ANyoNE SuCH AS MySELF WHo WAS EDuCATED in multicultural Birmingham, a stronghold of industry and heavy metal—but within commutable distance of Stratford-upon-Avon—is predisposed to have, at best, an ambivalent relationship with shakespeare. Prior to ever reading or seeing any of his plays, i’d been taken on numerous school trips to the provincial backwater whose chief selling point was its being the birthplace of the world genius of literature. i was all too quick to nod in agreement when a young, new teacher, keen to ingratiate herself with a bunch of teenagers, informed us that the Bard would be writing for soap operas if he were alive today. an obvious riposte is that Dallas (1978–1991) would likely have aged better with the presence of such a witty and imaginative screenwriter. symptomatic of ongoing anxieties surrounding cultural capital, this comparison between modern-day popular culture and early modern drama skirts an underlying issue: was shakespeare great in spite of or because of his mass appeal? Jeffrey Knapp’s ambitious new book diagnoses a plethora of heuristic strategies that, as he suggests, are the cause and consequence of a confused and confusing critical orthodoxy. Pleasing Everyone seeks to vindicate the artistry of popular filmmaking by unpacking the implicit and explicit grounding of much contemporary scholarship in the Frankfurt school of mechanical reproduction and indoctrination. in so doing, Knapp proposes that adorno and Horkheimer’s theory of mass culture as debased and debasing is predicated on a fallacy that equates its birth with that of advanced industrial capitalism; as he argues, “Renaissance plays and Hollywood movies share an identity that our current theories of modernity and mass culture do not allow them to share” (1). disentangling this confusion provides the possibility not only of nuancing our appreciation and understanding of cultural production from across the centuries but also of correcting notions of the popular, since “Renaissance plays help sharpen our focus on mass entertainment by disentangling it from Jeffrey Knapp. Pleasing Everyone: Mass Entertainment in Renaissance London and Golden-Age Hollywood.

中文翻译：

---

取悦所有人：伦敦文艺复兴时期的大众娱乐和好莱坞黄金时代的杰弗里·纳普 (Jeffrey Knapp)

任何像我这样在多元文化伯明翰接受教育的人，伯明翰是工业和重金属的大本营——但在埃文河畔斯特拉特福的通勤距离内——充其量与莎士比亚有一种矛盾的关系。在读过或看过他的任何戏剧之前，我曾多次带我去省里的死水区进行学校旅行，那里的主要卖点是世界文学天才的诞生地。当一位热衷于讨好一群青少年的年轻新教师告诉我们，如果巴德今天还活着，他会为肥皂剧写作，我很快就同意了。一个明显的反击是达拉斯（1978-1991）在有这样一位机智和富有想象力的编剧存在的情况下可能会变老。围绕文化资本的持续焦虑的症状，现代流行文化与早期现代戏剧之间的这种比较回避了一个潜在的问题：莎士比亚是否伟大，尽管或因为他的大众吸引力？杰弗里·纳普 (Jeffrey Knapp) 雄心勃勃的新书诊断了过多的启发式策略，正如他所说，这些策略是令人困惑和令人困惑的批判正统观念的原因和结果。《取悦所有人》试图通过揭开法兰克福机械复制和灌输学派的许多当代学术的含蓄和明确基础，来证明流行电影制作的艺术性。在这样做的过程中，克纳普提出，阿多诺和霍克海默关于大众文化被贬低和贬低的理论是基于将其诞生等同于先进工业资本主义的谬论；正如我所争论的那样，“文艺复兴时期的戏剧和好莱坞电影具有我们当前的现代性和大众文化理论不允许它们共享的同一性”（1）。解开这种混乱不仅可以让我们对几个世纪以来的文化生产进行细微的欣赏和理解，而且可以纠正流行的观念，因为“文艺复兴时期的戏剧通过将大众娱乐与杰弗里·纳普（Jeffrey Knapp）分开，有助于提高我们对大众娱乐的关注度。取悦所有人：伦敦文艺复兴和好莱坞黄金时代的大众娱乐。因为“文艺复兴时期的戏剧通过将大众娱乐与杰弗里·克纳普（Jeffrey Knapp）分开，帮助我们更加专注于大众娱乐。取悦所有人：伦敦文艺复兴和好莱坞黄金时代的大众娱乐。因为“文艺复兴时期的戏剧通过将大众娱乐与杰弗里·克纳普（Jeffrey Knapp）分开，有助于提高我们对大众娱乐的关注度。取悦所有人：伦敦文艺复兴和好莱坞黄金时代的大众娱乐。