FLEABAG AND SELF-REFLEXIVITY: BREAKING-THE-FOURTH-WALL OF

A WOMAN’S INNER WORLD

Luis Rocha Antunes1

ABSTRACT
This essay analyzes and describes the use of self-reflexivity in the series Fleabag
(Phoebe Waller-Bridge, 2016-2019), showing that the televised series makes use of
breaking-the-fourth-wall to create an ongoing relationship between the main character
and the viewer. By testing the series' application of self-reflexivity against Jean-Marc
Limoges' five criteria of fictional engagement, the essay explains why breaking-the-
fourth-wall in Fleabag is not a mere comical device but an entire diegetic layer that
shapes the viewer's perception of the character and their engagement with the story.
Finally, this study offers a description of the concept of a personal live audience as a
way to explain the dramatic importance of breaking-the-fourth-wall in the series,
namely, how it impacts Waller-Bridge's performance as an actress, and it empowers her
character. The overarching goal of the essay is to demonstrate the originality self-
reflexivity in Fleabag and how breaking-the-fourth-wall helps to perceive the inner
world of a character with a dimensionality that would be difficult to achieve without the
use of self-reflexivity.
Keywords: Breaking-the-fourth-wall; Self-Reflexivity; Fleabag; Personal Live
Audience;

FLEABAG E AUTO-REFLEXIVIDADE: QUEBRANDO A QUARTA PAREDE

NO MUNDO INTERIOR DE UMA MULHER

RESUMO
Este estudo analisa e descreve o uso de auto-reflexividade na série Fleabag (Phoebe
Waller-Bridge, 2016-2019), mostrando o uso que a série faz da quebra da quarta parede
de forma a criar um relacionamento contínuo estabelecido entre a personagem principal
e o espectador. Ao testar o uso de auto-reflexividade da série em relação aos cinco
critérios de engajamento ficcional de Jean-Marc Limoges, o estudo explica por que
razão a quebra da quarta parede em Fleabag não é um mero dispositivo cômico, mas
uma inteira camada diegética que molda a forma como o espectador percepciona a
personagem principal da série, bem como o envolvimento do espectador com o mundo
ficcional em Fleabag. Finalmente, este estudo oferece uma descrição do conceito de
personal life audience enquanto forma de explicar a importância dramatúrgica de
quebra da quarta parede na série, nomeadamente, como o dispositivo afeta e molda o
desempenho de Waller-Bridge enquanto atriz e como fortalece a sua personagem. O
objetivo principal do estudo é demonstrar a originalidade da extensão em que a auto-
1
Luis Rocha Antunes is an Assistant Professor in Communication at Augusta University. He is the author
of The Multisensory Film Experience: A Cognitive Model of Experiential Film Aesthetics (Intellect
Books, 2016).

1
Revista Tropos: Comunicação, Sociedade e Cultura, v.9, nº1, edição de Julho de 2020
reflexividade ocorre em Fleabag e como quebrar a quarta parede ajuda a perceber o
mundo interior de um personagem com uma dimensionalidade que seria difícil de
alcançar sem o uso de auto-reflexividade.
Palavras-chave: Quebra da quarta parede; Auto-Reflexividade; Fleabag; Personal Live
Audience.

FLEABAG AND SELF-REFLEXIVITY

Fleabag is a two-season television series written and starred by Phoebe Waller-

Bridge, produced by BBC Three, and co-produced by Amazon Studios. The series was
adapted from an anonymous theatrical play and was run from 2016 to 2019 on Amazon
Prime. It focuses on the main character, Fleabag, as she deals with grief and the
complexities and dilemmas of modern, urban life existence. Fleabag makes abundant
use of a device commonly known as breaking-the-fourth-wall, where Fleabag's
character looks and often speaks into the camera as if addressing the viewer. The play
initially made use of the breaking-the-fourth-wall device, and the series uses it so
extensively that it evolves into a layer in the story and creates a sense of an ongoing
relationship between Fleabag and the viewer. Furthermore, it gives us privileged access
to Fleabag's thoughts, emotions, ethical dilemmas, insecurities, expectations, and all the
inner experience of her character. Addressing the viewer can develop into a storyline of
its own, an ongoing relationship and interaction that moves the story forward and helps
to shape the way viewers perceive Fleabag's character.
Classical theater, literature, modern art, and film and television have all made
use of the breaking-the-fourth-wall device. Although it is not an original device in and
of itself, it becomes relevant due to the extent of its use in the series. Self-reflexivity
occurs when a fictional story takes advantage of narration devices that expose its
fictional boundaries, such as speaking directly into the camera and addressing the
viewer. In Fleabag, breaking-the-fourth-wall gives both the main character and the
viewer an awareness about the fictional construction of the story.
Breaking-the-fourth-wall is increasingly common across television series today,
although Fleabag takes it to an extreme. Jean-Marc Limoges' essay "The Gradable
Effects of Self-Reflexivity on Aesthetic Illusion in Cinema" is useful to understand the

2
Revista Tropos: Comunicação, Sociedade e Cultura, v.9, nº1, edição de Julho de 2020
effects and presence of self-reflexivity in contemporary television Limoges
characterizes self-reflexivity around five conditions.
Self-reflexivity, according to Limoges, occurs when a stylistic or narrative
device reveals the enunciation mechanisms of that medium, or "[…] reminds the
audience that they are watching a film" (2009, p. 391). Even though addressing the
viewer is a form of self-reflexivity, the device does not necessarily imply the ejection
from the story-world. Neither does self-reflexivity involve the breaking of a fictional
contract between viewer and story. According to Limoges, self-reflexivity ejects the
viewer from a story world in different degrees only upon the establishment of five
conditions. Those five conditions are as follows:
1) Perceptibility: the viewer must be aware of or perceive the actual breaking-
the-fourth-wall;
2) Context of reception: in a setting like today's, where the device is used
frequently on film and television, self-reflexivity might not eject viewers from the
fiction as forcefully as something taking place a few decades ago;
3) Genre: self-reflexivity may breach the aesthetic illusion more or less
depending on the genre (horror is less prone to it), where auteur cinema is more prone
to it;
4) Modalities of occurrence: does breaking-the-fourth-wall happen at the
beginning, middle, or end of a film or episode? If it occurs at the beginning of an
episode, it establishes a contract with the viewer where they are expecting it to be
something frequent. If it happens at the beginning of an episode, it will not necessarily
eject the viewer from the story-world but will become a part of it; however, if it happens
at the end an episode, it might cause a deconstruction of the status of verisimilitude of
the story, where a viewer might feel that what they just watched was unreliably
presented as fictional truth;
5) Motivation: if the device is gratuitous, if it a mere stylistic artifice, or even an
occasional gag, it may eject the viewer from the serendipity of the story. On the other
hand, if it is diegetic, symbolic, or dramatically motivated, then it will be naturalized
and will have a weaker power to eject the viewer. (2009, p. 397-401).

3
Revista Tropos: Comunicação, Sociedade e Cultura, v.9, nº1, edição de Julho de 2020
HOW DOES FLEABAG MEASURE AGAINST LIMOGES’ FIVE CRITERIA?

Looking and speaking into the camera, or breaking-the-fourth-wall has

traditionally been a form of self-reflexivity that ejects the viewer from the aesthetic
illusion of fiction. However, not all types of breaking-the-fourth-wall are, as Limoges
points out, anti-illusionist, in the sense that they imply suspension of disbelief. If self-
reflexivity is diegetically motivated, then it can be integrated into the aesthetic and
fictional contract of viewers as they watch a fictional story develop. Furthermore, self-
reflexivity, for its abundance, becomes not only an awareness of the viewer that they are
watching a fictional piece of work but also becomes a form of self-reflexivity for
Fleabag's character herself. In other words, she seems to be aware that she is guiding the
viewer along and, therefore, she is reflecting on herself and the events and characters in
the story. Self-reflexivity becomes an integral part of the fictional universe of the story
in Fleabag. Fleabag's first address to the viewer (only a few seconds into episode 1)
does not go unnoticed. Fleabag's character talks explicitly into the camera in a set with
no other characters and creates a sense of self-reflexivity that is maintained throughout
all the episodes in the two seasons. That relationship is established between Fleabag and
the viewer as a form of mutual self-reflexivity and will be maintained, constructed, and
evolve with its dramatic arch too.
Breaking-the-fourth-wall is often clearly noticeable to the viewer since Fleabag
frequently shifts her gaze away from the other characters and looks into the camera.
However, it is often also used subtly, as when Fleabag gently glances at the camera, and
may in those circumstances go unnoticed. In many instances, the camera is positioned
among characters in an immersive way, and Fleabag may look into the camera.
However, it may be perceived as if she is looking at another character. Triangular
conversations or dinner table events may be examples of that. In that sense, viewers
may fail to notice the breaking-of-the-fourth wall, and Limoges' first criterion of
perceptibility is not fulfilled at all times, meaning that self-reflexivity does not, in this
case, imply an ejection from the story. While viewers are aware that Fleabag is
addressing them, there is a fictional contract established where viewers expect that to
happen.

4
Revista Tropos: Comunicação, Sociedade e Cultura, v.9, nº1, edição de Julho de 2020
 As far as the second criterion, it is useful to look outside the series for the
context of reception. In The Metareferential Turn in Contemporary Arts and Media
(2011), Werner Wolf explains that metareferences (meaning, to other media) or self-
reflexivity (meaning, within a specific work) have always existed but have become
increasingly common in today's film and television. In Wolf's words:

The evolution towards ever more metaization in our signifying

systems and the arts and media in particular may be said to naturally
produce a growing familiarity with metareference. This familiarity
through habituation (as well as other factors) in conjunction with an
increasing number of people who are “media-savvy” (Caldwell 2008:
357), which also includes a heightened awareness of mediality as such,
has arguably increased what may be referred to as ‘meta-tolerance’. It
is easy to see that such a heightened tolerance towards metaization
reduces the formerly disconcerting or startling effect of some if not all
metareferential devices. It may even increasingly permit authors and
recipients bent on immersion within the representational media, to
maintain aesthetic illusion to a formerly unthinkable extent in
coexistence with metareference […] As a consequence, a frequent
effect of metaization, namely defamiliarization, diminishes as an
obstacle to wide-spread reception, which in turn facilitates the
continuation of, and even a gradual increase in, metaization, since this
has come to be experienced as something ‘normal’. Thus, owing to
this feedback loop between heightened meta-tolerance permitting ever
more ‘harmless’ uses of metareference, the effects of the
metareferential turn will arguably contribute to its perpetuation in the
long run. (2011, p. 28)

Wolf makes a case that metareferences, in general, which also include the case
of self-reflexivity, are a "natural," evolutionary way for media to represent characters
and construct storytelling. This idea seems agreeable if we think that other innovations
in film and television history, such as changes in editing, style, and mode of narrative,
were integrated over time and became part of viewers' expectations. When film became
an edited medium, it may have caused viewers to surprise, but it gradually became
perceived as something natural. Similarly, when television first broadcasted live from
multiple locations, it was also met with awe, but that has become merely part of
something viewers take for granted today. Likewise, in the case of metareferences, and
the specific example of self-reflexivity, Wolf's assumption makes evolutionary sense
since metareferences are so commonly found in film and television today. A quick
survey of televised series will demonstrate the use of self-reflexivity, from House of
Cards (2013-2018, Beau Willimon) to The Office (2005-2013, Greg Daniels, Ricky
5
Revista Tropos: Comunicação, Sociedade e Cultura, v.9, nº1, edição de Julho de 2020
Gervais, Stephen Merchant), from How I Met Your Mother (2005-2014, Craig Thomas
and Carter Bays) to Miranda (2009-2015, Miranda Hart), the 2000s are saturated with
examples of breaking-the-fourth-wall. This meta-layer of a direct address of the viewer
has become part of the fictional contract that today's viewers are used to establishing
with a series. It can be inferred then that the abundant use of self-reflexivity in
television today implies that breaking-the-fourth-wall has produced familiarity and does
not result in ejecting the viewer from the story.
In terms of the third criterion, Limoges refers to genre conventions and
expectations as a critical point to determine whether or not self-reflexivity can result in
ejection from the story world, or, in alternative, the maintenance of the aesthetic illusion
of fiction. Generally speaking, there seems to be less propensity in, for instance, the
horror genre for breaking-the-fourth-wall without ejecting the viewer from the aesthetic
illusion of fiction. Fleabag is a noir comedy or dark comedy. Contrary to the horror
genre, a drama, comedy, even a thriller or suspenseful genres lend themselves more to
breaking-the-fourth-wall without ejecting the viewer from the story.
In today's film and television landscape, editing is no longer transparent
necessarily, as it used to be for decades. However, viewers have become accustomed to
an editing style that claims its presence. In Sherlock (2010-ongoing, Mark Gatiss,
Steven Moffat, Stephen Thompson), for instance, viewers become familiar with seeing
the text on the screen, and with that text being a diegetic and dramatic component of the
story unfolding on each episode. Self-reflexivity in a noir comedy like Fleabag might
simply mean an added layer of meaning, an extra meta-character, and an invisible
presence in the story-world, without causing any kind of rupture with the fictional
continuity. From an experiential level, breaking-the-fourth-wall in Fleabag unfolds with
seeming continuity. Even the way editing intercuts Fleabag's reactions, comments, and
expressions for the camera all come with the action flow of the sequences in a way that
does not create rupture or pause. Many of Fleabag's reaction shots for the viewer could
well be reaction shots visible for the other characters. However, they become distinct
only for the fact that she looks straight into the camera, or the camera does a rack focus
that makes the background blurry and isolates her face in the mise-en-scène. The style
of the film contributes to a sense of experiential continuity through camera work and

6
Revista Tropos: Comunicação, Sociedade e Cultura, v.9, nº1, edição de Julho de 2020
editing. By integrating Fleabag's address of the viewer continuously, self-reflexivity
becomes one more layer together with what could be considered other layers in the
series, such as the characters, emotions, events, and contributes to the creation of
meaning. Criterion three then does not result in ejecting the viewer from the story.
As far as modalities of occurrence – Limoges' fourth criterion –, Fleabag's first
address of the viewer does not go unnoticed since she addresses the viewer in a set with
no other characters and directly speaks into the camera, creating a sense of self-
reflexivity. Fleabag, however, continuously breaks the fourth wall in that same scene. In
the following scenes, the device is maintained and creates a form of interaction
throughout the story. In my analysis of Fleabag, I found an average of 39 instances in
each of the 12 episodes throughout the two seasons. The fourth-wall applied in such a
consistent manner that it becomes evident that it is a device consciously used by Phoebe
Waller-Bridge in the writing of the series. Being such a regular device, it creates a sense
of familiarity for the viewer. For instance, in scenes where Fleabag interacts with
antagonistic characters, there will often be more reaction shots and comments
addressing the viewer as if she was making sure that the viewer understands her point-
of-view about what the other characters are saying or implying. This effect is
particularly noticeable in her interactions with her step-mother, where Fleabag
consistently breaks the fourth-wall at a high rate, versus her interactions with her father,
with minimal instances of breaking-the-fourth-wall. She guides the viewer and seems to
want to be in control of how the viewer is assessing the story. In the cases where
Fleabag interacts with characters that she has particular empathy for, or characters that
may be vulnerable, like her father, then Fleabag restrains herself from addressing the
viewer as if showing respect for her father and the privacy and vulnerability of their
interactions. The emotional connection between Fleabag and the viewer establishes the
logic of breaking-the-fourth-wall in each scene. The patterns of breaking-the-fourth-
wall offer a reliable flow of communication for viewers who may, even if in intuitive
ways, perceive and relate with Fleabag's desire to include the viewers more or less in
each scene. Due to the consistency of the device, we could argue that Limoges' fourth
criterion does not result in ejection from the story.

7
Revista Tropos: Comunicação, Sociedade e Cultura, v.9, nº1, edição de Julho de 2020
 The fifth and final criterion to test the power of ejection caused by self-
reflexivity, as proposed by Limoges, is motivation. What is the motivation for breaking-
the-fourth-wall in Fleabag? If breaking-the-fourth-wall becomes a mere gag, with no
diegetic or dramatic power, then it can eject the viewer from the story. However, if the
motivation for breaking-the-fourth-wall is diegetically, symbolically, or dramatically
motivated, it is also a natural, even though extra, meta-layer of the story and will not
necessarily cause ejection from the story. An analysis of all the shots and instances
when the fourth-wall gets broken reveals more about the device. The diegetic, dramatic,
and symbolic relevance of the device has become quite apparent from that analysis.
Diegetically, Fleabag uses the self-reflexivity to comment in-depth the background of
the story. In many instances, Fleabag serves almost as an on-camera narrator putting the
viewer up to speed about the story. Another diegetic use of the device is Fleabag's
anticipation of what some characters are going to say. Frequently, she anticipates what
some characters (especially her sister) are going to say, serving almost like an
omniscient narrator. Other times, Fleabag will ask a rhetorical question out loud while
looking into the camera, as if addressing the viewer, shaping the viewer's reading of a
story event. Finally, Fleabag will often comment on what other characters say as if
filling the viewer in about background information and story context. Fleabag's asides
and commentary contribute to the diegetic progression of the series throughout the two
seasons.
In terms of dramatic motivation, breaking-the-fourth-wall is key to shaping
Waller-Bridge's performance, as well as the emotions associated with her character. In
terms of her performance, breaking-the-fourth-wall seems like a place of safety,
comfort, trust, and power. Fleabag is the only character who breaks the fourth wall and
engages in self-reflexivity. Self-reflexivity becomes her safety net, the place of comfort
where she goes to when she feels vulnerable. It is also the place of trust since she
develops a relationship with the viewer that she cherishes and maintains with devotion
throughout the two seasons. She cares about the viewer and about what the viewer
thinks of her. The relationship with the viewer and the trust involved in that relationship
is essential for Fleabag. That certainly has a dramatic motivation in the sense that it
shapes Waller-Bridge's as a performer.

8
Revista Tropos: Comunicação, Sociedade e Cultura, v.9, nº1, edição de Julho de 2020
 Finally, the device has a dramatic motivation related to the power that it
represents for Fleabag. Fleabag has an advantage point by recurring to self-reflexivity,
and she uses it to display her manipulation skills and her sarcasm and dark humor. The
device has an outstanding and phenomenological power over her performance and the
emotional arc of Fleabag's character. Even though Fleabag is not an entirely reliable
narrator, since she is quite deceitful about her guilt in the death of her friend Boo, her
relationship with the viewer is key to having a full, in-depth perception of who she is.
All the facets of her character and her inner thoughts and emotions would be
challenging to reveal within a fictional contract with an intact fourth-wall. Therefore,
the device is crucial to a more dimensional perception of who Fleabag is, which serves
as a form of dramatic motivation.
There also seems to be a symbolic motivation behind the use of self-reflexivity
and breaking-the-fourth-wall, especially when the character of the Priest (Andrew Scott)
is suddenly able to hear Fleabag's breaking-the-fourth-wall. The Priest is in the
epicenter of Season 2 and certainly comes into the series with the symbolic power of
religion and spirituality. Breaking-the-fourth-wall is a place of truth for Fleabag; it is
where the viewer gets to see who she is, something inaccessible to the other characters.
The fact that the Priest is the only character who can hear Fleabag addressing the viewer
can is an extraordinary power and can be interpreted as a symbolic power of his
spirituality. Another example connected with symbolic motivation is related to the loss
of her best friend Boo and the grief and guilt she struggles with for most of Season 1.
Fleabag often breaks the fourth-wall in Season 1 to express emotions related to her grief
and guilt. In that sense, grief and guilt confront Fleabag and the viewer with a deeper
meaning of life that is lost in a busy, urban everyday lifestyle. There is, then, evidence
that self-reflexivity and breaking-the-fourth-wall construct diegetic, dramatic, and
symbolic motivation in Fleabag.
Limoges' fifth criterion seems to characterize Fleabag's use of these devices as
forms of self-reflexivity that do not result in ejection from the story. Fleabag stands
against Limoges' five criteria in a way that demonstrates that self-reflexivity is not used
as a mere gag-device but has more profound implications as to how we understand its
use in contemporary television. The concept of personal live audience that I present

9
Revista Tropos: Comunicação, Sociedade e Cultura, v.9, nº1, edição de Julho de 2020
below is a further extension of the idea that, even though breaking-the-fourth-wall is not
original, its extent and complexity have a role in the shaping of the viewer's experience
of Fleabag. In that sense, it is a groundbreaking use of the concept in a televised series.

PERSONAL LIVE AUDIENCE

We can better understand Fleabag's use of breaking-the-fourth-wall by looking at the

adaptation of the story from theater. The series resulted from the adaptation of what was
originally a homonymous, solo, theater play also written and starred by Waller-Bridge. Waller-
Bridge initially performed the play at the 2013 Edinburgh Festival Fringe (GARNDER, 2013).
The initial idea of the character of Fleabag came from a challenge by a friend, where Waller-
Bridge created a sketch for a 10-minute section in a stand-up storytelling night.
However, Fleabag manages to take advantage of the power of film and television's
space and time kaleidoscopes, yet utilizing a theatrical device that adds something new to the
end-result. In other words, Waller-Bridge managed to make use of an old and outdated
dramaturgic device in the theater (breaking-the-fourth-wall) and give it cinematic, diegetic, and
dramatic appeal for the screen. Waller-Bridge's original play consisted of her sitting in front of
the audience, exposed, vulnerable, and alone. Whereas multi-character, theater plays have
traditionally sought to take advantage of the concept of a fourth-wall, for a solo actress, the
audience is all she has, and that may have been an almost natural way to deliver her
performance. Instead of hiding herself from the audience, and encapsulating herself inside the
four walls of fiction, Waller-Bridge may have found in the audience the "character" that she
needed. In her adaptation for the screen, Waller-Bridge brought with her the idea of a personal
live audience. That personal live audience may well be a result of her experiences in the theater,
rather than an abstract, imaginary audience. Perhaps, that is also why her relationship with the
viewer feels so real and well integrated into the series.
Waller-Bridge treats the viewer like her "personal live audience," not just in the sense
of using asides to explain her story but also as an ongoing relationship developed throughout the
two seasons. A writer can imagine a personal audience for their story. However, with Fleabag,
Waller-Bridge creates and addresses her personal audience as a simulation of the actual, live in
the theater. We could consider the play as the experimental laboratory for Waller-Bridge's
writing of the series for television. The interpersonal level of communication experienced by
Waller-Bridge during the live performance of her play certainly created a sense of shared
meaning and responses that impacted Fleabag's "personal live audience." By "personal live
10
Revista Tropos: Comunicação, Sociedade e Cultura, v.9, nº1, edição de Julho de 2020
audience," and not just a "personal audience," I refer to Waller-Bridge's design of an imaginary
viewer that takes advantage of two critical values for her story.
On the one hand, a "personal live audience" might make storytelling more intelligible
for a writer and performer, since a story and narration becomes almost like a guided tour to that
"personal live audience" and becomes more conversational that the same story told without a
viewer in mind. Without a "personal live audience," storytelling might be perceived as
formulaic. The use of a "personal live audience" allows Waller-Bridge to write and perform
with her theatrical experience and a viewer in mind, as in a conversation when we reveal
information in a situational context, rather than a decontextualized storytelling with no
awareness of the audience. The play could have well functioned as preparation and practice and
even given Waller-Bridge some ideas about the storytelling mode, and the pace. On the other
hand, creating a "personal live audience" can function as a "helper" for Waller-Bridge's acting
and a boost of her character's self-confidence. In almost diametral opposition to Konstantin
Stanislavski's methods and reflections (HINCKLEY, 2008), Waller-Bridge acting seems to take
advantage of that ongoing, established relationship she develops with the viewer.
Stanislavski developed the concept of "communing with the viewer" (HINCKLEY,
2008). He applied an acting practice where the interaction with the viewer was done indirectly
through the other actors. That was the way he found to solve the issues created by stage anxiety
and public solitude. In other words, she is taking advantage of the fourth-wall to create a safety
bubble between actors and audience. Waller-Bridge does precisely the opposite with her writing
and performance in Fleabag, by breaking-the-fourth-wall and keeping an ongoing interaction
with her "personal live audience." She transferred the dramatic device to the television series,
adding an extra to the television adaptation but also taking advantage of the cinematic style of
the series to create unique aesthetics and a unique experience of the story. The placement of the
camera replaces the viewer from her theater play. It brings with it all the familiarity and trust
built during her live performances, thus giving her performance a sense of confidence and
empowerment that is in the opposite extreme to Stanislavski's practice. For the continuity and
consistency of her breaking-the-fourth-wall, the device gains dramatic, narrative, and stylistic
importance, making it original by being explored to an unseen level of sophistication. Self-
reflexivity in Fleabag could be seen as an alternative to Stanislavski's paradigm and could
potentially shape future series to develop the device even further. The question today is not
whether viewers will find self-reflexivity strange, but whether or not they will see the absence
of self-reflexivity as something missing in their experience of a series.

11
Revista Tropos: Comunicação, Sociedade e Cultura, v.9, nº1, edição de Julho de 2020
 Apart from describing the importance of Fleabag's self-reflexivity and breaking-the-
fourth-wall, it matters to characterize the device. In the case of Fleabag, self-reflexivity is a
form of detachment between Fleabag and the other characters. It is almost like the other
characters were just objects or pretexts for Fleabag to keep a conversation going with the
viewer. Alternatively, perhaps a way for Fleabag to maintain a cathartic inner dialogue as she
processes and copes with her painful memories and identity. The viewer is like a best friend,
someone who understands her thought processes, her jokes, her emotions, her frustrations, in a
way that no other character does.
Furthermore, because the viewer is present in the story world but is invisible for the
other characters (mostly, except for the Priest), Fleabag can anchor herself to a commodity that
is not available for the other characters. She can vent, joke, or get things off of her chest, and
she has an advantage compared to the other characters. However, the viewer, as her "personal
live audience," is not just an element of empowerment but an ongoing relationship that is
developed and subject to its dramatic arc. The relationship with the viewer starts in a tone of
trust and complicity but culminates in distrust and doubt at the end of season one, as we learn
that she is indirectly responsible for the death of her best friend, Boo. Her friend takes her own
life after finding out her boyfriend slept with Fleabag. It takes much of season 2 to rebuild that
trust with the viewer and reshape it to a new arc when Fleabag might be perceived in a more
realistic and vulnerable way than she was in season 1. Fleabag's relationship with the viewer is
strongly affected when we discover that Fleabag is partly and indirectly responsible for Boo's.
At that point, the series also changes from a comical and perverse to a dramatic and vulnerable
mood. This change in tone is only possible due to the ongoing relationship between Fleabag and
the viewer. Self-reflexivity's impact on the mood of the series gives it a dramatic role, rather
than a merely comical effect.

BREAKING-THE-FOURTH-WALL OF A WOMAN’S INNER WORLD

Introducing the layer of an ongoing relationship between Fleabag and the viewer
has a phenomenological impact on the series. The device not only provides narrative
information, such as background information and commentary, which makes the
storytelling much more efficient but also shapes the experiential engagement of the
spectator. The first consequence of breaking-the-fourth-wall, and Fleabag's stylistic use
of the device, relates to the dissolving of the boundaries of intimacy and privacy
between character and viewer. The viewer is immersed and in close physical proximity
12
Revista Tropos: Comunicação, Sociedade e Cultura, v.9, nº1, edição de Julho de 2020
to Fleabag's character. This idea of immersion is notably exemplified in the first sex
scene in episode 1. In that scene, Fleabag is talking to the viewer on a close-up shot
while engaging in sex. By acting out the scene with physical proximity, Fleabag
achieves a dissolution of the boundaries related to intimacy and privacy. The camera
placement and the dramatic interaction between Waller-Bridge and the camera break the
boundaries of privacy. When breaking-the-fourth-wall occurs, the camera films in a
tighter framing, and often moves closer to her just before a moment of self-reflexivity.
The sarcasm and darkness of the genre come, in part, from the phenomenological appeal
of Fleabag's facial expressions and the close focal distance and actual physical
proximity of the camera to her. Even though darkness has a symbolic sense related to
the tone of the series, it is also, in part, an authentic assessment of Fleabag. When
compared to the series Miranda (which shares topics, themes, and concepts with
Fleabag), Fleabag is filmed in a more cinematic way, with less light and more contrast,
in opposition to the brighter and more evenly lit Miranda. Fleabag's cinematic style,
insofar as camera placement and lighting, results in a more definite phenomenological
appeal. Fleabag's body, facial expressions, clothes, and all the materiality of the mise-
en-scène impact on the meanings and emotions in the series (cinematographer – Tony
Miller; director – Harry Bradbeer).
Even though the other characters cannot hear or see Fleabag's interactions with
the viewer, she usually interacts with the viewer intimately, whispering words, or subtly
looking into the camera. She does not seem to whisper or be subtle due to any concerns
related to the other characters but simply to create a sense of intimacy, privacy, and
exclusivity with the viewer that relates to a phenomenological appeal of her character.
This idea suggests that the meanings and emotions perceived by viewers are not a mere
result of verbal information or actions but the sense of physical proximity, the sensory
modalities of smell, touch temperate, and pain, and other layers of sensory experience.
Fleabag shapes the ongoing relationship with the viewer through physical proximity
with the camera, the modulation of her voice, but also through the presentation of her
body in an intimate way, her sexual desire, and the texture of her skin.
The second effect, or result, of Fleabag's breaking-the-fourth-wall, is the
materialization of Fleabag's inner thoughts, desires, emotions, and feelings through

13
Revista Tropos: Comunicação, Sociedade e Cultura, v.9, nº1, edição de Julho de 2020
verbalized content and her facial expressions. Waller-Bridge's decision to write the
series in a way that continuously breaks the fourth-wall results in a living portrait of
Fleabag's inner anxieties and her self-reflection on her own identity. Even though
Fleabag's experience in the series is individual, private and unique, and does not
necessarily represent all the spectrum of experiences that someone can have in a
contemporary urban world, it certainly sheds some light on the part of what that
experience. Even though Fleabag's inner experience is not fully comprehensive of a
woman's inner experience in a contemporary urban world, it is still significant and
representative. In that sense, Fleabag's breaking-the-fourth-wall has a phenomenal
appeal related to understanding someone's experience in today's world at a level that
goes beyond what can be represented in a narrative with, exclusively, externalized
information.
To an extent, this resonates with the idea of masks that we find in literature,
where self-reflexivity is often practiced. In Clarice Lispector's work, for instance, most
notably in The Hour of the Star (1977), we have the idea of wearing masks as a way to
present ourselves in social situations. Masks have been used abundantly in the theater
too and have a strong relationship with modernism in that they indicate profound duality
in a character's personality – a tension between internal and external existence, between
a private and a social self (SHEPPARD, 2001). With Fleabag, breaking-the-fourth-wall
reveals Fleabag's real face, the removal of the mask, the exposed truth. Other series
make use of breaking-the-fourth-wall and, yet, the social masks are not necessarily
revealed, and the inner thoughts and emotions of a character are not necessarily exposed
in front of the other characters. With Dexter (2006-2013, James Manos Jr.), for instance,
we know the truth because of Dexter's commentary/narration and because of his actions
in different social contexts. When Dexter is interacting with other characters, the fourth-
wall is not broken as it is in Fleabag, viewers only hear Dexter's thoughts through his
commentary/narration. Something similar happens with House of Cards (2013-2018,
Beau Willimon), although in this case, the fourth-wall is broken visually but mainly
when other characters are not present in a scene. With Fleabag, a paradox occurs when
the removal of the social mask in front of the other characters happens at a dimension

14
Revista Tropos: Comunicação, Sociedade e Cultura, v.9, nº1, edição de Julho de 2020
that goes unnoticed by the other characters and allows Fleabag to feel safe and in
control.
Self-reflexivity and breaking-the-fourth-wall can be a natural response in
contemporary media to the complexity of individual experiences and identities outside
the grand narrative that marked much of television production in the United States and
the United Kingdom until the 1990s (NÖTH and BISHARA). In a sense, it can be
considered that cable, streaming, and the internet came to fragment the media landscape
and multiply the overall demand for content. Simultaneously, contemporary societies
have also evolved towards more complex and nuanced values and beliefs that have
placed more freedom on individuals but also more figuring out of those complexities
and how it shapes our identities. Fleabag's extensive use of self-reflexivity and
breaking-the-fourth-wall seems then a useful way to deal with the complexities of
contemporary life. For viewers, it becomes an integral layer of their experience of the
series and way to create cinematic immersion and dramatic interest, which has become
increasingly common in the New Golden, or Platinum, Age of Television
(BIANCULLI).

REFERENCES

BIANCULLI, David. The platinum age of television: from I Love Lucy to the
Walking Dead, how TV became terrific. New York: Doubleday, 2016.

CALDWELL, John. Screen practice and conglomeration: how reflexivity and

conglomeration fuel each other. In: KOLER, Robert. Film and media studies. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2008.

GARDNER, Lyn. Fleabag – Edinburgh festival 2013 review. The Guardian. Published
on Wed 21 Aug 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2013/aug/21/fleabag-
edinburgh-festival-2013-review

HINCKLEY, Jaren. Performance anxiety: Constantin Stanislavski's concept of public

solitude. In: College Music Symposium, vol. 48, 2008, pp. 124–130. JSTOR.
www.jstor.org/stable/25664813.

LIMOGES, Jean-Marc. The gradable effects of self-reflexivity on aesthetic illusion in

cinema. In: WOLF, Werner; BANTLEON, Katharina; THOSS, Jeff. Metareference
across media: theory and case studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2009.
15
Revista Tropos: Comunicação, Sociedade e Cultura, v.9, nº1, edição de Julho de 2020
LISPECTOR, Clarice. The hour of the star. Manchester: Carcanet, 1986.

SHEPPARD, Anthony. Revealing masks. Los Angeles: University of California Press,

2001.

WOLF, Werner. Is there a metareferential turn, and if so, how can it be explained?. In:
WOLF, Werner. The metareferential turn in contemporary arts and media: forms,
functions, attempts at explanation. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2011.

NÖTH, Winfried; and BISHARA, Nina. Self-reference in the media: the semiotic
framework. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007.

Recebido em 02 de fevereiro de 2020

Aprovado em 27 de fevereiro de 2020

16
Revista Tropos: Comunicação, Sociedade e Cultura, v.9, nº1, edição de Julho de 2020