OMG, no Fresh Prince!? *horror* *g* And I've just thought of an even better example: Ferris Buller. You want breaking the fourth wall? Just think Ferris *g*
I love that we're discussing this! It's making me giddy that someone finds this as interesting as I do *g* Just tell me when you're bored.
It is easiest to apply 4th wall principles to theatre, but in literature I always look at it like this: most books tell a story like the events happened. Even if the story features fairies and dragons, most books act like the events they are relating are real. Authors that talk to the audience as the author or comment on the story in a way that reminds you it is just that are breaking the wall. You're right, it's totally easier in fanfic, because you know your audience will be familliar with the material, and will therefore get it when you step out of the world of the story.
And more about the crazy French director, Artaud, cause he's fun to talk about *g* He felt that Aristotle was both right and wrong about theatre. Aristotle believed theatre was a means of purging fear and anxiety from the populace. When an audience left a play they should feel happy and calm, satisfied with the story they have witnessed. Artuad believed theatre should purge, but he thought it should purge society. He felt that society was broken, and so his Theatre of Cruelty would bring down society show the audience what was broken. The crux of what Artuad viewed as the problem was language, and so his plays had no dialogue, and very few words. He attempted to make a new language out of 'heiroglyphs', which had nothing do do with Egypt. Instead he would come up with an emotion and have his actors portray it. The results were very different. At any rate, having actors scream, growl, laugh insanely, and make strange shapes within the audience caused a lot of alarm, which Artaud loved. Unfortunately, people didn't, and alarm translated into only two shows before Artaud was shipped off. I liked to call him a kinder Dadaist, because at least he didn't physically harm the audience. A lot of more recent directors like to try and include the audience in the performance. There's a school of thought, not dissimilar to Artuad, that believes theatre is a mechanism to bring about social change, but it can't be used properly if the audience is passive.
The play within a play in Shakespeare is great! It's something that makes theatre scholars wet themselves *g* The symbolism alone is fantastic.
no subject
I love that we're discussing this! It's making me giddy that someone finds this as interesting as I do *g* Just tell me when you're bored.
It is easiest to apply 4th wall principles to theatre, but in literature I always look at it like this: most books tell a story like the events happened. Even if the story features fairies and dragons, most books act like the events they are relating are real. Authors that talk to the audience as the author or comment on the story in a way that reminds you it is just that are breaking the wall. You're right, it's totally easier in fanfic, because you know your audience will be familliar with the material, and will therefore get it when you step out of the world of the story.
And more about the crazy French director, Artaud, cause he's fun to talk about *g* He felt that Aristotle was both right and wrong about theatre. Aristotle believed theatre was a means of purging fear and anxiety from the populace. When an audience left a play they should feel happy and calm, satisfied with the story they have witnessed. Artuad believed theatre should purge, but he thought it should purge society. He felt that society was broken, and so his Theatre of Cruelty would bring down society show the audience what was broken. The crux of what Artuad viewed as the problem was language, and so his plays had no dialogue, and very few words. He attempted to make a new language out of 'heiroglyphs', which had nothing do do with Egypt. Instead he would come up with an emotion and have his actors portray it. The results were very different. At any rate, having actors scream, growl, laugh insanely, and make strange shapes within the audience caused a lot of alarm, which Artaud loved. Unfortunately, people didn't, and alarm translated into only two shows before Artaud was shipped off. I liked to call him a kinder Dadaist, because at least he didn't physically harm the audience. A lot of more recent directors like to try and include the audience in the performance. There's a school of thought, not dissimilar to Artuad, that believes theatre is a mechanism to bring about social change, but it can't be used properly if the audience is passive.
The play within a play in Shakespeare is great! It's something that makes theatre scholars wet themselves *g* The symbolism alone is fantastic.