As a big fan of plays but a mind that's geared towards film, I'm always absolutely fascinated by the freedom and purity offered by plays.

I think the best way to describe it is by describing plays the way Brian Michael Bendis described them: "To write a play put two people in a space, have them start talking, and see which one annoys the other first."

Really, there's a stripped down quality to it that makes playwriting so... pure. You're forced to deal with characters and problems without using screenwriting tricks (cutting away before getting to the point) and you're forced to spend a lot of time digging into a particular problem but also to twist the lens and focus of a particular scene, letting it breathe and using that to ratchet up the tension...

It's especially useful in terms of conflict and varying objectives. With plays, you're forced to make two characters interact and conflict with each other for an extended period of time. There's a phenomenal short play called "Tape" which is all in one setting in real time that's all about subverting power relationships and getting to points of conflict right off the bat.

So really that's where it is for me. With a play you're almost forced to get right down to the quintessence of drama pretty fair off, whereas with screenplays or some such I feel like there's entire scenes or sections devoid of conflict and thusly boring.

Plays do that too, but it's harder to hide.

I think, since playwrights can't rely on the crutches like location, etc. afforded screenwriters, playwrights are forced to tighten the writing, dive deeper into the psyches of the characters, find innovative ways to reveal character, etc.

As long as the reader understand the playing field (plays turned into movies for example are usually very talky because of the reasons above), reading plays will stand any writer in good stead.

Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Dialogue is the only thing playwrights have. When good playwrights switch to screenwriting the problem is often that they're *too* good at dialogue. They initially have trouble paring back their reliance on it. Novice screenwriters with no theatre background get battered so much with notes about the image, structure, how to format action sequences, etc. that they can be clueless about writing taut, muscular dialogue that subtly folds in exposition, has subtext, reveals character, and that actors love to speak. Playwrights MUST have that skill or they go home. Actors are often key to a movie getting made, so give them something more than tics and cliche. Plays will teach you.

It seems that there would be a lot of value in reading plays these days if for no other reason than the popularity of the "contained thriller."

The value of reading plays is learning the trick of characters revealing themselves ... in my opinion.

But an important skill ... you can't really write plays successfully unless you can write dialogue well and reveal character even better ...

All which becomes very usefully writing screenplays ...

A worthwhile exercise: Comparing a stageplay with the big screen adaptation. For instance, the movie "Frankie and Johnny" is a considerable unpacking of the stageplay "Frankie and Johnny in the Clair de Lune." It gives you a real sense of what works in each individual medium, and where there is overlap in things that work in both.

Yes. Read plays. Even though they have freedoms--and restrictions--that screenplays don't, they can also let you know of possibilities that you might not have thought of. Read Our Town and see incredibly modern ideas perfectly executed with both high concept and feeling before your parents were likely born. Read Mamet or Labute and see how dialogue voice can develop. Look at Pinter and see abstract concepts hit home in real world ways. Read Arthur Miller and see how very, very simple scenes can have meaning that runs incredibly deep. Read Tennessee Williams for so many reasons.

You'll also notice that ALL of those people had or have meaningful careers in movies. There is so much to learn, and you can do it so quickly, because most plays read so quickly.

I can't imagine doing what I do without the benefit of having read "The Collected Plays of Neil Simon" volumes 1 through 4. That's about all one needs in their dialogue toolshed as far as I'm concerned.

After being solely focused on screenwriting for the past five years, I've just finished a 6-week class on how to map out and build a play. One very cool term that the playwright/teacher used for the basic building blocks was "poetic reality" – the world and worldview the players bring to the story.

I learned you activate this tool by asking:

What's the poetic reality for each character during each moment? How does it shift during the course of the scene? The act? The story? What evidence is presented -- in the words and on the stage -- for and against that poetic reality?

Talk about getting to the essence of character-in-action-is-story...my head still hurts! But it's a good hurt, like after a solid workout at the gym, because it forces you to do the heavy lifting of getting to the specifics, to the physical and emotional onstage manifestations of traits, needs, wants, flaws -- the whole kielbasa of character.

So, yes, add my voice to the chorus: studying how plays work is a huge help.

@Jeffrey, "Collected Plays of Neil Simon," brings back memories, of going through every play I could find in library during high school, long before I was interested in writing, but after some theater immersion, so entertaining and well written, a joy to read Simon and others.

For a newbie who loves Oscar Wilde, noticing that Wilde never uses parentheticals was the final variable in my giving them up. If such a talent can get by without them, 'nuff said. I think plays are fabulous to read for their dialogue, so distilled and layered.