As Keith is mainly interested in on-stage drama we'll start there. He uses the term 'status' to mean one character's relative importance in a social setting. In a two-person situation its necessarily binary: 'high status' and 'low status'.
Three observations: -
- Status is not the same as 'rank'; the master will always outrank the servant but he can certainly be lower in status
- Status is fluid; a character's (relative) importance will fluctuate depending on circumstance; sometimes being the 'wealthiest' grants a character top status but at other times it might go to the 'smartest', 'bravest', 'strongest' or whatever
- On stage (as in life) characters have a preferred status; just as some people are instinctively 'high status' others are instinctively 'low status'
Much fun can be had using these three ideas to analyse the character relationships in pretty much any play, film or TV show you care to name: -
- Hugh Laurie's eponymous character in House is not the top-ranking doctor in his hospital but is the high status player in pretty much every situation
- The ensemble of characters in Friends are forever fluctuating in status depending on what's important at the time. For example, Ross being 'smart' doesn't automatically grant him high status over Joey who is 'sexy'
- In The Sopranos Tony is an instinctive high status character and reacts violently whenever this is challenged
A more complex example might be the relationship between the characters played by Russell Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator.
(Do I really need a 'spoiler alert' for a film released in 2000?)
The plot is driven by the fact that Maximus (Crowe) is outranked by the emperor Commodus (Phoenix) but is the higher status character, something that causes Commodus to react evermore viciously. By the film's end Commodus' status is eroded until he is left dead in the dust whilst Maximus' corpse is carried aloft from the Collosseum.
In the next post I want to take these same ideas and apply them to my world.
