Chapter 6 - 6

06 Theater

The Fourth Wall

The relationship between the audience and the actors in a play is often overlooked in drama studies.

For a long time, it was taken for granted that there existed a distance between the two, and it is through this distance that dramatic tension was achieved in early plays.

But in modem plays, more attention has been given to relationship.

Playwrights have begun to experiment more with the limits of their storytelling and have started to expand their limits beyond the distance between the audience and the actors.

In theater, the fourth wall refers to the invisible wall or screen that separates the stage from the audience.

If one envisions a typical stage, there are clearly three physical walls that make up the set.

The fourth wall is the one that faces the audience.

Even without the presence of a physical wall, the concept of the fourth wall is easy to accept by an audience because it gives the sense that one is observing real events.

Historically used as a stage term, it is now possible to conceive of the fourth wall in modern terms.

For example, a fourth wall exists-in television and film as well.

The conventions of theater traditionally held that the division provided by the fourth wall was one never to be broken.

Yet, at the beginning of the 20th century, a new technique called “breaking the fourth wall” became more common.

Breaking the fourth wall is essentially when the separation between the characters in a play and the audience disappears, such as when a fictional character on a stage or screen shows that they are aware of the audience.

They can do this by talking directly to the audience or even by just referring to the audience.

The fourth wall is usually broken in this manner, but other methods are also used.

For example, sometimes the characters interact with stage hands or assistants, which has the same effect because the characters are separating themselves from the fictional situation.

In other cases, the effect is accomplished when a character is broken through dialogue.

Ultimately, breaking the fourth wall abandons the custom of fictional continuity and forces the audience to become more than just spectators.

In other words, instead of merely observing the events in a fictional world, the audience becomes a part of them.

In modern theater, breaking of the fourth wall has become increasingly common.

It is used to achieve many different effects.

It is often employed to add a comical effect to a story.

Breaking the fourth wall is especially successful in doing so because it adds an unexpected aspect to the story.

In comedy, the unexpected is precisely what creates humor, so, in a sense, breaking the fourth wall is just another way for comedians to surprise and delight their audiences.

The technique is used to this effect in many instances.

In theater, an early example is in The Knight of the Burning Pestle by Francis Beaumont.

The story is frequently interrupted by members of the audience, who, contrary to appearances, are not strangers but actually actors.

The fictional audience demands changes in the play throughout its course, adding a different type of humor to the piece.

The technique is also used in modern television shows and movies.

Breaking the fourth wall can also be used to emphasize a particular view or issue in a play.

When the fourth wall is broken, the audience is no longer made up of passive spectators.

Instead, they are made to be part of the play and by reason of their implied participation, are forced into being more critical of what they are watching.

When the fourth wall is broken in order for the audience to become more involved in the story, it is referred to as the alienation effect.

Breaking the fourth wall is a common feature in many modern works.

It adds a comical touch to stories or can make the audience a more active agent in a play.

But according to some dramatists, the overuse of the technique can have negative results.

Some critics claim that when not used discriminately, breaking the fourth wall can be shocking and distracting to the audience.

Furthermore, others worry that the increased use of the technique is leading to its eventual uselessness.

They argue that the very reason the technique is effective, especially in comedy, is because it is not conventional.

However, as it becomes more common, its element of surprise declines and the audience becomes unresponsive to interaction with the actors.