Introduction powerful generators of false consciousness.This suspicion extends in some cases into a fundamental suspicion of the medium itself:Walter Benjamin's indict- ment of the film as a factor in'distraction'of the viewer has been particularly influential.20 But deconstruction or other forms of refusal to accept complicity are not likely to result in traffic jams in the multiplex car park or substantial underwriting from the producers.Consequently,many commentators have favoured the Shakespearean films of such directors as Derek Jarman (The Tempest,1979)or Christine Edzard(As You Like It,1992),who have refused to make commercial success a priority.Orson Welles's problematic relationship with the established formulas of filming and the business practices of the indus- try has resulted in his being posthumously recruited as an early postmodernist. Kenneth Branagh's whole-hearted participation in the marketplace has probably contributed to a tendency for his films to be discussed in terms of their cultural politics as much as (or rather than)according to any technical or aesthetic measure.Alternative sources of finance,often including government grants(in Europe but not in the USA)or co-production deals with television'arts'produc- ers,have supported such projects as Prospero's Books(199)by a director(Peter Greenaway)who professes no interest in the popular cinema.There is also an 'alternative'world of Shakespeare on film beyond even the art-houses,inhabited by what Richard Burt identifies as'queer'Shakespeare.21 For better or worse,Shakespearean films continue to appear in the multiplexes and on the shelves of the video stores.Since the early I9Sos the revolution in home video has made most(if not all)of the sound-era Shakespeare films widely available,not least to the scholars who used to hunt down showings in film clubs and revival houses,or arrange to watch them in the study rooms of libraries and archives. It is probably as much of a mistake to ask whether 'film'can do justice to Shakespeare'as to reproach'Shakespeare'with being inappropriate material for film'.Neither are stable entities,reducible to a simple set of definitions,but two bundles of techniques and opportunities that may be mixed together with more or less enjoyable and impressive results.We can no more pronounce that Hamlet (for example)essentially means one thing or another,and that a particular film fails to capture this quality,than we can object that Shakespearean drama jeop- ardises essentially filmic virtues.Nor are film'and 'Shakespeare'the same in every 'territory'mapped out by distributors.Moreover,a director,actor or film might be ignored in one country and revered in another,just as a play may have a resonance in(say)Russia,that it lacks elsewhere.On the other hand,we can identify the intentions of writers and directors or the behaviour of larger groups (production companies,their publicists,audiences)by reference to the texts they started from and the congruence of the results with interpretations in circulation when the film was made.The audiences appealed to or implied in the films are 9
powerful generators of false consciousness. This suspicion extends in some cases into a fundamental suspicion of the medium itself: Walter Benjamin’s indictment of the film as a factor in ‘distraction’ of the viewer has been particularly influential.20 But deconstruction or other forms of refusal to accept complicity are not likely to result in traffic jams in the multiplex car park or substantial underwriting from the producers. Consequently, many commentators have favoured the Shakespearean films of such directors as Derek Jarman (The Tempest, 1979) or Christine Edzard (As You Like It, 1992), who have refused to make commercial success a priority. Orson Welles’s problematic relationship with the established formulas of filming and the business practices of the industry has resulted in his being posthumously recruited as an early postmodernist. Kenneth Branagh’s whole-hearted participation in the marketplace has probably contributed to a tendency for his films to be discussed in terms of their cultural politics as much as (or rather than) according to any technical or aesthetic measure. Alternative sources of finance, often including government grants (in Europe but not in the USA) or co-production deals with television ‘arts’ producers, have supported such projects as Prospero’s Books (1991) by a director (Peter Greenaway) who professes no interest in the popular cinema. There is also an ‘alternative’ world of Shakespeare on filmbeyond even the art-houses, inhabited by what Richard Burt identifies as ‘queer’ Shakespeare.21 For better or worse, Shakespearean films continue to appear in the multiplexes and on the shelves of the video stores. Since the early 1980s the revolution in home video has made most (if not all) of the sound-era Shakespeare films widely available, not least to the scholars who used to hunt down showings in film clubs and revival houses, or arrange to watch them in the study rooms of libraries and archives. It is probably as much of a mistake to ask whether ‘film’ can do justice to ‘Shakespeare’ as to reproach ‘Shakespeare’ with being inappropriate material for ‘film’. Neither are stable entities, reducible to a simple set of definitions, but two bundles of techniques and opportunities that may be mixed together with more or less enjoyable and impressive results. We can no more pronounce that Hamlet (for example) essentially means one thing or another, and that a particular film fails to capture this quality, than we can object that Shakespearean drama jeopardises essentially filmic virtues. Nor are ‘film’ and ‘Shakespeare’ the same in every ‘territory’ mapped out by distributors. Moreover, a director, actor or film might be ignored in one country and revered in another, just as a play may have a resonance in (say) Russia, that it lacks elsewhere. On the other hand, we can identify the intentions of writers and directors or the behaviour of larger groups (production companies, their publicists, audiences) by reference to the texts they started from and the congruence of the results with interpretations in circulation when the film was made. The audiences appealed to or implied in the films are Introduction 9
RUSSELL JACKSON an important object of study,but the same arguments turn up in widely differ- ent social and political contexts.Few would argue with a director who declares 'If you're making a Shakespeare film for a contemporary audience,you have to make sure that they don't get bored.'Many would have echoed the anxiety of a prospective producer offered a Merchant of Venice project:'It is impossible to use Shakespeare's exact words in a film that will be two hours long.It is ridicu- lous and absurd and will at best end up as nothing but a literary experiment. Such experiments are impossible now,when we can make at best only forty-two films a year.'The first of these statements is by Richard Loncraine,co-director of a Richard Ill set in the context of 193os fascism,and the second by Dr Josef Goebbels,responding in 1944 to a proposal by the director Veit Harlan.22 The producers and directors of Shakespeare films-like any others-gamble on their sense of what the viewing public is used to,and what (all being well)it will find a welcome surprise.This is as true of the varieties of 'alternative' cinema as of the mainstream.There will always be movies that address their audience by saying 'You thought Shakespeare was like this-well,he is and we've captured it on film.'There are also,at the end of cinema's first century,plenty that say 'You didn't think Shakespeare could be like this,did you? NOTES I On the business of Hollywood in the 'classic'period,see Thomas Cripps, Hollywood's High Noon.Moviemaking and Society before Television (Baltimore, 1997),which includes an invaluable Bibliographical Essay'.An incisive recent account of the screenwriter's way of life is John Gregory Dunne,Monster.Living off the Big Screen (New York,1997).Tom Dardis's Some Time in the Sun (New York,1976)deals with the Hollywood years'of Fitzgerald,Faulkner,Huxley and other authors. 2 Michael Bristol,Big-Time Shakespeare (London,1996),p.Io1.The context is a dis- cussion of the reception of Kenneth Branagh's Henry V.See also Barbara Hodgdon, The Shakespeare Trade.Performances and Appropriations (Philadelphia,1998). 3 Quoted by William Uricchio and Roberta E.Pearson,Reframing Culture,the Case of the Vitagraph Ouality Films (Princeton,New Jersey,1993),p.5o.Sce also the works by Robert Hamilton Ball and John Collick listed in 'Further reading',pp.314-17 below. 4 In 1999 The British Film Institute released Silent Shakespeare,a video transfer of cight early films in its collection.See below,Filmography',p.318. 5 Luke McKernan and Olwen Terris,eds.,Walking Shadows.Shakespeare in the National Film and Television Archive (London,1994),p.5. 6 Gade's Hamlet has been widely discussed:see Ann Thompson's essay in Lynda E. Boose and Richard Burt,eds.,Shakespeare,the Movie.Popularising the Plays on Film, TV and Video(London,1998),and J.Lawrence Guntner's chapter below.On the other films the best sources are Robert Hamilton Ball,Shakespeare on Silent Film (London, 1986)and the notes in Kenneth S.Rothwell and Annabelle Henkin Melzer's Shakespeare on Screen:an International Filmography and Videography (London, 1990).Othello is currently available on video in a badly hacked version(at least thirty IO
an important object of study, but the same arguments turn up in widely different social and political contexts. Few would argue with a director who declares ‘If you’re making a Shakespeare film for a contemporary audience, you have to make sure that they don’t get bored.’ Many would have echoed the anxiety of a prospective producer offered a Merchant of Venice project: ‘It is impossible to use Shakespeare’s exact words in a film that will be two hours long. It is ridiculous and absurd and will at best end up as nothing but a literary experiment. Such experiments are impossible now, when we can make at best only forty-two films a year.’ The first of these statements is by Richard Loncraine, co-director of a Richard III set in the context of 1930s fascism, and the second by Dr Josef Goebbels, responding in 1944 to a proposal by the director Veit Harlan. 22 The producers and directors of Shakespeare films – like any others – gamble on their sense of what the viewing public is used to, and what (all being well) it will find a welcome surprise. This is as true of the varieties of ‘alternative’ cinema as of the mainstream. There will always be movies that address their audience by saying ‘You thought Shakespeare was like this – well, he is and we’ve captured it on film.’ There are also, at the end of cinema’s first century, plenty that say ‘You didn’t think Shakespeare could be like this, did you?’ NOTES 1 On the business of Hollywood in the ‘classic’ period, see Thomas Cripps, Hollywood’s High Noon. Moviemaking and Society before Television (Baltimore, 1997), which includes an invaluable ‘Bibliographical Essay’. An incisive recent account of the screenwriter’s way of life is John Gregory Dunne, Monster. Living off the Big Screen (New York, 1997). Tom Dardis’s Some Time in the Sun (New York, 1976) deals with the ‘Hollywood years’ of Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Huxley and other authors. 2 Michael Bristol, Big-Time Shakespeare (London, 1996), p. 101. The context is a discussion of the reception of Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V. See also Barbara Hodgdon, The Shakespeare Trade. Performances and Appropriations (Philadelphia, 1998). 3 Quoted by William Uricchio and Roberta E. Pearson, Reframing Culture, the Case of the Vitagraph Quality Films (Princeton, New Jersey, 1993), p. 50. See also the works by Robert Hamilton Ball and John Collick listed in ‘Further reading’, pp. 314–17 below. 4 In 1999 The British Film Institute released Silent Shakespeare, a video transfer of eight early films in its collection. See below, ‘Filmography’, p. 318. 5 Luke McKernan and Olwen Terris, eds., Walking Shadows. Shakespeare in the National Film and Television Archive (London, 1994), p. 5. 6 Gade’s Hamlet has been widely discussed: see Ann Thompson’s essay in Lynda E. Boose and Richard Burt, eds., Shakespeare, the Movie. Popularising the Plays on Film, TV and Video (London, 1998), and J. Lawrence Guntner’s chapter below. On the other films the best sources are Robert Hamilton Ball, Shakespeare on Silent Film (London, 1986) and the notes in Kenneth S. Rothwell and Annabelle Henkin Melzer’s Shakespeare on Screen: an International Filmography and Videography (London, 1990). Othello is currently available on video in a badly hacked version (at least thirty russell jackson 10
Introduction minutes appear to have been cut from the original running time)but this may be all that survives. 7 See David Puttnam,with Neil Watson,The Undeclared War.The Struggle for Control of the World's Film Industry (London,1997).On the British film industry in relation to the world markets see also James Park,British Cinema.The Lights That Failed (London,1990),and Alexander Walker,Hollywood,England.The British Film Industry in the 196os (London,1974). 8 On Macbeth see Laurence Olivier,On Acting (London,1986),pp.213-14,and Charles Drazin,The Finest Years:British Cinema of the 194os (London,1998),who relates it to the history of Two Cities Films and Olivier's earlier projects(p.39).The company's major films had averaged a cost of fzoo,ooo-300,oo0,with Henry V break- ing a record at f35o,oo0.Dallas Bower,a prime mover in the making of Henry V,dis- cusses the financing of this and other films in Brian McFarlane,ed.,An Autobiograpby of British Cinema (London,1997),pp.80-4. 9 Roger Manvell,The Film of Hamlet',The Penguin Film Review,8(1949),16-24 p. 24 Io Zeffirelli claims that The Taming of the Shrew 'made'Sim.,and Romeo and Juliet cost S1.5m.and grossed more than $48m.(Zeffirelli.The Autobiography of Franco Zeffirelli (London,1986),p.242).Walker (Hollywood,England,pp.397-400)repeats the figure of S1.5m.for Romeo and Juliet and quotes Variety to the effect that it grossed S14.5m.in the United States. II Box-office figures here and in the following paragraphs from website: www.boxofficeguru.com. 12 Report on A Midsummer Night's Dream targeting from http://www.boxofficeguru .com/weckend.htm (14 May 1999). I3 On'niche'markets,and the configuration of the film business in the 19gos,see Martin Dale,The Movie Game.The Film Business in Britain,Europe and America (London, 1997),Justin Wyatt,High Concept.Movies and Marketing in Hollywood (Austin, Texas,1994)and Steve Neale and Murray Smith,eds.,Contemporary Hollywood Cinema (London,1998). 14 Definition of the independents'policy and films is from Wyatt,High Concept,p.96. 15 William Goldmann,Adventures in the Screen Trade.A Personal View of Hollywood and Screenriting(1983;paperback edn,London,1985),p.38:'the single most impor- tant fact,perhaps,of the entire movie industry'. 16 See Syd Field,The Screenwriter's Problem Solver (New York,1998)p.5.For a differ- ent but also influential view of commercial screenwriting,see Andrew Horton, Writing the Character-Centred Screenplay (Berkeley,CA,1994). 17 William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream Adapted for the Screen and Directed by Michael Hoffman (London,1999),p.80.Peter Brook's 1970 production of the play for the Royal Shakespeare Company was one of the first to draw on and acknowledge Jan Kott's influence:see Jay L.Halio,Shakespeare in Performance:A Midsummer Night's Dream (Manchester,1994),pp.55ff.,and J.L.Styan,The Shakespeare Revolution (Cambridge,1977),ch.11. 18 Campaign books for Welles's Othello and the Reinhardt-Dicterle Midsummer Night's Dream,Birmingham Shakespeare Library. 19 Manfred Pfister,The Theory and Analysis of Drama,translated by John Halliday (Cambridge,1988),pp.23-5. 2o Walter Benjamin,The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction',in II
minutes appear to have been cut from the original running time) but this may be all that survives. 7 See David Puttnam, with Neil Watson, The Undeclared War. The Struggle for Control of the World’s Film Industry (London, 1997). On the British film industry in relation to the world markets see also James Park, British Cinema. The Lights That Failed (London, 1990), and Alexander Walker, Hollywood, England. The British Film Industry in the 1960s (London, 1974). 8 On Macbeth see Laurence Olivier, On Acting (London, 1986), pp. 213–14, and Charles Drazin, The Finest Years: British Cinema of the 1940s (London, 1998), who relates it to the history of Two Cities Films and Olivier’s earlier projects (p. 39). The company’s major films had averaged a cost of £200,000–300,000, with Henry V breaking a record at £350,000. Dallas Bower, a prime mover in the making of Henry V, discusses the financing of this and other films in Brian McFarlane, ed.,An Autobiography of British Cinema (London, 1997), pp. 80–4. 9 Roger Manvell, ‘The Film of Hamlet’, The Penguin Film Review, 8 (1949), 16–24; p. 24 10 Zeffirelli claims that The Taming of the Shrew ‘made’ $1m., and Romeo and Juliet cost $1.5m. and grossed more than $48m. (Zeffirelli. The Autobiography of Franco Zeffirelli (London, 1986), p. 242). Walker (Hollywood, England, pp. 397–400) repeats the figure of $1.5m. for Romeo and Juliet and quotes Variety to the effect that it grossed $14.5m. in the United States. 11 Box-office figures here and in the following paragraphs from website: www.boxofficeguru.com. 12 Report on A Midsummer Night’s Dream targeting from http://www.boxofficeguru .com/weekend.htm (14 May 1999). 13 On ‘niche’ markets, and the configuration of the film business in the 1990s, see Martin Dale, The Movie Game. The Film Business in Britain, Europe and America (London, 1997), Justin Wyatt, High Concept. Movies and Marketing in Hollywood (Austin, Texas, 1994) and Steve Neale and Murray Smith, eds., Contemporary Hollywood Cinema (London, 1998). 14 Definition of the independents’ policy and films is from Wyatt, High Concept, p. 96. 15 William Goldmann, Adventures in the Screen Trade. A Personal View of Hollywood and Screenwriting (1983; paperback edn, London, 1985), p. 38: ‘the single most important fact, perhaps, of the entire movie industry’. 16 See Syd Field, The Screenwriter’s Problem Solver (New York, 1998) p. 5. For a different but also influential view of commercial screenwriting, see Andrew Horton, Writing the Character-Centred Screenplay (Berkeley, CA, 1994). 17 William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream Adapted for the Screen and Directed by Michael Hoffman (London, 1999), p. 80. Peter Brook’s 1970 production of the play for the Royal Shakespeare Company was one of the first to draw on and acknowledge Jan Kott’s influence: see Jay L. Halio, Shakespeare in Performance: A Midsummer Night’s Dream (Manchester, 1994), pp. 55ff., and J. L. Styan, The Shakespeare Revolution (Cambridge, 1977), ch. 11. 18 Campaign books for Welles’s Othello and the Reinhardt–Dieterle Midsummer Night’s Dream, Birmingham Shakespeare Library. 19 Manfred Pfister, The Theory and Analysis of Drama, translated by John Halliday (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 23–5. 20 Walter Benjamin, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, in Introduction 11
RUSSELL JACKSON Illuminations,ed.with an Introduction by Hannah Arendt,trans.by Harry Zohn (New York,1968;London,1973).The essay was first printed in German in 1936. 21 Richard Burt,Unspeakable Shaxxxspeares:Oueer Theory and American Kiddie Culture (New York,1998). 22 Richard Loncraine in'Shakespeare in the Cinema:a Directors'Forum',Cineaste,24.I (1998),48-55;p.48.Goebbels quoted by David Culbert,'Kolberg (Germany,1945): the Goebbels Diaries and Poland's Kolobrzeg today',in John Whiteclay Chambers II and David Culbert,eds.,World War ll.Film and History (New York,1996),pp.67-83; p.72. I2
Illuminations, ed. with an Introduction by Hannah Arendt, trans. by Harry Zohn (New York, 1968; London, 1973). The essay was first printed in German in 1936. 21 Richard Burt, Unspeakable Shaxxxspeares: Queer Theory and American Kiddie Culture (New York, 1998). 22 Richard Loncraine in ‘Shakespeare in the Cinema: a Directors’ Forum’, Cinéaste, 24.1 (1998), 48–55; p. 48. Goebbels quoted by David Culbert, ‘Kolberg (Germany, 1945): the Goebbels Diaries and Poland’s Kolobrzeg today’, in John Whiteclay Chambers II and David Culbert, eds., World War II. Film and History (New York, 1996), pp. 67–83; p. 72. russell jackson 12
PART 1 Adaptation and its contexts
PA RT 1 Adaptation and its contexts