PREFACE At the end of the medium's first century,the cinematic repertoire had accumu- lated a fair number of films derived from (or inspired by)Shakespeare's works, and 'Shakespeare on Film'figures prominently in academic study of the drama- tist's work and its reception.The essays in this Companion represent a diversity of approaches and responses to this lively topic.The primary emphasis is on feature films-made on celluloid stock and intended primarily for theatrical dis- tribution-rather than television or video productions.(The shifting relation- ships between the dominant audio-visual media are discussed in the essays by Michele Willems and Barbara Freedman.)The films are considered as artistic achievements in themselves;in terms of the economics of the entertainment industry;in relation to film and dramatic genre;in the context of studies of the director as auteur;and with regard to broader issues of cultural politics.In this Companion several films and plays are considered by different contributors from different points of view:in particular,the various films of Hamlet,Richard Ill, Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet reappear in a variety of contexts. As'text adviser'I myself have had a hand or (in the words of the Elizabethan playwright Thomas Heywood)at least a main finger in a number of recent Shakespeare films,particularly those of Kenneth Branagh.As editor of this volume,I have not attempted to influence or alter the contributors'responses to them. R.J.,Stratford-upon-Avon May,2000 xiii
PREFACE At the end of the medium’s first century, the cinematic repertoire had accumulated a fair number of films derived from (or inspired by) Shakespeare’s works, and ‘Shakespeare on Film’ figures prominently in academic study of the dramatist’s work and its reception. The essays in this Companion represent a diversity of approaches and responses to this lively topic. The primary emphasis is on feature films – made on celluloid stock and intended primarily for theatrical distribution – rather than television or video productions. (The shifting relationships between the dominant audio-visual media are discussed in the essays by Michèle Willems and Barbara Freedman.) The films are considered as artistic achievements in themselves; in terms of the economics of the entertainment industry; in relation to film and dramatic genre; in the context of studies of the director as auteur; and with regard to broader issues of cultural politics. In this Companion several films and plays are considered by different contributors from different points of view:in particular, the various films of Hamlet, Richard III, Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet reappear in a variety of contexts. As ‘text adviser’ I myself have had a hand or (in the words of the Elizabethan playwright Thomas Heywood) at least a main finger in a number of recent Shakespeare films, particularly those of Kenneth Branagh. As editor of this volume, I have not attempted to influence or alter the contributors’ responses to them. R.J., Stratford-upon-Avon May, 2000 xiii
A NOTE ON REFERENCES Unless otherwise indicated,references to Shakespeare's plays are to the one- volume Complete Works edited by Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor(Compact Edition,Oxford,1988). xiv
A NOTE ON REFERENCES Unless otherwise indicated, references to Shakespeare’s plays are to the onevolume Complete Works edited by Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor (Compact Edition, Oxford, 1988). xiv
RUSSELL JACKSON Introduction:Shakespeare,films and the marketplace The romantic comedy Shakespeare in Love(1998)wittily puts the dramatist into the world of show business.Shakespeare's relationship with the theatre manager, Henslowe-and through him with 'the money'-is the occasion for a multitude of jokes referring to the entertainment industry of late sixteenth-century London in terms of its equivalent four hundred years later.In one moment of crisis Henslowe is even on the point of giving birth to a great cliche.The show must...'he starts,and Shakespeare completes the phrase by urging him impa- tiently to 'Go on.'The moment passes,unnoticed by either of them.The tension between the artist and the marketplace has always been a good source of humour in drama and fiction and on film,and the story is usually told in terms of the crassness of the producers and the crushed idealism of the'creative'department. This is true to the experience of many artists,not least those writers and direc- tors who worked in Hollywood at the height of the studios'powers.Writers and directors have often given accounts of their dealings with the'front office'in which the latter's functionaries figure as craven,sentimental and reactionary,a characterisation many in the industry would of course dispute. On a less personal and anecdotal level,analysts of culture are reluctant to allow that commercial films can be effectively radical.In his study of the cultu- ral politics of Shakespearean interpretation,Big-Time Shakespeare (1996), Michael Bristol ruefully observes that 'the cultural authority of corporate Shakespeare has nothing to do with ideas of any description'.Perhaps one might argue that if 'ideas'are defined less restrictively,the tension between 'Shakespeare',ideas and big business has yielded an engaging variety of cine- matic results.2 The chapters in this Companion reflect the variety of ways in which Shakespeare's unique status-both as a complex of poetic and theatrical materi- als and a cultural icon-has been married to the equally complex phenomenon of the cinema.Shakespearean films are discussed in this volume from different points of view and in different contexts:as reflections of the business and craft of film- making;in terms of cinematic and theatrical genres;as the work of particular
RUSSELL JACKSON Introduction: Shakespeare, films and the marketplace The romantic comedy Shakespeare in Love (1998) wittily puts the dramatist into the world of show business. Shakespeare’s relationship with the theatre manager, Henslowe – and through him with ‘the money’ – is the occasion for a multitude of jokes referring to the entertainment industry of late sixteenth-century London in terms of its equivalent four hundred years later. In one moment of crisis Henslowe is even on the point of giving birth to a great cliché. ‘The show must . . .’ he starts, and Shakespeare completes the phrase by urging him impatiently to ‘Go on.’ The moment passes, unnoticed by either of them. The tension between the artist and the marketplace has always been a good source of humour in drama and fiction and on film, and the story is usually told in terms of the crassness of the producers and the crushed idealism of the ‘creative’ department. This is true to the experience of many artists, not least those writers and directors who worked in Hollywood at the height of the studios’ powers. Writers and directors have often given accounts of their dealings with the ‘front office’ in which the latter’s functionaries figure as craven, sentimental and reactionary, a characterisation many in the industry would of course dispute.1 On a less personal and anecdotal level, analysts of culture are reluctant to allow that commercial films can be effectively radical. In his study of the cultural politics of Shakespearean interpretation, Big-Time Shakespeare (1996), Michael Bristol ruefully observes that ‘the cultural authority of corporate Shakespeare has nothing to do with ideas of any description’. Perhaps one might argue that if ‘ideas’ are defined less restrictively, the tension between ‘Shakespeare’, ideas and big business has yielded an engaging variety of cinematic results.2 The chapters in this Companion reflect the variety of ways in which Shakespeare’s unique status – both as a complex of poetic and theatrical materials and a cultural icon – has been married to the equally complex phenomenon of the cinema. Shakespearean films are discussed in this volume from different points of view and in different contexts: as reflections of the business and craft of filmmaking; in terms of cinematic and theatrical genres; as the work of particular 1
RUSSELL JACKSON directors;and in relation to wider issues of cultural politics.Themselves part of the history of the reception of Shakespeare's plays,the films also have a signifi- cance in any account of the aims and effects of the cinema. In fact the number of films made from Shakespeare's plays is relatively small, although the 'Shakespeare factor'in cinema has been enhanced by the numerous offshoots'-films,like Shakespeare in Love,that draw on Shakespearean material without claiming to perform any one of the plays.In the first century of moving pictures,Shakespeare's plays played an honourable but hardly domi- nant role in the development of the medium.Some forty sound films have been made of Shakespearean plays to date,but it has been estimated that during the silent'era-before synchronised dialogue complicated the business of adapting poetic drama for the screen-there were more than 4o0 films on Shakespearean subjects.These took their place in an international market unrestricted by con- siderations of language and(consequently)untroubled by the relatively archaic dialogue of the originals.Like the films of other'classics',they conferred respect- ability on their makers and distributors,while providing an easily transportable rival to the pictorial,melodramatic mode of popular theatre.As a working defi- nition of the'classic'in this context,it is hard to better that provided by an American trade paper,the Nickelodeon,in I9I: 'Classic'is here used in a rather loose and unrestricted sense,as it generally is used by adherents of the photoplay,meaning vaguely a kind of picce that is laid in a bygone era and one which aims to evoke some kind of poetic and idealistic illusion differing from that illusion of mere reality with which photoplays are ordinarily concerned.'Costume play,'historical piece,'poctic drama,'variously convey a similar idea. The story will be familiar and drawn from fiction,poetry,drama,history or the Bible,and such'photoplays'will be costly,requiring'an expensive outlay of cos- tumes and scenic effects'and'deep and careful research into the manners and customs of the era depicted'.Above all they call for a'producer'with 'the eye of an artist and the mind of a poet'.3 When this was written Shakespeare was more firmly embedded in popular culture than he is some nine decades later.The plays (or at least a few of them),heavily adapted to accommodate lavish realistic staging and show off the star actors'performances in leading roles,were a staple of actor-managers'theatre.Painters in the persistently popular narrative mode could confidently exhibit and sell works based on favourite characters,scenes and situations,and illustrated editions of the Works had their place on family bookshelves.At the same time a more earnest,less richly upholstered Shakespearean experience could be found in the touring activities of idealistic companies such as those of F.R.Benson and Ben Greet,or in the many anno- tated and more or less scholastic editions marketed for the general reader and the
directors; and in relation to wider issues of cultural politics. Themselves part of the history of the reception of Shakespeare’s plays, the films also have a signifi- cance in any account of the aims and effects of the cinema. In fact the number of films made from Shakespeare’s plays is relatively small, although the ‘Shakespeare factor’ in cinema has been enhanced by the numerous ‘offshoots’ – films, like Shakespeare in Love, that draw on Shakespearean material without claiming to perform any one of the plays. In the first century of moving pictures, Shakespeare’s plays played an honourable but hardly dominant role in the development of the medium. Some forty sound films have been made of Shakespearean plays to date, but it has been estimated that during the ‘silent’ era – before synchronised dialogue complicated the business of adapting poetic drama for the screen – there were more than 400 films on Shakespearean subjects. These took their place in an international market unrestricted by considerations of language and (consequently) untroubled by the relatively archaic dialogue of the originals. Like the films of other ‘classics’, they conferred respectability on their makers and distributors, while providing an easily transportable rival to the pictorial, melodramatic mode of popular theatre. As a working defi- nition of the ‘classic’ in this context, it is hard to better that provided by an American trade paper, the Nickelodeon, in 1911: ‘Classic’ is here used in a rather loose and unrestricted sense, as it generally is used by adherents of the photoplay, meaning vaguely a kind of piece that is laid in a bygone era and one which aims to evoke some kind of poetic and idealistic illusion differing from that illusion of mere reality with which photoplays are ordinarily concerned. ‘Costume play,’ ‘historical piece,’ ‘poetic drama,’ variously convey a similar idea. The story will be familiar and drawn from fiction, poetry, drama, history or the Bible, and such ‘photoplays’ will be costly, requiring ‘an expensive outlay of costumes and scenic effects’ and ‘deep and careful research into the manners and customs of the era depicted’. Above all they call for a ‘producer’ with ‘the eye of an artist and the mind of a poet’.3 When this was written Shakespeare was more firmly embedded in popular culture than he is some nine decades later. The plays (or at least a few of them), heavily adapted to accommodate lavish realistic staging and show off the star actors’ performances in leading roles, were a staple of actor-managers’ theatre. Painters in the persistently popular narrative mode could confidently exhibit and sell works based on favourite characters, scenes and situations, and illustrated editions of the Works had their place on family bookshelves. At the same time a more earnest, less richly upholstered Shakespearean experience could be found in the touring activities of idealistic companies such as those of F. R. Benson and Ben Greet, or in the many annotated and more or less scholastic editions marketed for the general reader and the russell jackson 2
Introduction schoolroom.Many silent Shakespeare films claim either to replicate or at least represent stage performances:such are the fragment showing Sir Herbert Beerbohm-Tree in King Jobn and the I9rI film of F.R.Benson's company on stage at Stratford-upon-Avon in scenes from Richard Ill.+Some films either emulate theatrical values while offering more convincing (or at least more port- able)equivalents of stage productions,or combine both aims with a more sensi- tive use of the new medium:subtler acting and the use of locations in the 1913 British Hamlet,with Sir Johnston Forbes-Robertson,offer a case in point. Perhaps the decisive moment in the development of Shakespeare films is reached when film-makers cease to rely on the audience's prior knowledge of plays (or even specific performances)or such extra-filmic devices as a narrator or lecturer. Luke McKernan suggests 196 as a watershed year,citing the production of a King Lear (produced by Edwin Thanhouser)and a lost Macbeth,both made in the USA.3 This increased confidence may also be reflected in the greater freedoms taken by a group of German-produced films which combine Shakespearean material with elements not to be found in the plays:Svend Gade's remarkable Hamlet of 1920,Dmitri Buchowetski's Othello(1922)with Emil Jannings and Werner Krauss and Peter Paul Felner's version of The Merchant of Venice (红923.6 Nevertheless,Shakespearean films and other'classics'were hardly a staple of the new and burgeoning cinema business:it was comedy,melodrama,the Western and the exotic historical romance that were regarded as bankable.By the I9zos the making and selling of films entailed increasingly high outlays and correspondingly high risks,and there was already an 'undeclared'trade war between the United States and Europe.?It was their prestige value or the power of a particular personality that recommended Shakespearean projects to film companies,or at least overcame their reluctance.None of the first wave of Shakespearean sound films was a financial success.The 1935 Warner Brothers' A Midsummer Night's Dream was announced as inaugurating a series to be made with its distinguished co-director,Max Reinhardt,but after its failure at the box-office nothing came of these plans.The opulent Romeo and Juliet directed by George Cukor and produced by Irving Thalberg at MGM was an expensive showcase for Thalberg's wife,Norma Shearer.Paul Czinner's British production of As You Like It,starring Elisabeth Bergner and Laurence Olivier, with sets by Oliver Messel and music by William Walton,was no more of a success,for all its lavish production values.Olivier's wartime Henry V,released in 1944,came as an early glimmer of one of the false dawns that recur in the history of the British film industry's presence in the worldwide market.The appeal of classic material performed by British(and therefore'authentic)talent was undoubtedly overestimated.The same director's Hamlet (1948)was a suc- cessful 'prestige'undertaking for the producer J.Arthur Rank,but after Richard
schoolroom. Many silent Shakespeare films claim either to replicate or at least represent stage performances: such are the fragment showing Sir Herbert Beerbohm-Tree in King John and the 1911 film of F. R. Benson’s company on stage at Stratford-upon-Avon in scenes from Richard III. 4 Some films either emulate theatrical values while offering more convincing (or at least more portable) equivalents of stage productions, or combine both aims with a more sensitive use of the new medium: subtler acting and the use of locations in the 1913 British Hamlet, with Sir Johnston Forbes-Robertson, offer a case in point. Perhaps the decisive moment in the development of Shakespeare films is reached when film-makers cease to rely on the audience’s prior knowledge of plays (or even specific performances) or such extra-filmic devices as a narrator or lecturer. Luke McKernan suggests 1916 as a watershed year, citing the production of a King Lear (produced by Edwin Thanhouser) and a lost Macbeth, both made in the USA.5 This increased confidence may also be reflected in the greater freedoms taken by a group of German-produced films which combine Shakespearean material with elements not to be found in the plays: Svend Gade’s remarkable Hamlet of 1920, Dmitri Buchowetski’s Othello (1922) with Emil Jannings and Werner Krauss and Peter Paul Felner’s version of The Merchant of Venice (1923).6 Nevertheless, Shakespearean films and other ‘classics’ were hardly a staple of the new and burgeoning cinema business: it was comedy, melodrama, the Western and the exotic historical romance that were regarded as bankable. By the 1920s the making and selling of films entailed increasingly high outlays and correspondingly high risks, and there was already an ‘undeclared’ trade war between the United States and Europe.7 It was their prestige value or the power of a particular personality that recommended Shakespearean projects to film companies, or at least overcame their reluctance. None of the first wave of Shakespearean sound films was a financial success. The 1935 Warner Brothers’ A Midsummer Night’s Dream was announced as inaugurating a series to be made with its distinguished co-director, Max Reinhardt, but after its failure at the box-office nothing came of these plans. The opulent Romeo and Juliet directed by George Cukor and produced by Irving Thalberg at MGM was an expensive showcase for Thalberg’s wife, Norma Shearer. Paul Czinner’s British production of As You Like It, starring Elisabeth Bergner and Laurence Olivier, with sets by Oliver Messel and music by William Walton, was no more of a success, for all its lavish production values. Olivier’s wartime Henry V, released in 1944, came as an early glimmer of one of the false dawns that recur in the history of the British film industry’s presence in the worldwide market. The appeal of classic material performed by British (and therefore ‘authentic’) talent was undoubtedly overestimated. The same director’s Hamlet (1948) was a successful ‘prestige’ undertaking for the producer J. Arthur Rank, but after Richard Introduction 3