“Just say the words:” subtext in Shakespeare
August 25, 2012 § 4 Comments
This startling statement is one of the first dramaturgical corrections I ever received about early modern performance, and one that I have heard often since. It is also one that infuriates my acting colleagues, appalled at the instruction to “just say the words.” Some time ago, on a forum with both literary and theatrical scholars as members, I attempted to explain why both sides of this debate were partially correct, and what each side was trying to communicate. Requests for this short piece of “translation” have continued to pop up over the years from people who remembered reading it but could not find it again. For those intrigued by the subject, here it is again in slightly modified form:
Shakespeare and Subtext
Theories of subtext date from the Russian schools of acting at the turn of the century, especially relating to training about how to perform Chekhov. Scattered throughout his major plays are scenes where the text (i.e.,. the dialogue) is at odds with other non-verbal (i.e.,. subtextual) aspects of the scene. A simple example might be the scene near the end of Three Sisters where Tusenbach holds a very trivial conversation with his fiancé Irina about coffee and a few items on his desk. The scene is utterly incomprehensible if you don’t know that Tusenbach is on his way to fight a duel that he suspects (correctly, as it turns out) he will not survive. This fact is never mentioned in the scene, and no reference is ever made to the reason that Tusenbach utters such banalities instead of telling his love goodbye, perhaps forever. We are left to conclude from his behavior and manner of delivery that his words have very little to do with the main plot interest at that moment. Commonly, we read into his psychology that he is unwilling or unable to utter the words out loud because he is unable to face his coming death.
As an acting teacher I have to help students learn to do something rather sophisticated and difficult when they face this kind of material, which is make the plot point clear by undercutting the dialogue and filling in with much “behavior.” To fail to do so in Chekhov is to render the play meaningless. In this usage, subtext doesn’t mean that the actor is feeling some parallel emotion or motivation for the speech. It doesn’t even mean that the actor is feeling something different than words are expressing. Characters do this throughout Shakespeare, as when Juliet pretends to agree with the Nurse about dumping the exiled Romeo in favor of Paris, or more subtly when Hermione delivers her moving trial speech in Winter’s Tale.
Sub-text (in the sense that it I am proposing, which is how it is used in actor training) means that there is an essential plot point in the scene that is not directly expressed or referenced in the dialogue. Audience members must infer this plot point by interpreting the non-verbal behaviors of the actors, even at times when their words explicitly contradict the underlying point. This dramatic technique is very common in Twentieth Century drama, and learning to play these behaviors is an essential acting skill.
The problem is that this skill has also proven useful in cases where there is no underlying plot point, but the text is minimal or banal (like, for example, much daytime soap opera writing for television). Some actors are now used to “filling in” with interesting bits of their own invention on almost all occasions.
The firm pronouncement that there is no subtext in Shakespeare pops up occasionally, almost always in connection with trying to put a stop to the indiscriminate use of this modernist acting technique in early-modern drama. “All you need to do,” actors are told, “is say the words.” To suggest that Shakespeare’s characters ALWAYS say exactly what they mean with no irony or sarcasm or intent to deceive is ludicrous. To suggest that actors do not need to feel and perform the inner lives of the characters is theatrically ignorant. It is sound advice to the inexperienced actor, however, to say the plot lines of the scenes are rarely, if ever, rendered totally below the level of dialogue in early modern drama. When the text is strong, invented subtext is unnecessary.
Shakespeare’s characters have inner lives, and occasionally they say something different from what we know they think. Playing both is important. The advice to avoid sub-text in pre-modern literature really just means, “don’t muck up the plot with invented stuff.”
Great post, really enjoyed it!
— Chong
I see that this post is very old, but my question to people who argue “just say the words” is then what makes a good Shakespearean actor? If you are just saying the words can’t you pick anyone off the street and teach them the pronunciation? Is a good Shakespearean actor chosen based on their voice and looks? If I just say the words in Mercutio speech am I then just talking about a tiny fairy and the cute animals that make her carriage? We know there is subtext there right?
Mercutio’s speech is actually way more complex than just fairies and cute animals. “This is the hag, when maids lie on their backs/ That presses them to bear…” It’s full of disjointed violent and misogynistic imagery that becomes progressively darker, hence why Romeo finally interrupts him. The ‘subtext’ in this (as in so many examples in Shakespeare) is actually IN the text: he’s giving himself away with his own words. Acting this successfully isn’t simply about speaking clearly and loudly- it requires creative talent plus a lot of work unpicking what is going on in the text. But that’s the key: it’s going on within the text, not underneath or outside it (as with Chekhov or Pinter). A good Shakespearean actor is someone with the skill to do all that work, then perform it and make it sound spontaneous and comprehensible. So definitely not anyone plucked off the street!
I would totally agree that “just say the words” is a lousy piece of direction for anything. As a corrective to actors inventing subtext that isn’t supported by the text (eg Ophelia is secretly pregnant but can’t tell anyone) it would be better to say “whatever we need to know about Shakespeare’s characters is written in the lines. If they lie at points, it will be confirmed or even explicitly stated in their honest admission elsewhere, in soliloquy or to other characters. They are not Stanislavskian because we are not, as an audience, the fourth wall. All drama before about 1870 pre-dates that ‘fly on the wall’ concept of naturalism. In Shakespeare’s world we the audience are witnesses, confidants, people to persuade and engage using the art of rhetoric- it’s how his characters are built and what the text is trying to do. Don’t just say the words, but USE the language, TRUST the verse and understand the rhetorical techniques your character is employing. “