《英语文学导论 An Introduction to English Literature》课程教学资源（参考资料）剑桥指南 THE CAMBRIDGE COMPAN ION TO SHAKESPEARE ON FILM，RUSSELL JACKSON

RUSSELL JACKSON Ill in 1956 the proposed Macbeth was stopped in its tracks by Rank's accoun- tants.s Roger Manvell,reviewing Hamlet on its appearance,summed up the lim- itations of a film that-like many others of the time-might well be a succes d'estime,but would never make good money outside Britain(and perhaps not even there): Like other major British pictures,this film to a certain extent labours under the weight of a calculated technique,and so loses the heart and the sweat of passion- ate feeling.Months of planning become too evident;everything seems too metic- ulous.Nevertheless,there is a nobility in the production,a desire to give everything that the studio can muster to make Shakespeare effective on the screen at a cost of half a million pounds.3 Less earnest,less self-consciously 'classic'Shakespeare films might stand a chance,but it would be a decade before they arrived. The breakthrough seemed to come with Franco Zeffirelli's The Taming of the Shrew (1966)and Romeo and Juliet(1968).Shakespeare was established in the context of popular international cinema and potentially impressive profit:in the USA alone Romeo and Juliet earned fourteen times its negative costs.(One yard- stick of box-office success is that a film should make at least two-and-a-half times the cost of making the master negative.)10 The success of Kenneth Branagh's modestly financed Henry V(S5m.negative cost)in 1989 appears to have inaugurated a new wave of confidence in Shakespearean projects,enhanced by the same director's Much Ado About Nothing(1994),which cost only $8m. to make and grossed over $22m.in the USA on its initial theatrical release.The films following immediately in the wake of these two seem not to have fared so well.Branagh's four-hour,full-length Hamlet,made for $I8m.,earned little more than $4.4m.in its first release in the US domestic market,which remains a crude but reliable index of the financial fortunes of English-language films. (Zeffirelli's 199I Hamlet grossed approximately S2o.7m.)1 By June 1999 A Midsummer Night's Dream(directed by Michael Hoffman)and an'offshoot'of The Taming of the Shrew (Ten Things I Hate About You)had recently been released,and a number of other feature-film versions of Shakespeare were either about to be released(Kenneth Branagh's musical version of Love's Labour's Lost) or in post-production(Titus Andronicus and a Hamlet set in modern-day New York).Branagh had also announced his intention of filming Macbeth and As You Like It in the near future. The general wisdom-or fervent hope-of 1999 seemed to be that the phe- nomenal successes of Baz Luhrmann's Romeo +Juliet (1996)and John Madden's romantic comedy Shakespeare in Love(1998)would enhance audience interest in the works of the playwright.In May 1999,Fox Searchlight,the distrib- utors of Hoffman's A Midsummer Night's Dream,were reported to be targeting

III in 1956 the proposed Macbeth was stopped in its tracks by Rank’s accoun￾tants.8 Roger Manvell, reviewing Hamlet on its appearance, summed up the lim￾itations of a film that – like many others of the time – might well be a succès d’estime, but would never make good money outside Britain (and perhaps not even there): Like other major British pictures, this film to a certain extent labours under the weight of a calculated technique, and so loses the heart and the sweat of passion￾ate feeling. Months of planning become too evident; everything seems too metic￾ulous. Nevertheless, there is a nobility in the production, a desire to give everything that the studio can muster to make Shakespeare effective on the screen at a cost of half a million pounds.9 Less earnest, less self-consciously ‘classic’ Shakespeare films might stand a chance, but it would be a decade before they arrived. The breakthrough seemed to come with Franco Zeffirelli’s The Taming of the Shrew (1966) and Romeo and Juliet (1968). Shakespeare was established in the context of popular international cinema and potentially impressive profit: in the USA alone Romeo and Juliet earned fourteen times its negative costs. (One yard￾stick of box-office success is that a film should make at least two-and-a-half times the cost of making the master negative.)10 The success of Kenneth Branagh’s modestly financed Henry V ($5m. negative cost) in 1989 appears to have inaugurated a new wave of confidence in Shakespearean projects, enhanced by the same director’s Much Ado About Nothing (1994), which cost only $8m. to make and grossed over $22m. in the USA on its initial theatrical release. The films following immediately in the wake of these two seem not to have fared so well. Branagh’s four-hour, full-length Hamlet, made for $18m., earned little more than $4.4m. in its first release in the US domestic market, which remains a crude but reliable index of the financial fortunes of English-language films. (Zeffirelli’s 1991 Hamlet grossed approximately $20.7m.)11 By June 1999 A Midsummer Night’s Dream (directed by Michael Hoffman) and an ‘offshoot’ of The Taming of the Shrew (Ten Things I Hate About You) had recently been released, and a number of other feature-film versions of Shakespeare were either about to be released (Kenneth Branagh’s musical version of Love’s Labour’s Lost) or in post-production (Titus Andronicus and a Hamlet set in modern-day New York). Branagh had also announced his intention of filming Macbeth and As You Like It in the near future. The general wisdom – or fervent hope – of 1999 seemed to be that the phe￾nomenal successes of Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo
Juliet (1996) and John Madden’s romantic comedy Shakespeare in Love (1998) would enhance audience interest in the works of the playwright. In May 1999, Fox Searchlight, the distrib￾utors of Hoffman’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, were reported to be targeting russell jackson 4

Introduction 'mature females'in its initial US theatrical release,hoping that their own 'roman- tic comedy'would benefit from that audience's lack of interest in the much- hyped Star Wars 'prequel'.12 What is always hoped for though is the all-important shift from one section of the market to another,the crossover that can move a Shakespeare film out of the 'niche'or (worse)art-house sector.If a project has cost relatively little to produce (as has been the case with most Shakespeare films)but turns out to have the broad appeal that justifies increased distribution,the investors have been blessed with good fortune.Luhrmann's Romeo +Juliet,with its youth appeal and Leonardo DiCaprio as Romeo,must have seemed like a winner from an early stage.Although its budget was a rela- tively modest $14.5m.,it was given the 'wide'opening regularly employed with much bigger films:the distributors opened it on 1,276 screens in the USA,gross- ing over SIIm.in the first weekend.(In the same season Branagh's Hamlet opened on three screens initially,and made only S148,oo0 in its first weekend, although more cinemas showed it and more money was made in subsequent weeks.)If the money spent on a film has been commensurate with even a modest degree of box-office success-over Srom.,say-and it still remains stubbornly in its niche,no one will be made rich by it,but nor will they be surprised.The sums quoted above should be put in the perspective of the really big earners and spend- ers:setting aside really high concept'and 'summer blockbuster'films,a popular comedy might reach nine figures on its first release(Mrs Doubtfire,$219,195,o5) and an earnest,'quality'drama can edge into the same league(Schindler's List, S96,060,353).Revenue from video rentals and sales may provide some comfort- Shakespeare films have a long shelf-life at least in the educational market-but the better part of these profits is often mortgaged in advance to pay for the making of a low-to-middle budget film.13 Some unusual angle on the material,and attractive or quirky casting-usually combining Hollywood stars with actors of recognised'classical'theatre back- ground -seem indispensable for an acceptable degree of success with Shakespeare in the popular cinema.But modest budgets do bring with them a welcome freedom from the industry's grosser absurdities and constraints.As one American actor remarked to me while working on a Shakespeare film,'It's nice to know that no one in an office somewhere is going to say,"Hey,this is boring. Let's blow up a building."At the same time,these films(like any others)are likely to be dependent on international funding,and consequently answerable to the suggestions,if not diktats,of producers with an eye on the US market.The 'independent'distributors in Hollywood,such as Miramax,invest mainly in rel- atively low-budget films,often made outside the USA.The movies are typified by their'attention to theme,character relationships and social relevance'and tar- geted at a market somewhere between the art-house and the'mainstream'.They set themselves apart from the simplifications and marketing orientation of the

‘mature females’ in its initial US theatrical release, hoping that their own ‘roman￾tic comedy’ would benefit from that audience’s lack of interest in the much￾hyped Star Wars ‘prequel’.12 What is always hoped for though is the all-important shift from one section of the market to another, the crossover that can move a Shakespeare film out of the ‘niche’ or (worse) art-house sector. If a project has cost relatively little to produce (as has been the case with most Shakespeare films) but turns out to have the broad appeal that justifies increased distribution, the investors have been blessed with good fortune. Luhrmann’s Romeo
Juliet, with its youth appeal and Leonardo DiCaprio as Romeo, must have seemed like a winner from an early stage. Although its budget was a rela￾tively modest $14.5m., it was given the ‘wide’ opening regularly employed with much bigger films: the distributors opened it on 1,276 screens in the USA, gross￾ing over $11m. in the first weekend. (In the same season Branagh’s Hamlet opened on three screens initially, and made only $148,000 in its first weekend, although more cinemas showed it and more money was made in subsequent weeks.) If the money spent on a film has been commensurate with even a modest degree of box-office success – over $10m., say – and it still remains stubbornly in its niche, no one will be made rich by it, but nor will they be surprised. The sums quoted above should be put in the perspective of the really big earners and spend￾ers: setting aside really ‘high concept’ and ‘summer blockbuster’ films, a popular comedy might reach nine figures on its first release (Mrs Doubtfire, $219,195,051) and an earnest, ‘quality’ drama can edge into the same league (Schindler’s List, $96,060,353). Revenue from video rentals and sales may provide some comfort – Shakespeare films have a long shelf-life at least in the educational market – but the better part of these profits is often mortgaged in advance to pay for the making of a low-to-middle budget film.13 Some unusual angle on the material, and attractive or quirky casting – usually combining Hollywood stars with actors of recognised ‘classical’ theatre back￾ground – seem indispensable for an acceptable degree of success with Shakespeare in the popular cinema. But modest budgets do bring with them a welcome freedom from the industry’s grosser absurdities and constraints. As one American actor remarked to me while working on a Shakespeare film, ‘It’s nice to know that no one in an office somewhere is going to say, “Hey, this is boring. Let’s blow up a building.”’ At the same time, these films (like any others) are likely to be dependent on international funding, and consequently answerable to the suggestions, if not diktats, of producers with an eye on the US market. The ‘independent’ distributors in Hollywood, such as Miramax, invest mainly in rel￾atively low-budget films, often made outside the USA. The movies are typified by their ‘attention to theme, character relationships and social relevance’ and tar￾geted at a market somewhere between the art-house and the ‘mainstream’. They set themselves apart from the simplifications and marketing orientation of the Introduction 5

RUSSELL JACKSON high concept'film.Release on video provides one element of a film's revenue, but it is the initial theatrical release in the USA-the attraction of a large cinema- going audience,often on the first weekend-that is usually taken as indicative of a film's financial success.The situation is not necessarily or indeed usually one of conflict between writers or directors and dollar-hungry 'suits':the makers of films want to have their work seen by as many people as possible,and the pro- ducers may have artistically valid suggestions to make.However,given William Goldmann's adage that in Hollywood 'NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING',it is really one informed guess that is being pitted against another.5 Compromise in the direction of sentimentality (especially in the ending)and characterisation (only certain kinds of complexity being thought acceptable at a given time)can entail a film's being refashioned to an overall pattern known to find favour. 'Buddy'movies,tales of personal triumph over adversity and heart-warming cel- ebrations of a vaguely defined sense of communality,are more likely than search- ing analysis of any kind. Participation in the marketplace entails a degree of compromise with what the potential purchaser is known to want.Definitions of the viable commercial film have usually been in terms of character,story and duration:attractive,interest- ing people will encounter difficulties and overcome them,probably making allies and fending off adversaries,and take something less than two hours to do so. Although the gurus of mainstream screenplay-writing vary in their recom- mended strategies,there is general agreement that what sell best in the USA(and consequently in most markets worldwide)are stories containingideas rather than ideas turned into stories.16 Shakespeare films-even of the tragedies-are not immune to the cruder Hollywood imperatives.The title character-a producer- in Robert Altman's satire The Player(1992)provides a list:'Certain elements we need to market a film successfully...Suspense,laughter,violence,hope,heart, nudity,sex,happy endings-mainly happy endings.'In the academic study of Shakespeare happy endings,together with anything else that might smooth the path of the plays'characters,have long been out of favour.(So that Branagh's Much Ado,for example,consigns its characters to happiness more readily than most recent critical readings or stage productions of the play have done.) Moreover,dramatic 'character',constructed on a psychologising basis in the manner of Stanislavsky and his heirs,has been treated with suspicion as an unhis- torical imposition from the popular theatre and cinema.Publicity statements about characters and their 'journey'through the play/film tend to be cast in terms of modern self-improvement literature.Michele Pfeiffer,for example,observes in a note to the script of Michael Hoffman's A Midsummer Night's Dream(1999) that Titania's affair with Oberon is'somewhat tempestuous',and that'a rela- tionship with Bottom is very liberating in its simplicity'-an analysis innocent (like the film itself)of the darker imaginings that have haunted academic criticism 6

‘high concept’ film.14 Release on video provides one element of a film’s revenue, but it is the initial theatrical release in the USA – the attraction of a large cinema￾going audience, often on the first weekend – that is usually taken as indicative of a film’s financial success. The situation is not necessarily or indeed usually one of conflict between writers or directors and dollar-hungry ‘suits’: the makers of films want to have their work seen by as many people as possible, and the pro￾ducers may have artistically valid suggestions to make. However, given William Goldmann’s adage that in Hollywood ‘nobody knows anything’, it is really one informed guess that is being pitted against another.15 Compromise in the direction of sentimentality (especially in the ending) and characterisation (only certain kinds of complexity being thought acceptable at a given time) can entail a film’s being refashioned to an overall pattern known to find favour. ‘Buddy’ movies, tales of personal triumph over adversity and heart-warming cel￾ebrations of a vaguely defined sense of communality, are more likely than search￾ing analysis of any kind. Participation in the marketplace entails a degree of compromise with what the potential purchaser is known to want. Definitions of the viable commercial film have usually been in terms of character, story and duration: attractive, interest￾ing people will encounter difficulties and overcome them, probably making allies and fending off adversaries, and take something less than two hours to do so. Although the gurus of mainstream screenplay-writing vary in their recom￾mended strategies, there is general agreement that what sell best in the USA (and consequently in most markets worldwide) are stories containing ideas rather than ideas turned into stories.16 Shakespeare films – even of the tragedies – are not immune to the cruder Hollywood imperatives. The title character – a producer – in Robert Altman’s satire The Player (1992) provides a list: ‘Certain elements we need to market a film successfully... Suspense, laughter, violence, hope, heart, nudity, sex, happy endings – mainly happy endings.’ In the academic study of Shakespeare happy endings, together with anything else that might smooth the path of the plays’ characters, have long been out of favour. (So that Branagh’s Much Ado, for example, consigns its characters to happiness more readily than most recent critical readings or stage productions of the play have done.) Moreover, dramatic ‘character’, constructed on a psychologising basis in the manner of Stanislavsky and his heirs, has been treated with suspicion as an unhis￾torical imposition from the popular theatre and cinema. Publicity statements about characters and their ‘journey’ through the play/filmtend to be cast in terms of modern self-improvement literature. Michele Pfeiffer, for example, observes in a note to the script of Michael Hoffman’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1999) that Titania’s affair with Oberon is ‘somewhat tempestuous’, and that ‘a rela￾tionship with Bottomis very liberating in its simplicity’ – an analysis innocent (like the film itself) of the darker imaginings that have haunted academic criticism russell jackson 6

Introduction and many stage productions at least since 1964,when the English translation of Jan Kott's Shakespeare our Contemporary was published.17 Even when the writer of a Shakespearean screenplay is not being threatened by the front office with the formulas of plot and characterisation prized by Hollywood and its leading players(both actors and producers),he or she is more likely to be constructing than deconstructing. It is in advertising that the Shakespeare film is likely to present itself most stri- dently in terms of the broadest attractions.Publicists(over whom the director usually has limited influence)have often striven to depict Shakespearean films as products of a familiar-and therefore welcome-kind.Thus,the campaign book for the 1956 British release of Orson Welles's Othello includes these proposals for advertising headlines: THE MIGHTY STORY OF THE TRAGIC MOOR RECREATED BY ORSON WELLES IN ALL ITS SPLENDOUR! THE STORY OF LOVE...OF ONE WHO LOVED NOT WISELY BUT TOO WELL！ SPECTACULAR DRAMA OF JEALOUSY···MURDER···RETRIBUTION! POWERFUL···MAGNIFICENT,··ELECTRIFYING.·.SPELLBINDER! BRILLIANT.··.FABULOUS·..DRAMATIC SENSATION In a similar vein,and printing selected words from the reviews in extra large type, a flyer for the British release of Richard Loncraine and Ian McKellen's Richard Ill in996 promised an 'EXCITING.·.ADVENTUROUS.··THRILLER'(a description not far removed from its makers'aims). The tactics adopted for an appeal to a more sophisticated audience are subtler. In 1935 the US campaign book for Max Reinhardt's A Midsummer Night's Dream offered a strategy'designed exclusively for premiere engagements'sug- gesting ways in which the film could be turned into a social and cultural event: The exploitation of THE DREAM should follow the same unfailing Reinhardt formula.Get the best people interested.Socialites and cultural leaders gladly lend the prestige of their names to promote Reinhardt and Shakespeare.' Cinema managers were urged to'sELL ENTERTAINMENT by direct advertis- ing and publicity.SELL CULTURE by under-cover propaganda,personal sales work and indirect and inferential advertising and publicity.'The British public- ity office also made much of the star-power of the film and its lavish production values,and urged the headlining of Reinhardt and Shakespeare,'the greatest money-names of the theatre'.This theatrical pedigree was duly emphasised in the advertising together with the listing of the stars and the usual disclosure of behind-the-scenes facts('More than 600,oo0 yards of cellophane were used for the ballets;Titania's train required 9o,ooo yards of gossamer strands alone). Similar material,with varying degrees of stridency,could be cited for most of

and many stage productions at least since 1964, when the English translation of Jan Kott’s Shakespeare our Contemporary was published.17 Even when the writer of a Shakespearean screenplay is not being threatened by the front office with the formulas of plot and characterisation prized by Hollywood and its leading players (both actors and producers), he or she is more likely to be constructing than deconstructing. It is in advertising that the Shakespeare film is likely to present itself most stri￾dently in terms of the broadest attractions. Publicists (over whom the director usually has limited influence) have often striven to depict Shakespearean films as products of a familiar – and therefore welcome – kind. Thus, the campaign book for the 1956 British release of Orson Welles’s Othello includes these proposals for advertising headlines: the mighty story of the tragic moor recreated by orson welles in all its splendour! the story of love . . . of one who loved not wisely but too well! spectacular drama of jealousy . . . murder . . . retribution! powerful . . . magnificent . . . electrifying . . . spellbinder! brilliant . . . . fabulous . . . dramatic sensation In a similar vein, and printing selected words from the reviews in extra large type, a flyer for the British release of Richard Loncraine and Ian McKellen’s Richard III in 1996 promised an ‘exciting . . . adventurous . . . thriller’ (a description not far removed from its makers’ aims). The tactics adopted for an appeal to a more sophisticated audience are subtler. In 1935 the US campaign book for Max Reinhardt’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream offered a strategy ‘designed exclusively for premiere engagements’ sug￾gesting ways in which the film could be turned into a social and cultural event: ‘The exploitation of The Dream should follow the same unfailing Reinhardt formula. Get the best people interested. Socialites and cultural leaders gladly lend the prestige of their names to promote Reinhardt and Shakespeare.’ Cinema managers were urged to ‘sell entertainment by direct advertis￾ing and publicity. Sell culture by under-cover propaganda, personal sales work and indirect and inferential advertising and publicity.’ The British public￾ity office also made much of the star-power of the film and its lavish production values, and urged the headlining of Reinhardt and Shakespeare, ‘the greatest money-names of the theatre’. This theatrical pedigree was duly emphasised in the advertising together with the listing of the stars and the usual disclosure of behind-the-scenes facts (‘More than 600,000 yards of cellophane were used for the ballets; Titania’s train required 90,000 yards of gossamer strands alone’).18 Similar material, with varying degrees of stridency, could be cited for most of Introduction 7

RUSSELL JACKSON the Shakespearean films.The sums invested are relatively small and,as with dis- tribution,no great outlay is hazarded unless a film looks as though it might'cross over'.These are films that it is hard to label as sequels(no one has yet attempted a Wars of the Roses sequence of feature films)or to advertise in the terms used for Lethal Weapon IV on its British release in 1998:The faces you love,the action you expect.'At different stages in its progress from preparation to studio floor, and through post-production to its audience,a film has to be presented to a suc- cession of potential buyers:first to the major distributors,then by them to the distributors in different territories,who in turn must sell it to their own clients, the exhibitors.The promotional films used for this then give way to trailers for theatrical use,which are put together from available footage by editors and direc- tors who have no connection with the original work.Direct reference is less likely to be made now than in the 193os to the high cultural status of Shakespeare or of the period the film is set in.The identity of the principal actors and the scale of the production are usually the main selling points.Love interest(or sex)and action may be emphasised,and the film's director may even have to argue strongly for the exclusion of particular images or scenes that would take away the element of surprise when the movie itself is shown. Films made from Shakespeare's plays exist at a meeting-point between conflict- ing cultural assumptions,rival theories and practices of performance,and-at the most basic level-the uneasy and overlapping systems of theatre and cinema. As Manfred Pfister points out in TheTheory and Analysis of Drama,film par- takes of the nature of narrative as well as dramatic texts.1 Beyond this,the dra- matic form of the originals favours metadramatic devices,makes use of techniques akin to (and absorbed in)post-Brechtian 'alienation',and returns theatre to a presentational mode that predates most of the sophisticated literary narratives that cinema emulates.There will always be a conflict of techniques as well as of value systems when these Renaissance plays form the pretext for movies. The relationship between Shakespearean films aimed at the mass market and the academic study of the plays has always been tense.In the early decades of the century,film-makers anticipated the accusation of desecrating what were routinely treated as secular scriptures.More recently,the interrogation of the cultural functions of the plays themselves and their interpretation has resulted in some directors being taken to task for harnessing one hegemony(Shakespeare as a figurehead of conservative anglocentric culture)to another(international big business).An academic disinclination to celebrate harmonies and resolu- tions has made the unifying efforts of mainstream cinema suspect and stimu- lated sympathy for the determinedly avant-garde.To this can be joined the long-established distrust of the cultural politics of mass entertainment films as 8

the Shakespearean films. The sums invested are relatively small and, as with dis￾tribution, no great outlay is hazarded unless a film looks as though it might ‘cross over’. These are films that it is hard to label as sequels (no one has yet attempted a Wars of the Roses sequence of feature films) or to advertise in the terms used for Lethal Weapon IVon its British release in 1998: ‘The faces you love, the action you expect.’ At different stages in its progress from preparation to studio floor, and through post-production to its audience, a film has to be presented to a suc￾cession of potential buyers: first to the major distributors, then by them to the distributors in different territories, who in turn must sell it to their own clients, the exhibitors. The promotional films used for this then give way to trailers for theatrical use, which are put together from available footage by editors and direc￾tors who have no connection with the original work. Direct reference is less likely to be made now than in the 1930s to the high cultural status of Shakespeare or of the period the film is set in. The identity of the principal actors and the scale of the production are usually the main selling points. Love interest (or sex) and action may be emphasised, and the film’s director may even have to argue strongly for the exclusion of particular images or scenes that would take away the element of surprise when the movie itself is shown. Films made from Shakespeare’s plays exist at a meeting-point between conflict￾ing cultural assumptions, rival theories and practices of performance, and – at the most basic level – the uneasy and overlapping systems of theatre and cinema. As Manfred Pfister points out in TheTheory and Analysis of Drama, film par￾takes of the nature of narrative as well as dramatic texts.19 Beyond this, the dra￾matic form of the originals favours metadramatic devices, makes use of techniques akin to (and absorbed in) post-Brechtian ‘alienation’, and returns theatre to a presentational mode that predates most of the sophisticated literary narratives that cinema emulates. There will always be a conflict of techniques as well as of value systems when these Renaissance plays form the pretext for movies. The relationship between Shakespearean films aimed at the mass market and the academic study of the plays has always been tense. In the early decades of the century, film-makers anticipated the accusation of desecrating what were routinely treated as secular scriptures. More recently, the interrogation of the cultural functions of the plays themselves and their interpretation has resulted in some directors being taken to task for harnessing one hegemony (Shakespeare as a figurehead of conservative anglocentric culture) to another (international big business). An academic disinclination to celebrate harmonies and resolu￾tions has made the unifying efforts of mainstream cinema suspect and stimu￾lated sympathy for the determinedly avant-garde. To this can be joined the long-established distrust of the cultural politics of mass entertainment films as russell jackson 8