6
The previous chapter has not exhausted all the functions of information. Until now, we have only considered the information which is to be given to the spectator. But we must realize that there are different actors in the story, that each of them may have a different knowledge about events which take place, and that their knowledge may be different from that of the audience.
This division of knowledge is complicated, but must be understood. Let us assume A killed B. C may have been present, and therefore he has the same knowledge as A. But D and E do not know anything about it. The spectators may have seen the actual murder and in that case, they have the same knowledge as A and C. Or they may not have seen it or have heard about it and, in that case, they are in the same position as D and E.
This division of knowledge multiplies the needs and effects of information. C may have the correct information, while D lacks all information and E has misinformation. Furthermore, the audience and C may have the correct information while E has misinformation. Or D and the audience may lack all information while C has the correct information. Or the audience may be misinformed, while the actors know the truth. There are more combinations possible — and each of them has a certain effect upon the story.
If we assume that C is a detective, he may be the only one who knows the man who committed the murder, while none of the other actors or the audience know the murderer. Or let us assume that the murderer prepares a deathtrap for the detective. The audience has seen his preparation and knows of his plans, while the detective does not. Therefore, as he is merrily walking into the trap, the audience which has the information would like to warn him, and is altogether aroused. But it may be the case that the audience as well as the detective does not know about the trap. Then the audience as well as the detective will be equally surprised when he is caught.
The difference between withholding information from an actor and withholding it from the audience could be described as follows: until an actor has received the information about a previous fact, he cannot start any action in connection with this fact. The action is held up until he has received this information. But the action can progress even though the audience may be left in the dark. It simply has the effect of making them curious.
We can see a thief stealing a car. It is not possible for another actor who was not present to chase after the thief unless he has been informed about the theft. If we fail to give this information to the actor, and if he still acts as if he knew about it, the audience will ask, How does he know about it?
This can be exploited in another direction: the audience assumes that a certain actor does not have certain information. He acts as if he did not have this information. Suddenly he reveals that he had the knowledge all the time.
Then again, an actor may know things which the audience does not know. Or the spectator has knowledge which the actor lacks. Or they both know the same thing. These three possibilities divide the manner of revealing information in three ways.
In the last instance, the information is given to the audience and to the actor at the same time. They both may see a certain event, thereby gaining the same knowledge. Or a certain factor may be told to an actor and at the same time to the audience. The second instance — the spectator has information which the actor lacks — makes the revelation of this information to the actor necessary. The disadvantage and danger of this revelation is that the audience gets impatient when facts which it knows already have to be told to an actor. We shall be bored by this revelation of information to the actor if we have seen these happenings in previous scenes. The only case wherein this revelation can become interesting is when the reaction of the second actor is of particular interest. In order to circumvent the boring effect of such repetition of information, the writer will search for indirect ways of giving the facts to another actor. Frequently, he implies that the information is given to the actor in the lapse of time between scenes.
The first instance, where the actor has the information which the audience lacks, contains other obstacles. How can the author find a way to tell the audience something which his actors know already? The actors can hardly tell it to each other again in order to let the audience partake of their knowledge. Sometimes the writer finds an actor to whom the information can still be told and sometimes it can be implied by certain dialogue or certain actions. But very often this method entails strenuous efforts.
The last result of division of knowledge is the misunderstanding, particularly important because of its comic effects. The misunderstanding is nothing but the “quid pro quo” of the old commedia dell’ arte. For instance, one actor may think that another actor is the brother of a woman whereas in reality he is her husband. Or a victim may believe that he is talking to a detective whereas he is actually talking to the head gangster. If the audience shares in the error, then the effect is produced only when the truth is revealed. But if the audience knows the truth while the actor labors under the misunderstanding, the spectator can enjoy the situation. The films Tootsie (1982) — wherein an unemployed actor who disguises himself as an actress and achieves work and success thereby — and Victor/Victoria (1982) — in which a struggling singer poses as a female impersonator and becomes the talk of the town — are prime examples of successful usage of misunderstanding.
Comic effects achieved through misunderstanding occur frequently. We may believe that an actor is talking about his wife while he is actually talking about his horse. Most of the laughter aroused by the routines of vaudeville comedians is a result of misunderstanding made possible through a division of knowledge.
The division of knowledge requires the full attention of the writer. If it is handled correctly, we gain new effects, which make the story more interesting than it actually is.