are conventions that we are able to‘read off’. The aim of creating a set
that resembles as closely as possible what it represents is a relatively new
phenomenon in the history of theatre, although many theatregoers now
take it for granted. The existence of conventional representation, such as
the wooden chair and paper crown, has led some to argue that convention
accounts for all of what we see at the theatre, hence that there is no
illusion at all of this kind. Sensible theatregoers (people who understand
what theatre is) know full well that what they see is a representation, so
it’s not a matter of illusion but one of convention.^44
However, convention isn’t all there is to it: sometimes (following the set-
design example) spectators are genuinely tricked into thinking that a wall is
made of brick, when it is not, and so on. In Thomas Mann’snovelConfessions
of Felix Krull, Confidence Man, Krull, the trickster narrator, recalls a for-
mative childhood trip to the theatre. During the performance, he becomes
enamoured with the dashing young actor, Müller-Rosé; but, meeting him in
the dressing-room afterwards, Krull realises that (amongst other things)
Müller-Rosé is ugly, smelly, spotty and coarse, and that his beautiful
chestnut hair was merely a wig which, now removed, reveals him to be a
redhead.^45 Müller-Rosé’s hair looked chestnut but is in fact red. Krull, who
believed that Müller-Rosé’s hair was chestnut, had a false belief. It looks very
much like the use of make-up, wigs, perhaps also lighting, very often, even
typically, causes spectators to hold false beliefs. The same goes for set-design.
Now, as we’ve already seen, there’s more to an illusion than the pro-
duction of false belief; and some illusions function without producing
false belief at all. But it’s clear from this brief discussion that set-design
can lead to things seeming to be other than they are, hence to deception
and false belief on the part of the audience. All of this, taken together,
seems adequate for the conclusion that this kind of illusion may well be a
common feature of theatrical performances. Even so, does this mean that
illusion (of this kind) is always present at the theatre? The answer, of
course, is no. We have already seen how theatre can function perfectly
well without scenery, without props, without elaborate make-up and
costume design. Recall Peter Brook’s set of minimal conditions for an act
of theatre (the‘bare stage’): clearly, the kind of illusion under discussion here
would not be necessary for such a performance. But we should notice that
the set-design illusions occur relatively frequently, when one includes all
the features of the set, the props and the costumes; and sometimes it can
be very hard to know whether or not they are being employed.
The illusionist’s illusion
A third kind of illusion may be associated with the theatre–namely, the
illusions of the so-called‘illusionist’, or stage magician. The illusionist,
Truth and illusion 59