The readings for Monday are two later C18 accounts of theater-going, penned by two of the canonical survivors of the period: Frances Burney and James Boswell. Burney's is a fictional account, from her 1778 novel, Evelina, of the young and beautiful heroine seeing a play with her friends. Boswell's is taken from the diary he kept while a young man trying to make his way in London, and includes two separate episodes.
I handed these passages out in class on Friday. If you were not there, please use the links above (or in the sidebar) to print these texts so you can read them in advance of class and bring them with you on Monday.
What particulars do these passages reveal about the experience of going to the theater and seeing a play staged? How does the later C18 theater seem different from theater as we know it now? What questions do you have after reading these passages?
Deadline: Monday (1/21), 1pm
14 comments:
The C18 theater-going experience, judging by what both Boswell and Burney have written, seems to me to have been quite the affair. Both authors detail the carriages and “snug chairs” (Boswell 176) they would have ridden to the play houses, the wine and foods that would be consumed both before and during performances, and the numerous conversations that would have been had by the large number of theater patrons. Overall, it seems as though going to see a play during those times would’ve been considered much more of a social affair than it is considered today.
Audiences in the C21 oftentimes go to theaters hoping for a cultured and classy art form, one during which little to no interruptions, especially talking, are expected. The idea is to spend a few hours enjoying a carefully crafted and choreographed show; it is the play that is assumed to be the central focus of entertainment. For C18 theater-goers, though, the actual show seemed to be the least important thing occurring in the theater. In fact, Burney’s Mr. Lovel states, “I seldom listen to the players: one has so much to do, in looking about, and finding out one’s acquaintance, that, really, one has no time to mind the stage. . .one merely comes to meet one’s friends and shew that one’s alive. . .a play requires so much attention, - it is scarce possible to keep awake, if one listens” (182). Mr. Lovel’s confessions, then, seem to relate Burney’s desire to highlight how plays were merely a backdrop for social affairs and witty conversations (among, I can only assume, the privileged upper class that could afford to attend a playhouse in the first place). Boswell’s account of “the gay, gilded theatre” (176) with its “clever enough chat” (177) and people “enjoying themselves over a bottle and lolling at their ease, in no hurry to come in” (177) also seems to suggest that theater-going was just another way for society to show off in front of large crowds, to keep up proper appearances and maintain necessary connections. (Boswell’s cow “lowing” episode [236] likewise supports the idea of entertainment surfacing from every medium but the play itself.) In today’s world, I have a hard time believing such behavior would be tolerated to that degree.
(And in terms of questions: For the most part, I found both these excerpts to be fairly straightforward and easy to comprehend [Burney’s perhaps more than Boswell’s], but I did actually have a specific question [nothing general, though, in terms of theater-going in the C18 itself], about Boswell’s “prologue.” I’m not really sure what he’s even talking about. How was he “near to having had his sounding away” [177], and why would agreeing with Dempster’s “damnation” of the play have looked like “revenge for refusing his prologue” [178]. Anyone have any ideas?)
Like SMR I would have to say that it seems that the C18 theater experience was one that focused on the social aspects rather than the performing arts. In Boswell's reading you could get a sense of the scenery when he says, "I had but a troublesome occupation keeping two seats while my companions were enjoying themselves over a bottle and lolling at their ease, in no hurry to come in" (177). And then he continues on to give us an idea of how substantial these events were, "I had the satisfaction to see them well punished, for by staying so late they could scarcely squeeze through the crowd, and with the utmost difficulty got to their places" (177). Conversations among acquaintances during the play seemed to occur quite often as Boswell says, "This long digression has carried me quite away from the play" (178). From these lines it is pretty safe to assume that theater-goers of the C18 were not as focused on the show as an individual of C21 would be. Today, we go to a play/concert/theatre or whatever the show may be so that we can be entertained by the performers and not our companions. However, it could be argued that these social distractions of the C18 theatre experience are similar to that of technological interruptions of the C21 (cell phones, pagers, music devices).
I did notice a distinction between the male/female experience of C18 theatre in Burney's fictional account. The men seem to care less about the performance and are more focused on the acquaintances around them whereas the women actually seem to take interest in what is taking place on stage. Mr. Lovel confesses, "I seldom listen to the players...one has no time to mind the stage...I have no time to read playbills; one merely comes to meet one's friends, and shew that one's alive" (182). Miss Anville gives a much different account as she says, "far was I from daring to speak, that I knew not where to look...the curtain then drew up, and our conversation ceased. Mr. Lovel, finding we chose to attend to the players, left the box" (178 & 184). The women appear to attend the theatre in order to be entertained and actually care for the details of the performance.
I know that a woman's role during this time period was to conform to the authority of a man, remain sheltered from education, and refrain from taking part in societal/governmental matters. Some of these issues are presented in Burney's piece when we see Lord Orville assertively taking the role of answering on behalf of the ladies, "I am sure this is not a play that can be honoured with their approbation" and the Captain replies, "I suppose it is not sentimental enough!...or else it's too good for them" (181). There is a sarcastic tone in their bold move to speak for the ladies as they seem to try and put them in their place. And as a woman of the C18, they typically kept quiet even if they thought a man was out of line and being rude to them just as when the Captain says to Miss Anville, "Well, really, Ma'am, you prodigiously surprise me! - mais apparemment ce n'est qu'un facon de parler? - though I should beg your pardon, for probably you do not understand French?" (183).
I thought that Burney's fictional account was much more informative of the C18 theater-going experience than Boswell's diary entries. Burney allows us to see the experience of the theatre from multiple viewpoints.
I think I may be able to provide you with an answer to at least some of those questions. Or so I hope at least. If I am reading the text correctly, I might suggest the prologue to which Boswell refers indicates a script he himself had written for this very occasion. My very un-scholarly opinion would be that Boswell had prepared for this event a prologue to be performed here for this play in the hope that he would be able to promote to a much greater degree his reputation and therefore his talent as an accomplished writer. From this explanation, it would be easy to suggest that because of his work being not selected for the task, any negative opinion of his on the prologue arrangement that was selected could be characterized (by some) as biased and not objective.
With regard to my own thoughts, my comment largely will reflect ideas expressed already by SMR. I will say I agree completely with the perspective offered above that theater today does not in large sense reflect the conception of theater as it existed during the 18th century. In most venues featuring artistic production of some sort (i.e. theater, symphony, movie, a soloist rendition, etc.), it is a convention of society today (the 21st century) that the audience viewing the performance divert their attention to the performer solely with limited interaction amongst themselves. In fact to socialize with other individuals would seem a behavior quite rude to the performer and a disrespect to the art displayed. However, in the 18th century, the perspective maintained by society with regard to attendance at a performance tended to enjoy a preference more for social engagement than for entertainment. In fact, I would argue that not until the later 18th - mid 19th century did this social practice shift and shift to one diverting more attention towards the performer and of the art performance provided to them. During this time period (the one just mentioned) there developed towards the performer a focus of more direct interest that helped to cultivate a culture (only just forming at this time) to an emphasis on the "special" abilities/talents owned by some of the artists (oh hey pop culture). One reason to suggest this shift in protocol for performance events is the increasing intensity of attention on the artist by the audience towards the show being presented to them (Franz Liszt, a Polish pianist, actually required the members of his audience to shut up and listen to the 'great wonders' he performed on the piano while on stage performing).
Going to the theater in the 18th century truly was an "experience," based more on the social aspect of attending than on the desire to see a performance. One part that I found amusing about Evelina's account was that she was upset when she couldn't talk during the play or hear those around her. For that reason, the play was not worth being seen. Her friend said that she didn't even know what the play was called or what it was about, but that she only went to the theater to see and be seen by the social elite. Both Evelina and her friend were ridiculed by an acquaintance for their views on the theater. He basically called them idiots for not caring about the show and only caring about each other's thoughts. Today, most of us would agree with Lord Orville, the man who insulted Evelina and her friend. People who talk in movie theaters and plays are incredibly annoying to the rest of us watching. We would never pay almost 10 dollars to go to a movie just to talk to our friends. We pay for the show. In the 18th century, though, the show was the least important aspect of the theater.
I agree with everyone else that people in the 18th century treated the theater as a social event rather than a form of artistic entertainment. As previously mentioned by SMR, we see this in Burney’s passage when Mr. Lovel explains how he has “no time to read the play bills; one merely comes to meet one’s friends” (182). However, we cannot make the generalization that every 18th century theater go-er treated the theater the same way as Mr. Lovell. The Captain’s astonishment at Mr. Lowell’s remarks on why he goes to the theater show that other people cared for the plot and entertainment aspect of going to the theater. Another part of the Burney reading that shows the theater audience caring about the content of the play is when Lord Orville begins a discussion of the character Angelica, in which everyone else analyzes her characteristics and actions in the play. Although they are being social by conversing about the play, they seem to care more about watching the play than socializing: “The curtain then drew up, and our conversation ceased. Mr. Lovel, finding we chose to attend to the players, left the box” (184). Since Mr. Lovel seems to be the only one out of the bunch who is more interested in mingling than watching the play, this suggest that 18th century audiences did appreciate theater as an art form rather than just a social gathering.
In terms of the Boswell reading, I agree with Chloie that it was less informative of the C18 theater experience than the Burney reading. I felt as though the diary entries read more like a list at some points rather than focusing on the descriptive details of the theater experience: “Dr. Blain came and sat awhile with me. I then went with Erskine to Holborn. At three I called on Blair, as we were engaged to go together to the English Opera of Artaxerxes” (236). I personally was turned off by Boswell’s writing style (even if it was an informal diary entry), and preferred the conversations and detail Burney included in her fictional account.
I think the closest modern comparison to 18th century theatre doesn't even involve the arts- it's sounds like a football game. Both are certainly gendered, as previously mentioned-- Evelina complains that she can scarcely stay awake, and she has no time to read playbills. That sounds like the disinterested girlfriend texting her way through the football game.
There's a sense that the entertainment cannot be contained to merely the playhouse or stadium, as the night starts well before the opening act and ends much afterwards. I got a sense that Boswell's tea with Mrs. brown was essentially his pre-game for the night's festivities.
There's also the physical tiers that exist for both. The wealth either inhabit the box seats or seats right on the field, while the less wealthy are zoned off in the nosebleeds/ pit of Drury Lane playhouse, basically encouraging them to act like animals, or drunk college students.
More than today's theatre, even more than the movie going experience, 18th century theatre events were a kind of release of energy rather than an experience of high art.
Everything I know about a play’s performance in previous centuries is what I’ve learned about Shakespeare’s performances and the Globe Theater. Shakespeare’s plays were performed with an all male cast and performed for the upper class and royalty. Plays were about entertainment, yes, but more-so about showing reverence to the king and his leadership. All plays had an element of king’s rule and commentary on an opposing country’s kingship. The setup of the theatre had the upper class sitting and, from what I remember, there weren’t any boxes; however, they were separated from the peasants. I have always used this as a reference to comparison between “then” and today’s plays. Today’s plays are very elaborate with an emphasis on special effects and drama. The casts have men and women performing and have different types of theater arrangements. For example, some stages are outside, some stages have a 360 degree view, and some are just rectangular with one perspective.
The Burney description of plays put a lot of emphasis on the status of play-goers. The woman makes huge point, defending herself, that one goes to plays to, “meet one’s friends, and shew that one’s alive” (182). She further explains that a play requires a lot of attention and the social aspects far outweigh the stress and focus it takes to pay attention during the entire play. At least she does make an attempt to engage in a debate about the female character, Angelica. So, between Shakespeare and the 18th century, females have made their way on stage. There is also a discussion about the play’s sentimentality being too much for women to handle. This ties into what we were discussing last week about sentimentality as desire and passion, an act of dramatics and unwomanliness. The captain says it is, “one of the best comedies in the language, and has more wit in one scene than there is in all the new plays put together” (182-182). Supposedly, it was not as entertaining as the Captain thought it was because the woman did not even pay attention during the play.
I really liked what the Boswell section said about attending a play to enter into a different world from one’s own. Imagining the play as world apart from one’s own and getting a chance to become a part of the play’s characters and plot is an extraordinary event, especially in the 18th century where that was probably the largest form of entertainment. There were no movies, science fiction novels, video games, etc. to entertain the mind. Theater was a huge means of escape for people. I really enjoyed what the narrator said about how when characters act plainly or have every-day scenes it is a let-down because the play becomes mundane. “When we know exactly all a man’s view and how he comes to speak and act so and so, we lose any respect for him, though we may love and admire him; at least we lose that kind of distant respect which is very agreeable fur us to feel and him to receive,” said regarding the relationship between the actors and audience (176).
Well after reading the Evelina account of theater I found it interesting that the young lady's purpose for going to the play was merely to socialize and when she was asked about it she openly admitted to it in a joking matter. Relating to plays today; people who go to the theater are actually interested in the play itself and are at full attention while the play is going on. This is a different that I noticed first when I read. Another thing that I found interesting was the way she seemed to criticize the play saying, "The play was Love for Love, and though it is fraught with wit and entertainment, I hope I shall never see it represented again; for it is so extremely indelicate,- to use the softest word I can" pg178-9. This reminded me of how critical women can be. She seems to criticize the words that were used even though she was there to socialize anyway. Comparing this to Boswell, he was definitely less critical of the play and concerned with his friends or those accompanying him. It appears to me that in both works going to the theater was not taken as serious as it is today because were going to be seen instead of actually going to enjoy a good play.
I pretty much agree with what everyone has said before about the theater being a social event, and it fits in with my current perspective on the theater as well. In Burney's "Evelina" Mr. Lovel admits that "I have no time to read playbills; one merely comes to meet one's friends, and shew that one's alive" (182). In the 18th century, one went to the theater to show one's status and see people of a similar background; in other words, to be able to show off and prove that you were wealthy enough to attend the theater, or were up to date on current trends. While the theater today has some of the connotations, I feel like a better current example might be the opera; at least in my mind it serves the same function as plays in the 18th century.
One other observation that I had was that the characters in Burney's story seemed to focus on the individual characters of the play, like when Lord Orville proclaims that "the only female in the play...worthy of being mentioned to these ladies is Angelica" (183). While I don't go to the play an awful lot, I feel like these could be compared to our modern day notion of movies, and I feel that the majority of the time we focus our discussion on plot rather than individual characters. I'm not sure what the significance of this difference it, but I thought it was interesting to point out, and wonder if looking at specific characters was the norm for 18th century play-goers.
I agree with the previous comments that discuss how the 18th Century theatre experience was very different from the 21st Century mainly because of the shift in focus from the meet and greet, social engagements going on as opposed to the actual performance on stage.
So why is this? What has changed?
As the black bear suggested above, perhaps it has something to do with an increase in performance skill that demanded more attention from the audience. I could see this as being true, especially because of the divide between those who act and those who no not has grown. For example, nowadays we leave the acting up to the professionals; whereas, back in the 18th Century acting may have been more common. Boswell even talks about how he has his own moments of performing when, as a member the crowd, he "entertained the audience prodigiously by imitating the lowing of a cow." So maybe acting is considered a much more crafted profession by today's standards.
As Aaron White did, I tried to think of a comparison to the 18th century theatre experience. I imagine it more as a rock and roll concert. More specifically, a Dave Matthews Concert at Alpine Valley. If you have ever been to a Dave Matthews Show (at Alpine or not) or even any rock or country music show, you know that people are not always 100% focused on the music. Some people are (like the Captain in Evelina), but others go just to be with their friends and to have fun (like Lord Orville).
My question is, if so many people were going around and socializing at these performances, how did the other people who did pay attention manage to hear the actors? There were no microphones so I think it would be very difficult to hear them speak over the crowd.
The passage by Burney seemed interesting in the sense that it focused primarily on the social interactions of the theater. For example, Mr. Lovel went to the play solely to "shew that one's alive" and to do so, he must pay money although he doesn't care about the play. In this conversation, the Captain is shocked that he attends only to meet friends rather than care about the actual play. Although this is a fictional story, I think it most likely draws on real situations of why people attend plays and other similar events. Some go in order to see the performances while others attend purely for the social setting. This is different to me from the theater we see today because it is generally considered less in terms of a social envirionment, rather something that will enhance one's learning experiences.
The Boswell excerpt was interesting in the sense that Boswell recounts attending the theater although he did not wish to be there. That seems extremely different from today's society concerning events like going to the theater because most people today would not buy a ticket to something they completely did not want to attend. One similarity I can see in this portion are the actions of his friends. They went to eat before the play started which is a fairly reasonable action before a performance, especially when it is something that has been planned prior to the night. Although people back then and now choose to dine before a performance, most of them do not consume liquor to the point of being drunk.
I am unsure of why Mr. Lovel made a statement that he paid money to attend the play, when at the end of the excerpt he left before the play was over, when he realized the people he was talking to decided to stay. It just seems like a waste of money on his part to do that.
Using Jillian's example of how we behave in a movie theater. In C21, I agree typically we find that those who text and talk while the show is rolling are ridiculously rude and should be escorted out immediately. It's one of the few moments in a world filled with constant chatter, opinionated blogs, tweets, and blog posts that "silence is golden." However, I have personally been part of several incidences in which may be described as having more of a C18 experience. Once I a mother's day event at the Krannert Center for Performing Art where the Black Chorus was performing and during the entire evening they the performers drew on the dialog of their audience and improvised according. They took song request from several audience members and perform them accordingly. it as an experience I would never forget. I remember talking to my neighbors on either side of me (people that I was conversing with for the first time) about what they thought about songs from the genre that people had chosen to be performed. Even at the very end, the members of the Black Chorus encourage us all to sing a popular song in unison as they evaluated "our" performance. Another time was more recent, I had took my son to see the Justin Bieber movie in 3D, and it was the first time that I had witnessed that it was socially acceptable for everyone in the theater to sing aloud. I mean there were grown women and men singing the lyrics to the songs that Justin Bieber was performing throughout his documentary. There was even times when I chimed in with my soprano voice.
My initial questions were similar to DelayedKarma in the sense that I was wondering "would it be seen as abnormal during this time for one to tell his neighbor to stop talking so that they may watch these performances in peace?" More importantly did this "annoying behavior" make the performers feel worthless?
I agree with everyone that social aspect of attending the play is the main attraction. It seems that the plays were valued in high esteem if they allowed the audience a chance to talk and make comments to each other. One of the characters in the Evelina text said he only attended to make his appearance in the social world. Thus, these portrayals are contradictory to modern theater. People attend a play because they want to watch it and talking during a play is considered rude. One social aspect of attending a play that still holds up is going out to dinner or for drinks before the play. It is not to the same extent as the eighteenth century but many people enjoy making a full event out of a night at the theater. Although the actual play is the main focus of the evening whereas these texts depict as more of the social obligation.
Post a Comment