The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0714 Friday, 4 August 2006
From: John Briggs <
Date: Thursday, 3 Aug 2006 17:24:47 +0100
Subject: "Metatheatrics notwithstanding"
I realise that this is exactly the wrong moment to start a new thread,
but there is a topic which I think would benefit from serious thought
during the Hiatus. At one point during the recent Weinstein-induced
mud-wrestling I threw out a glib remark which I have been employing for
decades, but never actually verified - that every one of Shakespeare's
plays has a reference to actors or acting. Is this true? (I realise
that it may not be literally every play, but how close is it?) More to
the point, what on earth is the reason for this?
I have always assumed that it is the very opposite of Brechtian
alienation, but I am beginning to have doubts. Is it simply the actors
(by their skill) challenging us to greater heights of suspension of
disbelief, or is there something more complex going on? Is there really
a distancing effect, or is it something else?
Can we assume the same relation between actors and audience in
Shakespeare's day as in ours? The open-air theatres were hugely
popular, but how skilled were the audiences at "reading" plays? Are
there hidden meanings for an elite (university-educated?) audience who
were in on the joke, or were the in-jokes just for the actors
themselves? Did the actors and/or the playwrights (to what extent did
Shakespeare's contemporaries employ these devices and allusions? Is
there a difference between playwrights who were actors and those who
were not?) in fact have a contempt for their audience? Or did the
audiences just react to the plays in a way which we cannot now recapture?
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.