2
HAMLET’S THREE KINDS OF THEATER Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature: for any thing so o'erdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere the mirror up to nature: to show virtue her feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure. (Hamlet 3, 2, 17–24) As Hamlet once remarked, there exist three kinds of theater each of which has a very different relationship to reality: as mirror, as criticism, and as allegory. (1) The first kind is realism, which attempts to “hold a mirror up to nature” and to depict real characters in real situations. Thanks to training programs in Meisner, Stanislavski and so on, this has become not only the dominant approach in television and the movies, but also on stage. The problem is that mirrors distort, and are an automatic reflection of reality that lacks critical judgment and insight. Nonetheless, the pervasive conventions of realism are adopted by television, most contemporary theaters and by acting schools. These conventions are ultimately un-

Hamlet's Three Kinds of Theater

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Hamlet identified three kinds of theater. We have tried realism. Maybe it is time to revive the other kind-- namely meta-theater. Introduction written for a New York meta-theater meeting in 2009.

Citation preview

Page 1: Hamlet's Three Kinds of Theater

HAMLET’S THREE KINDS OF THEATER Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature: for any thing so o'erdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere the mirror up to nature: to show virtue her feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure. (Hamlet 3, 2, 17–24) As Hamlet once remarked, there exist three kinds of theater each of which has a very different relationship to reality: as mirror, as criticism, and as allegory. (1) The first kind is realism, which attempts to “hold a mirror up to nature” and to depict real characters in real situations. Thanks to training programs in Meisner, Stanislavski and so on, this has become not only the dominant approach in television and the movies, but also on stage. The problem is that mirrors distort, and are an automatic reflection of reality that lacks critical judgment and insight. Nonetheless, the pervasive conventions of realism are adopted by television, most contemporary theaters and by acting schools. These conventions are ultimately un-

Page 2: Hamlet's Three Kinds of Theater

natural—as any theatre must be—but because they imitate the surface of nature, without even admitting their act of imitation, they do so ineptly. (2) The second kind of theater does not pretend to be realistic, but is engaged in critical comment and admits that it is a theatrical artifice. It scorns the superficial appearance of Virtue and reveals the true features of reality. This kind of theater employs different kinds of appearance---puppetry for instance—in order to make a moral commentary. It is meta-theatrical, and goes out of its way to remind the audience that the performance is not reality, that the actors are performing objects and not real people, and that the play-script is indeed a literary script created by a playwright--not a dialogue emerging spontaneously from the characters onstage. It does not use the proscenium arch theater to pretend that it is presenting an illusory slice of life, but engages in audience interaction, and reveal aspects of its own theatrical construction. What it presents on-stage may claim to show Virtue her own true feature---but its success is dependent on an ethical and critical judgment that does not always exist beneath. (3) Hamlet’s third kind of theater is also meta-theatrical, but it offers a different kind of surface—an allegorical object. This does not claim to be real. Rather than being created through critical commentary, or reflection, it is created as a precise reproduction—analogous to a wax impression-- that captures not the surface but the underlying true form of the Age, and the Time. An explicitly allegorical play presents a set of surface meanings and provides links back to another set of meanings that cannot be directly depicted. It is a way of communicating truths that may not be stated directly for political or other reasons. For instance, a relationship that appears innocuous between two characters may prove very different when the underlying allegorical identities of those characters are discerned. Thus the character of a woman having an abortion on stage reveals very different meanings when that woman is shown to be an allegory of the Virgin Mary. Unlike the mirror-theater or the critical- theater, the depiction onstage is linked back to its allegorical meanings through a chain of reasoning, which can be logically duplicated. That is why it is the most accurate kind of theater--like a wax impression. Whether critical or allegorical, meta-theater is concerned with creating an intelligent, self-critical theater, that presents a surface of non realistic performing objects. If a realistic surface is presented, it is opened up to reveal something very different beneath. It is a theater that values imagination and creativity, a theater of meaning and purpose,that deconstructs itself on stage for the audience. In a post-modern age in which the surfaces of things are increasingly proving to be untrustworthy fictions, it is a theater whose time has come.