本論文主要採用Harry Berger, Jr. 『想像演出』（imaginary audition）的理論及Bert O. States「演員—觀眾—角色」（actor—audience—character）三者互動關係的論點，探討二十世紀《仲夏夜之夢》（A Midsummer Night’s Dream）的角色詮釋及舞台與電影中的角色形塑。序言及結論除外，本論文分為兩部分，共四個章節。第一部分為相關理論探討，第二部分為劇中角色形塑的詮釋，主要依據角色的分類，共分為三個章節：貴族與戀人、仙人、工匠。
序言旨在回顧二十世紀《仲夏夜之夢》的角色形塑與當代文學理論及文本詮釋的互動，並探討文本及演出「成規」（conventions）二者間的爭議處。
第一章藉由Berger與States的論點，分析角色在想像演出及真實演出中的成形與發展。Berger認為角色的詮釋與成形並不受限於「成規」的規範，因為A-B的對話可以當成B-B的獨白來聽。States更強調觀眾在演出中的角色並非被動，其參與亦有助於演出中角色的成形。第二章藉由執疑A-B對話中的絕對或相對關係，針對貴族與戀人的傳統詮釋與形塑進行探討。從A-B對話中聽取B-B獨白，B角色的形成並不受限於A的語言，因B亦有可能「自我形塑」（self-fashioning）。第三章強調仙人在想像或演出中的隱形及成形與「觀眾合作」（audience’s collaboration）之間的互動。觀眾並非被動地接受已成形的仙人，相反地，仙人在演出中的隱形與成形仍不斷地仰賴觀眾想像力的參與及詮釋。第四章探討文化脈絡（cultural context）與工匠角色在二十世紀詮釋與演出中的矛盾。現代工匠亦是多數體亦是少數體的矛盾身分，暗示著「劇中劇」（play-within-the-play）亦是「插曲」（interlude）亦是「主題」的「後設劇場」（meta-theatre）功用。
最後，本論文之結論強調角色「重現」（representation）不論是在文本或演出中的不可能性，並認為角色「詮釋」（interpretation）與角色「形塑」（formation）間存在不可避免的個別差異。

This thesis aims at reconsidering character formations of A Midsummer Night's Dream in the twentieth century. In order to reinforce the title and critical aspects of my thesis, I will evaluate the productions on stage and on screen in the twentieth century, but since now is already the twenty-first century, the interpretations I adopt include the critiques delivered at the turn of the century. By the approaches of Harry Berger, Jr.’s theory of “imaginary audition” and Bert O. States’s view in analyzing actor-audience-character relationship, I situate the issue of character formations in the modern period’s interpretations to estimate the critics’ opinions and productions of the play, both on stage and on screen. Introduction and Conclusion apart, I divide this thesis into two parts and four chapters in total. The first part also Chapter One is about the theory rethinking. Applying discussion in the first chapter to the second part, three chapters about the analyses of character formations in the play are organized according to the dramatic persona’s classifications: aristocrats and lovers, fairies, and mechanicals.
Introduction reconsiders the shifts of modern commentary and character formations of the play. By reevaluating interpretations shuttling between page and stage, literary models and theatrical models not only question each other, but are questioned in this introductory chapter as well.
In Chapter One, incorporating with States’ illustration about the actor-audience-character relationship, I apply Berger’s theory of imaginary audition to estimate the development of the theatrical and fictional character formations. Berger proposes to listen to a B-B soliloquy from auditing an A-B dialogue. That is to discover an alternative B by using B’s ears to listen to B’s language rather than simply listen to A’s speech. States applies the speaker and listener relationship to rethink the actor-audience-character interaction. Therefore, to insert an active role of the audience into Berger’s view of imaginary audition, more than listening from A or B’s perspective, the audience can also contribute to character formations.
Chapter Two begins the second part of this thesis. Lover and aristocrat formations—on page, on stage, and on screen—are reevaluated in a view of auditing a B-B soliloquy from reading an A-B dialogue. Firstly, I discuss the distinctions between the traditional disobedient youths and lovers categorized by modern directors’ on-stage or on-screen strategies. Then, I challenge the stereotyped Theseus and Hippolyta portrayed by the male supremacy in reading an A-B dialogue. I further question Hermia’s rebellious personality and Egeus’s patriarchal authority by reconsidering the dialogues in Hermia’s courtroom trial. Fourthly, from listening to a B-B soliloquy in reading an A-B dialogue, lovers are brought to undergo a self-fashioning. After that, the functions of allusions and the strategy of doubling resulted from reading an A-B dialogue lead the enacted characters to take the risk of being the theatrical commodity nick-picked by the audience.
Chapter Three deals with the interaction between the audience’s collaboration and the formations of visible invisible fairies. In this chapter, I rethink both conventions and creations in the twentieth century. I reconsider first the conventional ethereal fairies, which are gauzy, winged, and diaphanous. I discuss next the crux of Harley Granville-Barker’s gilt immortals created in the early twentieth century. Thirdly, I examine Peter Hall’s modern dryad—the fairies painted green. In the next section, Peter Brook’s theatrical illusions are reevaluated. Fifthly, I pay attention to the creations of alternative fairies living in multiple cultures. Sixthly, it is about the mortal-like immortals and the availability of doubling Oberon-Titania as Theseus-Hippolyta. The final section discusses the in-between characteristics of Puck or Robin the Good Fellow and the metatheatrical function of his epilogue.
Chapter Four focuses on the interaction between cultural contexts and formations of modern mechanicals. I intend to discuss Shakespearean mechanicals with their in-between characteristics: mass or mortals of another kind. Firstly, I discuss the mechanicals filmed as the mock heroes with the “American Dream” in Hollywood productions. Next, by pointing out mechanicals’ either controlled or subversive personality, the traditional evaluations of the mechanicals’ making a farce of Pyramus and Thisbe is reconsidered. Thirdly, by adopting the relevance between the workmen’s characteristics and the language they use, I draw attentions to the anxiety of modern interpretations and strategies to illustrate the mechanicals as beings under the cultural collision and the cultural collusion. I further reevaluate the validity of workmen impressed with strong libido and conclude the ambivalent state of Shakespearean mechanicals in the twentieth century as both the mass and the minority.
Conclusion for this thesis is to rethink the inevitable distance between the representation and the interpretations of the play. Hollywood concerns and effects have altered the insistence of representation, and the audience members in the younger generation turn to be the new target for Hollywood market. Moreover, though the interactive footprints between criticism and performance are shown in the twentieth century, there remains the gap of applying a stylized performance theory to interpret a literary criticism or vice versa. In addition to shuttling between page and stage, cultural contexts indeed give multiple ways for the audience/reader to practice his or her imaginary audition for character formations. Therefore, representing the play by simply insisting on the fixed authorial intention or established literary and theatrical models is a mission impossible.

Beier, Karen, dir. A Midsummer Night’s Dream [le Song d’une nuit d’été] By William Shakespeare. Theatre of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf. Aug. 1996.
Berger, Harry Jr. Imaginary Audition: Shakespeare on Stage and Page. California: U of California P, 1989.
Bloom, Harold, ed and intro. William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream. New York and Philadelphia: Chelsea House, 1987.
Brown, John Russell. New Sites for Shakespeare: Theatre, the Audience and Asia. London and New York: Routledge, 1999.
Buhler, Stephen M. Shakespeare in the Cinema: Ocular Proof. New York: SUNY, 2002.
Calderwood, James L. “A Midsummer Night’s Dream: Anamorphism and Theseus’ Dream.” Shakespeare Quarterly. 12.4 (1991): 409-30.
Carlson, Marvin. “Karen Beier’s Midsummer Night’s Dream and The Chairs.” Western European Stages. 7.3 (Winter 1995-96): 71-76.
Crowel, Samuel. “Babes in the Woods: Shakespeare Comedy on Film.” Shakespeare Observed: Studies in Performance Stage and Screen. Athens: Ohio UP, 1992. 64-80.
Girard, René. “Myth and Ritual in Shakespeare: A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Bloom 15-36.
Desmet, Christy. “Disfiguring Women with Masculine Tropes: A Rhetorical Reading of A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Kehler 299-329.
Dessen, Alan C. “Elizabethan darkness and modern lighting.” Elizabethan Stage Conventions and Modern Interpreters. Cambridge: U of Cambridge P, 1984. 70-83.
Elam, Keir. The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. London and New York: Routledge, 1980.
Freake, Douglas. “A Midsummer Night’s Dream as a Comic Version of the Theseus Myth.” Kehler 258-73.
Freedman, Barbara. “Dis/Figuring Power: Censorship and Representation in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Kehler 179-215.
Garner, Shirley Nelson. “A Midsummer Night’s Dream ‘Jack Shall Have Jill; / Nought Shall Go Ill.’” Kehler 128-43.
Green, Douglas E. “Preposterous Pleasures: Queer Theories and A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Kehler 368-95.
Greenblatt, Stephen. Introduction. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. By Greenblatt. Chicago and London: U of Chicago P, 1980. 1-9.
Greenfield, Thelma N. “Our Nightly Madness: Shakespeare’s Dream without The Interpretation of Dreams.” Kehler 331-43.
Griffin, Alice, ed and intro. Rebels and Lovers: Shakespeare’s Young Heroes and Heroines. New York: City U of NY P, 1976.
---. Introduction (to A Midsummer Night’s Dream). Griffin 1-10.
Hazlitt, William. “Hazlitt on A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Ed. Stanley Wells. Shakespeare in the Theatre. New York: Oxford UP, 1997. 43-46
Hall, Peter, dir. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. By William Shakespeare. Perf. Diana Rigg, Helen Mirren, Ian Richardson, Judi Dench, and Ian Holm. The Royal Shakespeare Company. Filmways: 1968.
Hackett, Helen. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Plymouth: Northcote House, 1997.
Hoffman, Michael, dir. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. By William Shakespeare. Perf. Kevin Kline, Michelle Pfeiffer, Rupert Everett, Stanley Tucci, Calista Flockhart. Fox, 1999.
Howard, Alan. “On Keeping a Dream from Becoming a Nightmare.” Loney 35-44.
Hunt, Albert, and Geoffrey Reeves. Directors in Perspective: Peter Brook. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999.
Iser, Wolfgang. Prospecting: From Reader Response to Literary Anthropology. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins UP, 1989.
Jackson, Russell. “Shakespeare’s comedies on film.” Shakespeare and the Moving Image: the Plays on Film and Television. Eds. Anthony Davies and Stanley Wells. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994. 99-120.
Kehler, Dorothea, ed and intro. A Midsummer Night’s Dream Critical Essays. New York and London: Garland, 1998.
---. Introduction. Kehler 3-75.
Kernan, Alvin B. “‘A Little O’erparted’: Actors and Audiences in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Bloom 37-55.
Kott, Jan. “Titania and Ass’s Head.” Shakespeare Our Contemporary. London: Methuen, 1965. 171-90.
---. “The Bottom Translation.” Bloom 73-85.
Lamb, Mary Ellen. “Taken by the Fairies: Fairy Practices and the Production of Popular Culture in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Shakespeare Quarterly. 51 (3): 2000, 277-312.
Leinwand, Theodore B. “‘I Believe We Must Leave the Killing Out:’ Deference and Accommodation in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Kehler 145-63.
Loney, Glenn, ed and intro. Peter Brook’s Production of William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream for the Royal Shakespeare Company. Chicago: Dramatic, 1974.
---. Introduction. Loney 7-14.
Ma, Tin-Ni (馬汀尼), dir. A Midsummer Night’s Dream (仲夏夜夢). By William Shakespeare. Trans. Shi-Qiu Liang and Tin-Ni Ma. The Spring Performance of the Drama Department in the National Institute of the Arts (國立藝術學院戲劇學系春季公演). The Open Theatre in the National Institute of the Arts (國立藝術學院露天劇場), Taipei. May. 1999.
Maher, Mary Z. “A Midsummer Night’s Dream: Nightmare or Gentle Snooze?” Kehler 429-50.
Marshall, David. “Exchanging Visions: Reading A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Bloom 87-115.
Moisan, Thomas. “Antique Fables, Fairy Toys: Elisions, Allusion, and Transformation in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Kehler 275-98.
Montrose, Louis A. “A Kingdom of Shadows.” Kehler 217-39.
Moore, Lisa J. “Transposing Helena to Form and Dignity.” Kehler 453-71.
Ornstein, Robert. “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Shakespeare’s Comedies: from Roman Farce to Romantic Mystery. Newark: Delaware, 1994. 73-89
Patterson, Annabel. “Bottom’s Up: Festive Theory in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Kehler165-77.
Reinhardt, Max and Dieterle, William, dirs. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. By William Shakespeare. Perf. Olivia de Havilland, Dick Powell, and Mickey Rooney. MGM, 1935.
Rudd, Niall. “Pyramus and Thisbe in Shakespeare and Ovid: A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Metamorphoses 4.1-166.” Creative Imitation and Latin Literature. Eds. David West & Tony Woodman. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987. 173-93.
Selden, Roman, Peter Widdowson, and Peter Brooker. A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory. 4th ed. New York: Prentice Hall / Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1997, 29-46; 47-65.
Shakespeare, William. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The Norton Shakespeare. Gen. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. New York: Norton, 1997. 814-63.
States, Bert O. Great Reckonings in Little Rooms: On the Phenomenology of Theater. California: U of California P, 1985.
Styan, J. L. The Shakespeare Revolution: Criticism and performance in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1977.
Taylor, Gary. Moment by Moment by Shakespeare. London and Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1985.
Taylor, Marion A. “Chapter VI: The Prototypes of Bottom and His Crew.” Bottom, Thou Art Translated: Political Allegory in A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Related Literature. Ed. Marion A. Taylor. Rodopi NV: Amsterdam, 1973. 189-207.
Ty, Chi-Cus (泰磯谷). “A Review on Tin-Ni Ma’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream” (仲夏夜裡墓仔埔也敢去？：試談台語演出莎劇). 15 Oct. 1999. 22 July 2002 <http://www.tychicus.idv.tw/acticle/article12.htm>.
Welsh, Jim. “’Ill Met by Moonlight’: Michael Hoffman’s Dream.” Literature Film Quarterly. 27.2 (1999): 159-61.
Williams, Gary Jay. Our Moonlight Revels: A Midsummer Night’s Dream in the Theatre. Iowa: U of Iowa P, 1997.
S. P. Yang (楊世彭), dir. A Midsummer Night’s Dream (仲夏夜之夢). By William Shakespeare. Tran. Yang. Hong Kong Stage Play Company (香港話劇團). Grand Theatre of the Culture Center (文化中心大劇院), Hong Kong. 7 Jul 2000.
---. Tans and Intro. A Midsummer Night’s Dream (仲夏夜之夢). By William Shakespeare. Taipei: Cit&eacute; (城邦), 2001.