@Jerron–"I think Bill is trying to create his own universe/reality and is training Bon Temps to fit this theory."

This is a keen observation. He's certainly done this to a very successful degree.

BG, you are not dumb!

Strictly speaking.."The fourth wall is the imaginary "wall" at the front of the stage in a traditional three-walled box set in a proscenium theatre, through which the audience sees the action in the world of the play.^[1][2] The idea of the fourth wall was made explicit by philosopher and critic Denis Diderot and spread in nineteenth-century theatre with the advent of theatrical realism,^[3] which extended the idea to the imaginary boundary between any fictional work and its audience.

Breaking the fourth wall is pushing through the imaginary boundary to speak directly to the audience, including them in the situation"

When Moonlighting characters did it, they generally stayed in character but not always. via wiki: Moonlighting frequently broke the fourth wall, with many episodes including dialogue that made direct references to the scriptwriters, the audience, the network, or the series itself."

In a way, it's taking the audience out of the 'play' to speak to 'realities' just as you were saying about SM, only he's doing that 'off script'. Normally a production has to do it within script to qualify for breaking the fourth wall but as an Alternate Reality Game the whole world is TB's stage.

What I am talking about with TB breaking the fourth wall within the script are these little hints we keep getting from the production itself, not the actors, unless you include the 'screen test' promo,  that we are  watching a 'production'. Like the blurred images, some of the obviously theatrical staging and dialogue, the 'actors mask' like make-up, and so forth. The actors themselves will hopefully always maintain the boundary within the narrative/script. I mean, I hope Nelsan will never turn to the camera and say something like 'Alan Ball doesn't give me enough screen time' lol!.

I'm really not explaining myself very well. This whole idea is an intuition I can't quite grab the words to express.

Basically, I think by 'breaking the fourth wall' TB is not only referring to the reality OF the production but to 'realities' inside the production/narrative. Does that make sense?

Bobsgran said:

Thanks sunny for trying.  It's seeping into the noggin a bit.  I understand what you mean by the whole idea being an intuition.  Maybe I'm not expressing my understanding of it well enough.

Anyway, I'll work on it.  Thanks again.

Please understand that I don't feel this particular theory is crucial to understanding the story itself. The story and the details of the story are still the most important and fascinating factor, to me anyway. But it's also all connected, in that TB breaking of the fourth wall is not just about pushing the audience to understand it's all a play, it's about pushing the notion of the characters-as-'actors' within the narrative. The 'lies' and the narrative conceits and devices they use to hide the lies.

Sigh, I still don't feel like I'm getting it right. Words, come out of my brain onto my keyboard!

anna said:

While I was thinking vaguely about Russian dolls, ARGs and turtles all the way down, a question floated across my mind.

What happens to the fourth wall if the audience become part of the play and take a role in shaping the narrative?

That's a fascinating question, anna. I don't know. If we look at it and see it a certain way, does it change or shape itself to fit our observations of it? Am I equipped to discuss quantum theory? No. I barely know what it is I'd love to hear you expand on this idea.

Thinking about it, I may have a better way to explain the fourth wall theory and it's really nothing we haven't discussed before. It all comes back down to perspective and narrative pov.

To somewhat tie it in with anna's observation, how  you receive or view or read a story depends upon who is telling it. We do not view a narrative created by Alan Ball with the same eye we would view a narrative created by Aaron Spelling. You'd use discernment to judge the relative veracity of stories told by opposing parties, both with an agenda, is the essential thing to keep in mind.

We've all observed that Bill's flashbacks and other scenes 'under his purview' smell pungently of Vaudeville, Nickelodean era silent films, or read of pennydreadfuls. Bill as star in his own drama always casts himself as the long-suffering, tragic hero. Other characters are incidental cardboard cutouts, either black or white, good or bad. Remember 'Strange Facsimile Terry'? In Bill's drama, the other characters merely serve as devices to advance the 'plot', or act as a diversion from actions that are being hidden. He moves the characters around willy nilly, with no thought or sensitivity, making them do things that are wildly out of character just because it suits a need of his at the moment and advances his version of the 'plot'. Woe the character standing there when Bill needs a villain or a patsy.

Just go back to the beginning of the bullet sucking scene and all the way through to the end of the conversation later in the hotel room. Bill is Benevolent Father Figure, Sookie the helpless 'stupid' female who needs a strong hand to guide her. Eric of course is the 'monster' who took advantage of the pure young maiden. Black and white. In Bill's world, he wants us to know Eric twirls a metaphorical mustache, and he, the noble and wise, the self-sacrificing, the patient and kind, William T. Compton is always just a victim of cruel circumstance. He is the fair and just, standing blameless, standing tall against the winds of fortune.

IOW, Bill is not very sophisticated. His narrative devices are cliche, trite, blunt, and crude. They SHOULD be obvious to everyone they are so childishly transparent. There's just so much other shit he throws against the wall as a 'divergence' we hardly know where to look half the time. When he's telling the story get out the salt and pour it all over that motherfucker, don your tinfoil hat, and lock up the kiddies for safekeeping.

The whole of s4 was a display of Bill's narrative 'mode', but because of Eric's blood, the other version of the narrative kept bleeding through and allowing us glimpses of the other version of 'reality', of how things really are. A play within a play.

Sookie? She's living in a Shirley Temple movie. Sweet and kind, deeply sentimental, and naive and trusting to the point of feeling a 'little girl, please don't get in that dirty white van with the scruffy man holding a cute puppy' kind of horrified fear for her. She was this way in s1, and well before Bill got his claws into her, and it's serving her ill now. She's learning though, her narrative is becoming a little more sophisticated, a little more knowing and mature.

Eric? He's all over the place but he's an Oscar Winning playwright, director, and actor. His drama is sophisticated and wise, can be thoughtful, beautiful, and 'deep' as in I Will Rise Up. Everything after the bullet sucking, that is. In these scenes under Eric's 'direction' all of the other characters make you FEEL. They are real characters, fully fleshed out and allowed to speak for themselves rather than having Bill's alienating words forced in their mouths. Even Maryann. Her speech on the 'ecstasy' of 'losing yourself in the universe' still gives me chills to this day. Sam, Jason, Andy, Jessica, Maxine, Hoyt, Lafayette, Arlene, Tara, ALL of them are magnificently human, heartbreaking, loving, and nuanced and some of the finest actors working today. One and all.

Eric can also be a cold-eyed observer. The scenes from Eric's pov beginning after he killed Talbot stand at a distance and train a neutral lens on the action. With dawning horror, we observe Bill feeding off Sookie. We are made to fully understand what's really going on without anyone twirling a mustache or falling on railroad tracks. Eric trains the camera on himself and doesn't do anything but talk. What does he tell us? He gives us information. He admits culpability. He tells us directly who he is. He is efficient, he is compelling, he is determined, he is patient, he is tough and noble and honourable, he tells us without ever once resorting to swelling music or flowery speeches or bloody tears or swooning women in billowing skirts. He just is, take him or leave him.

Other minor characters have had a chance to shine on stage, too. Maxine observed Sookie's pie fit in the kitchen for us. Tara led us through that "I Spit On Your Grave" version of the truck draining. I can't put my finger on any from Sam right now, but if I had to guess I'd say Sam is a John Ford character, tough, grumpy, one-eyed saloon keeper with a heart and stash of gold.

Basically, the bias or slant we observe in the presentation of the action, dialogue, setting, focus, and most importantly the characterization all depends on who is telling the story. Who do you trust to give us the closet approximation of the truth of these characters and events? You want the truth, we all want the truth, but we have to understand whose version of the drama we're witnessing at any given time, in any given scene or sequence of scenes before we can judge that for ourselves. I think this is why AB keeps reminding us that they're all actors–who are starring in a drama about 'actors' trying mightily to write and film their version of the story.

@Courtly_LoveMachine–"So – the artifice of the medium itself as a metaphor for a constructed reality, am I right sunny?  That's what you had in mind?"

Absolutely! Perfectly stated.

I lost a big long reply to you yesterday which I will now try to reconstruct, but basically I love your comment so much I want to marry it.

"Only this was Sookie watching herself and deliberately inviting the audience in as voyeurs, too."

Yes I think so, but also this was 'the actor' letting her audience know she knows how we will use her as a 'vessel' for our fantasy fulfillment. Plus I think as 'the actor' she was being a bit cheeky in that she seemed to be saying 'ha, I get to do this and you don't'. She was almost as gloaty as Eric was in the bss. By breaking the fourth wall she doesn't pull us 'out' of the action that follows since it's a fantasy anyway.

On the other hand, Eric's smirk for the camera does have has the effect of pulling us out of narrative. I believe it was a deliberate act to discredit  the scene. Within the fictional narrative itself the smirk occurs just as 'Sookie' begins drinking 'Eric's' blood which 'breaks the wall' of Bill's influence. Therefore 'Eric' literally breaking the wall as 'actor' becomes a metaphor for breaking the wall as a character. It was almost as if 'Eric' were saying to us, while aligning himself with the audience and bringing us in on the joke: 'do you SEE how ridiculous this is? This bozo is a joke, let's all laugh at him'. And we did. Eric's influence bleeds through, with the effect that despite the swelling, straightforward 'drama' we're supposed  to be witnessing it simply comes off as a crude satire. Imagine Eric as the second lead, sabotaging the 'star's' attempt at writing and directing his character as the villain of the piece. Out in the audience,  nervous giggles over the lead's stiff egotism and pomposity, and appreciative titters for the cheeky scene stealer. All in all, rotten tomatoes for the 'star' of the piece but that other guy is going places.

Hi angiequinn, welcome aboard! I too reside deep in the heart of Dixie.

" i promise to keep my manners closer at hand going forward. "

*looking, looking..* Nope, can't find any bad manners.

" it brings to mind RE's murder of the news anchor-where he was speaking into the camera then as well. and it got me thinking, it could also be said that RE was speaking to the "camera-within-the camera" and the "audience-within-the audience"…meaning all of us who are fans of the show. i love the thought of that and how it was worked into the story, and rather slyly at that-if it was indeed part of the plan."

This is a terrific observation! Definitely speaking to us, to the mores of our society and most especially to the voracious predatory habits of the ruling elites. TB is doing something no other show has ever done to my knowledge, and that is attempting to help us drop the illusions and focus our eye on the 'true nature', the subtext, the 'para'politics of our civilization and the people who rule it.