There were no dress circle lounges nor mezzanine bars 400 years ago. As the characters in plays like The Taming of the Shrew, Macbeth and As You Like It feasted on stage, down in the yard and up in the galleries, the audience noshed on cold nibbles and ready-made street food.
7 comments:
For me, it is always fun to compare the similarities and differences of the past and present. It is interesting to learn what use to be and what is now and how much they differ. What could have caused these changes. Even learning about what people use to eat at shows is interesting because in a way we are both audience members, trying to experience a show and enjoy ourselves. Nowadays, I honestly don't see many snacks in the theatre and I certainly don't see people eating cold chicken or figs. It seems like a lot of the differences in the foods eaten then and now have to do with convenience and availability. Today theatres sell bags of prepackaged candy and bags of popcorn. Back then, they ate fresh fruit that they would bring themselves. I think that it is cool how both then and now people brought alcohol to see shows. This similarity illustrates why people came to the theatre both then and now, to enjoy a piece of art and relax. Either way, I agree with the article, people want to eat and drink and enjoy the show.
This is a particularly interesting development, especially with regard to the performative culture surrounding Shakespeare plays. Though the theaters were undoubtedly made very grubby by the accumulation of food leftovers littering the ground, this detritus is valuable many centuries later as it paints a more holistic image of theatergoing in Shakespeare's time. I especially enjoy hearing about the Jacobean equivalents of noisy popcorn eaters, and the importance and significance of oysters. What might have been simply regarded as a quirk in Shakespeare's plays now takes own a contemporary and social significance. Though the oyster comments he wrote may have initially seemed relatively empty, they were actually clever ploys to relate to the audience, and perhaps even arouse empathy. In some ways modern moviegoing is more similar to Shakespearean theatergoing than modern theatergoing is. Snacking tends to be discouraged, and theater patrons tends to be a great deal less mobile and involved in other activities - like snacking - than they used to be.
Bring back nuts in the theater, is what I say. For that matter, why not add in a splash of wine and a rotisserie chicken? Such items would certainly make sitting through a particularly painful production of Hamlet more bearable, and perhaps a bit more accurate. Imagine, too, the possibilities food provides to bring audiences closer to the works being performed onstage. The transformative power of dining together is not unknown to the world, with iconic moments like the communion of Christ and the surrealist dinner in Pan's Labyrinth ( great film, actually) setting the tone for either 2,000 years of Western history, or a groundbreaking historic magical realist movie by a then rather unknown Spanish director. I guess my point is that breaking bread with one another has a power unto itself, that theaters nowadays refuse to acknowledge, except n the case of the much-maligned dinner theater scene. I think it may be time to re-evaluate the true value of food in a theatrical setting. Call me crazy, but fewer things have as much power over me as a good snack.
It's really cool to see just how much the attitudes people have towards being in an audience have changed since Shakespearean times. One of the things that stood out to me to most was at the end of the article when they said that the audience would have a boisterous time, as this is so vastly different to how audiences are expected today. Their attitude towards theatrical audiences almost reminds me of how audiences at sports events act today. The article specifically mentioned young apprentices cracking nuts throughout the performance, and that people would buy alcohol and food from street vendors. To me this is really reminiscent of the food and drink at baseball games, and the boisterous behavior of sports fans. Nowadays if you open a bag of candy too loud you're going to get strange looks. I don't think it's a bad thing that we've moved towards higher etiquette in theatre, but it's funny to think about just how different things used to be.
Yes. Here I am, about how modern theater is elitist and how theater we now consider high brow was originally meant to appeal to the same snack-munching, yelling crowd that we have now.
Shakespeare wrote these works with this audience in mind, that's why in so many of his shows there are impromptu poop and sex jokes. While conveying his deeper message, he also allowed the audience to relax and enjoy themselves in a way they knew how - by eating through the show, by drinking, by verbally reacting. Obviously the Queen didn't partake in the crowds antics, but I bet she had some snacks up there in her box, too.
I think the notion that theater is meant to be enjoyed by only those with manners and that there are unspoken rules one must learn simply by existing is elitist. I have seen shows of high schoolers (at regional theaters) who have had more fun (and thus had a better performance from the actors) than most adults. Obviously if someone stood up and started screaming obscenities that isn't okay- but is people laughing or gasping at a performance (breaking the vow of silence that is put upon one when the house lights dim) really that bad? When you start policing people or yourself on how you are enjoying the performance, think back to The Great and Mighty Bard and wonder why you don't have any oysters in your lap.
The concept of Renaissance theatre-goers eating snacks in a show actually never occurred to me. I feel like often times I forget that Shakespeare performed for an audience, as he’s often talked about as some mythic being who’s works were so powerful they didn’t need an audience. I find it funny that snacks in a theatre are so commonplace. Most people are able to go two hours without needing to eat, so why is it that theatres and cinemas feel the need to provide snacks? Obviously it began as a money making scheme, but it seems more instinctual than that. Maybe it has something to do with making use of your hands during long periods of inactivity? I suppose that could explain why so many people fidget while sitting to watch a show. A lot of the snacks they mentioned seemed a bit more expensive, things like fruits and meats. But I would venture to guess that the penny seats were filled with things like nuts and other inexpensive snacks. Overall, this was a very interesting article that definitely brought up some facts I’d never even considered.
This was a nice article. Usually, I don’t think about what people eat while seeing a play. Today, food is either extremely overpriced or altogether prohibited. I think this shift in eating habits is a product of theatre’s ascent to (perceived) elitism. In Shakespeare’s time, as the article points out, audiences were eating, drinking, and having a fun time. The way the article describes it, it seems as though plays were treated back then as baseball games are today with street vendors outside the theatre. Today, when a work of Shakespeare is performed, it’s watched in a much more serious manner. It could be a cool experiment to produce a play from the renaissance and have the audience, as well as the show, be period-accurate. This might already exist, but I would definitely attend a performance of, say, As You Like It in a standing pit, eating food and having a merry time. I feel that this performance atmosphere would help demystify Shakespeare and help the audience get into the story better.
Post a Comment