Shakespeare, Part I

There's an interesting segment in Act III, Scene 1 of one of the only Shakepeare plays that pretty much everybody is familiar with, A Midsummer Night's Dream. It reinforces the idea that Shakespeare's work is cross-generational, that his themes and concepts apply to humankind in general and not to any particular time.

A troupe of amateur dramatists are rehearsing a play they intend to perform at the Duke's wedding feast. It is a poorly-written rip-off of Romeo and Juliet, where the hero kills himself after mistakenly believing that his love has been eaten by a lion. Side note: Shakespeare wrote this one BEFORE the famous teen-romance tear-jerker.

The actors are concerned, however, that despite their cheap special effects (the 'moon' is a guy holding a lantern, the 'wall' another guy holding his hands out) and lack of performance skills (the star player, by trade a weaver, fancies himself the next Athenian Idol), the audience may still actually believe that what they are doing onstage is real. The performers fear they will be criticized for 'too realistic' a death scene, and that their 'lion' might scare some women.

The solution, then, is to write little prologues for the various characters to say before their parts begin. The hero will explain to the audience (in great Shakespearean detail) that he is only an actor playing a role, and not actually committing suicide, in case this didn't realize it. The man in the fake lion-head will remove said mantle and note to the ladies present that he is just a man, and not really a vicious beast.

The humour, of course, comes from the ridiculously low opinion that the actors have of their audience. They really believe that the people watching the show think it's real. Are people so dumb that they can't distinguish between fantasy and reality, they don't know that these are only mimes and there is no real violence taking place?

All I can say is, thank goodness we live in the progressive modern age where people are far more educated and intelligent. Think what it would be like if, before a movie started, a prologue came up to say "This is only a movie; the events you see are put on by actors with special effects and are not really happening" It would be insulting and pointless. Modern audiences know the difference between violence in performance and violence in real life. Otherwise, movies would constantly be criticized for being "too violent", with encouraging "aggressive behaviour" and with "setting a bad example."

On the other hand, maybe Shakespeare was onto something after all...