These characters are guiding forces that manipulate the audience into following what Beaumont intended to be felt through the play. Nell has difficulty separating the players from their characters. This is shown through her obvious favoritism to Humphrey: "didst thou ever see a prettier child?" This and other mistakes she and her husband make gives us the idea that they are first-time theater-goers and blind to the culture of such plays. We had mentioned that this lent a feeling that audiences would come away more cultured and educated after attending such plays, but mainly it is meant to give the audience an idea of what they should NOT be thinking about the play. The Citizen and his Wife have views entirely opposite to what should be taken: Jasper should be favored over Humphrey, Mistress Merrythought and Michael should be thought of as irritatingly sober fools rather than protaganists, and the boy players should be given a bit more credit for making this entire thing up as they go along. By creating obnoxiously ignorant characters unafraid to speak their mind, Beaumont has effectively used a kind of reverse psychology to control how the audience thinks of characters and plots within this play.
A few questions to keep in mind:
- Who is the target audience of this play? Citizens such as this grocer, or higher class citizens? How would this affect the reaction of the audience?
- How would the Blackfriars theatre change the audiences' experience of this play? The Blackfriars is much like the Cockpit or the Phoenix in it's layout (refer to your handout of Inigo Jones' diagram of the theatre.) An indoor 'private' theatre lit entirely by candlelight may provide an entirely different feel than an outdoor naturally lit one. Could the effects of the lighting and the sense of privacy change the audience's experience?
- Most importantly, how is the city comedy of 'The London Merchant' similar to Dekker's 'The Shoemaker's Holiday?' What perspective does each take on city life, class, and mercantilism? How do the two plays differ and how are they alike?
While the Grocer and his wife are certainly obnoxious in their constant interruptions of "The London Merchant," I think that their interference is the main dramatic device used in the play. If you think of their role this way, we can see that without them, "The London Merchant" would be a dull and stereotypical romance lacking in any complication. In this way, the grocer and his wife serve more than one role: they make the play interesting, funny, and unique. Moreover, I think they are a social analysis targeted to citizens like them. I think the reaction to their interruptions from a lower class audience would have been laughter, as the typical audience would not have been as exaggerated as the merchant and his wife.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a mistake in judging the Citizen and his Wife as first-time theater-goers. While they're certainly given their own opinions in regard to how the play ought to be, they seem quite familiar with the workings of the house. It seems that they might actually pride themselves as connoisseurs of the art (which I say with the subtlest hint of mockery) and are now trying their hand at writing a play to their tastes, as it goes.
ReplyDeleteThis creates a sort of satirical commentary by Beaumont on the audience's reception and expectations. It is interesting to note that this play was rejected by the audience when first performed because they missed the element of satire and took it as it is written (in which case, it is a heinous discombobulation of about five and a half subplots).
Beaumont also suggests that improvisation is a given for players' companies, and that they are ready at any moment to perform sufficiently in the light of unexpected changes. However, the fact that this play is scripted so rather undercuts it in that fashion.
~Tanya Jackson
I didn't mention the element of class and status and how it's portrayal impacts the performance and reception, but that's important too! :)
The question concerning the target audience of this play is a difficult one to answer. On the whole, however, I can see it targeted more towards those of the upper classes through the representation of the obnoxious couple as uncouth and uncivilized members of their own class.
ReplyDeleteThe couple, despite being moderately wealthy, is completely ignorant of the etiquette involved when viewing a play, especially one being played in a supposedly higher class indoor theater, calling out to the players and suggesting new twists, just as "crude" commoners would at the outdoor theaters.
Such a representation can no doubt bring forth a sense of smug satisfaction in those more well mannered gentlemen and ladies of the upper class stemming from the blatant differences in behavior between themselves and these lowly, badly mannered individuals from the new and disturbing ranks of their own class, composed of those middle class men and women who have climbed the social ladder through professions.
A welcomed superiority complex develops in the minds of the upper class through the couples lack of culture. This lack stems not in disliking the run-of-the-mill The London Merchant, since many others would seem to dislike it as well given its nature, but in their audacious and disruptive behavior.
What the couple does not realize is exactly what those civilized upper class men and women already know: culture does not originate from the play itself but from those characters sitting in the audience all around oneself.
Culture is largely regarded as a commodity, bought through a play ticket and preserved through etiquette and social bearing. What is shown in the play is irrelevant, the purpose is to see and be seen.
The couple seems to hope that by going to a play and sitting on the stage, that they would identify themselves with culture and embrace their new position in society. Unfortunately for them, this does not happen and in fact the exact opposite occurs due to their actions. Towards the end of the play, the couple seems to realize their social feux pauxs and apologize.
The play in general seems to be a running parody on the stupidity of the masses and especially the awkwardness of social mobility, both of which are represented through the absurd couple.
Such a critique only indulges the already prejudiced views of the "true" and civilized upper class and seems to gladly prop them up on an even greater pedestal, furthering the notion that the play seems designed from the ground up as a self-gratifying treat for the superiors in society.
The play is not really targeting only one class, is it? On the one hand, the play ridicules the of ignorance of the rising middling class in the citizen and his wife. And yet, we have this play in which the only seemingly meaningful relationship appears to be between the citizen and his wife. Even within “The London Merchant,” we are rooting for Jasper over the more prestegious Humphrey. More than anything, I think that the play tells it like it is, so to speak.
ReplyDelete-Liz Schink