Despite many literary arguments to the contrary, Shakespeare's plays are exactly what they claim to be - plays, which are written by a playwright and are designed to be performed by a company of actors under the direction of a director. The Globe Theatre, of which Shakespeare was a partner, performed many of his plays over the course of his life to standing ovations and royal patronage. A script is not a poem or a piece of prose, intended to be analysed by literary critics, but a guideline for a performance which is designed to evoke an image of vivid scene and inspire an emotional reaction, rather than an analytical thought process attempting to interpret the various sections that it comprise it.
What most separates theatre from film is its inherent liveliness. Its individuality is found in the fact that each performance is unique and has a character all of its own. It is this energy that makes theatre a living, breathing entity rather than a stale museum piece kept around purely for its historical merits. Audiences are usually interested in watching performances that move them emotionally, have believable characters that they can relate to, and have a satisfying storyline that allows them to fully connect with the actors involved in performing.
Theatre can often resemble a mirror - it can take a part of society, whether large or small, and use the stage to recreate the world necessary to reflect that aspect of life back to the audience. People see themselves in theatre; they find solace in the fact that they are not alone when they see their problems and joys brought to life by others.. They find catharsis in the soul-searching, cleansing tragedies, and take hope from the comedies. It is when a script is taken absolutely literally, with no interpretive action used to connect with the audience, that theatre becomes “what Peter Brook ruefully calls "deadly” Shakespeare” (Bulman: 5). Film and video add to this cut-and-dry interpretations of Shakespeare. By having a performance constantly be available on command, it has become far too easy to simply rely on the interpretations created in past performances rather than initiate new ones. “Our challenge, therefore, is to discover how not to replace the old textuality with a new form of performance textuality, which may be "read'… according to the interpretive protocols of close reading and with similar assumptions about textual monumentality.” (Bulman: 2) Modern day directors must find their creative spirit, and use the old words to bring the new meaning to life, rather than simply rely on what those particular words might have meant to audiences of the past, who, like the old meanings, are all now dead and gone.
Shakespeare, more so than most other playwrights, had a knack for using words which have not only the surface meaning of the word, but also had several underlying meanings. Shakespeare gives no indication as to which meaning should be implied by the actor, which leaves the director to choose which direction he wants the story to go in. These directorial decisions shape the meaning-experience behind both the script and the eventual performance, and change the reactions in the audience accordingly.
One of the wonderful things about live theatre is that it can be adapted to suit the cultural ideals of its audience. Different cultures place significance on different aspects of life, and theatre is one of few art forms that can be cultivated to display different meanings that explore each unique culture's societal rules. For example, at the time when Taming of the Shrew was written, the audience was probably well satisfied with the end and happy that Katherine had finally met a man who was able to tame her and turn her from the shrewish girl into the demure woman. However, it is not hard to imagine the reaction that that play would receive were it to be performed at a feminist convention in modern day society. A director would have to severely twist the meaning behind the play, or respond with a counter-text, in order to not be in danger of having his play be a dismal failure. The ending would have to be used to inspire vigour and determination in the feminist audience to fight against the unfair domination of men. “Stage history… has attached itself to new forms of theoretical discourse and as a result has tended to view productions through a literary lens - feminist, psychoanalytic, cultural materialist…” (Bulman: 3) Similarly, theatre can be used to show changes in times, to emphasise changing gender roles and to demonstrate the effect that this can have on the audience in any given society. “Juliet Dusinberre explores how performances of Antony and Cleopatra since Victorian times have inscribed cultural attitudes towards women in power, and how male reviewers have focused inquiry on the actress playing Cleopatra as "the principal signifier of the anxieties and obsessions, pleasurable and less pleasurable, which dominate the audience who watches her". (Bulman: 3)
