After writing yesterday's post on recent television Shakespeare productions, I started to think about the general sense of dissatisfaction that many critics (including very famous ones like Harold Bloom) seem to have regarding the performances that they've seen. Also, certain roles (Cleopatra, Edgar and Iago come to mind) are often considered to be unplayable, or close to it, anyway. I think a big reason for these phenomena is a simple one: an actor has to make a final decision in his or her interpretation of a role, and a reader doesn't. Therefore, there is a finite quality to an actor's art that may not apply to what is done by a commentator and/or educator. We should remember however, that performance is the purpose of the work. Shakespeare wrote first and foremost for actors - he was one himself - and a large part of his genius rests in the fact that he wrote in such a way, and allowed actors so much room, that there never will be a definitive performance of any of his roles. But actors continue to give their all in trying; see the performances discussed yesterday for examples.