis is not to be exhaustively thorough, but to obtain
a rapid picture of the whole play as fast as possible. Shakespeare’s
plays make the learning process somewhat easier to manage because
they are crowded with events and are also divided into formal scenes.
As a result, it is possible to consider most scenes as a single external
event, at least for learning purposes. Hamlet will be the example used
4
here.
What happens in 1,1 (shorthand for act 1, scene 1)? Several
small external events occur in the scene: the changing of the guard,
the arrival of Horatio, the appearance of the Ghost, a discussion
about the previous appearance of the Ghost, the second appear-
ance of the Ghost, a discussion about Denmark’s preparations for
war, and a decision to tell Hamlet about the Ghost. These are sim-
ple socio-physical activities — arrivals, departures, discussions, and
decisions — of the kind found in everyday life under a variety of
circumstances. But they are significant because they are happening
for the first time, relate to Hamlet personally, and may have a bear-
ing on Denmark’s volatile political environment. At this point they
are described in the fewest words possible, short and to the point.
Brevity and an absence of literary language are essential goals in
action analysis. Short, clear-cut descriptions are closest to simple
human behavior, which is a merit of action analysis.
The next question to ask is which one of the six or seven smaller
events in 1,1 form the essence of the whole scene. What single event
sets the scene apart and defines its vital purpose in the play? Let’s
review the circumstances. All the characters in the play are important at
some point, of course, but for the moment most readers would agree
that the guards Francisco, Barnardo, and Marcellus, are less essential

SCRIPT ANALYSIS FOR ACTORS, DIRECTORS, AND DESIGNERS

here than Horatio and the Ghost. Horatio is Hamlet’s classmate and
closest friend from the University of Wittenberg, and the Ghost pro-
vides the grounds for the scene. Earlier, Marcellus told Horatio about
the prior appearance of the Ghost, but the skeptical Horatio did not
believe him. That is why Marcellus has asked him to come and see
for himself. A wise rehearsal room proverb says, “Anything of impor-
tance on stage happens either for the first time or the last time.” First
times and last times entail beginnings and ends, which are dramatic
by their nature. This particular scene shows Horatio’s first encounter
with the Ghost. In fact, it is his first experience with anything super-
natural. Moreover, as Hamlet’s closest friend and confidant, Horatio
would be the first to tell him about the event. Evidently, the main
point of the scene is Horatio’s encounter with the Ghost. Therefore,
we could describe the chief external event of 1,1 as “Horatio encoun-
ters the Ghost.”
Using an “express” way of thinking, the external events in Hamlet
could be listed like this:

1,1. Horatio encounters the Ghost

1,2. Claudius takes over the throne
5
1,3. Laertes departs for France
1,4. Hamlet encounters the Ghost
1,5. Hamlet learns that Claudius murdered his father
2,1. Polonius gives instructions to Reynaldo
2,2. Hamlet plans to trap Claudius
3,1. Claudius eavesdrops on Hamlet and Ophelia
3,2. The “mousetrap scene”
3,3. Claudius attempts to pray
3,4. Hamlet reproaches Gertrude
4,1. Claudius takes action against Hamlet
4,2. Hamlet is captured by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
4,3. Claudius sends Hamlet to England
4,4. Hamlet crosses paths with Fortinbras
4,5. Laertes returns to Elsinore
4,6. Horatio learns that Hamlet has returned
4,7. Claudius and Laertes conspire to murder Hamlet
5,1. Hamlet learns about Ophelia’s death
5,2. Hamlet agrees to a sporting duel with Laertes
5,3. Hamlet slays Claudius

This is quite a short and snappy summary of a very complex play.

Some may argue that it is too short; others may disagree with some

ACTION ANALYSIS
 of the descriptions. No matter. Action analysis is not intended to
be complete or perfect, just rapid and functional. As well, the
descriptions offered here are not intended to be definitive but sim-
ply demonstrations of the thinking process involved. Besides, some-
times a short and snappy point of view is useful for seeing through
the avalanche of words in a play, above all a play by Shakespeare.
Whatever the case may be, more analysis and rehearsal lie ahead
to fine-tune any over-hasty or misguided conclusions. True, many
less essential events have been omitted, but at least this summary
gives a satisfactory outline of the external events, which at this
point is all that is needed to proceed with the next stage of action
analysis.

Reviewing the Facts

This stage of action analysis is explained by its title. Reviewing the
facts means coming to terms with the basic specifics of the play. As
a process, it occurs at random intervals throughout action analysis,
and one good time to address it occurs after defining the external
events. Notice that we already performed a quick review of the facts
6 for 1,1 when attempting to define the basic external events for that
scene. A similar thinking process led to identification of the other
external events listed above for the play.
This stage of action analysis asks readers to understand the char-
acters as specific people who are living in a specific set of circum-
stances. To do so, it is necessary to purge any memories of what
other actors, directors, or designers may have done with the play in
the past or what anyone may have written about it. Other people’s
ideas can come later, after readers have reached their own under-
standing. Reviewing the facts in this way, readers will start to under-
stand for themselves the conditions that generate the events, plus the
words and characters that illustrate them. Reviewing the facts means
answering the questions: who, what, where, when, why, and how,
including everything that happened before the play begins and off-
stage between acts and scenes. In the formalist analysis taught in the
following chapters, those conditions are called given circumstances,
background story, external and internal action, and character. Action
analysis does not require careful identification of these conditions in
the same thorough way as format analysis does. All that is needed
at present is to ask, who, what, where, when, why, and how in any
convenient order. Study the questions as a skeptical district attorney
would do when cross-examining a deceitful offender, inquiring and
probing and not taking anything for granted.

SCRIPT ANALYSIS FOR ACTORS, DIRECTORS, AND DESIGNERS