Table of Contents

Introduction: Why Shakespeare? Chapter I: A theoretical approach 1.1 Definition of the key-ter s: adaptation! appropriation! representation 1." Adaptation typolo#y 1.$ The influence of politics! culture and historical back#round on the process of adaptation Chapter II: %iterature and theatre ".1 Disco&ery of Shakespearean adaptations: chronolo#y and the atic issues "." The cultural politics! cate#ori'ation criteria: fe inist! Chapter III: %iterature! fil $.1 Cine atic adaptations $.1.1. Macbeth in the adaptations of )rson Welles and *o an +olanski $.1.". %aurence )li&ier,s Hamlet adaptation $.1.$ The -ollo. Cro.n $.1./ *o eo and 0uliet adaptations $." 1raphic representations Conclusions and representations aterialist! post-colonial! (ueer

INTRODUCTION Why Shakespeare? The idea of this thesis .as born for bein# i a ultitude of (uestions! so e of .hich ay ha&e a

clear and doubtless ans.er! others re ainin# in the darkness of

ystery! but all of the

inent for the understandin# of Shakespearean adapti&e process. If one tries to

search on the internet the be#innin# of a possible (uestion: 2Is Shakespeare34! three .ords appear for in# the first three (uestions of people re#ardin# this author: Is Shakespeare #ood! #ay or real? Those .ho are interested in his .ork ha&e stopped .onderin# about the &alidity of his dra a no.adays! as he has been fully accepted as a conte porary character and author. The three (uestions pro&e that Shakespeare is re#arded as a li&in# spirit that raises natural! but co ple5 interro#ations in the his reader. Why Shakespeare? The decision to choose this topic .as related to the connections that the author ana#es to create throu#hout ti e! bet.een the past and the present. Another ediu ! .hich #a&e e the reason .as his infinite adaptability in any kind of artistic theatre! paintin# or opera. The literary critic 6rank 7er ode touched the sub8ect of Shakespeare,s lon#e&ity! in an indirect anner! talkin# about the 9ard,s essential tra#edies: ind of

opportunity to de&elop the analysis focusin# on se&eral areas such as literature! cine a!

2What! then! can Shakespearean tra#edy! on this brief &ie.! tell us about hu an ti e in an eternal .orld? It offers i a#ery of crisis! of futures e(ui&ocally offered! by prediction and by action! as actualities: as a confrontation of hu an ti e .ith other orders! and the disastrous atte pt to i pose li ited desi#ns upon the ti e of the .orld. What e er#es fro -a let is--after uch futile! illusory action--the need of patience and readiness. The ;bloody period; of )thello is the end of a life ruined by unseasonable curiosity. The illennial endin# of <acbeth! the broken apocalypse of %ear! are false endin#s! hu an periods in an eternal .orld. They are researches into death in an a#e too late for apocalypse! too
2

critical for prophecy: an a#e ore a.are that its fictions are the sel&es odels of the hu an desi#n on the .orld. 9ut it .as still an a#e .hich felt the hu an need for ends consonant .ith the past! the kind of end )thello tries to achie&e by his final speech: co plete! concordant. As usual! Shakespeare allo.s hi his tock: but he .ill not pretend that the clock does not #o for.ard.41 7er ode,s .onderful speech brin#s to li#ht the perpetual stru##le of the hu an bein# .ith the li itations of this .orld and conse(uently our eternal loss and the ine&itable a.areness of our .eaknesses. <aybe this is the e5act reason that &alid author e&en centuries after his death! lon#e&ity. Tryin# to ans.er a si ilar (uestion .hether Shakespeare should be buried or born a#ain! in relation to the idea of his conte poraneity Andr'e8 =uro.ski #a&e an interestin# ans.er: 2Shakespeare has so eti es been our conte porary and could be so in the future! but only on the condition that he is translated into the (uestions of our ti e and takes on the colour of our historical personality.4 >0ohn ?lso ! "@@/: 1ABC Analysin# his state ent! .e can conclude for the be#innin# that the *enaissance author needs to be adapted in order to beco e conte porary to another a#e in the history of the .orld! he needs to be translated to the cultural en&iron ent of his adopti&e country. Shakespeare is for all times, Shakespeare our contemporary, Shakespeare a contemporary mystery, Shakespeare for eternity and ho. .hatsoe&er .ho &alidates the dra a of Willia challen#in# bench ark of true any other phrases fro Shakespeare as bein# out of date for the akes Shakespeare! a aybe this is the lo#ical e5planation of his

theatrical scene! ti ely for the ti es in .hich .e li&e! and .hich constitutes a astership! or audacity for creators.

Shakespeare has beco e a brand! a trade ark that suits any theatrical season. Chosen especially by i portant directors or those on the rise! .ith a reputation of youn# fil akers as Tho as )ster eier! )skaras 7orsuno&as! 6eli5 Ale5a! but also by titans of the scenes such as: +eter 9rook! ?i untas Dekrosius! %e& Dodin! Declan Donnellan! *obert Wilson! Sil&iu +urcarete! Andrei erban! etc.! and critics alike! theatre critics as:
1

http:EE....#oodreads.co E(uotesE/AFF"G-.hat-then-can-shakespearean-tra#edy-on-this-brief-&ie.-tell

Stanley Wells or +aul ?d ondson! Shakespeare scholars as Willia ?lso or Andr'e8 =uro.ski! .ho co pete ore and HrealH Shakespeare. We find Shakespeare i

+oel! 0an 7ott! 0ohn

ore in the >reC disco&ery of the

ortalised e&ery.here and any.here! on the eet hi ore and

i portant scenes of the .orld or in the s all .orkshops! in a biental spaces or in cabarets! in the +apal palaces or on the ancient ruins of the .orld. We ti e! older! ne.er! #audy ore often no.adays on sta#e productions in the co pany of other play.ri#hts of his ore conte porary! classical! for in# &aluable alliances or cheap! ore. eant to shock the public and nothin#

Shakespeare has been transferred to sta#e for centuries! but in the sa e ti e his .ork re(uires to be rebuilt. Do Shakespearean representation can be considered inappropriate or ti eless! it is the sta#e director;s &ision that can be &alid or not in ter s of interest! concerns and needs of the public. Do study about the creation of the dra atic act durin# Shakespearean ti es is superfluous. In particular! the ?uropean scene is in a continual co petition to find ne. ans.ers to the old Shakespearean (uestions. The study of the e&olution of Shakespearean perfor ances in the "@th century! and it appears that in the "1st century! also re&eals a si ple truth! the connection to Willia constant eta orphosis and that e&en Shakespeare is in ana#ers ore as the reality of our days #i&es Shakespeare

incessantly ne. ar#u ents. All! directors! critics! play.ri#hts! theatre festi&als ha&e only one ai ! to de&elop the e5peri ents 8ustifyin# the de&elop ent of the theatrical art.

yth of Shakespearean dra a. This #enerates uni(ue

We are .itnessin# an e5pansion of the influence and the do ination of Shakespeare;s dra a .ithin the theatrical art in both the sho. and the critical pole ics. The authority of Willia Shakespeare as a an of the theatre and play.ri#ht is on the rise. -is philosophy ore and different or aesthetics of the perfor ance art and the theatrical art in #eneral! beco es ore interestin# not only for the dra atic .orld! but also for professionals fro

fields further surpassin# the ti e or the era in .hich he li&ed and created. This intense interest for Shakespeare is particularly i portant to discuss in pri&ate! not in s all circles! occasionally and not chaotic! but in an orderly the anner! prepared! or#anised. All ore ob&ious it beco es that this interest is not coincidental! and neither perishable.

It;s like a Hreturn to ShakespeareH to the indo itable theatrical art! a sort of post4

Shakespearean a#e. This defines a cultural pheno enon that sho.s the dedication and the unfa iliarity of the .orks of Willia .ell as any Shakespeare and Shakespearean ter inolo#y! as edia of his creation. edia based on his .orks or any adaptation of the

Shakespeare 2is so fle5ible! so a bi#uous! and so consistently funny. And 8ust .hen you think you;&e #ot hi ! he slips throu#h your fin#ers. -is sy pathy for! and understandin# of! the basic passions of Will. The dra atic .ork of Willia Shakespeare is today e5tre ely conte porary for all ankind is e5traordinaryH " ar#ues +eter -all! founder and Director of the *oyal Shakespeare Co pany! .ho sta#ed thirty-t.o plays of the 1reat

ankind. 9eyond the beauty of its te5ts! it e&okes the hu an e5perience in all its co pleteness and co ple5ity about the past and the future! for the present. Shakespeare;s dra atur#y enco passes the ost i portant discussions o&er the acute proble s of hu anity today: abandonin# the scale of &alues for the post odernist theories! the ne#ati&e i plications of #lobali'ation! ne. for s of &iolence and the lack of interpersonal co terroris unication! fa ily breakup! attacks a#ainst hu an nature! as .ell as inorities! not to speak about the horrendous cri es of intolerance to.ards se5ual in all possible for s. ultiplication of the

Throu#h the &ariety of theatrical techni(ues and processes! dis#uisin#!

the plans! Htheatre .ithin theatreH! the actor .ho plays the role of an actor! Shakespeare puts the basis of dra atur#y. 9ecause the ?n#lish poet addresses dra a both fro constant challen#e. Connected .ith all the Hi puritiesH! the Shakespearean dra a for s another i portant co patibility .ith the theatrical reality of our days. The succession of epilo#ues and prolo#ues that are .innin# ore and ore i portance in no.adays perfor ances or that akes his te5ts to be sti ulatory for the fusion bet.een the #ood and the e&il so appreciated by +eter 9rook in Shakespeare;s dra atur#y! .hich intert.ine to confusion! scenic art today.
"

&ie. of the crafts an! as .ell as that of the philosopher! his te5ts ha&e the allure of a

http:EE....#uardian.co.ukEcultureE"@1@E arE1/E.ho-.rote-shakespeare-8a es-shapiro

The be#innin# of the "1st century theatre con&inces us that after all this ti e there is no fear or denial of Shakespeare and the ?li'abethan era. The sa e! today there is an increasin#ly &ibrant feelin# that Shakespeare created characters that say a lot about the people of the conte porary era. The heroes and the dra a of Willia li&in# Hperfectly le#alH today! only in other for s. The ?n#lish .ords are full of eanin#s! and Willia Shakespeare used it in a poetic ost &aluable passa#es Shakespeare are

speech. -ence the endless interpretations fro the

.hich he lends the

in his .ork. And any readin# of his .ork! in any lan#ua#e! culture or epoch is 8ust one of any possible interpretations. Shakespeare;s dra a is e5tre ely #enerous in this re#ard. -is .ork! particularly his dra atic te5ts are a per anent challen#e. The lan#ua#e of his creation is an ad&anta#e and a disad&anta#e at the sa e ti e. The precise .ords of his son#s! fro fro the poetic to the fa ous tirade e5pressions of a ediocre! are priceless e&en a#a'ine! in the .orld today! archi&ed and studied! discussed in around the .orld. And after those .ords! e&en a8or acade ies and theater scenes ore .ordsI )pen any

printed on paper or online! in a forei#n lan#ua#e or in *o anian and find that t.enty J t.enty-fi&e percent of the content of these articles! studies! re&ie.s! inter&ie.s are on the sub8ect! Shakespeare and the ne. sta#in# of his dra a.

Chapter I: A theoretical approach

6

Shakespeare,s .ords ha&e been re.ritten and re ade throu#h a .ide &ariety of cultural eans such as: translation! parody! theatrical or cine a adaptations. In the the ori#inal a8ority of these cases! the (uestion arises .hether the adaptation or the appropriation is faithful to eanin# of the te5t. This .ay the reader or the &ie.er faces a per anent transfor ation of the ori#inal plays. The conflict bet.een the Shakespearean te5t and its &arious interpretations! ateriali'ed

on sta#e or on the screen! opens a discussion of cultural re-creation! e5plorin# ideas such as: interte5tuality! cultural politics! the relations bet.een literature and theatre or bet.een the artistic acti&ity and its criti(ue. Another aspect .hich needs to be considered is ho. these appropriations and adaptations use Shakespeare and the i pact of these &ariations in the his characters sell e&erythin# fro and odern .orld. Shakespeare and fishin# e(uip ent to candy. +opular tele&ision sho.s

o&ies ha&e been inspired by Shakespeare,s plays. This .ay! adaptations produce a unicati&e interaction.

retroacti&e transfor ation of the ori#inal! as it is used and understood in specific conte5ts and instances of co

1.1. Definitions: adaptation, appropriation, representation A theoretical approach concernin# the topic of this research could not be based on anythin# else! but on the definition of the ain ter s in&ol&ed: adaptation or to adapt! appropriation or to appropriate and representation or to represent. All these three .ords are key-ter s for the process of Shakespearean recreation in literature! theatre! art or fil . The )5ford Dictionary definition for the &erb 2to adapt4 su##ests three eanin#s:

2- ake >so ethin#C suitable for a ne. use or purpose: odify: hospitals have had to be adapted for modern medical practice: the policies can be adapted to suit individual needs - beco e ad8usted to ne. conditions: a large organization can be slow to adapt to change

- alter >a te5tC to ake it suitable for fil in#! broadcastin#! or the sta#e: the film was adapted from a Turgenev short story >http:EEo5forddictionaries.co C All these e5press the idea that an adaptation is a ne&er as #ood as the source. To inor creation! inferior to the ori#inal!

ake so ethin# suitable for a ne. purpose is to

deconstruct and try to create so ethin# #ood for another conte5t or back#round. The result is al.ays 8ust a second hand 2ite 4 .hich has to carry the burden of a shado. i possible to a&oid or ne#lect.4 To ad8ust4 or 2to alter4 are ter s that underline a#ain the subsidiarity of any for *eferrin# to the of adaptation. %inda -utcheon analysed in her book ! Theory of literature to fil she enu erated a lon# list of ne#ati&e ter s !daptation the &alue of an adaptation related to the ori#inal or the source creation. o&e fro used to assault this for of e5pression: 2ta perin#! interference! &iolation! betrayal!

defor ation! per&ersion! infidelity! desecration4 >%inda -utcheon! "@1$: "C. The ori#in of adaptation can be traced back to the +lato ter odel of reality in an authentic mimesis analysed in relation

to diegesis. This initial approach puts in balance the art capacity to restore the positi&e anner. +lato,s &ision that art is the representation of etry! it nature! of #ood! beauty and truth is enriched by Aristotle,s &ie. " The classical philosopher points out the idea that a .ork of art can be built on the basis of sy i plies a certain redesi#nin# of reality! as it #i&es the artist an uni(ue opportunity to fra e the .orld and purify the ne#ati&e ele ents. The process of adaptation or mimesis in Aristotle ter s akes reality ore co fortable! althou#h .e .ill #et to the conclusion eant to sho. eanin# to purify the reader or the eanin# no that the e&olution to odernity pro&es the contrary. %ater adaptations are

the dark side of hu an nature! .ith no curtains!

spectator after a process of painful confession. If Aristotle dra.s a clear line bet.een reality and mimesis e5plainin# that .ithout it there can be no catharsis! purification throu#h art! for darin# e5posure of the odernity that line disappears. Mimesis or adaptation and

reality ha&e to be as si ilar as possible. There can be no catharsis .ithout a sincere and a ost hidden and denied hu an nature .eaknesses. .e .ill find in the )5ford aptus ;fit;C.

)n the other hand! if .e look for the ori#in of the sa e ter Dictionary that it co es fro the %atin adaptare, fro
8

ad# ;to; K aptare >fro

$it is synony contrary to the

.ith healthy! robust! .ell! &i#orous! on top for ! su##estin# an idea ain dictionary e5planations of the ter . This contradiction could

indicate a .ron# in&olution of the adaptation alon# the ti e. +erhaps the initial purpose of this creation process .as a positi&e one! .ith no ne#ati&e or hidden connotations! 8ust an e5peri ent or an effort to build so ethin# ne.. This is the idea that lies at the basis of y ar#u entation. The philosopher 9ernard of Chartres su##ested so ethin# si ilar in the 1"th century: 2We are like d.arfs on the shoulders of #iants! so that .e can see ore than they! and thin#s at a #reat distance! not by &irtue of any si#ht on our part! or any physical distinction! but because .e are carried hi#h and raised up by their #iant si'e4 >.ikipedia.or#E.ikiE9ernardLofLChartresC. <aybe the adaptation is the d.arf standin# on the shoulders of the #iant represented in this case by the ori#inal .ork. If it is so! this sy bolic d.arf is 8ust as &aluable as the #iant! as he sees beyond li its! but in the sa e ti e he is nothin# .ithout his predecessor. So .e are #oin# to try to establish a ne. relationship bet.een the old and the ne.! tradition and inno&ation! source te5t and adaptation. The second ter in&ol&ed in our analysis is appropriation. This ti e the )5ford ain senses: 2to take >so ethin#C for one,s o.n use! typically

Dictionary #i&es us t.o

.ithout the o.ner,s per ission4 or 2to de&ote > oney or assetsC to special purpose4. 9oth e5press a lack of ethic &alue! caused by a natural la. of e5istence .hich resides in our sense of property. Also! appropriation co es fro participle of appropriare ; ake one;s o.n;! fro 2late %atin appropriatus! past ad# ;to; K proprius ;o.n! brin#s to li#ht an

proper;4>http:EEo5forddictionaries.co C. The ori#in of this ter de&otion to

opposition bet.een the self-seekin# desire to take so ethin# for your use and the ake it your o.n! in the sense of alterin# it! rebuildin# it for your purposes. is its connection to the idea of eant to turn a eanin# of adaptation! an appropriation is al.ays What first co es to li#ht in the analysis of this ter oney. Contrary to the financial result out of this initial creati&e process. %inda -utcheon talks about the eanin# of this ter in her book ! Theory of !daptation:

2Second! as a process of creation, the act of adaptation al.ays in&ol&es both >re-Cinterpretation and then >re-Ccreation: this has been called both appropriation and
9

sal&a#in#! dependin# on your perspecti&e. 6or e&ery a##ressi&e appropriator outed by a political opponent there is a patient sal&a#er.4 >%inda -utcheon! "@1$: FC. This opposition to appropriate &ersus to salvage sho.s the a##ressi&eness of the process! a ne#ati&e &alue .hich is not to be ne#lected. There is an ob&ious condition of inferiority for the appropriation co pared to the source te5t! as a deri&ation cannot be abo&e the ori#inal. This idea raises another discussion topic re#ardin# the &alue proportion bet.een the t.o. The last ter in&ol&ed in our study is the .ord representation. 6or the &erb to represent eanin#s: 2to depict in a .ork of art4! 2to describe or these four

.e found the follo.in# dictionary

portray in a particular .ay4! 2to ha&e a particular si#nification! to stand for4 or 2to play a role in a theatrical production4 >http:EEo5forddictionaries.co C. 9e#innin# fro eanin#s .e can discern the co ple5ity of this .ord and the difference bet.een it and the ter s discussed pre&iously. A representation is closer to sta#e than to paper! it links literature to theatre. This .ay .e can talk about se&eral aspects: the transposition of a literary te5t to another ediu of e5pression! the translation of .ritten to spoken! the o&ie. All the four a ediu of de&elop ent of a deeper relationship bet.een the reader! .ho is no. a spectator or a &ie.er and the literary creation .hich is transfor ed into a play or a ha&e in co synony s of the &erb to represent, 2to depict4! 2to describe4! 2to stand for4! 2to play4 on the e er#ence of a ne. ele ent to help the s.itch fro artistic e5pression to another. Co pared to the other t.o ter s! this ti e .e no lon#er face the sa e issue re#ardin# a dose of alteration .hich occurs durin# the 2transfor ation4 process. A representation should be closer to the ori#inal! it should respect that initial pattern! as it does not necessarily in&ol&e a inno&ation. Its uni(ueness lies in the s.itch of back#round! not in a content alteration. To represent does not underlines the sa e concept. It co es fro Therefore! this last ter ori#inal .ork of art. is a for ean to chan#e ideas. The ori#in of the .ord the %atin repraesentare! for ed of the prefi5

re#! .hich is an e5pression of intensi&e force and the &erb praesentare ;to present;. of transposition .hich lies on the preser&ation of the

10

1.2. daptation typo!o"y Adaptin# Shakespeare on paper! on sta#e or on screen has been a te ptation for inspiration to a odernity or post odernity cra&in# for the success and the ore

than four hundred years. -is literary creation offers an o&er.hel in# treasure of a#ic of his .ords translated in a conte porary conte5t. ?&en Shakespeare .as an adapter .ho built his .orks on the drafts of his predecessors! althou#h critics alon# the ti e pro&ed that his ori#inality is supre e and that all adaptation resultin# fro burden of an alteration presu ption. 1oin# for.ard in our analysis .e touch the second topic of this chapter: adaptation typolo#y. There is a .ide &ariety of approaches re#ardin# the ta5ono y of adaptations! dependin# on the criteria that .e choose to lie at the basis of our study. %iterary criti(ue talks about adaptation on screen or sta#e! .ritten to .hat is spoken! fro eanin# a transposin# process of .hat is letters to .ords. Takin# into account the for er on ateriali'ation for of this his creations caries the

e5planations of key ter s such as appropriation and representation! .e can conclude that these t.o are also for s of adaptation. Another co process is translation. This passa#e fro a lan#ua#e to other in&ol&es a co ple5

transfor ation of the ori#inal te5t! i possible to a&oid! as .e are not talkin# only about .ords! but also about a cultural! political and social conte5t that needs to be adapted. The anifestation conte5t of the literary creation is another criterion .hich leads to the ercials and the list could #o on. When talkin# about Shakespeare! the ore co ple5! as his popular personality de&elops to a lar#er e5tent the ark on e&ery 2product4 or 2process4 that in&ol&es any kind of

e er#ence of other adaptation typolo#ies: cine atic! theatrical! radio! cartoons! children books! co situation is e&en print lea&es its

process of adaptation. In this case .e deal .ith the deep print of a literary brand. This reinterpretation one of his .orks. %inda -utcheon takes the analysis to another le&el of interpretation: 2A doubled definition of adaptation as a product >as e5tensi&e! particular transcodin#C and as a process >as creati&e reinterpretation and pali psestic interte5tualityC is one .ay to

11

address the &arious di ensions of the broader pheno enon of adaptation. An e phasis on process allo.s us to e5pand the traditional focus of adaptation studies on a on# the a8or ediu specificity and indi&idual co parati&e case studies in order to consider as .ell relations odes of en#a#e ent: that is! it per its us to think about ho. adaptations allo. people to tell! sho.! or interact .ith stories4 >%inda -utcheon! "@1$: ""C. In other .ords! if .e think about the dense pheno enon of adaptation as a process and not as its result .e #et to these three interactin# .ith stories. All of the the source te5ts. The real sound of a8or approaches: tellin#! sho.in# or anifestation co pared to are rich for s of artistic

of i a#ination is replaced this ti e by the sphere of strai#ht

and si ple perception! aboundin# in e5pressi&e details and connections re&ealed by the usic or &oice or by the aesthetic po.er of colours and shapes. Interactin# .ith ediu ! of interaction bet.een the &ie.er and the adaptation. This the story is possible in the &irtual reality! in &ideo#a es. This final s.itch of o&es us into a different for odern for

ti e the &ie.er beco es a participant in the story! .hich needs to be adapted to a of perception. 9ein# acti&e in the space of this adaptation typolo#y in&ol&es the addin# of a ne. character that is not only a spectator! but a part of the tale. It is ob&ious that the reader has to face other re(uire ents than the spectator or the person .ho eets a te5t in the front of a co puter! throu#h the ediu of a &ideo#a e. The essa#e of reader is bound to ake a conceptual effort! as the story passes throu#h the filter of his

i a#ination! the spectator has to focus on his perceptual skills! to decode the an adaptation of an ori#inal story! is in&ol&ed e&en because the interacti&e odern ediu edia sphere is a

the play usin# his o.n cultural e5perience and finally the player of a &ideo#a e! .hich is ore intensely than the others! i5ture of all other for s of creation. This

re(uires direct interaction on a psycholo#ical! but also physical le&el: onitor! the keyboard! the 8oystick! and

2the hu an J co puter interface offers yet another kind of en#a#e ent in a feedback loop bet.een our body and its e5tensions J the the ouse! and the processin# co puter4 >%inda -utcheon! "@1$: 1"BC.

1.2.1. #$ost in trans!ation%

12

1oin# back to the for

ain topic of our analysis! .e #et to another contro&ersial adaptation could be a startin# point for

typolo#y: translation. It is disputable .hether a translation can be considered or not a of adaptation. The dictionary definition for this ter this part of our study: 2spoken or .ritten .ords that ha&e been chan#ed into a different lan#ua#e M3N !ost in trans!ation >Onot co unicated .hen translatedC4 ><ac illan ?n#lish Dictionary! "@11: 1PB$C. Critics de&eloped the idea of alteration entailed by this process of literary con&ersion. This ti e the adapter is the translator .ho has the duty to transpose all the ideas of the ori#inal literary source into another cultural conte5t! as .e entioned before. At the roots of any translation lies a andatory &alue of anipulation. The particular case of Shakespearean translations is e&en ore co plicated! due to the

difficulty of the lan#ua#e he used. -is .ritin#s carried a hu#e influence on the e&olution of the ?n#lish lan#ua#e! enrichin# it .ith se&eral ne. .ords or phrases such as: 2anon4 eanin# 2soon! shortly4 or 2issue4 .ith the 2outco e! result4$ What happens if you transfer Shakespeare in a different culture! one in .hich ?n#lish is not a nati&e lan#ua#e? +eter 9rook! .ho has te5ts of Shakespearean sta#ed in se&eral lan#ua#es! says that Shakespeare;s specificity is that it re ains splendid e&en if you alter the ori#inal .ords. All 9ritish directors ar#ue that e&ery people understand Shakespeare;s te5t fro his o.n ytholo#y! fro his o.n e5perience. -ere the sta#e perfor ances are abo&e the rooftops of the Shakespearean te5ts. The plays! despite the accuracy of translations! cannot con&ey the sa e no lon#er sla&es. Instead of a essa#e as the eanin# of 2child! fa ily! descendant4 or

one you sent a play in the ori#inal lan#ua#e. )n a forei#n land! his plays! the actors are annered &ocabulary or of so e fine de onstrations of a different perspecti&e: a poetic and basic &ocabulary J .hat happens too often on the 9ritish and on the A erican theatre sta#e is that Shakespeare;s plays are challen#in# fro e5ploration of the Shakespearean the atic fund. Shakespeare,s (uestions are the (uestions .e need to find ans.ers for. The (uestions ne&er ans.ered! and therefore it rei#ns the eternal rerun. Shakespeare is periodically
$

http:EE....shakespeares.ords.co

13

re&ised! challen#ed! re-e5a ined! but ne&er cancelled. In theoretical debates! carefully docu ented! the sub8ect of Shakespeare has been analysed in synchronic and diachronic approaches! on the one hand by theatre critics and on the other hand by the lin#uists and specialists .ho are preoccupied .ith punctuation and the Shakespearean te5t. +eople .rote about Shakespeare ore than anyone could read in a nor al life. 9ut there are fe. an and his plays on sta#e that represent #enuine and alon# the studies about Shakespeare! the

reference sources! .hich ha&e beco e a kind of 9ibles! te5tbooks for theatre specialists. They ha&e had an i portant i pact and an outstandin# i portance to the passa#e of ti e they ha&e beco e inspirin# sources. A on# these! of course! is the fa ous book of 0an 7ott- Shakespeare#our contemporary! but also &aluable replicas to it: %eading Shakespeare by Andr'e8 =uro.ski or the book of 0ohn ?lso J &s Shakespeare still our contemporary', Shakespeare and the &dea of the (lay by Anne *i#hter or )orthrop $rey on Shakespeare by Dorthrop 6rey! 0ean 0ac(uot,s *e Theatre du monde de Shakespeare + ,alderon and theatre! its .orkin# and the es! any others. There are thousands of essays about his .ork! his dra a! the theatrical life in his day! about Shakespeare and the ?li'abethan ethods! about his sources of inspiration! studies about the characters otifs! le#ends! superstition and beliefs. There are studies on his orthoepy

and spell! about the assonance and the dissonance! the epic in his dra a! about Shakespeare as a pro oter of a realistic #a e! etc. Critics spoke about Shakespeare as anti-Se itic! about Shakespeare as anarchist! anti onarchist or feudal propa#andist! about Shakespeare as a iso#ynist and Shakespeare as se5ist.

9en Crystal! author of the book Shakespeare on Toast! published by 0eon 9ooks! is one of those authors .ho contribute to the destruction of the yth about a Shakespeare that is difficult to understand. -e ar#ues that to understand Shakespeare! absolutely necessary for the directors .ho brin# Shakespeare to sta#e! you need to kno. ho. they .ere! ho. they looked on sta#e and his te5ts to e5plore the art on sta#e in Shakespeare;s ti e. -e has .ritten for theatre! a theater for a hetero#eneous audience! includin# the about F@ percent! didn;t .rite to be read. When .e read his te5ts .e a8ority! ust kno. that

Shakespeare;s conte porary &ie.ers had other habits of beha&ior at the theater than .e ha&e today. They .eren,t used to look at and to listen in silence. The &ie.er of

14

Shakespeare! <arlo.e! 0ohnson! 1reen could eat! drink! talk durin# the perfor ance. The ?li'abethan spectator .as used to dayli#ht perfor ances! and there are analysin# the sta#in# possibilities it has. Qery often .hat Shakespeare #uideline for an actor or for the spectator beco es a any other features that ha&e to be taken into consideration .hen readin# a Shakespearean te5t and eant to be a ystery i possible to clarify for the

director or theatre critic today. -is plays! says 9en Crystal! contain cultural #a#s and references! pro&erbs that are obscure to us. So they address the te5t too seriously:4A lot of people take Shakespeare,s plays far too seriously! and for#et that i portant .ord: 2play4. It,s a #a e! so en8oy it4 /. All Crystal confir s is that Shakespeare has left indications in the te5t for the dra atic actin#. Critics! adapters! translators .ho .ish to use the ori#inal te5t shouldn,t o it the i portance of any apparently insi#nificant detail that could at so e point chan#e the &alue of the .hole cultural product. Duncan 6e.ins is author of essays on Shakespeare. -e has a lon# collaboration .ith the *oyal Shakespeare Co pany. -e pro otes the study of Shakespeare in the Rnited 7in#do . Duncan ar#ued that the key to success and lon#e&ity of Willia Shakespeare,s dra a lies in the fact that he .as an actor .ho has .ritten for the actors. Another i portant aspect of Shakespeare is that he has .ritten for all social cate#ories of his ti e! and about the people. In his te5ts .e find a .hole #allery of characters! that no other dra atic .riter of his ti e had treated .ith respect. Therefore! ar#ues Duncan! they find their &alidity on the scene today. Duncan considers that Shakespeare;s dra a successfully translated into any other lan#ua#e. Shakespeare;s talent .as ay be ost anifested

ob&iously in the underlinin# of hu an nature! so that e&en if a director ne#lects the i portance of lan#ua#e and of the &erse poetry aspects and focuses on the e5ternal and internal conflicts of the character! he of the conte porary e&en no.adays. ana#es to restore the Shakespearean philosophy. 9ecause of conflicts and feelin#s! the Shakespearean characters! says Duncan! are those an. 9esides that! it .as precious to Shakespeare the .ay he portrayed the social order! the reli#ious! political and cultural areas .hich re ain rele&ant

http:EEshakespeare.about.co EodEinter&ie.sEaEperfor in#Lsha5.ht

15

9ut the leadin# analyst of Willia

Shakespeare;s .ork re ains still >.ith all its

hesitations re#ardin# the ti eliness of interpretation for the early "1st centuryC .inner 0an 7ott. %iterary and theatrical critic 0an 7ott #ained fa e throu#h the ne. interpretation of Willia Shakespeare;s dra atur#y. -e analysed the te5ts of the ?n#lish .riter as bein# influenced by the t.entieth century .ith all the social! political and philosophical proble s. 7ott 8u5taposes Shakespeare .ith Ionesco and 9eckett. The +olish critic .rote the fa ous .ork Shakespeare our contemporary -.hich appeared for the first ti e in 1BAP! and other .ritin#s that refer to the creation of the Shakespearean. Throu#h his .ritin#s! he influenced Shakespearean literary analysis and sti ulated the creation of the #reat sta#e directors! such as: Andr'e8 Wa8da! +eter -all! 7r'ys'tof Warliko.ski. 7ott;s interpretations of the te5t Hamlet ha&e influenced Hamlet ;s sta#in# in 1BAP by +eter -all. -e .arned that in Hamlet >but the state ent is perfectly &alid for the entire Shakespearean dra aC there are se&eral the es: policy! &iolence and orality. The essay by 0an 7ott! .ing *ear or /ndgame! i pressed a lot the 9ritish Director +eter 9rook! .ho has sta#ed the play in 1BA" for the *oyal Shakespeare Co pany! .ith actor +aul Scofield in the title role. The success of this perfor ance chan#ed the &ie.s on ho. should be sta#ed a *ear! leadin# to nu erous pole ics. This .as a factor of #reat i portance! .hich #enerated ne. .ritin#s on the dra atic Shakespearean .ork! ne. searches! ne. interpretations for future representations! adaptations or si ple interpretations of Shakespeare. )n the other hand! the 1er an director 9ertolt 9recht belie&ed that Shakespeare re ains .ith all its erits only a play.ri#ht of his ti e.

)ther critics assert that the stru##le to pro&e that Shakespeare is our conte porary actually insists on the fact that he .as able to incarnate the per anent i utable truths about hu an nature. So e critics belie&e that the opposition bet.een classical and conte porary approaches constitutes a false antithesis. That it is the sa e old layout of old and ne.! of the order of yesterday and today! 8ust as it .as durin# Willia Shakespeare,s ti e the opposition bet.een the feudal and the bour#eois ordinance. Discussions beco e e&en ore heated .hen the debate tackles the translation sub8ect.

<ost of our readin#s are translations. The de#ree of understandin# and en8oy ent of a literary .ork! .ritten in a forei#n lan#ua#e! has al.ays been directly proportional to the
16

(uality of its translation. The translator is the one .ho the

akes the #lue bet.een the te5t

and its reader. In the conte5t of the Shakespearean literary &er&e! the translator is one of ain characters! he incites pole ics! and he reconciles conflicts throu#h the .ork he ost does. The fidelity of the translation is &ery i portant. And transparency is the seen

i portant factor in the (uality of the translations. And that;s because its absence can be ore easily than fidelity. In order for a translation to be considered fully transparent! ust not reali'e that the te5t is translated! but the nati&e speaker of the tar#et lan#ua#e

belie&e it .as .ritten in his o.n lan#ua#e. The translation of Shakespeare;s .orks! in particular! is a constant dispute about .hat! ho. and for .hat did Shakespeare .rote. Is it preferable a ne. translation or an adaptation of the already e5istin# .orks? Why? To .hat e5tent a ne. translation can alter the look of a ne. perfor ance for a classical Shakespearean title? What ad&anta#es and disad&anta#es does the re-translation ha&e? All these (uestions and uch ore appear .hen .e open the sub8ect of transferrin# odern translator ay consider fresh Shakespeare into the cultural back#round of another people. The har ony bet.een translations and perfor ances is &ery i portant. A aspects of the lan#ua#e .hich he speaks. It re ains the &ery uch appreciated Arden ?dition! chosen by ost of the o&ie akers.

Anyone .ho has read the Arden ?dition of the Shakespearean te5t could see to .hat e5tent the disco&ery of a ne. di ension of the piece is reflected in the reinterpretation of al ost e&ery .ord! in the spellin# .hich is a contradiction sub8ect for the e5perts! caused by the lack of clarity of the Shakespearean uni&erse in .hich the .hole and the detail anuscripts! as .ell as by the differences bet.een the editions in the (uarto and folio. 9ecause the te5t of the dra a is an entire irror and enli#hten each other. eanin#s of

Shakespeare in&ents .ords! creates! deli#hts .ith the i pressi&e &ariety of sta#e! he counted on the co

the .ords. When he .rote the dra atic te5ts! he thou#ht about ho. the te5t .ill sound on on usa#e of the &ocabulary and on the associati&e lo#ic of to Hi pro&eH Shakespeare. It is the lan#ua#e. Se&eral specialists sustain the idea that it is i possible to translate all of Shakespeare;s .ords. So eti es the translators! ai kno.n that the 1er ans consider the sel&es the best translators of Shakespeare:
17

1undolf! 6riedland! 1ilde eister! ?schenbur#! -a bur#er! etc all ha&e brou#ht a or less i portant contribution to the de&elop ent of the Shakespearean 1er an territory.

ore

yth on the

The difficulties of translation of Shakespeare in different lan#ua#es ha&e different causes. In *ussian! for instance! the *ussian lan#ua#e has lon#er .ords than ?n#lish! so the *ussian translations are &ery lon#! the lyrics are endless. 6rench re(uires e5press .hat a sin#le .ord co sound laborious! capture the ore .ords to unicates in ?n#lish! thus! translations of Shakespeare

essa#e! but lack the shape! the poetry of e5pression. ust be kept for the

Rn(uestionably the ori#inal lan#ua#e of the Shakespearean #lory future. -o.e&er you

ust not put the si#n of e(uality bet.een the conser&ation of a

lan#ua#e and the preser&ation of art. In a uni&erse in .hich the lan#ua#e is not e&ol&in#! perhaps such an e(uation .ould be accepted. In the .orld .e li&e in! ho.e&er! such an e(uation is a blind faith! .hich depri&es the public of a onu ental .ork. any of the eanin#. At

*e#ardin# the necessity of translatin# Shakespeare into *o anian! full of eanin#s ?n#lish .ord! they use a loose ter to satisfy the ori#inal

translations .e ha&e a&oided the dan#er of interpretations. Thus! instead of a consistent! the sa e ti e! so eti es the dyna ics of Shakespearean &erb .as in se antically! syntactically and HdatedH! as they already contain ori#inal eanin#. ost cases has

eta orphosed into a s ooth Classicist flo. of speech! .hich flattens the &erse! orpholo#ically. Today these translations ha&e beco e any archais s! forced rhy es! o&in# a.ay fro the

<any directors! includin# the *o anian director Ale5ander -aus&ater belie&e that Shakespeare about its deep ust first of all .hen you are .orkin# on a te5t! be read in the ori#inal ake a clear idea eanin#. any (uestions &ariant. It is necessary to understand the old &ersification syste ! to

The translations and the difficulties associated .ith this process arose so

about the .ork of Shakespeare! about Shakespeare hi self! about the era that he belon#ed to! the theatre of the ti e! about the esthetics! the philosophies! the beliefs and
18

the taboos back then. Shakespeare;s .ork is a reality! .hen translators do they recreate i a#es.

ake her 8ob!

they do not translate .ords! phrases or passa#es indi&idually! they reflect a reality! and

Tryin# to ans.er the (uestion 2Does Shakespeare translate?4 ?rich 6ried ans.ered: 2Shakespeare co es across to our audiences! despite our translations J or perhaps .e should con#ratulate oursel&es! because .e all kno. that a really perfect translation is i possible. ?&en if you translate the sentence and the ha&e the sa e eter e5actly! you can,t usually usic of the &o.els! or only &ery rarely! and if you try to translate all the

puns in Shakespeare3.ell! it,s i possible4 >?lso ! "@@/: $AC. So this kind of adaptation brin#s to li#ht the fact that there is an ine&itable disproportion bet.een the ori#inal te5t and its adaptation! in our case the translation. The responsibility of the translator is e&en bi##er! as he has the additional task of akin# the ne. literary creation pleasant or co fortable so to say for the cultural conscience of his co patriots. This idea of cultural conscience is &ery i portant for the adoption of the ori#inal literary .ork. To sustain this ar#u ent ?rich 6ried #i&es an e5a ple: 2All the atte pts to i pro&e upon Shakespeare in 1er an are! I think ludicrous. When <ercutio dies in %omeo and 0uliet, he says: 2A pla#ue on both your housesI4 three ti es. Schle#el had been tau#ht at school! 8ust as I .as that repetition is not ele#ant! and so he i pro&ed on it by #i&in# <ercutio a different phrase each ti e! and also the .ord 2pla#ue4 .as not (uite respectable enou#h in those days and so the pla#ue didn,t happen. -e .rote! 2To the de&il .ith both your housesI4 and 2%et the han# an #et the 34 and the third ti e so ethin# else! but the pla#ue didn,t occur J .hich isn,t so #ood! because the three ti e repeated curse of a dyin# has so ethin# fro e&en chan#e the .ork. A translation should keep the uni(ueness! the details and also the #eneral literary e5pression of the source te5t. In this case the do inance relationship bet.een the detail and the .hole is &ery clear. They are both i portant for the accuracy of the literary essa#e and also for the i pact on the forei#n reader. 9ein# a Shakespeare translator!
19

an

a#ical in it4 >?lso ! "@@/: $GC. This e5a ple sho.s that the transition eanin# of the te5t! the plot or the concepts trans itted by the ori#inal

a lin#uistic re#ister to another is carried out throu#h &arious alterations .hich can

?rich 6ried #i&es another e5a ple of his o.n e5perience in this area: 2)f course! I ha&e tried to preser&e both the content and! as far as possible! the artistic for that Shakespeare uses. This is not al.ays possible. In Hamlet! to take a fa ous e5a ple! .here -a let says to )phelia! S1et thee to a nunneryI, .e kno. that a nunnery is a holy house of nuns and! at the sa e ti e! an e5pression for a brothel. That double eanin# does not e5ist in 1er an and so it cannot be translated. I interpolated there! S1o to the #ood &ir#ins,! to the S#uten 0un#frauen, because the S#uten 0un#frauen, .ere al.ays kno.n to be prostitutes in 1er any4 >?lso ! "@@/: /@C. This ti e! 6ried pro&es that the process of a translation! so eti es in&ol&es radical reinterpretations! and .e re e ber that a synony for 2to adapt4 is 2to ad8ust4. To translate eans to ad8ust a literary essa#e for a ne. lin#uistic conte5t. To talk in *o an 0akobson,s ter s! the sender needs to adapt the co translation process. 1.2.2 daptin" for the sta"e Another typolo#y that .e are #oin# to discuss in this study is the theatrical adaptation. A theoretical approach of this topic could be#in .ith the analysis of the transfer fro to sta#e or fro .orld of the Shakespearean .ork research! paper .ritten to spoken. Alfred 9ennett -arba#e! a do inant fi#ure in the ore than a half century a#o i a#ined the essa#e for the recei&er to the code! channel and conte5t of unication. All these coordinates de&elop the co ple5ity and the difficulty of the

i pact of his plays on sta#e: 2+eople in thron#s! of all classes and callin#s! #athered to see Shakespeare,s plays. They ca e in .herries! on horseback and on foot! fro Cheapside and White Chapel! West inster and De.in#ton! Clerken.ell and Shoreditch! desertin# for an inter&al their .orkbenches! their accounts! their studies! their sports! their suits at la. and their suits at court. They preferred the pleasures of the 1lobe to the pleasures of 9rentford and Ware! and if they did not pass coldly by the ale-house doors! at least they reser&ed enou#h pennies to pay the #atherers4 >A. -arba#e (uoted by A.6.7inney! "@@$: FC. %ater! researchers in this field pro&ed he .as ri#ht. Shakespeare didn,t .rite for readers. -e .rote for audiences. It is i portant to kno. that he earned his li&in# as an actor and as an o.ner of his actin# co pany. This could be considered an e5planation for the late publication of his plays! or
20

aybe .hen published they couldn,t

ha&e the e5pected success on a

arket in&aded by literary creations .ith reli#ious the start that the author hi self .as the a#ic .orld is

sub8ects. Therefore! .e should ackno.led#e fro

first adapter of his .ritin#s to the sta#e of theatre. -is attraction for this confessed in 0a(ues, .ords in the play !s 1ou *ike &t: 2All the .orld,s a sta#e! And all the en and .o en erely players: They ha&e their e5its and their entrances: And one an in his ti e plays any parts4

Therefore the structure of a dra a in #eneral should be discussed before analy'in# the specific case of Shakespeare. Conflict in a play is the battle bet.een opposin# forces. The ain character that .e de&elop key relationships .ith is the prota#onist. The character that he opposes is the anta#onist. Their clash is the conflict of the play. Conflict represents .hat the play is about! ho. the play de&elops suspense. Dearly e&ery play! but not all! deals .ith a conflict usually bet.een indi&iduals! but possibly also bet.een the prota#onist and society! bet.een the prota#onist and circu stances! or bet.een the prota#onist and fate. *einert pro&ides a useful co entary:

2Conflict is the opposition of forces! of .hate&er kind: an &ersus ountain! an &ersus 1od! an &ersus hi self. It ay be as si ple as that of a fairy tale >bad (ueen &ersus #ood princess! bad #uy &ersus #ood sheriffC. It ay be as ele ental as that of /veryman, as preposterous as that of The *esson, as dialectic and a bi#uous as that of The 2ild 3uck, as #ri ly ethical as that of (urgatory, as nearly farcical as that of Tartuffe and !rms and the Man, as etaphysical as that of three such different plays as 4edipus %e5, The 6host Sonata, and The 6ood 2oman of Setzuan" Dra a .ithout conflict is unthinkable. 6or the essence of the dra atic e5perience is the fascination .ith the pro#ress of clashin# forces to.ard resolution: the hero;s death or triu ph! the &illain;s defeat! the .eddin#! the reestablish ent of order in a pri&ate! a co unal! or a uni&ersal cos os. The spoken .ord is the ediu of dra a! the ob8ecti&ity of the perfor able its ode or anner of bein#! the surrender of our i a#ination to that of the play.ri#ht the condition for its e5istence for us! but the dra a itself is the action of hu an conflict. This action .e .itness partly as safe and superior deities! en8oyin# the pleasure of dra atic irony at the e5pense of people .ho do not kno. .hat is happenin# to the : partly as
21

sy pathetic obser&ers co iseratin# .ith the #ood! relishin# the do.nfall of the bad: and partk as fello. fools and sufferers.4 >*einert ).! 1BA1: GC The play.ri#ht ust de&ise eans by .hich the characters .ill face challen#es and be

tested in a short space of ti e. Audience plays an essential role in any kind of artistic representation. <. -. Abra s in The Mirror and the *amp states that there are Hfour ele ents in the total situation of a .ork of art: one! the .ork itself: t.o! its content! its for ! its lan#ua#e! its i a#ery! the artist .ho produced it! and the .orld that affected the artist: three! the sub8ect of the .ork! .hich includes people! actions! feelin#s-in other .ords! the total .orld of the .ork: four! the audience! the readers or spectators .ho establish contact .ith the .ork4. Aristotle stated that a tra#edy pur#es the response of pity response of terror ind and heart of the spectator by creatin# a the central characters. The positi&e and oral catharsis of self-e5a ination throu#h

o&in# hi Eher to.ard the central characters and a correspondin# o&in# hi Eher a.ay fro entators belie&ed! a psycholo#ical catharsis of

ne#ati&e responses pro&ided! so e co

sy pathy at the spectacle of sufferin# and a

the fear en#endered by an a.areness of the a#onies caused .hen a person flaunts the #ods or asserts prideful (ualities of hisEher nature. )ne can ad ire! e&en identify .ith! the herois arisin# fro aspiration or pride or de&otion in characters in literature and yet fear to i itate such (ualities in action. Theatre at Shakespeare,s ti e represented a contro&ersial art. +rotests a#ainst this for of artistic anifestation be#an early durin# the rei#n of ?lisabeth I! .hen the public an anony ous ar y officer to Sir 6rancis playin# .as introduced. A letter fro

Walsin#ha ! secretary to ?lisabeth I! sent on 0anuary "P! 1PFG sho.s a #eneral distrust and sense of rebellion a#ainst theatrical perfor ance and e&erythin# in&ol&ed in the process: 2The daily abuse of Sta#e +lays is such an offence to the #odly! and so #reat a hindrance to the #ospel! as the papists do e5ceedin#ly re8oice at the ble ish thereof! and no .ithout cause. 6or e&ery day! in the .eek the player,s bills are set up in sundry places of the City! so e in the na e of -er <a8esty,s en! so e the ?arl of %eicester,s! so e the ?arl of
22

)5ford,s! the %ord A iral,s and di&ers others3 The playhouses are pestered .hen churches are naked. It is a .oeful si#ht to see t.o hundred proud players #et in their silks! .here fi&e hundred poor people star&e in their streets3 Do.! e thinks! I see your honour s ile! and say to yourself these thin#s are fitter for the pulpit than a soldier,s pen: but 1od >.ho searches the heart and MkidneysNC kno.eth that I .rite not hypocritically! but fro the &ery sorro. of y soul4 >(uoted by A.6. 7inney! "@@$: 1$BC. This sensiti&e and delicate confession is an ar#u entation a#ainst the de&elop ent of sta#e perfor ance in a society that #ro.s under the shado. of canonical reli#ious beliefs! .hich block any sort of freedo of e5pression. The perception of people on theatre .as not at all a pleasant one in Shakespeare,s ti e. This ne#ati&e &ie. is synthesi'ed in The !natomy of !buses .ritten by +hilip Stubbes! .ho #reatly disliked plays! statin# that 2the ar#u ents of tra#edies is an#er! .rath! i unity Mfro the la.N! cruelty! in8ury! incest! urder! and such like! the persons or actors are #ods! #oddesses! furies! fiends! ha#s! kin#s! (ueens! or potentates: of co edies the atter and #round is lo&e and ba.dry! cosena#e Mcheatin#N! flattery! .horedo ! adultery: the persons or a#ents! .hores! (ueans MprostitutesN! ba.ds! scullions! kna&es! courtesans! lecherous old en! a orous youn# en! .ith such like of infinite &ariety4 >(uoted by A.6. 7inney! "@@$: 1/$C. All this se(uence of ne#ati&e! a##ressi&e ter s e phasi'es the puritan direction of the social conscience! the censorship ai ed by dedicated clerics and the the poor. -o.e&er! he oral indi#nation of ana#ed to surpass the ad&ersity and the unco fortable reception

of an i portant section of the society! thanks to the royal support #i&en by ?li'abeth I and 0a es I. 9oth re#al characters .ere #reat ad irers of sta#e perfor ance! .hich ade possible the sta#in# of *enaissance plays. Theatrical adaptations inspired a .ide &ariety of feelin#s and opinions at all ti es. Criticis in this field pro&ed that Shakespeare .rote literary .orks that can be best &alori'ed throu#h the process of theatrical perfor ance. Due to this stable &alue of his plays! actors and directors need to fulfill an interpretation task and not a creation one.
23

Audience,s ans.er to Shakespearean te5t does not necessarily depend on the historical or social conte5t! but it is a constant response to uni&ersal e5istential issues. -o.e&er! .hat akes the difference in the reception of his .orks throu#hout ti e! it,s the sta#in# anner! the chan#in# in&ol&ed in the process of adaptation. The .ritten te5t suffers any ti es radical transfor ations in his transition fro paper to sta#e. Words need to be con&erted into a persuasi&e perfor ance! .hich heads to alterations such as: the rearran#e ent of plot e&ents as in The History of .ing *ear ! an adaptation by Dahu Tate! the cuttin# of characters or an increased i portance #i&en to a secondary character as is the case in Hamletmachine, an adaptation by -einer <Tller! in .hich 2one of the ost strikin# aspects M3N is the pro inence #i&en to )phelia J *o#off .rites that the play i#ht better be called 4pheliamachine >PGC4 >D. 6ischlin! <. 6ortier! "@@@: "@BC or radical reinterpretations of the ori#inal plot as in The 2oman7s (rize, or the Tamer Tamed! an adaptation by 0ohn 6letcher of Shakespeare,s The Taming of the Shrew .here the accent falls on the presentation of se5ual relations in ter s of a ne#otiation .ithout the do inance of ale authority.

Another ad8ust ent that occurs in a theatrical adaptation is that descriptions! narrations! the represented thou#hts of the characters ha&e to be con&erted by the actors and directors into the act of speech! sounds! and &isible actions. This shift fro a silent literary .ork to an audible and &isible representation re(uires an acti&e i plication of the spectator! .ho this ti e does not ha&e to take the .ritten te5t throu#h the filter of his i a#ination! but he has to participate e otionally to the a uni&erse already built. -e reacts cryin#! lau#hin#! fearin# or and ind: 2Audiences do instincti&ely and recreationally .hat actors do professionally: try to e5plain the thou#hts and character of the father .ho isunderstands a dau#hter! the son .ho rebels a#ainst a father! the husband .ho abuses a .ife! the .o an .ho lo&es a an .ho doesn,t return her feelin#s! the politician .ho doesn,t sleep at ni#ht! the ruler .ho in&ades a forei#n country! the sub8ect .ho (uestions the ruler,s ethics! the soldier .ho is apprehensi&e on the e&e of the battle4 >%.?. <a#uire! "@@/: PC. editatin# to the result of so eone else,s i a#ination

24

All these e5a ples of si ple hu an nature

anifestation pro&e that theatre adaptations

render to real life .hat literary te5ts su##est to the reader,s i a#ination. This leads us to another idea! that the te5t hides behind its .ords a .hole uni&erse that can be created by the i a#ination of a director! that te5t is a pro#ression of ele ents: 2This idea of te5t as process! as an inter.ea&in# of &ariable ele ents! reflects a post- odern desire to replace the lo#ocentric idea of theatre .ith one in .hich the perfor ance beco es the site of cultural and aesthetic contestation4 >0.C. 9ul an! 1BBA: "C. This connection bet.een the te5t of a play and the anner in .hich it is perfor ed on the sta#e or adapted opens a ne. debate direction for literary criticis : 2Colerid#e thou#ht it .ould be better if Shakespeare,s plays .ere ne&er sta#ed at all. The only .ay to e5perience the real pleasures of the &erbal i a#ination! he clai ed! is throu#h the silent encounter bet.een the .ritten te5t and the isolated reader. And it re ains a co onplace! at least a on# the readin# public! that the o&ie is ne&er as #ood as the book. 9ut for uch of the t.entieth century it has see ed possible for serious readers to en8oy Shakespeare on sta#e .ithout #i&in# up the ore difficult pleasures of traditional literary e5perience4 ><. 9ristol! 7. <c%uskie! "@@1: $C. This point of &ie. represents one side in the ar#u ent bet.een those in fa&our of openin# a ne. .ay in the interpretation and reproduction of the Shakespearean te5ts and those in fa&our of the preser&ation of those te5ts in their ori#inal for in order to a&oid any possible alteration. Colerid#e,s opinion is based on the opulence of these *enaissance plays! .hich do not need any other artifice to beco e attracti&e for the taste of literary reception. -o.e&er! the reader,s interest and 8ud#e ent on this type of literature has chan#ed alon# the ti e! for se&eral reasons! but these .ill be analysed in the third part of this chapter. )n the other side of the barricade stand those .ho consider these aspects! .ho belie&e that Shakespeare can be improved in pro&in# that his ideas are uni&ersal! their &alue bein# incontestable for all ti es:

25

2The reconciliation of te5t .ith perfor ance durin# the Sclassic a#e, .as fully achie&ed .hen theatrical producers de onstrated their .illin#ness to rely on professional redactions of early odern (uarto and folio editions. The costly theatrical spectacles of the *estoration and Qictorian sta#e disappeared as uch closer attention .as paid to the for s of poetic lan#ua#e transcribed in the early te5ts. ?&en Colerid#e i#ht ha&e been able to en8oy these productions. M3N Shakespeare,s the es of po.er! self-fashionin#! and social transfor ation e5press the pathos of Western odernity .ith e5traordinary &i&idness. At the sa e ti e his .orks represent a po.erful desire for social coherence and eanin#. 6or the odernist theatre! Shakespeare represents the possibility for the celebration of odernity,s the es of e ancipation and for resistance to odernity,s chronic dislocations.4 ><. 9ristol! 7. <c%uskie! "@@1: $C. A nu ber of critics tend to e&aluate a .ork in ter s of the has upon the reader or spectator. The idea of co pro ise bet.een the ori#inal literary source of inspiration for an adaption and the adaptation itself underlines the perpetual disputes that rise fro any creati&e process. This adaptation typolo#y de&elops fro the desire of attainin# ori#inality .hen e&erythin# see s to ha&e been said before. The reconciliation of ti es alon# the history of literature i plies ine&itable chan#in# and alterations. 1.2.&. daptin" for the s'reen or cine atic oral and ethical effect it

1oin# for.ard in the analysis of typolo#ies! .e can talk about fil adaptations. This last transfer fro cine a see s to be the i penetrable classical te5t! yet to sta#e to screen is e&en

ore contro&ersial as odern tele&ision

ost accessible .ay to the understandin# of the ake it accessible for the any ti es has been percei&ed in offers

spectator it re(uires a si plification .hich

ne#ati&e ter s! as causin# a de#radation to the ori#inal literary .ork. Screen adaptations are born of the aspiration to con&ert the te5t to realis . 6il story.
26

the &ie.er the si plest &ariant for a realistic transposition into the uni&erse of the

Sta#e and screen director! )rson Welles! stated: 2Shakespeare .ould ha&e a #reat

ade

o&ie .riter4 >(uoted by D. 9rode! "@@@:$C. This assertion takes us back

to the supposition that Shakespeare .rote for the audience! for the spectators! the &ie.ers! not for the reader. *esearch in this area has pro&ed it so. 6or a .riter that creates for the reader it is a sacrile#e to cut .ords fro his .ork! .hereas for atters is the the .riter that creates for the sta#e or the screen .ords are placed on a secondary place behind their i pact on the audience. In this case .hat really e otional! the psycholo#ical essa#e essa#e sent to the public! e&en if sendin# this

eans to #i&e up .ords! phrases! ideas! or to t.ist the plot. To sustain

this ar#u ent! the actor Charlton Weston says: 2Dot e&ery line has #old in it. If a line has no poetic treasure and doesn,t ad&ance the plot or character! it should be cut. This is sacrile#e to people .ho read and .rite about Shakespeare. +eople .ho do Shakespeare! ho.e&er! cut hi . I,d bet Shakespeare4 >(uoted by D. 9rode! "@@@: /C. Why is it difficult to i a#ine Shakespeare on cine a screens? Is the literary treasure he created too co ple5 to be adapted in cine ato#raphic .orks? Is there a co patibility bet.een Shakespeare and fil #o on .hich akes us conclude fro or not? The list of (uestions could .e are the be#innin# that the proble y soul that Shakespeare cut

dealin# .ith is &ery contro&ersial. *ussel 0ackson tries to clarify these issues in his study The ,ambridge ,ompanion to Shakespeare on $ilm : 2In fact the nu ber of fil s ade fro Shakespeare,s plays is relati&ely s all althou#h the aterial .ithout o&in# pictures! ade of SShakespeare factor, in cine a has been enhanced by the nu erous Soffshoots, J fil s! like Shakespeare in love that dra. on Shakespearean clai in# to perfor any one of the plays. In the first century of

Shakespeare,s plays played an honorable but hardly do inant role in the de&elop ent of the ediu . So e forty sound fil s ha&e been Shakespearean plays to date! but it has been esti ated that durin# the Ssilent, era J before synchroni'ed dialo#ue co plicated the business of adaptin# poetic dra a for the screen J there .ere ore than /@@ fil s on Shakespearean arket unrestricted by sub8ects. These took their place in an international

27

considerations of lan#ua#e and >conse(uentlyC untroubled by the relati&ely archaic dialo#ue of the ori#inals4 >*. 0ackson! "@@@: 1FC. This analysis sho.s the real situation .hen it co es to the fact that o&ie adaptation. 0ackson,s e5a ple underlines anipulate the ore ost of the popular Shakespearean adaptations

ori#inal te5t! usin# only so e parts of it in order to create ne. stories!

appropriate for spirit of ti e and for the e5pectations of the public. The detail that at the be#innin# of the cine ato#raphic history there .as a hu#e de&elop ent of the fil adaptation process! hi#hli#hts that Shakespeare cannot be reproduced to screen than under the condition of a release of this connection bet.een the ori#inal and the ne.. De&ertheless! plays such as 4thello, .ing *ear, Hamlet, %omeo and 0uliet, Macbeth or The tempest offered a sprin# of inspiration for the creators of cine a adaptations! thanks to their celebrity! their conte porary application! their intri#ue or their historical fla&or. 6ranco =effirelli,s The Taming of the Shrew in 1BAA and %omeo and 0uliet in 1BAF are the first e5a ples of odern cine a o&ies adaptations inspired by the Shakespearean dra a. %ater! 7enneth 9rana#h de&eloped the belief that the play.ri#ht can be profitable! throu#h the Henry 8 in 1BFB and Much !do !bout )othing in 1BB/. 9a' %uhr ann had a #reat success .ith %omeo 9 0uliet in 1BBA and the sa e did 0ohn <adden,s ro antic co edy Shakespeare in *ove in 1BBF. It is i portant not to for#et the conditions of creatin# a o&ie adaptation. )n a theoretic le&el! the o&e fro literature to cine a is directly deter ined by the reception factor! because the de&elop ent of this kind of artistic action depends on the profit #ained by the screenin# result. This adaptation typolo#y leads ore than the others .e discussed so far! to so e sort of concession! idea e5plained by *ussel 0ackson: 2+articipation in the arketplace entails so e sort of co pro ise .ith .hat the potential purchaser is kno.n to .ant. Definitions of the &iable co ercial fil ha&e usually been in ter s of character! story and duration: attracti&e! interestin# people .ill encounter difficulties and o&erco e the ! probably akin# allies and fendin# off ad&ersaries! and take so ethin# less than t.o hours to do so.
28

Althou#h the #urus of ainstrea screenplay-.ritin# &ary in their reco ended strate#ies! there is #eneral a#ree ent that .hat sell best in RSA >and conse(uently in ost arkets .orld.ideC are stories containin# ideas rather than ideas turned into stories4 >*. 0ackson! "@@@:""C. This state ent brin#s to front i portant circu stances that ou#ht to be created for a successful fil adaptation.

The cine a audience is different than the theatre one and radical opposed to the reader. The e5pectations of people .aitin# in a cine a are &ery hi#h in the sense that they percei&e this art typolo#y as a for as a heuristic of entertain ent and not necessarily eans that they uch effort! akin# ethod to i pro&e one,s cultural back#round. This

anticipate bein# satisfied on a psycholo#ical le&el .ithout recei&in# all the infor ation clearly shaped by actors and fil this is the reason youn# people choose a fil

director. +erhaps

adaptation instead of the ori#inal

book. )n the other hand stays the reader .ho e5pects to be directly in&ol&ed in the buildin# of the story! throu#h the artifice of his i a#ination. -e is bound to interpret the .ords of the .riter! to ans.er the indirect (uestions and challen#es su##ested in the lines of the te5t. )ther adaptation typolo#y re#ardin# Shakespearean dra a is Manga" This 0apanese cartoon approach of the ori#inal plays brin#s to#ether #raphical representations and te5t. *eleased of the physical li its present in theatre! this type of adaptation can reproduce to paper al ost any situation no details such as &iolence or surreal ele ents. Ada atter the Se5ton! the author of the ost

<an#a Shakespearean editions describes the stron# points of this adaptation typolo#y: 2Take %omeo and 0uliet,s fa ous Uueen <ab speech. ?&en the creati&e sta#e director cannot faithfully present the inuscule fairy described by

<ercutio. <an#a artists can. The sa e is true .ith the dro.nin# of )phelia in Hamlet. It is precisely because these &i#nettes are unsta#eable that Shakespeare has his characters describe Uueen <ab and the death of )phelia in such #reat detail J they ust help us i a#ine the . In its unli ited ability to dra ati'e the
29

#raphic no&el

ore closely rese bles a conte porary fil

.ith a colossal

special-effects bud#et than anythin# produced onsta#e in the ?li'abethan era or since4>A. Se5ton! "@@F: BC. The author,s state ent brin#s up the &alue of this kind of adaptation! an#a artists, skill to e5press throu#h their dra.in#s the to ost an#a ysterious and obscure aspects of hu an nature. Co parin# fil co pro ise because of the

adaptations! this ti e .e are not dealin# any lon#er .ith the necessity of a ediu s lack. This sort of artistic representations and adaptations as .ell! brin# to#ether the po.er of .ords and the e5pressi&eness of dra.in#. 6urther e5a ples of <an#a Shakespeare .ill be #i&en and anlysed in the second chapter. Children books represent another e5a ple of Shakespearean adaptations typolo#y. The (uestion that raises .hen it co es to this .ritin# cate#ory is: ho. can one of ake Shakespeare attracti&e and understandable for kids? As in the case an#a creations! these books need the trick of #raphic illustrations in order to

ake the te5t appealin# for the taste of youn# readers. The Merchant of 8enice: ! Shakespeare Story is the title of an adaptation .hose author is Andre. <atthe.s. With the help of illustrations author ade by Tony *oss! the ana#ed to create a short &ersion of the ori#inal story. )b&iously! the essa#e. ?ach play adapted for kids be#ins .ith the list of ore accessible! as the rest of the story! throu#h the

Shakespearean te5t is condensed! but i portant passa#es re ain a key for the understandin# of the dra a characters .hich is .ritin#s. All in all! the fact that the Shakespearean te5t has al.ays been a source of inspiration for artists of all areas is incontestable. Analysin# all the adaptation typolo#ies .e listed abo&e! .e can say that the fascination of his dra a is uni&ersal and this leads to the constant de&elop ent of Shakespearean the es in different conte5ts of artistic anifestation. ade

illustrations of Tony *oss. This .ay! children can en8oy the fla&our of the classic

30

1.&. The inf!(en'e of po!iti's, '(!t(re and histori'a! )a'k"ro(nd on the pro'ess of adaptation After ha&in# analysed fro a theoretical point of &ie. the key ter s in&ol&ed in our

study and the adaptation typolo#ies in the case of Shakespeare! .e can assert that this reproduction process is a &ery co ple5 one and that it depends on the circu stances of its acco plish ent. Adaptations are influenced by politics! culture and the historical back#round. In this section of the first chapter! .e are #oin# to try to disco&er ho. do all these factors lea&e their print on the adaptation process. A #ood start .ould be to identify where and when does the adaptation de&elop! as the place and the ti e are the t.o ain factors that influence it. Critics talk about cultural #lobali'ation! a process in&ol&ed in the transfer of a .ork of art to another lan#ua#e! as it is our case. %inda -utcheon discussed this issue e5tensi&ely: 2Transcultural adaptations often ean chan#es in racial and #ender politics. M3N ?&en .ithin a sin#le culture! the chan#es can be so #reat that they can in fact be considered transcultural! on a icro rather than acro le&el. In the sa e society! political issues can chan#e .ith ti e.4>%. -utcheon! "@1$: 1/GC. The ter 2transcultural4 o&es the discussion on t.o le&els! national or international one.

The shift of a te5t such as a Shakespearean play to another lan#ua#e! as .e ha&e concluded in the case of translations! can lead to radical transfor ations. +lays like Hamlet or The Taming of the Shrew ha&e been adapted in a different any ti es for sta#e or screen! yet anner on e&ery occasion. The national identity of a people influences the

reception of a te5t .hich records e&en the sli#htest &ariation to .hat is a part of the cultural and social tradition. The case of Shakespeare raises the difficulty of this proble ! as any author .ho tries to translate his dra a beco es a part of his aura! of his popularity. The i portance of authorship is crucial in the course of a literary .ork fro one cultural identity to another: one lan#ua#e to another! fro

31

2And authorial identity can be si#nificantly linked to the creation and sustenance of national identity. Theatre theorist <artin ?sslin ar#ues! for e5a ple! that SIn any ?astern ?uropean countries 3 the national literature! and therefore national consciousness itself! had crystalli'ed around translations of Shakespeare. )nly after a lan#ua#e had passed the test of bein# able to acco odate the for and content of the #reatest dra a >and Shakespeare is seen as thatC could it lay clai in the eyes of the people concerned! to be re#arded as a &ehicle for the hi#hest fli#hts of thou#ht and poetic e5pression, 2>(uoted by D. 6ischlin! <. 6ortier! "@@@: 11C. ?sslin,s considerations re#ardin# this topic hi#hli#ht the anner in .hich a play by such

a popular author is percei&ed in a ne. lan#ua#e. -e talks about the necessity of that ne. lan#ua#e and i plicitly of the people .ho speak it! to adopt not only the lan#ua#e of the translated author! but also all the cultural back#round of his nationality. In our case! those .ho .ish to translate Shakespeare into a forei#n lan#ua#e need to ac(uaint .ith the political and social conte5t of his ti e! culture. The e&olution of dra a and of theatrical adaptations in #eneral and of the Shakespearean theatre! in particular has al.ays been influenced by e5ternal factors: 2The di inished authority of the printed te5t has been acco panied by acceleratin# chan#e! instability! and a relentless de and for inno&ation in the perfor ance of Shakespeare,s plays. The chan#in# institutions of odern cultural production! in particular the de&elop ent of ne. technolo#ies and the ad&ance of co ercial ass culture! ha&e funda entally transfor ed the .ays in .hich theatre artists stru##le to reali'e their artistic &ision. Theatrical producers! actors! desi#ners! as .ell as cultural consu ers ha&e to Vnd .ays to cope .ith the e5i#en-cies of #lobal arkets! uni&ersal diaspora! and instantaneous ass co unication. ><. 9ristol! 7. <c%uskie! "@@1: $C. This (uotation illustrates the idea that authorship has been in a continuous process of chan#e! because of the e5ternal factors influence. We cannot talk about adaptations .ithout takin# into account the perception of *enaissance
32

eanin# the ?li'abethan and 0acobean popular

artists re#ardin# the literary and theatrical practice usual for that ti e. <artindale talks about the i portance of this aspect in his book Shakespeare and the :ses of !nti;uity: 2)ne learned to .rite by i itatin# the Sbest, authors that is the ost ad ired classical .riters.4 ><artindale! 1BB/: 1@! 1"C Shakespeare has his o.n Sdebts, to the literature of his ti e. We cannot talk about his .ork! .ithout takin# into consideration all the sources a&ailable for literary and theatrical reproduction. 1eoffrey 9ullou#h #athered in his study )arrative and 3ramatic Sources of Shakespeare an outstandin# &ariety of appropriations! .hich pro&e to .hat de#ree .as his .ork inspired by other literary sources. The author includes a on# these popular tales .hich .ere sprin#s of inspiration accessible at that o ent! continental influences like <ontai#ne! classical 1reek and %atin .riters as Seneca! )&id and +lutarch or ?n#lish authors such as Chaucer! -olinshed and Spenser >D. 6ischlin! <. 6ortier! "@@@: BC. This results of this research sho. that it is i portant to percei&e Shakespeare throu#h the filter of his relations to pre&ious literary perfor ances. The respect for the spirit of ti e is a crucial factor in touchin# the e5pectations of an audience .hich is in&ol&ed in this cultural process. This .ay! the co prehension of literary practices in Shakespeare,s epoch leads us to the conclusion that history and all the conditions that it i plies! dra.s the of literary and dra a adaptation. ain lines

33

Chapter II %iterature and Theatre

2.1 Dis'o*ery of Shakespearean adaptations: 'hrono!o"y and the+ati' iss(es 6or ore than four hundred years! history has pro&ed that Shakespeare,s .orks are an odern literature and art. -is .ords ha&e been

o&er.hel in# source of inspiration for

2re ade4! transfor ed and con&erted into artistic creations adapted to a .orld sufferin# a continuous process of chan#e. This .ay! Shakespeare,s plays .ent beyond the border of literature! to the sta#e of theatre and cine a. A suitable start for this section .ould be the analysis of another key .ord! 2source4. Why is it i portant? 9ecause it sho.s the ori#in of the play.ri#ht,s creations. We are talkin# about odern adaptations! the .ay Shakespeare,s .ords ha&e been absorbed by .riters and directors .ho .anted to de&elop under the shado. of his .orks! but .hy not .onder .hether the #reat dra atur#e hi self didn,t use the sa e techni(ue. Was Shakespeare an adapter or an appropriator of his ti e or not? This (uestion .as briefly presented bet.een the lines of the first chapter .hen .e opened the sub8ect of authorship. The ans.er is #i&en by se&eral critics such as 1ary Taylor: 2Shakespeare! of course! .as as #uilty of theft as any author3 Shakespeare stole .ith a clear conscience. -e copied plots! characters!
34

speeches! i a#es! and aphoris s fro classical authors and fro his conte poraries! .ithout ackno.led#e ent4 >1. Taylor! 1BFB: 1/@C. A state ent .hich sounds like an accusation for the ears of a person .ho is not a.are of the literature trans ission process. *oland 9arthes co es in defense of .riters accused of such 2cultural cri e4 e5plainin# that 2any te5t is an interte5t: other te5ts are present in it3 the te5ts of the pre&ious and surroundin# culture3 Interte5tuality MisN the condition of any te5t .hatsoe&er4 >(uoted by D. 6ischlin! <. 6ortier! "@@@: /C. This 8ustifies the need to find inspiration in other sources .hen tryin# to build ori#inality in a ne. te5t. The point of &ie. that .e 8ust be#an to analyse raises a#ain the issue of authorship. This narration instance leads to deep debate .hen .e deal .ith the uni&erse of pure adaptation. This topic has been e5tensi&ely discussed by literary criticis . 6or instance! Derrida considers that 2the desire to .rite is the desire to launch thin#s that co e back to you as uch as possible in as any for s as possible4. ?5a inin# the act of .ritin# as a inent condition of any literary boo eran# .ith positi&e effects! Derrida e5plores this i

te5t! .hich is ine&itably connected to its social! cultural and historical back#round. <ichel 6oucault tries to focus the attention of research in this field on the definition of .hat an author is. -e studies the idea of percei&in# an author as a function in any literary .ork. The functional &alue of authorship chan#es the e&olution of literary .ritin#s! headin# to constant &ariations and alterations accordin# to different periods of ti e in history: 2the odes of circulation! &alori'ation! attribution and appropriation of odified .ithin each4 >6oucault! 1BGB: 1PFC. discourses &ary .ith each culture and are

This discrepancy in the reception of te5tual typolo#ies in different countries or .ithin the borders of the sa e nation! but durin# different ti e inter&als! stresses the i pression that cultural .orks concern the atic issues such as #ender! race! do ain or econo ics. In this chapter! .e are #oin# to analyse odern theatrical adaptations of the odern dra a. This area of en: Anton Chekho&! the

Shakespearean dra a. This is the reason for .hich .e should touch at first the topic that re#ards a #eneral &ie. on the theatrical con&entions of artistic creation be#an .ith the literary .ork of three

Dor.e#ian play.ri#ht -enrik Ibsen and the S.edish author Au#ust Strindber#. Their
35

plays built the techni(ues and the #eneral characteristics! typical for the .estern theater throu#hout the t.entieth century! reflectin# as .ell the ti e they .ere created! the so called odern era! .hich be#an in the late nineteenth century and continues to this day. odern ti e .ere reflected as al.ays in the arts that reflect the The features of this .ere

nu erous chan#es occurrin# in the society. In the theatrical uni&erse these e&olutions irrored in the #reat di&ersity re#ardin# the typolo#ies produced on or off sta#e. In a8or co ponents in the realis odern theater! one is this period! theatre has #ained an eclectic &alue! a plified to the le&el of an e5peri ent. We could state that there ha&e been three of the traditional theater fro the past. realis ! the other concerns the departures fro and the last one is a continuation

Steppin# for.ard to.ards the core of this thesis! theatrical adaptations can also be e5plored throu#h the real of authorial instance. This adaptation typolo#y occurs as an a literary .ritin# to ateriali'ed in criticis ! brin#s interface bet.een the creation and its criticis . In this e&olution fro its perfor ance on sta#e and after.ard to its reception!

into discussion authorship in other ter s. This ti e .e are dealin# .ith the link bet.een different authors! adapters or ori#inal .riters of a te5t. In the case of Shakespearean .ork adaptation there is a contro&ersial position and reaction of potential adapters to the ori#inal author: 2adapters of Shakespeare undertake a nu ber of responses to Shakespeare,s canonical status: so e seek to supplant or o&erthro.: others borro. the Shakespeare,s status to #i&e resonance to their o.n efforts4 >D. 6ischlin! <. 6ortier! "@@@: AC. Thus! adapters choose ho. to react in relation to the ori#inal author! for instance Charles <aro.it' e broiders in his plays lar#e critical considerations on Shakespeare: 2What .e co e only fro ost .ant no. fro Shakespeare is not the routine repetition of his .ords and i a#ery! but the Shakespearean ?5perience. And today! ironically! that can dissol&in# the .orks into a ne. co pound! and creatin# that sense of &icissitude! &ariety! and intellectual &i#or .ith .hich the author hi self confronted the se&enteenth century.4 ><aro.it'! 1BB1: /GFC The first criterion that .e are #oin# to discuss in the study of the Shakespearean adaptations is chronolo#y. The spirit of ti e! as .e ha&e concluded in the first chapter! has al.ays influenced the process of adaptation. -istory! politics! social factors are 8ust a
36

fe. of the ele ents that put their print on the theatrical reproductions of .hich .e are talkin# about. In this section of our analysis! .e are #oin# to tackle the topic of literature &ersus theatre! literature and its theatre adaptations in the uni&erse of Shakespearean .ritin#s. *esearch on this topic deter ined the e er#ence of e5tensi&e lists of sta#e adaptations! cine atic reproductions or other typolo#ies of representations in the areas of all artistic anifestations: usic! paintin#! sculpture or e&en &ideo #a es. An e5a ple .hich is connected to our analysis in this chapter is the chronolo#ical in&entory of Shakespearean adaptations on sta#e #i&en by Daniel 6ischlin and <ark 6ortier. They ha&e chosen so e of the ost i portant plays e5plainin# that 2the list is far fro co prehensi&e! as it concentrates upon the fe. plays adapted by the .orks in this antholo#y and li its su##estions to a s all nu ber of readily a&ailable te5ts4 >D. 6ischlin! <. 6ortier! "@@@: $1BC. Their proposals trace ho.e&er an i portant section of Shakespeare theatrical adaptations! thus these e5a ples are co#ent for our ar#u entation: 2Adaptations of ,a+!et 1GG" Da&id 1arrick,s Hamlet, (rince of 3enmark. 1BAG To Stoppard,s %osencratz and 6uildenstern are 3ead! an e5istentialist! Stoppard self-refle5i&e co edy. 1BGA The $ifteen Minute Hamlet! also by To 1BGF Hamletmachine by -einer <Tller 1BGB To Stoppard a#ain .ith 3ogg7s Hamlet 1BF1 /lsinore: !n !nalytical Scenario by A erican theorist and dra atur#e -erbert 9lau. 1BFF Dicholas Abraha ,s The (hantom of Hamlet! a si5th act to Shakespeare,s play. 1BB" *ion in the Streets! by 0udith Tho pson. 1BBP 7en 1ass,s ,laudius Adaptations of -in" $ear 1AF1 The History of .ing *ear! by Dahu
37

Tate.

1BG" ?d.ard 9ond,s socialist dra a *ear" 1BFG *ear7s 3aughters by ?laine 6einstein and The Wo en,s Theatre 1roup. 1BB@ -o.ard 9arker,s < *ears" Adaptations of .a')eth 1AG/ Willia Da&enant,s Macbeth. arionettes. 1FBA Alfred 0arry,s :bu %oi! an adaptation for 1B"" 6ruach! by 1ordon 9otto ley. 1BG" ?u#ene Ionesco,s Macbeth. 1BG" uMabatha by Welco e <so i 1BGF Charles <arro.it',s ! Macbeth. 1BGB ,ahoot7s Macbeth! an adaptation by To Adaptations of .eas(re for .eas(re 1AG$ The *aw !gainst *overs! by Willia Da&enant. 1B$A 9ertolt 9recht,s %oundheads and (eakheads 1BGP Measure for Measure! by Charles <aro.it' Adaptations of Othe!!o 1F$/ <aurice Do.lin#,s 4thello Travestie! .here Desde ona sur&i&es. 1BAB )ot )ow, Sweet 3esdemona! <urray Carlin,s South African adaptation of the play. 1BGG ,ruel Tears! by ken <itchell. 1BFG 3esdemona: ! (lay !bout a Handkerchief! by +aula Qo#el. 1BB@ 6oodnight 3esdemona =6ood Morning 0uliet> ! a fe inist adaptation dra.in# upon both %omeo and 0uliet and 4thello! by Canadian Anne-<arie <acDonald. 1BBG Harlem 3uet! by D8anet Sears Adaptations of -in" Ri'hard the Third Stoppard.

38

1G@@ The Tragical History of .ing %ichard &&& ! Colley Cibber,s restoration adaptation >in ,lark7s Shakespeare Made $itC. 1B/1 The *esistible rise of Arturo Ri! by 9ertolt 9recht 1BGB Italian director Car elo 9ene,s radical! a&ant-#arde %ichard &&&! coupled .ith the theori'in# of 1illes Deleu'e in Superpositions. 1BB" The ?ueens by Dor and Chaurette Adaptations of Ro+eo and /(!iet 1F1" 0ohann Wolf#an# 1oethe,s %omeo and 0uliet. 1B$@ The (ublic! by 6ederico 1arcia %orca. 1BB@ 6oodnight 3esdemona =6ood Morning 0uliet>! by Ann-<arie <acDonald. Adaptations of The Ta+in" of the Shre0 1A11 The 2oman7s (rize@ or the Tamer Tamed! by 0ohn 6letcher 1ABF Sauny the Scot! by *estoration play.ri#ht 0ohn %acy >in Sandra Clark,s antholo#y Shakespeare Made $itC. 1GPA Da&id 1arrick,s ,atherine and (etruchio! .hich ends .ith a sli#htly co panionate arria#e. 1BGF Charles <arro.it',s ! Shrew Adaptations of The te+pest 1AG@ 0ohn Dryden and Willia Da&enant,s The tempest or the /nchanted &sland >in Clark,s Shakespeare Made $itC 1F// Charlotte 9arnes,s The $orest (rincess! .hich adapts the play to an A erican conte5t. 1B1A +ercy <ac7aye,s ,aliban by the 1ellow Sands first perfor ed to three-hundredth anni&ersary of Shakespeare,s death 1BAB Ai W CWsaire,s ! Tempest! a post-colonial adaptation. 1BF" The Sea! by ?d.ard 9ond. 1BFG This &sland7s Mine! by +hilip )s ent ark the ore

39

1BFF Australian Da&id <alouf,s Alood %elations.4 4 >D. 6ischlin! <. 6ortier! "@@@: $1BC The list of Shakespearean sta#e adaptations sho.s fro the startin# point of this analysis all cultural

that the .ritin#s of this co ple5 author arouse the interest of .riters fro

spheres. Do one could ha&e predicted the .ide &ariety of reproductions that .ere inspired by Shakespeare,s .orks alon# the ti e. Talkin# about the popularity and the i pact of his plays in connection .ith the chronolo#ical factor! <ichael 9ristol says: 2Shakespeare has ade the bi# ti e. Do less than The 9eatles or %iberace! ?l&is +resley or <ick ay achie&e canonical status .ithin the acade ic 0a##er! Shakespeare is bi# ti e in the idio atic sense of cultural success! hi#h &isibility and notoriety. )ther literary fi#ures co unity based on clai s to artistic distinction! but Shakespeare is unusual in that he

has also achie&ed conte porary celebrity4 ><. 9ristol! "@@P: "C. The paper and the sta#e #et different &alues in the odern adaptations but! Shakespeare

re ains the prior authority of his plays! as his .ritin#s are inno&ati&e and &aluable both on the paper and on the sta#e. We can conclude that there are adaptations of tra#edy! co edy! history and ro ance. So e replace Shakespeare,s lan#ua#e! others parody it! others keep close to the ori#inal or by contrary rein&ent it. Writers of all colors are interested in adaptin# Shakespeare. Why? +erhaps no.adays! .hen e&erythin# has been said! .ritten and done! .e need to re#ain the ori#inal roots of literature! .e need to rebuild Shakespeare accordin# to our end to such an o&er.hel in# literature. 6urther! .e are #oin# to pick so e e5a ples to sho. the the atic areas tackled in these adaptations. The intercultural and transcultural &alue of the Shakespearean .ork represents the ost difficult barrier to cross for those .ho decide to approach a ain seed of the literary inspiration. The the atic palette odern .riter has to rebuild the initial reinterpretation of the ori#inal plays. It is (uite co plicated for the adapter to surpass this intri#uin# li it .hich is the that the reader encounters in the uni&erse of the Shakespearean adaptations is therefore strictly related to the idea of ori#inality. The
40

odern social en&iron ent! accordin# to our

e5pectations. There is no end to the on#oin# adaptation of Shakespeare. There can be no

the es of the dra atic plot in order to #ain the attention and the interest of the audience is the key in the understandin# of the adaptation echanis .

odern

reader. This link bet.een the te5t and the e5pectations or the taste of the conte porary

In these ter s .e can discuss about the rele&ance of nationality in the selection of the es chosen by the adaptation authors: 2The Shakespeare Sindustry, J as it i pacts on the educational syste s! the critical discourses! and the theatrical culture of a society J often operates in .ays that sustain ideas! &alues! and e&en episte olo#ies .hich are forei#n to the recei&ers and therefore of li ited rele&ance! e5cept in propa#ation of the ?n#lish cultural &alues! for the in the #lobal conte5t of his ti e. The .orks deri&ed fro stru##les that co e fro aintainin# the interests of i perialis .4>1ilbert and To pkins 1BBA: 1BC Shakespeare .as a solid support for the aintainin# of this people,s superiority ain focus of his .ork and conse(uently of the

it is on the co ple5ity of hu an nature! on the interiority .ith all the it. In Shakespearean dra a the outside uni&erse! the conte5t is

8ust the occasion that leads to a ne. inner e5ertion! .hich causes the intri#ue of the play! .hich causes the tor ent of the inner uni&erse of the characters. In postcolonial adaptations! this relation chan#es radically. This ti e the inner uni&erse of the characters influence! deconstruct the outside uni&erse! the conte5t of the play. The plot is not directed by the cultural and historical back#round as in the case of colonialis ! but it is i posed by the inner e5periences of the de&elop ent is the indi&idual. The the atic topics that a reader can find in the Shakespearean adaptations are conse(uently strictly related to the indi&idual typolo#y specific for the ti e of the adaptation. So e critics point out that e&en thou#h innocents fre(uently suffer in the plays of Shakespeare - characters like )phelia! Cordelia! Desde ona - the .icked are al.ays punished. In Shakespeare! a to a .orld oral la. operates to restore finally an e(uilibriu alefactions of so e .icked character or of a .orld! as -a let;s other;s ade discordant and e&il by the ain characters! the sprin# of the dra atic

spirit. So eti es a noble action .ill destroy the e(uilibriu does in seekin# to re&en#e his father;s

urder and brin# so e inte#rity into his

life. 9ut here! too! order is restored .hen 6ortinbras appears after -a let;s death. )ne ust re e ber! ho.e&er! that the restoration of #eneral. )rder does nothin# to help
41

those destroyed durin# the period of disorder. The order in a .ork! the or#anic .hole produced by the esthetic and lo#ical arran#e ents of parts! so e critics say! reflects the order and purpose that e5ist in the uni&erse. Whate&er the .riter;s co ent on the nature of the .orld .hether heEshe sees it throu#h a #lass li#htly or darkly! the finished product is a co plete and ordered thin# rese blin# the natural uni&erse! .hich in the author;s &ie. is also a co plete and ordered thin# despite its dark and see in#ly purposeless ele ents. Accordin# to pra# atic critics! the the orality de anded by a .ork;s audience .ill ake

a.are of the ethical essence of life and e5perience. They need to carry a.ay fro

the e5perience of literature a sense that a di&ine 8ustice rules the .orld and that hu an bein#s! throu#h the institutions they create and the thin#s they .rite! indicate the e5tent to .hich 1od;s 8ustice! seen by the as #ood! has beco e an ideal for hu an 8ustice to because arry his other! he should e ulate. In such a &ie. )edipus is to bla e for the disasters that befall hi ha&in# learned that he .as destined to kill his father and ha&e a&oided any (uarrel .ith a entered into a other. )ne of the ele ents necessary to dile ake a .ork of literature tra#ic is that the audience

an old enou#h to be his father and certainly not ha&e

arria#e! .hate&er the circu stance! .ith a .o an old enou#h to be his

ha&e so e fello. sy pathy! so e psycholo#ical and e otional co prehension of the as and sufferin# of the prota#onists. Macbeth fails as a tra#edy if the audience sees the thane and his lady as unredee ed &illains! dee s their sufferin# as deser&ed and necessary punish ent! and takes pleasure in their a#onies. 9ut this is not the response of ost readers or spectators.

The spectacle of the noble <acbeth! dri&en by a bition and the .ill to po.er to the ost heinous of acts! sufferin# the ost intense pan#s of #uilt and re orse! arouses! perhaps a#ainst their .ill! the pity of the readers or spectators. There is also in the audience a sense of fear that the e&il that conta inated <acbeth and %ady <acbeth can poison anyone. When! therefore! you analy'e a .ork that you call tra#ic! you a.aken in the audience. ust a on# other thin#s deter ine the response to the prota#onists .hich the author seeks to

42

This is the reason .hy so e plays brin# insi#nificant chan#es to the ori#inal .ritin#s! other replace al ost entirely the source .ork or others choose to parody it. They use a .ide &ariety of sta#e con&entions! radically transfor in# the transposition of the paper to the theatre in relation to &arious factors .hich create &arious dra atic products: the epic theatre of 9recht or the post odernist adaptation of <Tller! or on the other hand <ar5ist! post-colonial or fe inist creations. It is i portant to underline fro post odernis : 2While the ti e fra es of both post-colonialis and post- odernis #enerally intersect! and post- odern literary de&ices are often found in post-colonial te5ts! the t.o cannot be e(uated. +art of post- odernis ,s brief is the dis antlin# of the often un.ritten but fre(uently in&oked rules of #enre! authority and &alue. +ost-colonialis ,s a#enda! ho.e&er is ore specifically political: to dis antle the he#e onic boundaries and the deter inants that create une(ual relations of po.er based on binary oppositions such as Sus and the ,! Sfirst .orld and third .orld,! S.hite and black,! Scoloniser and colonised,. +ost- odern te5ts are certainly political! but post-colonial te5ts e brace a ore specifically political ai : that of the continual destabili'ation of the cultural and political authority of i perialis . +ost-colonialis ! then! has ore affinity .ith fe inist and class-based discourses than .ith post odernis ! e&en if post-colonialis and post- odernis e ploy si ilar literary tropes.4>1ilbert and To pkins 1BBA: $C the start of this and section of our analysis the fact that there is a connection bet.een post-colonialis

2.2. The '(!t(ra! po!iti's, a 'ate"ori1ation 'riteria: fe+inist, +ateria!ist, post2 'o!onia!, 3(eer Adaptations and appropriations inspired by the Shakespearean .ork ha&e brou#ht an i portant contribution to the consolidation of a canonical position for the *enaissance .riter and in the sa e ti e ha&e contributed a lot to the buildin# of national identities of the receptors. This parado5ical double &alue of his literary .ork leads our analysis to the idea that cultural politics can be cate#ori'ation criteria for the adaptations that .e try to analyse. Do.adays adaptations do not keep any lon#er the sa e (uality! but try to break the Shakespearean canon and in the sa e ti e to dislocate representations fro
43

any kind

of #eo#raphical or cultural space! #eneratin# .hat critics call a transnational di ension of the literary te5t. This aspect can be considered throu#h an interdisciplinary approach as it in&ol&es different fields of study such as translation! the ori#inal te5t or cultural studies. The "@th century re8ected! the dyna is represents the social ore than any other a#e classifications! bein# characterised by

of shapes and trends. The dialectic is not an e5tra&a#ant one! but it o&e ent of .hich art is not! nor can be forei#n. The inner stru##le

betrays the attention for a ne. artistic lan#ua#e! a lan#ua#e able to redefine not only specific cate#ories of theatrical perfor ance! but the hu an e5istence itself! .hose reflection is. The e er#ence of fil directin# at the end of the 1Bth century includes fore&er the dra atic te5t in a co ple5 artistic unit .hich is perfor ance! and considers it J so eti es as deter inant! other ti es as a subordinate factor J a co ponent of the theatrical act. )f course the e er#ence of a theatrical direction! assu ed! deeply personali'ed! sti ulated interpretation of Willia Shakespeare! readin# his .ork differently dependin# oral! etc. on nu erous factors: social! reli#ious! political! aesthetic! Shakespeare is a test of

aturity! a challen#e for all directors! e&en for those .ho don;t

.ant to sta#e Shakespeare! a confir ation! a tradition or a possible artistic co ple5 for others! but also a flirt! a pleasure. There are a lot of dra atic authors .ho fail to beco e a source of inspiration for fil akers! because they .rite thin#s that can easily be put director there is at least one into scene. And therefore! they are uninterestin# for the : .orkin# .ith their te5ts is ne&er a challen#e. In the 8ourney of each #reat fil Shakespearean 2 editation4. 0ust because Shakespeare .as perfor ed in abundance! of course .ith those lon# inter&als of obli&ion! follo.ed by those of redisco&ery and recyclin#! of reinterpretation! especially in the last century! today he is at the centre of artistic and philosophical interpretations e&en uch ore. Doubt is a second #reat necessity alon# .ith inspiration. any (uestions Translations and the difficulties in&ol&ed by this process lead to so

re#ardin# Shakespeare,s .ork. Xou ha&e to .ork to the fullest! tryin# constantly to find

44

the ans.er: .hat

akes Shakespeare say! at this point! on this scene! thin#s that he alone his dra a? 6or .hat audience? -o. does a of the odern

can tell? -o. does a director ha&e to perfor society? Willia

perfor ance of Shakespeare ha&e to be to chan#e so eho. the rhyth

Shakespeare has #i&en the opportunity to people of the theater to en8oy different

interpretations of the sa e te5t and to assess those interpretations accordin# to sociopolitical and cultural conte5t. )utstandin# scenic (ualities! but also the rich back#rounds of Shakespeare,s .ork and ideas ha&e throu#hout its history of ade it resist the erosion of different aesthetics ore than half a <illenniu . The physical reality of the scenes

has been retrospecti&ely desi#ned in his dra atic .ritin#. In the ori#inal production of the Shakespearean te5t there is rhyth ! entrances! e er#ency e5its! the actors are already carried in a still in&isible space. The scene .as the one .ho produced these te5ts! it fi5ed the ! it &alidated the centuries before. The #reat erit of the Shakespearian dra atic creation is that his .ork is ne&er co pleted! it is in a continuous transfor ation! so Shakespeare can be perfor ed for eternity .ithout the fear of a clichW. As the te5t of the perfor ance .as al ost per anently tied to the birth of the sho.! it;s no .onder that i a#inary pro8ections throu#h theatrical .ork ha&e been and are al.ays bein# e&aluated! analy'ed! and inte#rated to the scenic speeches fro co ple5ity rather than si plicity. This a perspecti&e of akes the relationship bet.een the te5t and the

Shakespearean sta#e i possible to be unitary. )ne of the an5ieties produced by the directin# action! especially as re#ardin# the Shakespearean dra a! is that referrin# the i a#e throu#h .hich the te5t is altered. -o.e&er! there ust be a balance. Shakespeare alon# .ith other classics of dra atic literature! .orld literature constitutes the backbone of the de&elop ent of the theatrical art. Tacklin# this area calls for a cautious! prudent beha&ior. Those .ho deal .ith the Shakespearean te5t should keep in ancient te5ts created theatre and cine a representations! not fil critics. ind that the directors! actors or

45

To perfor

Shakespeare .ithout usin# a creati&e te5t! is a real cri e. The force of the ent is e5pressed throu#h the .orld of

sta#in# is entirely another .hen the co Shakespeare.

At the sa e ti e it;s natural to .onder .hy this constant call for Shakespeare;s dra atur#y? Conte porary theater see s to ha&e relie&ed the director of the necessity of an assiduous searchin# for a conte porary feature of a classic te5t. -o.e&er the ost i portant directors no.adays #o back to those te5ts! #o back to Shakespeare. Why this attraction for his plays? <aybe it is because stories such as Hamlet or .ing *ear are si ple and co ple5 at the sa e ti e. They can easily be understood by a child or raise philosophical (uestions in the 6or ind of an adult.

ore than a century there is no reflection on theatre not to s.in# bet.een the t.o

co ponents that define it: the te5t and the perfor ance artistic sho.. Theater is treated as a literary te5t! .here the classification of the plays in tra#edies! co edies or dra as cause the perfor ance style! accepts or e5cludes the sta#e is a &ery co ple5 one: body and &oice! li#ht! i5ture of for s! for s the taste. usic! colour. These t.o directions )r! on the contrary! the theater is 8ust playin#. 6irst of all! the presence of the actor on the ha&e oscillated in the theatrical perfor ance throu#hout the centuries. W. Shakespeare;s dra atur#y is pro&ocati&e on t.o plans: it encoura#es an ori#inal! personal or artistic approach of the ideas fro constant debate .ith Shakespeare! the to i ple ent the dra a on the sta#e. Another intri#uin# (uestion that arises is if Shakespeare .ould beco e an5ious in face of o&ie akers .ho tried to 2alter4 or 2rebuild4 his dra a? 6ortunately there is an al ost ob8ecti&e response to it. It is enou#h to analy'e! a#ain closely! both the dra atic and the poetic .orks. The theater critic 1eor#e 9anu ar#ues that the reader finds at Shakespeare a discourse on the theater! but not a unitary! syste ati'ed! doctrinaire one! but one dispersed throu#hout the .hole literary .ork! a practical one! linked especially to the creation of theatre or to the duty of an actor. ?specially Hamlet and ! Midsummer nightBs his plays and at the sa e ti e it causes a ethods an of the sta#e! .ith the techni(ues! the

46

3ream J describe the H anufactureH process of the theatre and its effect on the audience! the audience in the play and the audience for theatrical perfor ances. )ne of the pioneers of the ne.spapers fro the otion to reconsider Shakespeare .as Willia +oel. When he

.orked at the sho. Much ado about nothing! +oel ca e to rehearsals .ith a bo5 full of .hich he had re o&ed the bi'arre photos! dra.in#s! pictures and #a&e anner to percei&e the to the actors for inspiration. This apparently childish

classical te5t is not only an inno&ation! but it also #i&es consistency and ori#inality to the odern reinterpretations of the dra atic te5t. The 6rench theatre director and fil director! Ariane <nouchkine en#a#ed in a

challen#in# process the translation and adaptation of t.el&e of the Shakespeare te5ts. )f these only three te5ts .ill be translated and sta#ed: %ichard II>1BF1C! )ight of the .ings >1BF"C and the first part of Henry &8 >1BF/C. Dra.in# inspiration fro traditional techni(ues of 7abuki and 7athakali theatres! <nouchkine is tryin# to underscore the theatrical &alue of the Shakespearean .ork! recapturin# the 6rench Theatre taste for beautiful! for the aesthetic &alues: 2When .e decided to perfor hu an truths. So .e seek .ays of sta#in# hi Shakespeare! a recourse etaphor of to Asia beca e a necessity. 9ecause Shakespeare is located .ithin the

.hich a&oid the realistic and the prosaic at

all costs. Why choose the approach of an Asian Shakespeare? The e5a ple of Asian theatre! especially 0apanese! su##ested itself because of its stories! peopled .ith #reat .arriors! nobles! princes and kin#s. The reference to this #reat traditional for rules for .orkin#: precision of #esture! cleanness of line! the and an e5tre e artifice .ithin a kind of perfor ance that personal fil aesthetics. The director is .orkin# on the te5t also on the #rounds that they .ould allo. hi a akers in the art they i poses eetin# of an e5tre e truth i#ht be called hyperrealist.4 any other &ery

>(uoted by +atrice +a&is! 1BBA: BPC. <nouchkine;s case! but also of Shakespeare that can be fold .ith di#nity in any for

ake! represent an ar#u ent in fa&or of the elasticity and in any lan#ua#e or

alleable structure in relation to the &ision sta#e. 9eyond this! .hen re-.rite the .orks of Shakespeare! the author of the sta#e production has intuition of .hat .ill be said by
47

theatrical ust

eans. The dra a theorists closely concerned .ith the dra a of Willia o ents: the ti e Shakespeare .as .ritin# about: the

Shakespeare today! conclude that .hen a director .ants to sta#e a Shakespearean te5t! he editate on three historical second is the ti e .hen he .rote: the ti e .hen #et the result! .hen .e are a part of the audience. 6il akers today are usin# the te5ts of Willia Shakespeare in e5actly the sa e .ay of yths! by -o er! -esiod and ade use of

that the ancient 1reeks de&eloped their co pendiu &arious sources of inspiration of his ti e.

other authors of the ti e. It is an accepted fact that Shakespeare hi self

There are today deeply conte porary sho.s .ithout abandonin# the Shakespearean te5t eanin#! .hether the te5t is faithfully adapted or not. A pri ary conte porary feature in the art of theatre is that a theatrical creation is produced dyna ically! in a &ery personal anner! sub8ecti&e! .here the final product! the only one that dyna ic relationship of atters! is the artistic sho.. Do.adays! sta#e perfor ance e5plicitly declines theatre as literature in fa&or of a an as a person! not as a spectator! .ith the en&iron ent in .hich he is placed by the author of artistic e5peri ent! .ho is the director. The 1er an director Tho as )ster eier! one of the co unicate .ith hi ost acclai ed at the o ent!

considers that: Y?&ery #eneration .rites its o.n Shakespeare! e&ery 'eit#eist in a different .ayM3N Actually there .as a nice article in a 1er an ne.spaper describin# 1@ different -a lets playin# on 1er an sta#e at this ti e. And the conclusion .as that the youn# audience .as listenin# to the te5t and not follo.in# the director, s &ision on the play! especially if that &ersion .as .orkin# on the te5t! only esthetically te5t.4P Shakespeare beca e an e5peri ent sho.in# al ost scientifically that this play.ri#ht and an of the theatre is the source of an endless inspiration. Shakespeare;s dra atur#y included in its content the
P

ade .ithout eanin# of the

ade but not concerned .ith the

ost serious debates about acute proble s of conte porary

hu anity! as .ell as ans.ers to (uestions about the theatrical creation. About ho. to turn
http:EE....re&istascena.roEenEinter&ie.Etho as-oster eier

48

thou#ht into action! the idea! the ener#y into for ! keepin# the story and spirit of the Shakespearean te5t. -is de&eloped an e5tre ely rich &ariety of infinite scenic discourse. All these actions as a .hole resulted in a ne. readin# of Shakespeare! in the li#ht of ne. disco&eries about the te5t! but in li#ht of no.adays an. The inno&ation co es fro a natural inclination to.ard the disco&ery of ne. directions in art! fro interest for Shakespeare #i&es it ne. di ensions and ne. depths of dra atic a #enuine aterial.

per anent curiosity for the Shakespearean play. The pheno enon associated .ith the

The ?uropean theatre is traditionally linked to the te5t. 9ut thin#s .ere not al.ays like this. There ha&e been periods in the e&olution of the ?uropean theatre .hen te5t .as nothin# ore than the ori#in of the sta#e perfor ance. In the ?uropean theatrical culture! especially after the e er#ence of the printed press! the idea of the theater to the sta#e e&ol&ed throu#h the presence of the actor .ho speaks! often acco panied by the presence of the printed te5t. It is said that the theater could not create than the present. It;s al.ays a precise o ent. Therefore it is natural that the classics! includin# Shakespeare! to be akes Shakespeare conte porary. -e played in a #reat .ay. The theatre of the present

ust be adapted to the ideas of conte porary spirituality! of essence of life at present. There cannot be a ne. Shakespeare .ithout a ne. philosophy. 0ohn ?lso 9ut his stated that 2Shakespeare left behind a rich .ardrobe of clothes! props and oods and necessities4 >0. ?lso ! 1BFB: $C.

ideas .hich .e could .ear accordin# to our

etaphorical obser&ation underlines an essential aspect! that there is an essential

difference bet.een interpretation and distortion. The richness of the Shakespeare,s ?n#lish te5t! not once bla ed for inade(uacies because of this e5uberance! parado5ically stands for the &alue of the te5t. <oti&ated by the disposal of creati&e and intellectual interest! a director or a play.ri#ht en#a#ed .ith such a purpose! can build his o.n te5t to the sta#e! his o.n adaptation or representation. Today it see s that the force and the authenticity of an artistic sho. after Shakespeare is directly linked to a ne. translation and adaptation of the te5t. The success of a

49

perfor ance depends in the first place on the force of the .ords! on their i pact on the audience. -o.e&er! it is necessary to ask .hat is a translation ade for? 6or .ho ? 6or the

dra atic literature or possibly for a sin#le perfor ance? Its only true &alue is to be a natural sta#e of a Shakespearean te5t. A translation betrays the ori#inal in a nice .ay. Its ad&anta#e is that it can speak the lan#ua#e of the present. With the ne. translations appear ne. interpretations of Shakespeare;s te5t. 9ecause translation is itself an interpretation! it casts a ne. li#ht on the te5t in (uestion and it;s able to pa&e the .ay for one or ore ne. perfor ance &isions. ore than the translation to a certain sta#e pro8ect. They are

Adaptation is subordinated created .ithout

akin# structural chan#es or #i&in# ne. directions to the printed te5t!

.ithout fallin# into the trap of e5cessi&e i ple entation to &arious conte5ts. There are chan#es in the sphere of ti e! skippin# of scenes or doublin# of characters: chan#es to support the ne. approaches of the Shakespearean te5t and to be har ony .ith the concept of the sho.. Rsually in such perfor ances! the lines sound naturally! .ithout e5a##erations! are co prehensible to the conte porary spectator and at the sa e ti e easy to speak for the actors. Xou can adapt the .orks of Shakespeare for the counts is the &alidity of the of ti e. So e directors used to create parallel intri#ues of those fro e5a ple did 9ertolt 9recht .hen he Shakespeare;s te5t. As for ere idea of brin#in# it to the

conte porary uni&erse or adapt in order to respond to so e (uestions today! .here .hat essa#e of the dra atic .ork! able or not to cross the border

ounted the play ,oriolanus. The e5peri ent .as ay be

not entirely successful accordin# to +eter 9rook. The 9ritish director ar#ued that e&ery play of Shakespeare has an or#anic sense. )n paper it appears that an episode replaced .ith another and! in tri ed or any of his plays scenes and passa#es see that can be

o&ed" 9recht created a parallel plot J the scene of confrontation bet.een

50

Qolu nia and Coriolanus at the #ates of *o e! has been re.ritten! resultin# in a sli#ht fla. .hich has beco e a deep! re&ealin# error! accordin# to the e&aluation of 9rook. -o.e&er the ost successful perfor ances of the .orks of Shakespeare are those that ore inspiration. etaphor! the

e ploy the ori#inal .ith

The te5t is shortened drastically throu#h the cuttin# of the Shakespearean lan#ua#e beco in#

ore abrasi&e. The alterations of the te5t are dra atic! pursuin# only ain (uality of the script is

the coherence and functionality of the story! the accents fallin# e5actly .here the director of the perfor ance needs support for the adaptation. -ere the the screenplay and the ori#inal te5t is still close. Do.adays are &ery in &o#ue the al ost cine ato#raphic perfor ances of the ?n#lish play.ri#ht,s te5ts! .hich rise a#ainst the classic rhetorical perfor ances that ha&e e bodied throu#hout the ti e the so-called interpretation of lo#ic in parallel .ith other ature &ision. The speech co es fro the eans of e5pression on sta#e. Shaking ounted relati&ely recently at the the flo.. The director proposes his o.n &ision of the play! and the relationship bet.een

Shakespeare is a sho. that e5e plifies this artistic endea&or. Shaking Shakespeare is a theatre sho. directed by *adu Ale5andru Dica! .ay of structurin# dra a and spectacular 1er an Theater in Ti ioara. It is a pro8ect that uses interte5tuali'ation as a post odern aterial. The screenplay is built on the story of The Tempest! The -a let and his fa ily-e5istential dra a. The *o anian producers used the story of -a let for this interestin# and ori#inal adaptation. Scenes fro lo#ical for ! bein# ani ated by the itinerant actors, troupe. 9ut the Shakespearean e5peri ent is not reduced at the te5t. There is also the decipherin# of the Shakespearean structures that #enerate solutions! etaphors! sy bols .hen the eanin#s! the purpose is to transpose the ne. contents. Cancellation of the e5periences! Merchant of 8enice! 4thello! Macbeth! %ichard &&& are 8oined to#ether in an in#enious!

annihilation of fake independence policy! consu erist! #re#arious conditionin#! a cine atic approach! all these characteri'e scenic &isions after Shakespeare and leads to harsh criticis fro those .ho tend to ideali'e the past. The i position of ne.

51

audio&isual technolo#ies! the addiction to &ideo-inte#rated circuits! fil in# represent a clear trend of post odernity! but that continues to re ain in a sensiti&e area of the less anner! successful e5peri ents. If you .ant to brin# Shakespeare on sta#e in an efficient society in .hich hu an co e5a ination of hu an co because co unication is put into (uestion! the scenic co

you cannot a&oid the specific theatrical lan#ua#e today. Rnder the ter s of the present unication in theatres #i&es rise to ne. for s. The crisis of the articulated lan#ua#e pro pted a careful unication! ai in# to eli inate all that is artificial. And ultiple channels or plans! and unication is a process that is perfor ed on on syste

usin# all your perception: seein#! hearin#! the olfactory sensations! &erbali'ation is 8ust so e kind of co of all. So the .ord! lon# ti e considered to be the unication for s. 1estural co unication! for e5clusi&e carrier of the e5a ple! is considered beco es ore and essa#e! is no. &alued for the tone! the intensity! the &oice and ore pri iti&e! but ore characteristic of the theatre. The theatre i itati&e to the sy bolic art.

so eti es replaced by non &erbal co ore a space of

anifestation of the body e5pression and #esture. 0ust

as in the &isual arts! there is a transfer fro

After his death Shakespeare has been considered present in all for s of artistic representation or creation. 0an 7ott,s book Shakespeare, our contemporary! published in ?n#land in 1BA/! .as considered a pioneerin# approach of the classical critic! .ellkno.n for the re arkable e5e#esis .ork. In this case! the idea considerin# Shakespeare our conte porary refers to the approach of the dra a te5t as a play. The author is present throu#h his .ords in the representations on the &isible as the interpretation of .ing *ear fro turnin# the odern sta#e. The result .as i ediately the book deeply influenced the production

of +eter 9rook! transfor in# all the usual! traditional sta#e representations before! upside-do.n! turnin# the austerity into a bi#uity! the heroic into #rotes(ue! odern. This readin# of .ing *ear in ter s of the absurd .as anner: on the one hand it .as re#arded .ith #reat turnin# the classical into

8ud#ed by the public in a double

interest and appreciation for the rein&entin# of the Shakespearean dra a for a different audience and on the other hand it .as criticised by the puritan audience .ho could not accept or tolerate such an alteration of the ori#inal #reat literary .ork! .ho did not .ish

52

for a conte porary Shakespeare! but one that stays a respectable authority! fore&er lost in the history of the ?li'abethan theatre. 9oth 0an 7ott and +eter 9rook helped the de&elop ent of the conte porary &alue of the Shakespearean dra a! as they e(ually considered that any representation of any theatrical te5t needs to be 2updated4 and therefore ine&itably conte porary. At first! .e should disco&er the reasons .hich ake the .riters or the producers choose

the Shakespearean .ords as a source of their o.n productions. %inda -utcheon tackles this topic in her book re#ardin# the process of adaptation: 2It is ob&ious that adapters ust ha&e their o.n personal reasons for decidin# first to do an adaptation and then choosin# .hich adapted .ork and .hat ediu to do it in. They not only interpret that ediu and the .ork! but in so doin# they also take a position on it4 >%. -utcheon! "@1$: B"C. This state ent brin#s to the core of our attention t.o essential aspects: the choice of the adapted te5t. This ediu is a reser&oir of infor ation for the adapter .ho atters re#ardin# the #eneral

has to fulfill the task of an interpreter before beco in# an author hi self. The data used by an adapter in the process of reconte5tuali'ation concern .orld &alues such as: econo ic issues! politics! race or #ender. AndrW %efe&ere discusses the i plications of the adaptation process: 2*e.ritin#! then! in all its for s! can be seen as a .eapon in the stru##le for supre acy bet.een &arious ideolo#ies! &arious poetics. It should be analysed and studied this .ay4 >A. %efe&ere! 1BF$: "$/C. The su##estion #i&en by %efe&ere is another key to cate#ori'e the products of the adaptation process. The first step is the translation that! as .e ha&e concluded in the first chapter! in&ol&es a sort of anipulation of the ori#inal .ork for attainin# the ob8ecti&e of ori#inality. An e5a ple of this sort of literary e5ploitation is *ear7s 3aughters by The Wo en,s Theatre 1roup and ?laine 6einstein that deconstructs the Shakespearean #ender politics! sketchin# a ne. story! for the e5pectations of a different public. )ther e5a ples .hich sho. that conte5t is an essential ele ent for the understandin# of any art product! are Hamletmachine! an adaptation by -einer <Tller! .ritten at a ti e historical stru##les! filled .ith allusions a#ainst socialis or The %esistible %ise of !rturo :i ! an adaptation of Shakespeare,s %ichard &&& by 9ertolt 9recht! that insinuates a derision of the Da'i re#i e.

53

Willia

Shakespeare;s dra atur#y .as al.ays the place for dan#erous debates on Shakespeare! .ho is a po.erful tool ore about the hu an psyche! .ith his

sub8ects and beha&iours .hich! on the one hand re#ard the people! on the other hand the spectators. Directors alon# .ith play.ri#ht Willia for kno.led#e! ha&e tried to dissect to find out e otions! the echanis s of action and

oti&ation etc. Directors ha&e de onstrated

throu#h their scenic creations that Shakespeare alon#side the ancient .orks constitutes a brutal dra a! .here taboos and cri es accu ulate. Willia fro Shakespeare,s dra a has so e indisputable (ualities. It allo.s o&ie akers

around the #lobe to retrie&e artistic e5pression! .ithout riskin# to repeat each other.

We ha&e identified a fe. directors .ho deal in a &ery different .ay .ith the Shakespearean .ork. Different! not 8ust because they tried a different readin# of the te5t! but also because they ha&e found the sel&es in these Shakespearean 2(ualities4. As an author! Shakespeare is al.ays a bi&alent. Also he is not part of pri iti&e solutions in the theater. 7s'ys'tof Warliko.ski;s theatre focuses on the proble Warliko.ski;s the reco aster is Willia of youth faced .ith disasters and

delusions. -e puts in scene the destiny of fallen an#els! the crash scenario. 7s'ys'tof Shakespeare. -e sta#ed the ?n#lish play.ri#ht aster J 0an 7ott. nu erous ti es. -e read and interpreted as conte porary as possible! in a#ree ent .ith endations of another

Warliko.ski has

ounted ten dra atic te5ts of Shakespeare: The merchant of 8enice

>1BB/C! The winterBs tale >1BBGC, Hamlet >1BBGE1BBBE"@@1C! (ericles >1BBFC! the Taming of the Shrew >1BBFC! The Tempest >"@@@E"@@$C! ! Midsummer nightBs 3ream >"@@$C! Macbeth >"@@/C and the te5ts" )ne of his a8or #oals is to create a ne. canon of readin# Shakespeare;s .ork. Throu#h ainly throu#h the Shakespearean! Warliko.ski has entered into ost recent >"@11C !frican Tales after ore Shakespearean

his perfor ances!

public discourse throu#h taboo the es: #uilt and for#i&eness of the 0e.ish nation! the -olocaust and ho ose5uality! #ender identity! reli#iosity and false reli#iosity. -is

54

perfor ances are especially on issues relatin# to se5uality! se5ual and social identity. Darin# to tackle these proble s! his theatre soon beca e an outra#eous atte pt. Warliko.ski has been interested in the disco&ery of the e5istential Shakespearean. The +olish director has re8ected political discourse and historical-philosophical te5ts by Shakespeare. -e .as rather interested in dealin# .ith the dra a stories as fa ily tra#edies. -e sou#ht to find in these te5ts the allusions to the conte porary political situation! but .as interested in the se5ual identity! fa ily relations! the Shakespeare;s .orks that are considered co edies! he applied the is to re8ect any possibility of ha&in# the happy endin#. 6or e5a ple in the Taming of the Shrew! in 1BBG! the 7atharina,s final .hich onolo#ue! echanis s of the cri e and the hook of the .ar. Warliko.ski;s ori#inality lies in the fact that sta#in# another principle that

ost of the ti es is read as a full of repentin# confor ity into acceptin# the role of arria#e

hu ble .ife! .as re&ealed as a .o an hu iliated re&olt! hu iliated and .hose hu blin# .as the purpose of +etruchio. The +olish Director did not belie&e that isfortune! .ithout directly sendin# this (uestion ark. can be a solution that could sol&e anythin#. )n the contrary! he treats it as a start of essa#e to the &ie.ers! until the end of the perfor ance. It is a ne. &ariant of 2and li&ed happily e&er after ...4 this ti e .ith a bi#

Dor for The tempest! or for The winter7s tale there is a happy end. It is in endin#s that Warliko.ski sees concentrated parado5es and challen#es for a fil &olta#e. And because aker! because only in the end! he belie&es! is acceleratin# and cataly'ed the dra atic situation of the hi#hest ost of the ti es he does not a#ree .ith Shakespearean endin#s! he to add a full stop to the perfor ance. In the is lit! but the action is not o&er on the is te pted to lea&e the sho. the freedo

perfor ances of Hamlet and Twelfth night! the spectator decides at .hat point does the representation end. The li#ht in the sho. roo sta#e. The public decides .hether to lea&e or to stay. Warliko.ski e5plores the Shakespearean dra atic aterial fro the hu an perspecti&e

that doesn;t belie&e in happiness. And alliances of the a orous plays #i&e the director the

55

opportunity to talk about another of his creed: happiness. 6ro

arria#e is al.ays the opposite of

this position! he belie&ed so eho. co patible .ith the ?n#lish #enius!

.hich is considered by so e critics to be a so ber! dra atic author presentin# his plays in a dark .orld of passion! irrational instincts e5plosion. The +olish Director;s conflict is centered on its ale-fe ale relationship and on the &iolence that is arria#e. It is for this arria#e. In arks the reason that the actress .ho played her! ca e to the arria#e .ith -ippolyta! naked!

co&ered .ith bruises. It destroys the .orld in .hich other couples hurried to This ti e the onolo#ue of the +olish director! is filled .ith an#er and

the Taming of the Shrew! the 2Ta in#4 represents the co plete hu iliation of .o en. be#innin# of a tra#edy. 7atharina is a .o an .ho understood ho. unrealistic .as her aspiration for lo&e. Another unhappy fe ale character is Qiola in Twelfth night! .ho .ishes to ha&e the appearance of a identity: ethnic! racial! se5ual! reli#ious. +eter 9rook offers a personal readin# of Hamlet. 6or this tra#edy he clipped of the te5t entirely and sta#ed it a#ain. -e cut one third of the ori#inal te5t. -e erased so e of the characters #uided by the principle of fluidity of sta#e speech and of spontaneity! but also to condense around -a let;s actions. The o&in# in the te5t that sparked ost co ents .as that of the fa ous solilo(uy Hto be or not to beH. 9rook e5plains that accordin# to the editions of the play! -a let;s line Hto be or not to beH is placed in t.o different places in the te5t. 9rook found it .as illo#ical to interrupt the fluidity of the action and he shifted to.ards the end of the play! at the ti e of the absolute failure. 9rook,s theatre is defined by his interest in spiritual! hu an (uestions. )ne of the characteristics of the theatrical art of +eter 9rook is the attach ent to the public or this is directly linked to the ?li'abethan and the Shakespearean theatre te5ts. 9rook kne. to appreciate its &alues of the ?li'abethan theatre .ea&in# in the Shakespearean dra a! like the secret hea&en to be sub itted to the ne5t #enerations. The co ple5ity of Hamlet! says 9rook! is so #reat that! in sta#in# this play! there is no other solution than the a5i u si plicity. 9ein# a aster of the si ple shapes he displays an! also because of #ender discri ination. Dis#uisin# hides in Warliko.ski,s interpretation of the Shakespearean te5ts! conflicts of

56

his #eniality. And let;s not for#et that 9rook;s Theatre is a theatre .ithout li it! a theater that features the ?li'abethan ti e. *obert Wilson is the says 9ecause the theatrical an of the theater! the creator of the &isual scenarios. What a te5t odel of *obert Wilson .as born fro his orientation to.ards only the

ust not ser&e the actor! but! first and fore ost the director! the creator of the sho..

artistic architecture and paintin#s! te5ts! especially the classics! pro&ide hi *enaissance dra atist! he says: 2Shakespeare already that people can hear the asterpiece. I let it talk to

source for future pictures! .hich condense ideas into their o.n space. Talkin# about the ade the theatre. What I ha&e to around those .ords so do is to find a .ay to put his theatre on a sta#e .ith enou#h roo

and think about the . I don,t belie&e in talkin# back to a e.4 >(uoted by A. -ol ber#! 1BBA:$@C This state ent sho.s

the connection bet.een the adapter and the ori#inal te5t! the i portance of ori#inality! but also the respect for the source te5t. About Hamlet! Wilson said! that readin# the te5t he ne&er ceases to disco&er in it a &ariety! al.ays rene.ed of eanin#s! .hich! unfortunately doesn,t happen .hen #oin# this .ealth. The actors to the theater to see a sta#in# of this play. There is nothin# fro e&erythin#! but the reality is opposite. The theatre #i&e us the opportunity to conte plate a .ork. The play Hamlet a monologue! perfor ed at the Alley Theatre in 1BBP! sho.s a deconstructed &ersion of the Shakespearean Hamlet! .hich takes appro5i ately 1@P inutes! is perhaps the lon#est creation of *obert Wilson. The e phasis is placed ore than usual on the .ord and the i a#e is assi#ned to co plete it! co pletin# the theatre representation .ith sy bolic for s. As a true poet! he belie&es in the ener#y and &ibrancy of .ords! his e5ercise bein# to e5perience the stron# ateriality and the utterance of this Hamlet. We are .itnessin# a #a e of detach ent! and the result is a sho.! .ith o ents! drained in parody. In Hamlet J a monologue! Wilson breaks the lyrics of onolo#ue beco es the inner inutes before an .ho editates on his .hole e5istence in the last
57

interpret the te5t! #i&e the i pression that they kno. e&erythin# that they understand ust not! after Wilson! interpret! but

the Shakespearean te5t and restores it! rebuilds it. -a let;s onolo#ue of the

death. The te5t! .hich Wilson has adapted alon# .ith Wolf#an# Wiens! is di&ided into 1P scenes! .hich take o&er obsessi&ely! as if in a drea ! fra# ents of -a let,s e ory. -a let of Wilson is an e otionally trau ati'ed! hysterically i pulsi&e and &en#eful. Wilson belie&es that Hamlet;s Shakespeare is like a rock that can be easily broken. -a let hi self is interpreted! but recalls other characters! abandonin# the unilateral #a'e. -ere;s another treat of the #reat asterpiece.

Shakespeare in scenic pro8ects today looks &ery confusin#! decepti&ely challen#in# and creati&e! confusin#! detractor of traditional interpretation of Willia Shakespeare on sta#e. Today;s dra a sho.s ho. Shakespeare on sta#e is the fault of theatrical art de&elop ent! sti ulated! of course in such crucial pheno ena as the o&erhead occurrence and perfor ance scenario dissolution of dra atic #enre in the first place. daptations of -in" $ear This analysis offers an introduction to the lon# history of Shakespearian adaptations and appropriations. The History of .ing *ear! .ritten by Dahu Tate and *ear7s 3aughters, ain a creation of The Wo en,s Theatre 1roup and ?laine 6einstein are 8ust t.o of the ultiple e5a ples sustainin# this thesis. .ing *ear and its adaptations! .hich is the e5ploration of culture and its trans ission. Shakespeare,s plays resisted like a rock a#ainst the flo.in# of ti e! bein# a per anent source of inspiration for odern literature and art. Approachin# issues such as hu an sufferin# and i perfection! the relations of hu anity to nature on the one hand and the aspiration to.ards perfection on the other hand! the Shakespearian te5t allo.s an i plication! a trans utation of the reader or of the &ie.er into the reality of the fictional .orld. This is .hy his .ritin#s point also for ana#ed to cross the line of ti e! beco in# an interest odern literature and theatre. Adaptations re#ardin# the tra#edy of .ing topic of this short presentation! pro&e that Shakespeare can be seen as a location for the

*ear are the topic of this literary analysis. )bser&in# the differences bet.een Shakespeare,s plays! Sa uel Taylor Colerid#e noticed the speed aspect. The reader has to deal .ith the rapid rhyth
58

of Macbeth, the

slo.ness of Hamlet and is pu''led by %ear,s co bination of 2len#th and rapidity! - like the hurricane and the .hirlpool absorbin# .hile it ad&ances. It be#ins as a stor y day in su er! .ith bri#htness: but that bri#htness is lurid! and anticipates the te pest4 >-enry Delson Colerid#e! 1F$AC. As .e kno. it .ing *ear is a co ple5 and e otional story about a kin# and his three dau#hters! about parental lo&e and respect! about betrayal and appearances. The author con&erts it into a tra#edy throu#h the alteration of the endin#: .ing *ear does not conclude .ith the restoration of the old kin# on his throne! but .ith Cordelia and %ear dead. The ori#inality of the play is #i&en by the fact that this tra#ic situation is of %ear,s o.n akin#. -is lack of po.er to see the truth! his lack of prudence oti&es accurately leads hi to death. -e .ill not see e still re ainE The true and the disability to see people,s

or hear clearly. 7ent cries out in &ain: 2See better! %ear! and let of his .illful blindness. In Shakespeare,s plays absurdities result -o.e&er! positi&e

blank thine eye4 >Shakespeare! 1BAPC. The follo.in# disasters are the direct conse(uence

ainly because of hu an! not di&ine acts. hu an

eanin#s in the fictional .orld of .ing *ear also co e fro

acti&ity! sho.in# the a bi#uity of hu an nature. There are so e pre editated choices in this play such as 7ent,s decision to ser&e his kin# despite he had been banished for his #ood intentions! or the 6ool,s decision to stay .ith his alone in the stor . This aster! refusin# to lea&e hi anner of dealin# .ith a re8ectin# en&iron ent represents the

rational side of the story. The author breaks do.n the natural order of spiritual &alues in a fictional .orld as truth and rationality are &iolated and the result is a .orld turned upside do.n! but it is a .orld for ed and deter ined by the people .ho inhabit it. This .ay! .ing *ear de&elops an o&er.hel in# source of inspiration: it has been called a theatre of the blind! a theatre of the 9ible or e&en co pared to so e &ersions of ,inderella. )ur analysis .ill stop on the theatrical adaptations of this play to pro&e that Shakespeare,s .ords are in a continuous process of refor ulation in a .ide &ariety of .ays! e&en no.adays in a post odern .orld of deco position. Art and literature try to re-create the da''lin# pu''le of .hat has already been .ritten. The History of king *ear! an adaptation by Dahu Tate produced in 1AF1 and *ear7s daughters another adaptation uch later in 1BFG are produced by The Wo en,s Theatre 1roup and ?laine 6einstein!
59

the t.o e5a ples that are Shakespearean literature.

eant to sustain the idea of continuity re#ardin# the

The History of .ing *ear of Dahu

Tate has been the sub8ect of

uch critical derision!

takin# into account the fact that in the last 1@@ years! his &ersion has been rarely sta#ed. There .ere for instance! productions in %ondon in 1B/B and in 1BAA. -o.e&er! Tate #a&e all his dedication to this play! callin# his .ork 2a re&i&al3.ith alterations4. This .ay he brou#ht to sta#e his inspiration to i pro&e upon the ori#inal and his deep estee Shakespeare. The play appeared to hi for as 2a heap of 8e.els! unstrun# and unpolished!

yet so da''lin# in their disorder that I soon percei&ed I had sei'ed a treasure4 >Adler! 1BFPC. -e .ishes to brin# to this 2treasure4 re#ularity and a sense of order and probability .hich call for fe.er scene chan#es and epilo#ue: 2/pilogue =Spoken by Mrs Aarry, who played C)*D?%IAC Inconstancy! the rei#nin# Sin o,th,A#e Will scarce endure true %o&ers on the Sta#e: Xou hardly e&,n in +lays .ith such dispense! And +oets kill,e in their o.n Defence. Xet )ne bold +roof I .as resol&,d to #i&e! That I cou,d three -ours Constancy )ut-li&e. Xou fear! perhaps! .hilst on the Sta#e ., are ade Such Saints! .e shall indeed take up the Trade: So eti es .e Threaten J but our Qertue ay 6or Truth I fear .ith your +it-Qalour .ei#h: 6or >not to flatter eitherC I uch doubt When .e are off the Sta#e! and you are out! We are not (uite so Coy! nor Xou so Stout. We talk of Dunn,ries J but to be sincere Whoe&er li&es to see us Cloyster,d There! <ay hope to eet our Criti(ues at Tan#ier. 6or sha e #i&e o&er the in#lorious Trade )f .orryin# +oets! and #o aule th,Alcade. Well J since y,are All for blusterin# in the +it! This +lay,s *e&i&er hu bly do,s ad it
60

ore scenic effects than on the bare

Shakespearean sta#e. This sense of stability is #i&en by the presence of an e(uilibrate

Xour abs,lute +o.,r to da n his +art of it: 9ut still so any <aster-Touches shine )f the &ast -and that first laid this Desi#n! That in #reat Shakespear,s *i#ht! -e,s bold to say If you like nothin# you ha&e seen to Day The +lay your 0ud#e ent da ns! not you the +lay.4 >D 6ischlin Z<. 6ortier! "@@@:BAC

At a le5ical le&el! Tate tries to a&oid in his alterations the (uaintness of the ori#inal lan#ua#e. 6or instance! in the first scene of the ne. play! based on ?d und,s speech in Shakespeare: 2Thou! Dature! art y #oddess4! Tate 2a&oids the #narled synta5 and stran#e but po.erful diction of the ori#inal4 >Spencer! 1BG"C. The ne. lan#ua#e of 7in# %ear is re ade to suit an aesthetic of re#ularity. 1oin# on at the co positional le&el! Tate o its the presence of the 6ool and his e5tra&a#ant lan#ua#e for the sa e reason. The plot is altered by the creation of a lo&e interest bet.een ?d#ar and Cordelia! .hich #i&es ne. reluctance in the di&ision of the kin#do in the story: the happy endin#: Corde!ia Dor do I blush to o.n y Self o;er-paid 6or all y Suffrin#s past. Gloster Do.! #entle 1ods! #i&e 6loster his Dischar#e. Lear. Do! 6loster! Thou hast 9usiness yet for %ife: Thou! .ent and I! retir;d to so e cool Cell Will #ently pass our short reser&es of Ti e In cal *eflections on our 6ortunes past! Cheer;d .ith relation of the prosperous *ei#n )f this celestial +air: Thus our *e ains oti&ation to Cordelia,s a8or chan#e and by ?d#ar,s lin#erin# in hidin# as +oor

To . This .ay Cordelia,s role is e5panded! the lo&e interest leads to other

61

Shall in an e&en Course of Thou#ht be past! ?n8oy the present -our! nor fear the %ast. Edgar )ur droopin# Country no. erects her -ead! +eace spreads her bal y Win#s! and +lenty 9loo s. Di&ine ,ordelia! all the 1ods can .itness -o. uch thy %o&e to ? pire I preferI Thy bri#ht ?5a ple shall con&ince the World >Whate&er Stor s of 6ortune are decreedC That Truth and Qertue shall at last succeed. >D. 6ischlin! <. 6ortier! "@@@: BAC

Tate,s &ersion brin#s to li#ht a %ear and a 1loucester ali&e and a final betroth bet.een ?d#ar and Cordelia. Althou#h it .as still called a tra#edy! so e critical &ie.s considered it a 2ro antic elodra a4. Therefore! Tate can be considered one of the adaptors of eanin# of Shakespeare by chan#in# the #enre. The opti istic endin# turns the .hole

the play upside do.n. The reader doesn,t ha&e to deal .ith the dark feelin# of in8ustice .hich do inates the .hole play. The apocalypse is not so radical any lon#er. It appears as an ele ent of e(uilibriu ! not of confusion as in the ori#inal play. If in Shakespeare,s te5t the endin# hi#hli#hts 2e5tre e contin#ency and bad luck4>Clark! 1BBGC in Tate,s adaptation 2the public has decided4>Clark! 1BBGC. We i#ht add that it continues to decide e&en no.adays! transfor in# to create ne. in a .orld full of old. 0a es 9lack concluded that 2the popular success of Tate,s &ersion lies in his transfor ation of Shakespeare,s play into typical *estoration dra a4 >9lack! 1BGPC. The second e5a ple of adaptation chosen for this presentation is the first and ost endurin# 9ritain,s fe inist co panies! puts fro odern production

of ?laine 6einstein. This co-creation of the Wo en,s Theatre 1roup! .hich is one of the the &ery be#innin# the idea of authorship to the (uestion. This fe inist #roup did not choose by accident the play of one of the ost authoritati&e .riters. Their purpose .as to break the idea of personal! indi&idual literary creation and to hi#hli#ht the possibility of a split .ork. This #roup of .o en con&erted the theatre into a site of collaboration. *ear7s 3aughters e5e plifies the inno&ati&e strate#ies of the Wo en,s Theatre 1roup! e er#ed in the
62

1BG@s as a .o en,s street theatre .hich perfor ed for de onstrations. They decided to eli inate the hierarchical idea of collaboration! typical for The e5clusion of en is the first ale-do inated structures. a8or alteration brou#ht to the ori#inal play. Another yths! and structures .hich are deployed fro the sel&es!

chan#e is that the dau#hters, stories are retold by the andro#ynous fool. 2The fool,s function su##ests that sEhe details the fictions! by en to i prison .o en in patriarchal ideolo#y! to separate the

their bodies and their desires so that they are only e&er dau#hters! .i&es! or others4>6ortier! "@@@C. In this play! the public has to deal .ith the tellin# of fairy tales fro aterial absence of the father. 1oneril! Cordelia and *e#an are deeply characteri'ed throu#h the nurse,s their childhood. In *ear7s 3aughters! the princesses are carefully balanced a#ainst each other in ter s of character and color. The first production used a .hite .o an for the role of Cordelia and t.o black .o en for the roles of 1oneril and *e#an. The second production used black .o en to play the roles of all three dau#hters and .hite .o en for the 6ool and the nanny. Thus! the play brin#s to li#ht issues of ethnicity and class .hich ake it ore co ple5 and chan#e the le&el of interest of the &ie.ers. The final i a#e *ear7s 3aughters brin#s the three dau#hters to#ether! thro.in# the cro.n into the air and then catchin# it at once. The last i a#e before the blackout is centered on the black and .hite of the hands on the #old of the cro.n. The deep alteration of the ori#inal play to create this inno&ati&e histories! ore akin to a odern .orld. anifests itself especially if it can be odern adaptation pro&es the fact that Shakespeare,s .orks can be translated into other sy bolic

As no.adays! the public;s curiosity to.ards culture

reduced to the circus! the sho.! directed by Andrei [erban at the *o anian theatre 9ulandra! .ith %ear played entirely by .o en! dre. attention for this reason. This interestin# adaptation is another proof that Shakespeare needs to be updated to odern social issues in order to be at the reach of the audience. 6irst of all! the choice of the *o anian director is a lo#ical one! if .e think that in the ti e of Shakespeare! all roles .ere played by %ear en. Then! it;s a challen#e for an artist to turn a .o an into a an! oreo&er in this case .hen .e are talkin# about t.enty ei#ht .o en. The tra#edy of ay be 8ust as .ell the tra#edy of a %ady %ear! the essence re ains the sa e.

63

-u an nature is one! despite the fact that .e are created .ith certain differences and or#anic or psycholo#ical possibilities. Differences are not insur ountable! as de onstrated by this e5ceptional perfor ance! .hich is the ori#inal &ision of Andrei Serban. %ear;s .orld is li ited .hen he #athers his people to confess his final decision to di&ide the 7in#do J this ti e a ap of *o ania! bet.een his three dau#hters and! in the final this o ent he scene! only bet.een the t.o! Cordelia bein# disinherited. The old kin#! tired! doesn,t kno. the .orld yet! li&in# in a ti#ht and li ited reality! but fro curtain behind the ap! no. #i&en to the beco es a .anderin# throu#h unkno.n spaces and en&iron ents. So opens the black ore talkati&e dau#hters 1oneril and *e#an! uch alike so e and to their husbands! Albany and Corn.all. And in the sa e .ay! a little later! in the stor ! the opposite .alls collapse re&ealin# so e ruins that look &ery rocky .ill .ander! for ha&in# ade the .ron# choice. ountains! .ithout &e#etation! .here the t.o cra'y old en! %ear and 1loucester

All in all! this short analysis of the t.o adaptations opens a discussion of cultural recreation! e5plorin# ideas such as interte5tuality! cultural politics! the relations bet.een literature and theatre or bet.een the artistic acti&ity and its criti(ue. The adaptation in&ol&es a .ider eanin# analysis! as it has so e unfortunate insinuations. The .ord eans reconte5tuali'ation! ore co ple5. The paper 2adaptation4 i plies a natural pro#ress a#ainst the ori#inal! .hich is only a #eneral principle .hich does not al.ays co e true. Adaptation t.o .ide fields of literature and theatre! .hich and the sta#e #et different &alues in the on the paper and on the sta#e. The Public, a +odern adaptation of Romeo and Juliet The (ublic, the play .ritten by the t.entieth-century dra atist 6ederico 1arc\a %orca is an e5a ple for the idea that 2details atter4! due to the co ple5ity of the adapti&e akes it e&en transfor ation! re-creation. In the case .e ha&e 8ust analy'ed adaptation has to co&er the odern adaptations of .ing *ear" Shakespeare

re ains the prior authority of his plays! as his .ritin#s are inno&ati&e and &aluable both

64

process! .hich e po.ers the .riter to transfor

the ori#inal Shakespearean play %omeo

and 0uliet. %orca recreates the plot! placin# the action in a hi#hly sy bolic fra e! touchin# issues such as the #ender e5pectations of the audience and the criti(ue of the conser&ati&e theatre. The (ublic breaks the boundaries and the taboos of Shakespeare,s %omeo and 0uliet! de onstratin# a hi#h de#ree of transfor ation fro 2ne.4 te5t. The history of %orca,s play is (uite co plicated as the author hi self considered it an 2impossible theatre4 and therefore asked one of his friends to burn the her etic co unication bet.een the anuscript after his death. The co plicated sta#in#! the hi#h co ple5ity of the characters and the ade the .riter take this decision. At that ti e anuscript! years later after the author,s the dra a see ed i possible to produce! but ho.e&er his friend i#nored his .ish keepin# and e&en publishin# the inco plete assassination by 6ascist anti-*epublicans durin# the Spanish Ci&il War. Critics re&ealed that 1arcia %orca had insisted that The (ublic and other 2unplayable4 plays si#nified his real! true theatre. The #eneral the atic fra e of the action is related to the author,s flirtation .ith surrealis ! under the influence of his friendship .ith Sal&ador Dali. 6ederico 1arcia %orca #i&es us an e5a ple of a different kind of theatre! less ideolo#ical and sterile! passionate and contro&ersial! defendin# all of for alis . The #eneral sub8ect of the play de&elops on t.o ore anifestations of lo&e and breakin# the li it a8or directions: a the 2old4 to the

transfor ation of the 2old4! traditional! Shakespearean theatre and an apparent e5a ination and display of repressed ho ose5ual feelin#s. In fact! The (ublic is 2the mirror of the audience4 as %orca hi self called it: 2it parades on stage the personal dramas that each one of the spectators is thinking of, often without realizing it, while they are watching the performance4 >http:EE....thepublic.or#.ukEhistory.ht lC. This confession of the dra atist #i&en to the Ar#entine ne.spaper *a )aciCn in 1B$$ #oes deeper! e5plainin# that 2e&eryone,s personal dra as are so eti es &ery shockin# and #enerally nothin# to be proud of! the spectators .ould i ediately rise up in indi#nation and stop the perfor ance4. %orca synthesi'es this .ay the essence of his
65

dra a! .hich #oes beneath life,s pleasin# surface! forcin# the e5posure of socially 2forbidden4 for s of lo&e. The play.ri#ht reshapes Shakespeare,s %omeo and 0uliet! in .hich youn# lo&ers prefer to die rather than li&in# apart fro each other. In the odern dra a 0uliet appears on sta#e after *o eo,s suicide! reali'in# that her death has no purpose and that she is doo ed to eternal loneliness. %orca proposes a ne. theatre to his audience! confrontin# it to an unco fortable reality. -e dares to brin# to li#ht the black side of hu an nature! the re8ected feelin#s and e otions of each indi&idual. %orca selects and anipulates se&eral aspects of the Shakespearean dra a! reinsertin# the action in the ana#es to refor ulate ore ake it appealin# to a odern public! .ho is coordination of the nineteenth century theatrical e5pectations. -e the *enaissance play in order to to the .eaknesses of hu an nature. 1oin# back to the adaptation fro ain topic of this analysis .e should re e ber the definition of

prepared for a theatrical e5peri entation! .ho .ishes to redisco&er Shakespeare adapted

the first chapter. This definition offers us the first key to the

understandin# of %orca,s dra a. It is a play about theatrical e5peri entation! in .hich the action builds in a circle of se&eral dra atic layers. The reader or the &ie.er confronts .ith a perpetual oscillation bet.een reality and consciousness. This is the alteration brou#ht to the ori#inal play. The a8or odern dra atist takes Shakespeare,s te5t

beyond the borders of a theatrical clichW and sho.s his audience a society .hich captures the otherness in a fra e of #uilt and hu iliation. After surpassin# the her etic line of the play! the spectator or the reader disco&ers a rather si ple plot. The Director of the Theatre of the )pen Air! .ho had successfully produced *o eo and 0uliet recei&es a challen#e fro put on a ne. for co three passionate! stran#e &isitors to of theatre. This so-called 2Theatre 9eneath the Sand4 should

unicate to the public a reality deliberately a&oided by the Director before. 6acin#

this proposal! he sho.s a &i&id reluctance .hich pro&es to be &ery difficult to o&erco e:

2<AD 1>slo.lyC I,ll ha&e to shoot yself in order to inau#urate the true theatre! the theatre beneath the sound. DI*?CT)* 1on'alo...
66

<AD 1 -o.,s that? >-e pauses.C DI*?CT)* >reactin#C 9ut I can,t. ?&erythin# .ould co e crashin# do.n. It .ould be lea&in# y children blind and then ... .hat .ould I do .ith the audience? What .ould I do .ith the audience if I re o&ed the handrails fro the brid#e? The ask .ould co e and de&our e. I once sa. a an de&oured by a ask.4 >6ischlin! 6ortier "@@@: 1@GC

)nce this fear is defeated! The Theatre 9eneath the Sand is sta#ed. Then the audience is confronted to %orca,s 2poetic theatre4 as it .as called by the critics. This characteristic is pro&ed by the allusi&e lan#ua#e! the fra# entary structure of the dra a and the alle#orical su##estions. In the third act a second le&el of action is infiltrated: the settin# o&es to the to b of 0uliet in Qerona. She is disturbed in her death sleep by the &isit of four .hite horses and the dra atic action de&elops .ith the hi#hly etaphoric dialo#ue bet.een 0uliet and one of the . The flo. of 2plot4 is interrupted by a black horse .ho recalls her to death. Shakespeare,s %omeo and 0uliet reappears later in the play .hen the 2truth4 of the Director,s production is re&ealed by the audience. The spectators find another 0uliet off-sta#e and reali'e that the 0uliet on-sta#e is actually a boy. 9ut this is not the o ent that .akes the an#er of the public. Their fury is caused by the fact that the urdered by the audience. The &iolent display of their pri&ate uni&erse actors playin# *o eo and 0uliet lo&e each other for real. In this intolerable conte5t the prota#onists are leads to the ine&itable brutal endin#. The sta#in# of this re&olutionary theatre collapses into &iolence and finally ends in death. This dra atic denoue ent is the conse(uence of %orca,s prediction that the audience of all ti es is not prepared to accept such a brutal deploy ent of the ost inti ate and an#uishin# e otions and thou#hts.

The Spanish adaptation of the Shakespearean dra a can also be considered a etatheatre! eanin# a play about the akin# of theatre. This is one of the reasons the perfect conte5t 6ederico 1arcia %orca needed a source-play to build upon his contro&ersial and co ple5 ideas about dra atur#y and e&en life. %omeo and 0uliet pro&ided hi characters to fulfill their to e5press such darin# ideas. The accidental nature of lo&e and the i possibility of the ost deeper and passionate desires are present in both plays!

67

re#ardless of the the ti e:

a8or differences i posed by the social and the ideolo#ical conte5t of

2<an 1 <r. Director of the )pen Air Theatre? DI*?CT)* At your ser&ice <AD 1 We,&e co e to con#ratulate you on your last play DI*?CT)* Thank you <AD $ So &ery ori#inal <AD 1 And such a pretty titleI %omeo and 0uliet. DI*?CT)* A an and a .o an .ho fall in lo&e. <AD 1 *o eo could be a bird and 0uliet could be a stone. *o eo could be a #rain of salt and 0uliet could be a ap. DI*?CT)* 9ut they,ll ne&er stop bein# *o eo and 0uliet. <AD 1 And in lo&e. Do you belie&e they .ere in lo&e? DI*?CT)* Well 3 I, not inside 34 >6ischlin! 6ortier "@@@: 1@GC A co plete co parison bet.een the t.o plays is i possible! because %orca used %omeo and 0uliet only as a the atic source! de&elopin# a uch ore co ple5 dra atic .ork! in odern society. -o.e&er! the a#ree ent to the coordinates of an urban landscape of the

back#round created by this tra#ic lo&e story is the basis for the openin# of taboo sub8ects such as the repression of ho ose5ual feelin#s or the carnal &alue of hu an nature. 6ro the be#innin#! the public eets anony ous characters 26I*ST <AD4! 2S?C)DD <AD4! 2T-I*D <AD4! .hich breaks any se5ual stereotype. It is i possible for the spectator to sketch a clear i a#e of any of these characters! as durin# the sta#in# they rapidly chan#e costu es! re&ealin# the sel&es as ho ose5uals tor ented by their lack of coura#e to e5press their real feelin#s: 2<AD 1 9ut I,&e #ot to take you to the sta#e! .hether you .ant to or not. Xou,&e ade e suffer too uch. UuickI The screenI The screenI ><AD $ brin#s out a foldin# screen and places it in the iddle of the sta#e.C DI*?CT)* >.eepin#C The audience is #oin# to see e. <y theater .ill co e crashin# do.n... I,&e done the best dra as of the season! but no....I >T-? -)*S?S, tru pets sound. <AD 1 #oes to the back of the sta#e and opens the door.C

68

<AD I Co e in here! .ith us. Xou,&e #ot a place in this dra a. All of you. >To the DI*?CT)*C And you pass behind the screen. ><?D " and $ push the DI*?CT)*. -e passes behind the foldin# screen and appearin# on the other side is a boy dressed in .hite satin .ith a .hite ruff. -e should be played by an actress. She is carryin# a little black #uitarC <AD 1 ?nri(ueI ?nri(ueI >he co&ers his face .ith his hands.C <AD " Don,t ake e pass in back of the screen. %et e be for once! 1on'aloI4 >6ischlin! 6ortier "@@@: 1@FC In The (ublic! 0uliet is the only Shakespearean character present and acti&e on the sta#e. 9ut this ti e .e are not dealin# .ith the sa e ideali'ed portrait as in the ori#inal te5t. %orca,s 0uliet is lon#in# for lo&e. This ti e .e are not talkin# about ideolo#ical anifestations! but about the carnal desire! about the si ple hu an nature. This ti e 0uliet is a an:

20R%I?T <ore people all the ti e. They,ll .ind up in&adin# y to b and occupyin# y &ery o.n bed. <e! I don,t care about their ar#u ents concernin# lo&e or the theater. What I .ant is to lo&e.4 =$ischlin, $ortier DEEE: FFG> The odernist aesthetics allo.s the play.ri#ht to take such a liberty .ith Shakespeare,s

play. 9ut this liberty is 8ustified by the e5cuse of ori#inality .hich is fully reached by %orca,s adaptation. The Spanish .riter builds a te5t in .hich this ori#inality is inter.ea&ed .ith interte5tuality! ter de&eloped by *oland 9arthes. The 6rench .riter,s concept in&ol&es the idea that all literary creation has a social &alue! is an ine&itable reproduction of all that .as .ritten before. *eadin# further the odernist play! .e #et a deeper &ision on 0uliet,s despair and final

resi#nation that .e are all doo ed to accept our destiny: 2It,s a trick! lo&e,s .ord! a broken irror! footsteps in the .ater. Then you,d lea&e e in to b a#ain! 8ust as e&eryone does .hen tryin# to con&ince those listenin# to the that true lo&e is i possible. Do. I, tired! so I,ll stand up and ask for help in thro.in# out of y to b all those .ho theori'e about y heart and all those .ho open y outh .ith little arble t.ee'ers.4 >6ischlin! 6ortier "@@@: 11/C
69

As all the other characters! 0uliet &acillates bet.een .eakness and stren#th! e phasi'in# the her etic character of the literary .ork. %orca,s poetic lan#ua#e! sprinkled .ith etaphors! is an instru ent .hich facilitates the readin# and helps the spectator transpose into the uni&erse of the play. Critics ha&e su##ested that this fra# entary characteristic of the play is deliberate in order to focus the &ie.er,s attention on the ideolo#ical side of the te5t. This artifice allo.ed the author to use the Shakespearean play as a source and to re&eal the true identity of his anony ous characters. The (ublic is the direct result of a conscious break of all lo#ic and rational nor . In this conte5t of literary deconstruction! it is difficult to identify a clear palette of the es. -o.e&er! the (uest of identity is present throu#hout all the play directly or hidden behind issues such as #ender and se5. Characters are in a perpetual search of truth and in the end they disco&er an o&erlappin# bet.een the t.o! as death is the ulti ate truth. %orca #i&es an alternati&e to this final truth! as death is not the end. Death is 8ust another transfor ation! as 0uliet disco&ered in her to b: 20R%I?T >8u pin# out of the to bC +lease. I ha&en,t run into a #irlfriend the .hole ti e I,&e been banished! despite ha&in# passed throu#h ore than three thousand e pty arches. +lease. A little help. A little help and oceans of drea iness. >She sin#sC )ceans of drea iness! a sea of .hite earth and e pty arches in the sky. <y train throu#h ships! throu#h sea.eed! y train throu#h ti e. )ceans of ti e. Seashore of .oodcutter a##ots and crystal dolphin throu#h cherry trees. )h! pure asbestos of ter inationI )h! ruinI )h! archless solitudeI Sea of drea sI4 There is no denoue ent to the theater of 6ederico 1arcia %orca. The play has an open endin#! lea&in# the possibility and the need of a ne. be#innin#. The public al.ays re(uires a ne. settin# and e5pects a ne. story.

70

In conclusion! the Spanish .riter created a play. The (ublic is the

odern &ersion of Shakespeare,s %omeo and

0uliet .hich e5e plifies to .hat de#ree the process of adaptation can chan#e the ori#inal ost ob&ious proof that this kind of literary recreation in&ol&es se&eral different factors: the society! the historical and the political back#round. In this case .e deal .ith %orca,s deter ination to break the clichWs of the traditional theater! sho.in# his audience the true face of hu an nature: uncontrolled passions! falsehood! narcissis ! i#norance and intolerance. All these aspects #ain to speak .hat could not be spoken. The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui, 4re'ht5s adaptation of Richard III Shakespeare,s .orks ha&e been re ade and recreated in the conte5t of &arious historical back#rounds! as in the case of 9ertolt 9recht,s adaptation The %esistible %ise of !rturo :i" The 1er an .riter sho.ed interest not only for the Shakespearean plays! but also for <ar5is ! as he .as li&in# the real ni#ht are of a Da'i 1er any. In 1B$$! after the ni#ht of the *eichsta# fire! he fled this country! .ith the inspiration of a play depictin# the rise to po.er of &icious and &iolent leaders incarnated either by kin#s such as *ichard III or by dictators! states en! politicians such as -itler. 9recht,s real purpose is to destroy the ro antic &ie. on history and to#ether .ith it the aura of i portance surroundin# the type of characters .e ha&e 8ust entioned. This .ay! the play de&elops a co ple5 plot t.o different historical and social fra es! in ?urope durin# ain character centered on t.o &illain characters co in# fro ore &alue in the back#round created by Shakespeare,s play. %orca beco es Shakespeare,s &oice! darin#

*ichard III! a *enaissance anti-hero and -itler! the leader of fascis sketched by 9recht.

World War II. 9oth can be identified in the play .ith Arturo Ri! the

Actually! the author en&isioned a &ersion of the play only for A erica! as he #uessed that the 1er an public .as not prepared to recei&e the irony and the derision of the fascist leader. -o.e&er! The %esistible %ise of !rturo :i .as not at first perfor ed for its intended A erican public and .as produced in 1BA@ by the 9erliner ?nse ble. )nly uch later it has also been ounted by the *oyal Dational Theatre in %ondon in 1BB1. The specific feature of 9recht,s theatre is the epic style! as the .riter hi self stated. This
71

kind of theatre clearly distin#uishes fro

the traditional! 2aristotelian4 one. Rnlike the

latter! the epic theatre e phasi'es the audience,s rational ability of obser&ation! its analytic sense! not the spectator,s sensiti&ity. It proceeds by ar#u ent and ob8ecti&ity rather than su##estion and sub8ecti&ity. In this conte5t! the hu an bein# is #uided by thou#ht! fle5ible and subdued to alteration throu#hout life! not fi5ed! at the theatre and 9recht,s .ork: 29oth e5pose the theatrical reality behind the representational illusion. 9oth proceed episodically throu#h a lar#e nu ber of scenes. 9oth portray a broad s.ath of society J plays by Shakespeare and 9recht ha&e e(ually lar#e nu bers of characters. 9oth present e&ents fro history and en#a#e .ith (uestions of historical causation.4 >6ischlin! 6ortier! "@@@:1"PC. Another aspect .hich relates the t.o is 9recht,s interest in Shakespearean a bi#uities: 2There,s nothin# ore stupid than to perfor Shakespeare so that he,s clear. -e,s by his &ery nature unclear. -e,s pure aterial4 >-eine ann! 1BFP: "@AC. Startin# .ith this ercy of an insur ountable fate. This back#round allo.s an approach bet.een the Shakespearean

point! 9recht tries to adapt the ori#inal play focusin# on clarity and tryin# to annihilate the a bi#uity. -is play opens .ith a prolo#ue .hich sustains this idea. It addresses directly the audience! presentin# the characters and e5plainin# the plot! stressin# the essa#e and not the suspense of .hat happens ne5t. 6ro play #ains a didactic &alue: 4 T-? ADD)RDC?* 6riends! toni#ht .e,re #oin# to sho. J +ipe do.n! you boys in the back ro.I And! lady! your hat is in the .ayI J The #reat historical #an#ster play Containin#! for the first ti e! as you,ll see The truth about the scandalous dock subsidy. 6urther .e #i&e you! for your better ent Do#sborou#h,s confession and testa ent. Arturo Ri,s rise .hile the stock arket fell. The notorious .arehouse fire trial. What a sellI The Dullfeet urderI 0ustice in a co aI 1an# .arfare: the killin# of ?rnesto *o aI All cul inatin# in our stunnin# last tableau:
72

this point of &ie.! 9recht,s

1an#sters take o&er the to.n of CiceroI >6ischlin! 6ortier! "@@@:1"FC 9recht uses the Chica#o settin# populated by under.orld characters in se&eral of his plays! .ith the purpose to create a sense of the e5otic and fantastic .orld! establishin# a co fortin# distance bet.een the audience and the characters. -e clearly alludes to Shakespeare fro the &ery be#innin#:

2A*TR*) RI steps before the curtain and .alks out alon# the footli#hts Doesn,t he ake you think of *ichard the Third? -as anybody e&er heard )f blood so #houlishly and la&ishly shed Since .ars .ere fou#ht for roses .hite and red? In &ie. of this the ana#e ent -as spared no cost in its intent To picture his spectacularly &ile <anoeu&res in the #reatest style. 9ut e&erythin# you,ll see toni#ht is true. Dothin#,s in&ented! nothin#,s ne.. )r ade to order 8ust for you. The #an#ster play that .e present Is kno.n to the .hole continent.4 >6ischlin! 6ortier! "@@@: 1"BC The author infor s the reader or the spectator about the &eridical (uality of the play: e&ery character has direct counterparts in real life and e&ery scene sho.in# an e&ent can be connected .ith a real e&ent. 6or instance 1ood.ill and 1affles! t.o city council can be co pared to *osencrant' and 1uildenstern fro scenes in .hich Ri de onstrates his skills at rhetorical oration see 0ulius ,aesar" 1oin# back to the rese blance of the play to Shakespeare,s %ichard &&&, 9recht,s play concludes .ith a direct call for action after ha&in# presented an insur ountable situation. The spectators are bound to reflect upon the possibility of a concerted effort that could help sol&in# the situation: 2Therefore learn ho. to see and not to #ape.
73

e bers of the

Hamlet or the lar#e directly lifted fro

To act instead of talkin# all day lon#. The .orld .as al ost .on by such an apeI The nations put hi .here his kin# belon#. 9ut don,t re8oice too soon at your escape J The .o b he cra.led fro still is #on# stron#.4 >6ischlin! 6ortier! "@@@: 1A"C In the other case! %ichard &&& see s to end in a spirit of destiny ine&itability! as if fate .ould i pose the e&olution of e&ents .ithout #i&in# the hu an force a clear opportunity to defeat the e&il po.er. In his characteristic style! Shakespeare keeps a touch of a bi#uity re#ardin# the hu an relation to cos ic forces: 2Abate the ed#e of traitors! #racious %ord! That .ould reduce these bloody days a#ain! And ake poor ?n#land .eep in strea s of bloodI %et the not lea&e to taste this land,s increase! That .ould .ith treason .ound this fair land,s peaceI Do. ci&il .ounds are stopp,d! peace li&es a#ain: That she ay lon# li&e here! 1od say a enI4 >Shakespeare ,omplete 2orks, 1BG1: A$/C There are so e other i plicit or e5plicit references to %ichard &&& in !rturo :i" Scene 1$ can be connected to *ichard,s seduction of Anne o&er her husband,s coffin in act 1! scene " and scene 1/ borro.s fro *ichard,s #hostly drea the ni#ht before the battle of an. 9os.orth field. In #eneral ter s! both plays depict the rise to po.er of a &icious

-o.e&er! there are se&eral &ariations! as 9recht sketches this 2e&olution4 .ithout po posity! focusin# on the &iolence and the rudeness of the process. -e presents Ri,s rise to po.er as bein# controlled by hu an forces of abuse and dupery! and therefore 2resistible4. In the end! by a&oidin# to su##est any fall of the &illain! 9recht opens the debate on ho. could be pre&ented the success of such Shakespearean interpreted fro *enaissance play. There are ultiple e5a ples of 9recht,s play productions in the odern theatre and en in the future. This .ay the essa#e of the aterial is bein# transposed in a ne. historical and social conte5t and a ne. perspecti&e! ai in# to clarify the ori#inal

cine a. The part of Arturo Ri has been played by actors such as Al +acino! %eonard
74

*ossiter! Antony Sher or +eter 6alk. %ines fro .ar fil bore hi fro defeat you

the play are (uoted at the end of a dra a +eckinpah: 2Do not re8oice in his

1BGG! ,ross of &ron! directed by Sa

en. 6or thou#h the .orld has stood up and stopped the bastard! the bitch that

s in heat a#ain.4 A y 6ay in "@@F is bein# analy'ed in a theatre re&ie.

A production of the play by 0i appeared in The 6uardian:

2In this co pellin# production by 0i y 6ay! Arturo Ri and his hench en co and e&ery second of our attention. Co binin# -olly.ood #la our .ith thu##ee they strut across Conor <urphy,s at ospheric set J .arehouses .ith &e#etable crates and carcasses J and see unstoppable.4 Accordin# to this producer,s &ision the didactic play is in&i#orated throu#h a satirical A erican landscape: an i ense RS fla# dilutes the traditional identification bet.een Arturo Ri and -itler! #i&in# the audience the opportunity to trace so e other political connections. In another scene of the sa e production 2Arturo Ri appears as a #i#antic puppet presidin# o&er a corrupt courtroo . M...N Cuppin# his hand behind his ear! he slo.ly e5tends his ar into the Da'i salute! and in an instant has s.itched fro Chaplines(ue clo.nin# into the fa iliar #oose steppin# fi#ure.4G Another e5a ple is the role of Ri played by Al +acino. The actor is sho.in# the inner patholo#ical *ichard! reduced to the si plest ani al presence! .ithout any other -o.e&er the production has its co ic &ariation fro re o&es his ori#inal play. All in all! 9recht leads Shakespeare to.ards clarity! but in the sa e ti e he tries to chan#e the focus of the *enaissance play! pro&in# that Shakespeare has incorporated in
A G

ask.

o ents: for instance .hen +acino .oos the local the audience. The play

erchants to his lair .ith the .ords 2So ethin#,s rotten in the state of Illinois4! a Shakespeare,s Hamlet! he #ets a lot of lau#hs fro is like a sa&a#e cartoon .ith deliberate parodies of Shakespeare. At the end +acino oustache and in&ites the audience to 2act instead of talkin#4 as in the

9ertolt 9recht! The %esistable %ise of !rturo :i, source 9lockbuster )nline J ,ross of &ron The 1uardian! Theatre %eview, 1B Do&e ber "@@F! p./"

75

%ichard &&& a story and a &icious character .hich can be translated in any other social and historical conte5t. ,a+!et daptations The *enaissance .as characteri'ed by an unusual alliance of classical and Christian ele ents. In this conte5t! re&en#e is the ost su##esti&e issue to e5pose the inner tensions of the a#e. The t.o attitudes to.ards &en#eance! incarnated by Achilles and 0esus are opposed and therefore it is i possible to e5pect reconciliation. This .ay! re&en#e beca e one of the central the es in *enaissance dra a and Shakespeare chose to .ork .ithin this tradition. 9ut! he .as not the first to .rite a play called Hamlet. An earlier ?li'abethan play on the sub8ect e5isted! :r#Hamlet .hich .as probably .ritten by Tho as 7yd. Rnfortunately! all efforts to reconstruct this ori#inal play ha&e pro&ed to be fruitless. -o.e&er! there is another re&en#e play by 7yd! The Spanish Tragedy! .hich .as one of the ost popular plays of the ?n#lish *enaissance! and has uch in co on .ith Shakespeare,s -a let! includin# a #host callin# for re&en#e and a play-.ithin-theplay! to#ether .ith a sustained e5ploration of the the es of 6ro adness and suicide.

the be#innin# .e can state that e&en the ori#inal play is the result of a list of the t.elfth century! first any ele ents fro this

theatrical and literary sources! .hich already e5isted at the ti e. An e5a ple to sustain this idea is the le#end .ritten in %atin! The life of !mleth fro .as .idely a&ailable in Shakespeare;s day. Hamlet borro.s published in 1P1/! .hich reflects classical *o an concepts of &irtue and herois ! and heroic! pre-Christian story such as the conflict bet.een the old Dor.ay kin# 6ortinbras and the Danish kin# A leth! the fratricide .hich is not a secret and the hasty the (ueen-.ido.>1eruthaC .ith the killer >6en#C! the supposed arria#e of adness of -a let! the

use of a beautiful .o an as a lure to test A leth,s folly! the fer&ent ar#u ent bet.een A leth and 1erutha .hich ends up in the killin# of the spy! a friend of the kin#! by A leth! .ho in the Danish story stabs hi and thro.s hi to the pi#s! the sendin# of A leth to ?n#land under strict #uard and the secret letter de andin# the ?n#lish ruler to kill hi ! the disco&ery of the conspiracy and the chan#e of situation .hich brin#s A leth

76

back ho e safe! .here he &indicates his father! killin# 6en# and beco in# the kin# of Den ark. A reasonably faithful &ersion of Sa5o;s story .as translated into 6rench in 1PG@ by 6ran]ois de 9elleforest! in his Histoires tragi;ues. 9elleforest e bellished Sa5o;s te5t substantially! al ost doublin# its len#th! and introduced the hero;s story strictly follo.s the data of the ori#inal le#end .ith only t.o (ueen is 6en#on,s elancholy. The ne. a8or alterations: the

istress before the killin# of kin# -a let: after -a let con&inces the

(ueen to #i&e up the adultery! 1ertrude encoura#es -a let to re&en#e! pro isin# to keep his secret and hopin# to see her son beco in# the ne. kin# of Den ark. 1oin# back to Shakespeare,s Hamlet there are se&eral the story fro odifications. The first one is the transposition of en are a pre-Christian back#round to a *enaissance settin# .here youn# urderer fro

educated in +aris or Wittenber# >Qolceano& "@1@:FC. )ther chan#es are the fratricide .hich beco es a secret! -a let finds out about the a #host .ho abets hi later in a cri e! Shakespeare introduces t.o ne. characters %aertes and 6ortinbras! .ho are also tryin# to &indicate their killed fathers! actors co e to court to act a play to un ask the killer and -a let dies also after urderin# the kin#.

Another idea .hich su##ests the co ple5ity of this play and the influence of adaptation! e&en at its creation Despite o ent re#ards the confusion do inatin# the &ariants of Hamlet. uch research! the e5act year -a let .as .ritten re ains a disputable sub8ect. a8or differences i5ed the

There are three different early &ersions of the play: these are kno.n as the 6irst Uuarto >U1C! the Second Uuarto >U"C and the 6irst 6olio >61C. There are bet.een the ! eanin# lines or e&en inte#ral scenes. The first editors of Shakespeare;s aterial durin# that ti e! U" and 61. They tried to create

.orks .ere Dicholas *o.e >1G@BC and %e.is Theobald >1G$$C. 9oth of the a&ailable Shakespearean edition has been co

&ersions as elo(uent as possible for the #enius of the Shakespearean te5t. Theobald;s only accepted for a lon# ti e! continuin# to influence a #reat deal the critical analysis of the play e&en no.adays. -o.e&er! there is the opinion that it is i possible to recreate the literary .holeness of the ori#inal play! because of the e5istence of ultiple &ariants. The "@@A publication by Arden Shakespeare of different Hamlet te5ts in different &olu es is perhaps the best e&idence of this shiftin# focus.
77

As it has been .ritten in a period of reli#ious con&ulsion! the fa ous Shakespearean play is balancin# at the li it bet.een Catholicis and +rotestantis ! bet.een edie&al and odern influences. An e5a ple for this ar#u ent can be the 1host that describes hi self as bein# in hell! dyin# .ithout! the usual burial custo s and )phelia;s death cere ony! .hich is can be considered Catholic. Critics that ha&e analysed this area of literature! ha&e concluded that the so called 2re&en#e tra#edies4 are usually born in traditional catholic locations such as Italy or Spain! and are also surprisin# as their essence is a#ainst this reli#ious doctrine that e&okes an,s responsibility before 1od and fa ily. )n the a8ority other hand! the +rotestant characteristics of the fictional uni&erse depicted by Shakespeare in his play are a#ain related to the settin#. This ti e Den ark! a +rotestant country could e5press fro to the uni&ersity fro the start this aspect! as .ell as the direct references

Wittenber# or <artin %uther. When -a let speaks of the Hspecial

pro&idence in the fall of a sparro.H! he reflects the +rotestant belief that the .ill of 1od! as the hi#hest po.er controls e&erythin# that happens on earth. All these aspects taken into account! .e can conclude that Hamlet is a proble funda ental reality. The de&elop ent of the plot is centred on a &ersus e&il. This anta#onis play

.hich deals .ith issues such as death! psycholo#ical and social an5ieties resulted fro a8or opposition #ood ain resu es e&en the psycholo#ical nature of the

character! as -a let is a hero or a &illain dependin# on the critical perspecti&e. -e accepts this confusin# a bi&alence in his re ark upon +olonius,a death: 2I do repent: but hea&en hath pleas,d it soE To punish postponin# the i e .ith this and this .ith e4 >W. 0. Crai#! 1B1/: FB/C. Another aspect .hich e phasi'es this point is the continuous persistance on oral duty! parado5ically born out of a oral duty for the paternal lo&e. Analysin# -a let! the critic <uriel 9radbrook considers that the (uintessence of his bein# re ains a istery not only for the others! but also for hi self. -e also odern an thro.n in isolation and concludes that -a let is the prototype of the

tortured by a cruel consciousness of the self. The Shakespearean character can be analy'ed discussin# about hybris and hamartia" -a let is a tra#ic hero! but the endin# of the play is not deter ined by the tra#ic fault as in the case of the 1reek anti(ue theatre! but by the conte5t! the back#round of a tricky reality .hich leads to the failure of the

78

characters. Social interaction is essential for the continuous transfor ations of the prota#onists! as .e cannot discuss about a character .ithout takin# into account all the circu stances created by the others. 0a es 0oyce sketches another i a#e re#ardin# this co ple5 Shakespearean character. -a let is not the idealistic! ro antic hero! but a ne#ati&e character! lackin# any rationality that pro&okes the disastrous endin# for ost of the prota#onists. This &ital duality of hu an nature! this perpetual balance bet.een the noble and the .icked abounds throu#hout the play: innocent )phelia is opposed to the incestuous Uueen! de&oted -oratio contrasts .ith disloyal *osencrant' and 1uildenstern or the cunnin# %aertes a#ainst the bra&e soldier 6ortinbras. <oreo&er! critics such as Charles 9oyce re arked that this Shakespearean play 2anticipates dra as4 >9oyce! "@@P:1$/C. All the reli#ious! psychoanalytic and fe inist interpretations underline the fact that Hamlet has #enerated an o&er.hel in# nu ber of te5ts and criticis research. The e5position occurs at in the .orld.ide culture. The structure of this *enaissance dra a is an interestin# startin# point for our idni#ht on the castle;s battle ent as the #host of urdered by -a let;s ood of -a let;s father appears and infor s his son that the father .as odern psycholo#ical

uncle! Claudius! no. the kin#. Throu#h the dialo#ue of the other characters on sta#e! particularly -oratio! .e learn of the Dor.ay-Den ark conflict and .e feel a i pendin# doo in the bleak scene. The risin# action! set in otion by the e5citin# ana#es to

force of the #host;s .ords to -a let! centers on the conflict bet.een -a let and Claudius. Si#nificantly! -a let! in spite of his philosophical (uestionin#s! by .atchin# his reactions to the set in anipulate the action. The cli a5 occurs .hen -a let ascertains the kin#;s certain #uilt ousetrap play. -o.e&er! -a let does not take his re&en#e because he hesitates to kill Claudius as he kneels in prayer. The fallin# action! otion by the tra#ic forces of -a let;s stabbin# +olonius and Claudius;s sendin# anipulates -a let to ?n#land! further de&elops the central conflict. 9ut here Claudius

e&ents. Shakespeare also pro&ides the co ic relief of the #ra&edi##ers; scene to alle&iate the tension of the audience. The catastrophe >or denoue entC ends in the deaths of -a let! Claudius. 1ertrude! and %aertes. The final suspense is established by the supposed accord of -a let and %aertes. In this scene .e usually see one last e5a ple

79

of the prota#onist;s nobility and a restoration of a disturbed order: both of these occur .hen the dyin# -a let .elco es 6ortinbras as the ne. kin#. Hamlet is one of the ost (uoted .orks in the ?n#lish lan#ua#e! and is often included on

lists of the .orld;s #reatest literature. As such! it re&erberates throu#h the .ritin# of later centuries. Acade ic %aurie )sborne identifies the direct influence of Hamlet in nu erous odern narrati&es! and di&ides the into four ain cate#ories: fictional &ariants of the play;s co position! si plifications of the story for youn# readers! stories e5pandin# the role of one or ore characters! and narrati&es featurin# perfor ances of the play. The character -a let is interestin# for an analysis that could pro&e his adaptability for any a#e. -a let is e5cessi&ely concerned .ith death. <any thin#s! physical and .as possibly ental! ha&e died: and their deaths ha&e affected hi . -is father has died! urdered. -is trust and belief in his other! )phelia! and *osencrant' arried to )phelia! supported by his ents on the base uses o&e ents to establish a

and 1uildenstern are dead. -is hopes to be kin#!

other! are dead. -e beco es absorbed .ith death! speaks to his father;s #host! thinks of suicide! discusses the ra&a#es of death .ith the #ra&edi##er! co about the palace. 6ascinated by death! he is ha pered in &iable situation for hi self in a li&in# .orld. The fa ous line Something is rotten in the state of 3enmark, hi#hli#htin# that it is ruled by e&il! opens the theater producers, interest for the Shakespearean story. Claudius has ade hi self kin# by secretly killin# his brother and .innin# the support of the nobles. -e has .on his brother;s .ife and by use any arryin# her has stren#thened his position on the anipulation of authority! ready to throne. -e is a shre.d politician and rules by cle&er as he is no threat to his po.er. The (ueen is ruled by passion. She apparently had little feelin# for her for er husband! and has readily responded to Claudius; o&ertures of lo&e! +olonius is a poor father. -e does not trust his son in +aris and sends a ser&ant secretly to spy upon %aertes and to learn about his habits in the ost de&ious of .ays. See in#ly concerned about his
80

of death to the skull of Xorick! and inflicts death upon +olonius! .hose body he dra#s

eans! open and de&ious! to .in his ends. -is nephe.! -a let! is safe so lon#

dau#hter! he .arns her to stay a.ay fro

-a let: yet he uses her as a decoy to betray

-a let and sho.s no a.areness of her sufferin# in the encounter. -e .ill hide behind curtains! betray any confidence! in order to be in the #ood #races of the kin#. -is son %aertes see s an honorable youn# an: yet an#ry o&er his father;s death: he .ill! for an e5planation and a

instead of openly accusin# -a let and challen#in# hi

reparation! a#ree to the kin#;s plan to kill -a let in an underhand .ay. *osencrant' and 1uildenstern! sufficiently intelli#ent as courtiers to #uess Claudius;s intentions to.ard their close friend! -a let! are .illin# to play the kin#;s #a e and to betray their friend. In short! this .orld of Den ark is an e&il and corrupt place. Into this .orld co es a #entle! idealistic youn# prince .ho is a scholar and a courtier! e&erythin# that )phelia says he is .hen his father has been urdered. -e akes it his ad beha&ior upsets her. -e learns his ission to re&en#e the urder. The e&il! to

corrupt .orld he has entered conta inates hi . It poisons his &ery soul! and leads hi

actions that are as e5tre e as those en#a#ed in by his ene ies. When he dies! it is too late. The da a#e has been done. A nu ber of people! not deser&in# of death! ha&e died. Den ark is a typical! nor al co -e has co unity .ith its #ood and e&il Claudius is a .ise ruler.

itted an e&il act in killin# his brother to be kin#! but he is a better kin# than

his brother! and the country benefits. Rnder the elder -a let! Den ark see s to ha&e been a nation at .ar. Claudius prefers diplo acy to battle and sends a bassadors to resol&e the (uarrel .ith Dor.ay. The courtiers respect hi and ackno.led#e his her son! thou#h authority. -is lo&e for the (ueen is deep and honest. -e .ill not har peace bet.een hi self and his nephe.. The (ueen cannot be labeled lustful or corrupt because she lo&es Claudius. Apparently! her life .ith the elder -a let .as not fulfillin#. With Claudius she is happy. That her son does not appro&e is so ethin# she cannot help thou#h she is unhappy about his disappro&al.

-a let is a dan#er to hi ! because -a let;s death .ill naturally distress her. -e .ants

81

A case can be

ade for +olonius as a concerned father. -e has brou#ht his children up perhaps too carefully! but they all li&e in a sophisticated aiden like )phelia ay be

hi self! .atched o&er the

court! and there is so e dan#er that an innocent and un.ary

hurt. Within his li itations! he is a #ood father. -is #reatest loyalty is to his kin#. -is 8ob is the foundation of his life! and he can be for#i&en if he thou#htlessly uses his dau#hter >because he is una.are of her feelin#sC to learn ore about -a let;s intentions to.ard his kin#. In short! the .orld of the court at ?lsinore! e5cept for the horrid deed that #a&e Claudius the po.er! is a nor al .orld. Xou can yoursel&es de&elop this interpretation further re#ardin# the (ualities of %aertes and -a let;s t.o friends! *osencrant' and 1uildenstern. Suppose -a let had not entered this .orld: .hat .ould ha&e happened? The characters .ould ha&e li&ed out their li&es in peaceful dullness. )nly the kin# .ould ha&e suffered-.e can #uess this fro .hat Shakespeare tells us. -e .ould for the rest of his i#ht perhaps ha&e sou#ht to do urder of the elder -a let can life ha&e suffered the pan#s of a poi#nant conscience and penance for his dire deed. And in ter s of statecraft! the

perhaps be defended as necessary for the stability of the land 9ut -a let does enter this .orld. What is the effect? Thin#s be#in to stir! and .hen the stir is o&er! ei#ht people includin# -a let are dead! and at least four of the are undeser&in# of the fate that befell the . They are innocents destroyed in a conflict of po.erful opposites. -a let has been the conta inatin# force that con&erted a nor al .orld! not an ?den it is true! into a hell. -e has done shockin#ly cruel! e&en corrupt! thin#s. -e has dri&en an innocent #irl .ho lo&ed hi cruelly insulted his into a suicidal insanity. -e has killed her father arid insulted his corpse by dra##in# the body about the palace: -e has other. And callously! he has sent to their deaths t.o friends! adness. Surely! .hose cri e .as! at the kin#;s behest! to seek the cause of -a let;s

the cri inal in the play is this antihero! this see in#ly #entle scholar .ho in reality possesses a force of e&il that consu es all .ho co e in contact .ith hi . )nly -oratio sur&i&es. 9ut he sur&i&es because his is too bland and too si ple a nature to be .orthy of -a let;s corrupt talents.

82

There is a .ide &ariety of literary .orks that ha&e been inspired by the classical story related by Shakespeare! such as Tom 0ones by -enry 6ieldin#! that describes a &isit to -a let by To 0ones and <r +artrid#e! usin# the techni(ue of the Hplay .ithin a play or 1oethe;s 9ildun#sro an 2ilhelm MeisterBs !pprenticeship that does not only ha&e a production of -a let at its core but also creates parallels bet.een the 1host and Wilhel <eister;s dead father. Dickens;s 6reat /5pectations contains any plot ele ents si ilar to the story of -a let: the action is de&eloped throu#h the influence of re&en#e reasons! it contains characters akin to #hosts >Abel <a#.ich and <iss -a&isha C! and focuses on the sense of #uilt of the hero. In the 1B"@s! 0a es 0oyce ana#ed to create a &ersion of ain parallels are .ith -a let! stripped of obsession and re&en#e! in :lysses! thou#h its

-o er;s 4dyssey. In the 1BB@s! t.o .o en no&elists .ere e5plicitly influenced by -a let. In An#ela Carter;s 2ise ,hildren! To be or not to be is re.orked as a son# and dance routine! and Iris <urdoch;s The Alack (rince has )edipal the es and the dau#hter of his ri&al. Shakespeare,s plays ha&e been set to usic as .ell! in operas and ballets by co posers urder intert.ined .ith a lo&e affair bet.een a -a let-obsessed .riter! 9radley +earson! and

such as Qerdi! Tchaiko&sky! and +rokofie&. The early co edy Two 6entlemen of 8erona .as adapted for 9road.ay by the co poser of Hair! and it .on the Tony a.ard for 9est <usical the sa e year that 6rease .as no inated. In the .ords of theater critic 0an 7ott! Shakespeare is indeed 2our conte porary.4 It,s been /@F years since Shakespeare .rote the tra#edy of +rince -a let. <ost of the actors ha&e .ished at least once to play the Danish +rince. The directors ha&e de&eloped &arious obsessions on Shakespeare and his hero. There .ere countless fil Shakespeare is a 9ible and -a let is a drea . +eter 9rook is one of the directors .ho ana#ed to create ne. &isions! perspecti&es and adaptations any! and post odern theater rehabilitation of Shakespeare;s -a let. In theater! for

points of reference in the .orld of theater. 1roto.ski considered hi ! alon# ?u#enio 9arba and the %i&in# Theater one of the children of Antonin Artaud. *e#ardless of the point of reference of the obser&er! +eter 9rook brin#s the une5pected and the
83

a#ic on

the theater scene. In The Shifting (oint 9rook said that Hthe theater is the sto ach .here food is transfor ed into t.o e(ual parts : e5cre ent and drea s4. We could say in a etaphorical anner that 9rook di#ested theatrical in#redients and eli inated the as drea s. -is adaptation The tragedy of Hamlet used thirteen characters and an international distribution! the Shakespearean te5t bein# reduced to t.o hours and t.el&e inutes.Den ark is a prison! because of the .alls of the ThW^tre des 9ouffes du Dord! .here it .as fil ed. The color of blood and the plaster applied on it like an open .ound de&elop this feelin# of an5iety sho.in# a Den ark deco posed! but .hich still retains the a8estic substrates of its historical back#round. The distribution sho.s a royal fa ily of international ori#ins! .hich pro&es once a#ain the adaptability of the Shakespearean lines on a #lobal le&el. Adrian %ester playin# -a let! is of 0a aican ori#in! 0effery 7issonn as Claudius and the 1host is an actor of color! Shanti Shi&alin#appa as )phelia is kno.n as a dancer of Indian ori#in! *ohan Si&a as 1uildenstern and %aertes is ?n#lish! Asil *ais in the role of *osencrant' is of Indian ori#in! Xoshi )ida as first actor is 0apanese! Akra 7han as second actor is a .ell-kno.n dancer of Indian ori#in .ho has .orked .ith 9rook in other sho.s and the list could still be co pleted. Interculturalis ! theatrical anthropolo#y! cultural synthesis! these are 8ust so e of the .ords and e5pressions that could define this adaptation. The te5t .ritten by Shakespeare is dra atically reduced. 9rook kept only the essential characters! keepin# 8ust thirteen as .e o ents rebuilt! so that the story can be coherent e&en for a spectator .ho has not heard of it.he reduces the nu ber of entioned before. %aertes appears only in Act IQ! and 7in# so e of the actors play t.o roles. At this point it is interestin# ho. the director assi#ned the interpretation by the sa e actor! 0effery 7issonn! of both the +hanto Claudius. 6ro this perspecti&e! the result displayed by 9rook brin#s on sta#e a ne. e5planation arria#e of the (ueen .ith her for er husband;s brother. Space is

for the .hole action: Claudius and -a let;s father are t.in brothers! thus 8ustifyin# the une5pected and hasty based on the color of the blood. The red carpet focuses the action around it. The si#ns that indicate the belon#in# to the royalty are red and blue! e&en the s.ord that brin#s the end of -a let is purple. A on# the pri ary ele ents! 9rook kept the fire hidden under

84

the for

of candles and la ps present in the scenic area. The ti e is here and no.! usic! a specific ele ent of a ake us think of a specific a#e. 9ut as these ite s are not clearly defined! i5in#. -is entire acti&ity in the

anyti e and any.here. Costu es! a certain piece of location could

the ti e and the space .here the story is told can be here and no.! anyti e and any.here. 9rook has al.ays fou#ht for intercultural theater uni&erse .itnesses this fact. The distribution of -a let is sho. that uses ?n#lish as the ultinational! each actor ca e .ith his o.n cultural ediu of co unication lan#ua#e to tell a story that

back#round! these cultural back#rounds intersected and interconnected! the result is a stands outside the li its of ti e. Adrian %ester is the Danish prince .ho plays a char in# role! coloured by spontaneity! naturalness and the clarity of thou#ht transposed to the sta#e. All these aspects influence the &ie.er and lead hi into a .orld .here consciousness transfor s us all into co.ards. -e is the pi&ot around .hich #ra&itate the rest of the co ponents of this paintin#. The Shakespearean te5t in the &oice of %ester has nothin# artificial in spite of the dust that co&ered it alon# the ti e. 9rook has the construction of a conte porary -a let! fresh! adapted to the third concentratin# and ser&in# to the public the theatrical in#redients that best directors. 1re#ory Doran;s fil adaptation of Shakespeare;s play -a let is lar#ely considered a ini alist presentation. The fil is based ade hi ana#ed illenniu ! one of the

success due to its si plicity. Co pared to 7enneth 9rana#h;s #randiose style e5hibited in the 1BBA &ersion! Doran has opted for a subtle na es in the on the *oyal Shakespeare Co pany presentation on sta#e! but thanks to the popular o&ie belon#in# to the fa ous .orld distribution: it .as transfor ed into a TQ production. Althou#h it has roots in theater! 1re#ory Doran;s -a let is a #enuine o&ie! not fil ed on sta#e! usin# appropriate li#htin# techni(ues. The sets and costu es are odern! but do not precisely ark a certain period of ti e or a place. This is actually ake its place in odern culture. T.o a8or an ad&anta#e! because it #i&es the story a chance to create its o.n uni&erse! rules and custo s! .ithout tryin# a clu sy atte pt to ad&anta#es of this production are Da&id Tennant and +atrick Ste.art! both fa ous and

85

popular actors of TQ and fortunately for this adaptation! both .ith e5perience in Shakespeare. In short! there .ere t.o bi# na es that ha&e deli&ered a #reat perfor ance. -a let has been adapted also is a reinterpretation of 7orsuno&as. It e5cels in post odernis : -orace appears as a clo.n! clearly su##estin# a total lack of hope and the e5tre e irony related to those .ho re ain to re.rite history! )phelia is pre#nant and *osencrant' and 1uildenstern are #ay. In addition to all these alterations! the fa ous solilo(uy To be or not to be appears t.ice! but this (uestion does not re ain essential. What nature. %osencrantz and 6uildenstern are dead is a tra#ico edy .ritten by To Stoppard! an atters is another one: Who are you? Theater is presented here as a irror of

absurd and e5istentialist &ersion play inspired by Shakespeare,s Hamlet. This adaptation is a perfect e5a ple of dark co edy that e phasi'es the arbitrariness of the uni&erse and of the hu an bein# trapped in this labyrinth. In first act! *osencrant' and 1uildenstern! the t.o Shakespearean characters are tossin# coins. With e&ery toss the coin co es up head: *osencrant',s oney ba# is #ettin# full. The t.o en are disturbed by this pheno enon! the suspension of the la. of probability. There is a total absence of suspense. Therefore they discuss the possible reasons .hy all coins co e up heads: 1uildenstern is .illin# it. Ti e has stopped in a dead confusion inspired by a di&ine inter&ention: ROS: -eads. >He picks it up and puts it in his money bag" The process is repeated"C -eads. >!gain"C ROS: -eads. >!gain"C -eads. >!gain"C -eads. 6UI$ >flipping a coinC: There is an art to the buildin# up of suspense. ROS: -eads. 6UI$ >flipping anotherC: Thou#h it can be done by luck alone. ROS: -eads.
86

6UI$: If that;s the .ord I; after. ROS >raises his head at 1RI%C: Se&enty-si5 lo&e. >1RI% gets up but has nowhere to go" He spins another coin over his shoulder without looking at it, his attention being directed at his environment or lack of it"C -eads. 6UI$: A .eaker an i#ht be o&ed to re-e5a ine his faith! if in nothin# else at least in the la. of probability. >He slips a coin over his shoulder as he goes to look upstage"C ROS: -eads. >1RI%, e5amining the confines of the stage, flips over two more coins, as he does so, one by one of course" *)S announces each of them as -heads-"C 6UI$ >musingC: The la. of probability! as it has been oddly asserted! is so ethin# to do .ith the proposition that if si5 onkeys > he has surprised himselfC... if si5 onkeys .ere... ROS: 1a e? 6UI$: Were they? ROS: Are you? 6UI$ >understandingC: 1a es. >$lips a coin"C The la. of a&era#es! if I ha&e #ot this ri#ht! eans that if si5 onkeys .ere thro.n up in the air for lon# enou#h they .ould land on their tails about as often as they .ould land on their ROS: -eads. >He picks up the coin"C 6UI$: Which at first #lance does not strike one as a particularly re.ardin# speculation! in either sense! e&en .ithout the onkeys. I ean you .ouldn;t bet on it. I ean & .ould! but you .ouldn;t... >!s he flips a coin"C ROS: -eads. 6UI$: Would you? >$lips a coin"C ROS: -eads. >%epeat"C -eads. >He looks up at 1RI% # embarrassed laugh"C 1ettin# a bit of a bore! isn;t it? 6UI$ >coldlyC: A bore? ROS: Well... 6UI$: What about suspense? ROS >innocentlyC: What suspense? >Small pause"C4 >T. Stoppard! "@@G: 1"C
87

After *osencrant' .ins the coin #a e .ith heads ninety-t.o ti es! the t.o pheno enon of the coins! concludin# that e&erythin# be#an at the were sent for. Their discussion de&elops on reco#ni'in# the truth. -o.e&er! facts ust be accepted. A

ain

characters of the absurdist adaptation suddenly ha&e the re&elation that e5plains the o ent when they fro orbid topics! possibly to keep the

essen#er ca e. They .ere

sent for. They ha&e to hurry! fearful! lest they co e too late. They are troubled! as they ha&e been left in space alone! .ith no direction! no purpose! 8ust hearin# dru s in the distance. 1uildenstern talks about the a#ical e5perience of seein# a unicorn:

#6UI$: A an breakin# his 8ourney bet.een one place and another at a third place of no na e! character! population or si#nificance! sees a unicorn cross his path and disappear. That in itself is startlin#! but there are precedents for ystical encounters of &arious kinds! or to be less e5tre e! a choice of persuasions to put it do.n to fancy: until - H<y 1od!H says the second an! HI ust be drea in#! I thou#ht I sa. a unicorn.H At .hich point! a di ension is added that akes the e5perience as alar in# as it .ill e&er be. A third .itness! you understand! adds no further di ension but only spreads it thinner! and a fourth thinner still! and the ore .itnesses there are! the thinner it #ets and the ore reasonable it beco es until it is as thin as reality! the na e .e #i&e to the co on e5perience... H%ook! lookH recites the cro.d. HA horse .ith an arro. in its foreheadI It ust ha&e been istaken for a deer.H >ibid: "1C Si5 tra#edians appear. They are happy to ha&e found an audience. Introducin# the ! *osencrant' confuses hi self .ith 1uildenstern! su##estin# the a bi#uity that characteri'es the odern indi&idual! .hich is an essential alteration to the classical order. anythin#! any kind of perfor ance of any kind of play: )ne player offers to perfor

ROS: What is your line? 7$ 89R: Tra#edy! sir. Deaths and disclosures! uni&ersal and particular! denoue ents both une5pected and ine5orable! trans&estite elodra a on all le&els includin# the su##esti&e. We transport you into the .orld of intri#ue and illusion... clo.ns! if you like! urderers - .e can do you #hosts and battles! on the skir ish le&els! heroes! &illains! tor ented lo&ers - set pieces in the poetic &ein: .e can do you rapiers or rape or both! by all eans! faithless .i&es and ra&ished &ir#ins - fla#rante delicto

88

at a price! but that co es under realis for .hich there are special ter s. 1ettin# .ar ! a I? ROS >doubtfullyC: Well! I don;t kno.... 7$ 89R: It costs little to .atch! and little ore if you happen to #et cau#ht up in the action! if that;s you taste and ti es bein# .hat they are. ROS: What are they? 7$ 89R: Indifferent. ROS: 9ad? 7$ 89R: Wicked.4 >ibid: "/C The player kin# offers to entertain 1uildenstern and *osencrat' .ith any kind of perfor ance! includin# a porno#raphic one. 1uildenstern beco es enra#ed and strikes the player. -e su##ests that he has influence at court and perfor ay arran#e for the players to there. The player kin# describes .hat the tra#edians do: 2We do on sta#e the ari'es the

thin#s that are supposed to happen off. Which is a kind of inte#rity! if you look on e&ery e5it bein# an entrance so e.here else4 >ibid: "GC. This state ent su essence of odern an! .ho is al.ays balancin# bet.een the t.o e5tre es of his

character! bet.een the #ood and the e&il. 1uildenstern and the player toss coins. The coin falls heads all the ti es! and .hen the player kin# loses a toss! he is upset. 1uildenstern in&ites the player kin# to bet that the year of his birth doubled is e&en. The player kin# offers Alfred! one of the tra#edians to 1uildenstern. Alfred hesitates to perfor ! 1uildenstern calls upon the players to do a 1reek play. The player kin# offers to do one of the blood! lo&e! and rhetoric school. 1uildenstern re8ects this offer and the tra#edians #et ready to depart. At this point )phelia and ha let appear on sta#e and do in i e the scene .here -a let appears insane in )phelia,s roo . ?hen -a let and )phelia #o off! Claudius and 1ertrude appear to reenact .ith *osencrant' and 1uildenstern the scene .here Claudius asks the and help to brin# hi to 8oin the too uch chan#ed -a let eanin# of the truth! ain back to sanity. 1uildenstern talks about the

.hich is a typical treat of any absurdist .ork. At the end of this act! the t.o of (uestions .ith no result.

characters of Stoppard,s play try to practice for the reunion .ith -a let throu#h a #a e

In the second act! the action de&elops .ith the surprise that the reader or the spectator is brou#ht for an instant in the story of the ori#inal play. Claudius appears and tells the
89

spectators that -a let has killed +olonius and ur#es the t.o to find the +rince .ho has dra##ed the body off. -a let appears a#ain! this ti e to insult *osencrant' for bein# the kin#,s spon#e. *osencrant' and 1uildenstern don,t kno. .hat he,s talkin# about. -a let .alks off. The kin# appears. They tell hi that they can,t #et fro -a let .here the body is besto.ed. The kin# orders *osencrant' to brin# -a let before hi ! but he appears escorted by soldiers. All the characters #o off! lea&in# *osencrant' and 1uildenstern alone on sta#e a#ain. They don,t understand .hat is happenin#! but one thin# is sure! that they are takin# -a let to ?n#land. This scene e&okes a #eneral feelin# of confusion! specific to an absurdist play. Another interestin# aspect of this tra#ico edy is the use of the techni(ue called story within a story. In the third act! the t.o characters are spectators of the perfor ance of The Murder of 6onzago, a story .ithin the story of Hamlet" The techni(ue also used in Shakespeare,s ori#inal dra a! adds ore confusion and suspense to the play. At the end they find the sel&es on the boat that takes the prince back to ?n#land! but the pirates attack. All dra. s.ords! includin# the player kin#. There is sound of battle. -a let! *osencrant'! 1uildenstern and the player kin# 8u p into the three barrels. When it is a#ain (uiet they co e out of the barrels! but ha let is issin#! .hich causes the disappoint ent and the despair of *osencrant' and 1uildenstern! as their freedo depends on the presence of the prince. ?n#land is no. a dead end for the . They accept their destiny and probably die. The spectator is left in the darkness of doubt! as they disappear and the sta#e li#hts up on the last scene of -a let. ?&eryone is dead e5cept -oratio! .ho holds the dead -a let in his ar s: 2Well! .e;ll kno. better ne5t ti e. Do. you see e! no. you >!nd disappears"C >&mmediately the whole stage is lit up, revealing, upstage, arranged in the appro5imate positions last held by the dead T*A1?DIADS, the tableau of court and corpses which is the last scene of --a let-"C >That is: The 7ID1! UR??D! %A?*T?S and -A<%?T all dead" -)*ATI) holds -A<%?T" 6)*TID9*AS is there"C >So are two A<9ASSAD)*S from /ngland"C

90

.4 SS DORS: The si#nal is dis al:and our affairs fro ?n#land co e too late. The ears are senseless that should #i&e us hearin# to tell hi his co and ent is fulfilled! that *osencrant' and 1uildenstern are dead. Where should .e ha&e our thanks? ,OR TIO: Dot fro his outh! had it the ability of life to thank you: -e ne&er #a&e co and ent for their death. 9ut since! so 8u p upon this bloody (uestion! you fro the +olack .ars! and you fro ?n#land! are here arri&ed! #i&e order that these bodies hi#h on a sta#e be placed to the &ie.: and let e speak to the yet unkno.in# .orld ho. these thin#s ca e about: so shall you hear of carnal! bloody and unnatural acts! of accidental 8ud#e ents! casual slau#hters! of deaths put on by cunnin# and forced cause! and! in this upshot! purposes istook fallen on the in&entors; heads: all this can I truly deli&er. >Aut during the above speech the play fades, overtaken by dark and music"C4 >ibid: 1"AC The tra#ic endin# of this adaptation chan#es the Shakespearean &ision on se&eral areas. 6or instance *osencrant' and 1uildenstern conte plate the sub8ect of death! they discuss about it! but not in the natural e5pected anner. Death is not the ulti ate ne#ati&e act on the sta#e of life. They are not troubled by death! but by disappearance. Their destiny is a#ain absurd! as they lea&e not e&en the sli#htest trace of their e5istence. Shakespeare and Stoppard create troublin# uni&erses! conflicts and confusion. -o.e&er there are differences bet.een the t.o. -a let is in control of his life! he can a8or ake decisions to

direct his fate! .hereas *osencrant' and 1uildenstern ha&e no control o&er their destinies. They li&e in per anent darkness and chaos. They represent the condition of the odern an! as .e entioned before.

Another e5a ple of -a let adaptation is Hamletmachine, created in 1BGG by -einer <Tller. Written! ten years after Stoppard,s %osencrantz and 6uildenstern are dead! it depicts the passa#e fro odernis to post odernis . This play brin#s se&eral i portant alterations! or i pro&e ents to the Shakespearean .ork. 6or the understandin# of <Tler,s &ersion .e need to pay attention to the social and political conte5t. The ?ast 1er an authorities and their co unist &isions banned the perfor ance of the play. Therefore it .as first sta#ed in 9russels and West 1er any. Another i portant aspect is

91

represented by the precursors of the author! 7arl <ar5 and 9ertolt 9recht. This e5plains the re&olutionary touch of his .ork. In relation to post odernis ! his literary creations brin# to (uestion the proble of

authorship. The author hi self confessed: 2Work to.ard the disappearance of the author is resistance a#ainst the disappearance of hu ankind.4>(uoted by 6ischlin Z 6ortier! "@@@:"@BC. This e5plains fro the start so e critics, opinion that his .ork should be understood throu#h the filter of broad post odernist concepts. Another detail that su##ests the sa e idea is the fact that his adaptation is not built on a con&entional plot! but in #eneral it connects throu#h onolo#ues that e phasi'e the roles of the actors! the uch ore attention in <Tller,s &ariant. -er i portance of the characters. An essential alteration brou#ht to the Shakespearean te5t is the character of )phelia that #ains onolo#ue is an e5a ple to sustain the post odernist affiliation of the dra a: 2)+-?%IA: I a )phelia. The one the ri&er didn,t keep. The .o an dan#lin# fro the rope. The .o an .ith her arteries cut open! the .o an .ith the o&erdose. Sno. on her lips. the .o an .ith her head in the #as sto&e. Xesterday I stopped killin# yself. I, alone .ith y breasts y thi#hs y .o b. I s ash the tools of y capti&ity! the chair the table the bed. I destroy the battle field that .as y ho e. I flin# open the doors so the .ind #ets in and the screa of the .orld! I s ash the .indo.! .ith y bleedin# hands I tear the photos of the en I lo&ed and .ho used e on the bed on the table! on the chair on the #round. I set fire to y prison. I thro. y clothes into the fire. I .rench the clock that .as y heart out of y breast. I .alk into the street clothed in y blood.4 >ibid: "1"C The play has a cyclical structure! is for ed of fi&e scenes $amily Scrapbook! The /urope of 2omen, Scherzo, (est in AudaH Aattle for 6reenland and the final scene $iercely /nduring Millenniums &n the $earful !rmor" These scenes ha&e &aryin# len#th! but o&erall it is a short play. The focus of the spectators is constantly shifted bet.een )phelia and -a let. In this &ersion! -a let is deconstructed! recreated for a ne. public: 2I .as -a let. Xou! the #host that ade e! the a5 still in your skull. I kno. you,&e #ot one hole too any. I .ould y other had one less .hen you .ere still of flesh: I .ould ha&e been spared yself. Wo en should be se.ed up-a .orld .ithout others. We could butcher each other
92

in peace and (uiet! and .ith so e confidence! if life #ets too lon# for us or our throats too ti#ht for our screa s. What do you .ant of e? Is one state funeral not enou#h for you? Xou old spon#er. Is there no blood on your shoes? What,s your corpse to e? What are you .aitin# for? All the cocks ha&e been butchered. To orro. ornin# has been canceled.4 >ibid: "11C This onolo#ue brin#s in front of the reader a ne. personality of -a let! unable to take

actions! trapped in his o.n .eakness! unsatisfied by his condition! e&en by his #ender. -e .ishes to be a .o an! but in the sa e ti e he does not .ant to lose the ad&anta#es of his ale condition. This lack of self confidence! this per anent inner stru##le akes hi a &iable post odern character. The other surprise of his adaptation is a fe inist approach #i&en by the presence of )phelia. The last scene of the play sho.s her in a .heelchair! in the sea! speakin# a#ainst oppression and sla&ery: 2The deep sea. )+-?%IA in a .heelchair. 6ish! debris! dead bodies and li bs drift by. )+-?%IA >While t.o en in .hite s ocks .rap #au'e around her and the .heelchair! fro botto to top.C This is ?lectra speakin#. In the heart of darkness. Rnder the sun of torture. To the capitals of the .orld. In the na e of the &icti s. I e8ect all the sper I ha&e recei&ed. I turn the ilk of y breasts into lethal poison. I take back the .orld I #a&e birth to. I bury it in y .o b. Do.n .ith the happiness of sub ission. %on# li&e hate and conte pt! rebellion and death. When she .alks throu#h your bedroo s carryin# butcher kni&es you,ll kno. the truth. >The en e5it. )+-?%IA re ains on sta#e! otionless in her .hite .rappin#s.C4 >ibid: "1/C This onolo#ue of )phelia! at the end of the play could be e&aluated as a synthesis of the asculine oppression! the #eneral

fe inist conception. The re8ection of any kind of

&icti i'ation! in the na e of all .o en! the re&olutionary attitude to.ards those .ho try pro&e the #enetic natural sub ission of fe inis ! all these aspects pro&e that the author deconstructed the character )phelia! rebuildin# it for the taste of a ne. audience.

93

In the adaptation of -einer <Tller not only .o en chan#e their attitude to.ards their fate! but also en. There is a per anent re8ection of the self. In this dra a! the indi&idual ost hidden and dark aspects of the hu an soul. <aybe! the reader or does not tolerate the arbitrary character of life. <oreo&er! .e are dealin# .ith the re&ealin# of the the spectator accepts the author,s in&itation to a redisco&ery of the self! beyond all the curtains of sha e and falsehood. All in all! startin# .ith the ori#inal play! its &ersions and cultural sources and continuin# .ith all the .ritten or spoken adaptations! Hamlet offers the odern reader or &ie.er a treasure of inspiration. Studyin# the herita#e of Hamlet teaches us that each a#e and each culture has its characteristic insi#hts into the play. Tryin# to understand Shakespeare,s plays in the for the ne. odern a#e of speed leads to an on#oin# process of adaptation! of recreation an seekin# the old literature.

Chapter III %iterature! fil

Shakespeare is .ithout doubt the author of theater the

and representations

ost adapted to the cine a! either

in faithful transpositions of its plays or in adaptations to other settin#s in ti e and space. The first (uestion that opens this chapter is: .hy does the Shakespearean dra a transfer so easy to the screen? A possible ans.er to this si ilarities! but ystery could be related to the oreo&er to the differences bet.een the structure of the ?li'abethan

94

theatre and the cine atic productions. 9oth of these for s of artistic representation are based on a rapid and as natural as possible chan#e of scenes! .hich #i&es the possibility to the theatre or to the cine a producer to chan#e the focus of the spectator .hen least e5pected. 1oin# back to the differences bet.een the t.o areas .e disco&er the real basis on .hich a Shakespearean play can be translated so naturally to the screen. At the a#e of the 9ard! theatre .as directly connected to the spectators .ho .ere i plicated in the de&elop ent of the plot! participatin# .ith their reactions to the actions of the actors. This .ay! there .as a lack of control of the play producer! .ho could not al.ays send a clear! uni(ue essa#e beyond the sta#e! as those in front of it had the possibility to &ie. the dra atic act fro different an#les! .hereas in the case of a cine a perfor ance! the person a standin# in front of the screen has only the possibility of .atchin# the action fro

sin#le an#le. This apparent disturbin# detail! #i&es the screen producer a uni(ue possibility to transfer his personal perception to the audience! .ithout ha&in# to face the dan#er of bein# to screen: 2?li'abethan dra a! therefore! played .ith the spectators and their per anent a.areness of theatrical illusion. Mises#en#abyme >i.e. e bedded structuresC J .hich could take the for of as(ues or plays .ithin plays Jadded a second le&el of dra atic action! .hile a Chorus! a +rolo#ue or an ?pilo#ue could directly call out the spectators and alienate the fro the action. The actors, solilo(uies and asides .ere con&entions that established inti acy .ith the public .hile si#nallin# the de&ices of theatre. The spectators inter&ened re#ularly durin# the perfor ance! participatin# in the action .ith their o.n reactions. 6iction .as thus desi#nated as such. The deceit and trickery that are part of actin# .ere pointed out by the mise#en#scIne itself. A co parison bet.een cine a and the ?li'abethan sta#e re&eals inor co on points and a8or differences. In the cine a! as in the *enaissance theatre! scenes o&e on .ith #reat rapidity and fluidity. A fil ! like a theatre production in Shakespeare,s ti e! can #o (uickly fro a battle scene to a discussion behind closed doors inside a palace.4 >Sarah -atchuel! "@@/: /C
95

isunderstood. Sarah -atchuel e5pressed her opinion re#ardin# this

&alidity of the Shakespearean dra a on the screen in her .ork Shakespeare, from stage

Co parin# the t.o sections of dra atic perfor ance! Sarah -atchuel detects an ine&itable intersection bet.een these: 2While the first fil techni(ues fro productions i ported the sta#e! theatre productions are no. so eti es influenced by realistic and theatre are in a per anent process of influence! and

cine a.4 >Sarah -atchuel! "@@/: 1/C Therefore .e can state before #i&in# the e5a ples chosen for this chapter that fil .orks in all ediu in the particular case of Shakespeare! this 8uncture underlines the adaptability of his of de&elop ent. 9y 1B//! the Shakespearean cine a is do inated by the stron# personality of t.o actors-directors radically opposed: %aurence )li&ier >Henry 8, 1B//! Hamlet! 1B/F! %ichard &&&! 1BPPC and )rson Welles >Macbeth, 1B/F! 4thello! 1BP"! $alstaff! 1BAPC. 0oseph <ankie.ic' succeeds .ith a spectacular adaptation of 0ulius ,aesar >1BP$C .ith <arlon 9rando as <arc Antoine. The ;renaissance; of the Shakespearean fil Co pany. The success of his fil in the years B@, o.es .ithout doubt uch to

7enneth 9rana#h! .ho created! in 1BF/! the youn#est -enry Q of the *oyal Shakespeare &ersion of Henry 8 >1BFBC and in 1BB$ of <uch Ado about has brou#ht to -olly.ood producers the e&idence that the .ork of Shakespeare deser&es e5ploitation. %ater! 9rana#h has bra&ely risked brin#in# to the screen for the first ti e the story of Hamlet >1BBAC. 9rana#h,s &ersion in four hours of pro8ection .as installed in a royal court ;<ittel ?uropa; of 1FA@! co&ered in sno.. The transpositions brin# the #enius of Shakespeare in the the after ath of .ar >The lovers of 8erona! 1B/FC! the ost une5pected ost &arious settin#s: the Italy of edie&al 0apan >The chateau of odern cities >*ooking for

the spider! 1BPGC! the fascist ni#ht are of the years thirty >%ichard &&&! 1BBAC! the 9aro(ue castles of the nineteenth century >Hamlet! 1BBAC! the %ichard! 1BBA! %omeo90uliet! 1BBAC. Shakeapere has also inspired the fil personal stories as .ell the akers .ho ha&e used the plot of its plays to build >! midsummer )ight7s 3ream! rotten in Den ark. ain heir!

usical dra a: 2est side story >1BA1C the anti-racist

etaphor >%ami and 0uliette! 1BAGC! the puppet fil

1BPBC the cartoon >Trip to Melonia! 1BFBC! the tra#ic-co edy >Hamlet goes business of Aki 7auris aki 1BFGC .here -elsinki replaces the for er kin#do The kin# is the #eneral chair an of an i portant corporation! and -a let the

the parable >The ark of the desert! 1BBGC or the docu entary >*ooking for %ichard! 1BBAC.
96

The 9ritish Arts Z -u anities *esearch Council created an i pressi&e database containin# all the adaptations and representations of Shakespeare,s dra a on tele&ision! fil and radio created fro 1FB@ to the conte porary ti e. The result .as a list of ore ost than /1@ fil s and tele&ision &ariants of the 9ard,s plays! so e of .hich respect the ori#inal te5t and others rebuild it for a ne. audience! for a ne. a#e. -o.e&er! the i portant aspect of this study is that it pro&es one author that raised the cine atic adaptations the ost the interest of producers! fil ore ti e that Shakespeare is the directors and si ple .riters all

o&er the .orld. Takin# into account the fact that in this chapter! our analysis focuses on ainly of the Shakespearean tra#edies .e are #oin# to list so e of ost elo(uent e5a ples found by the *esearch Council: Anton and !leopatra 99C Tele&ision Shakespeare Antony and Cleopatra >TQ! R7! 1BF1C *eleased in the RSA as part of the HCo plete Dra atic Works of Willia ShakespeareH series. .annaki >India! <alayala ! "@@"C is an adaptation of Shakespeare;s !ntony and ,leopatra. !oriolanus 99C Tele&ision Shakespeare Coriolanus >TQ! R7! 1BF/C >&ideotapedC *eleased in the RSA as part of the HCo plete Dra atic Works of Willia ShakespeareH series. ,oriolanus >fil C >R7! "@1"C "amlet The ost si#nificant screen perfor ances are: Hamlet >1er any! 1B"@C S&end 1ade Z -ein' Schall directors Hamlet >R7! 1B/FC %aurence )li&ier director Hamlet, (rinz von 3Jnemark >West 1er any! 1BA1C 6ran' +eter Wirth director Hamlet >aka 1a letC >*ussia! 1BA/C 1ri#ori 7o'intse& director Hamlet >aka *ichard 9urton;s -a letC >1BA/C! 9ill Colleran and 0ohn 1iel#ud directors Hamlet at /lsinore >TQ! R7! 1BA/C +hilip Sa&ille director Hamlet >R7! 1BABC Tony *ichardson director 99C Tele&ision Shakespeare Hamlet >TQ! R7! 1BF@C *odney 9ennett director >a &ideotaped productionC Hamlet >RSA! 1BB@C 6ranco =effirelli director
97

The !nimated Shakespeare Hamlet >TQ! *ussia and R7! 1BB"C Datalia )rlo&a director Hamlet >R7! 1BBAC 7enneth 9rana#h director Hamlet >RSA! "@@@C <ichael Al ereyda director ><odern *etellin#C The Tragedy of Hamlet (rince of 3enmark >"@@GC >ARS! "@@GC )scar *eddin# director The Aad Sleep 2ell >aka 2arui yatsu hodo yoku nemuruC >0apan! 1BA@C Akira 7urosa.a director Strange Arew >Canada! 1BF$C Da&e Tho as Z *ick <oranis directors. %osencrantz K 6uildenstern !re 3ead >RSA! 1BB@C To Stoppard director %enaissance Man >RSA! 1BB/C +enny <arshall director The *ion .ing >RSA! 1BB/C *o#er Allers and *ob <inkoff directors. &n The Aleak Midwinter >aka HA <id.inter;s TaleHC >R7! 1BBAC 7enneth 9rana#h director The Truman Show >RSA! 1BBFC +eter Weir director *et the 3evil 2ear Alack >RSA! 1BBBC Stacy Title director The Aan;uet! >China! "@@AC 6en# _iao#an#! director Sons of !narchy >tele&ision sho.! RSA "@@FC Created by 7urt Sutters .armayogi >"@11 fil C! >India! "@11C Q 7 +rakash! director Julius !aesar 0ulius ,aesar >RSA! 1BP@C 0ulius ,aesar >RSA! 1BP$C ha&in# 0oseph %. <ankie.ic' as director 0ulius ,aesar >RSA! 1BG@C .ith Charlton -eston as <ark Antony! 0ason *obards as 9rutus and 0ohn 1iel#ud as Caesar 99C Tele&ision Shakespeare 0ulius ,aesar >TQ! R7! 1BGBC >a production shot on &ideotape rather than fil C released in the RSA as part of the HCo plete Dra atic Works of Willia ShakespeareH series. The Ani ated Shakespeare 0ulius ,aesar >TQ! *ussia and R7! 1BB/C Heil ,aesar is an adaptation set in an unna ed odern country #ing Lear .ing *ear >TQ! RSA! 1BP$C >ori#inally presented li&e! no. sur&i&es on kinescopeC +eter 9rookEAndre. <cCullou#h director and )rson Welles as %ear .ing *ear >R7! 1BG1C .ith +eter 9rook director and +aul Scofield as %ear .ing *ear >aka 7orol %irC >*ussia! 1BG1C )ew 1ork Shakespeare $estival .ing *ear >RSA! 1BG/C >&ideotapedC .ing *ear >TQ! R7! 1BGAC >&ideotapedC! directed by Tony Da&enall director
98

AA, Television Shakespeare .ing *ear >TQ! R7! 1BF"C .ith 0onathan <iller as director and released in the RSA as part of the HCo plete Dra atic Works of Willia ShakespeareH series. .ing *ear >TQ! R7! 1BF$C! directed by <ichael ?lliot .ing *ear >TQ! R7! 1BBGC. 99C fil of the *oyal Dational Theatre;s sta#e &ersion. It .as tele&ised .ith an acco panyin# docu entary! includin# inter&ie.s .ith the director and cast. .ing *ear >R7! 1BBBC .ith 9rian 9lessed as a director .ing *ear >9aha asERSA! 1BFGC is post-Chernobyl disaster science fiction. %an >0apan! 1BFPC is an adaptation of the %ear story to a 0apanese settin#! directed by Akira 7urosa.a ! Thousand !cres >RSA! 1BBGC is a odern retellin# of the %ear story! fro the perspecti&e of the 1oneril character >1innyC. .ing of Te5as >TQ! RSA! "@@"C is a Western adaptation of 7in# %ear .ith Rli ?del as director and +atrick Ste.art as 0ohn %ear $acbeth Macbeth >RSA! 1B/FC! )rson Welles director Macbeth >1BP/ TQ specialC! >RSA! 1BP/C! 1eor#e Schaefer! director! a li&e tele&ision production no. preser&ed on kinescope Macbeth >1BA@ fil C! >R7! 1BA@C! 1eor#e Schaefer director! a fil ed-onlocation adaptation .ith the sa e t.o stars and director as the 1BP/ production. Sho.n on TQ in the R.S. and in theatres in ?urope B(lay of the MonthB Macbeth >1BAP TQ! R7C! 0ohn 1orrie director Macbeth >RSA and R7! 1BG1C! *o an +olanski director Macbeth >R7! 1BGF! *oyal Shakespeare Co panyC! +hilip Casson director Macbeth >R7! 1BF1C! Arthur Allan Seidel an director AA, Television Shakespeare Macbeth >TQ! R7! 1BF$C Macbeth >R7! 1BBGC! 0ere y 6reeston and 9rian 9lessed directors Macbeth >TQ! R7! 1BBFC! <ichael 9o#dano& director The !nimated Shakespeare Macbeth >TQ! *ussia and R7! 1BB"C! Dicolai Serebryako& director Macbeth >Qideo! R7! "@@1! *oyal Shakespeare Co panyC! 1re# Doran director Macbeth >"@@A fil C >Australia! "@@AC! 1eoffrey Wri#ht director Macbeth >"@1@ fil C >R7! "@1@C! *upert 1oold director 0oe MacAeth >R7! 1BPPC! 7en -u#hes director Throne of Alood >aka Cob.eb Castle or 7u onosu-8oC >0apan! 1BPGC! Akira 7urosa.a director
99

Men of %espect >RSA 1BB1C! Willia *eilly director *a&e <acbeth >1er any! "@@1C Scotland, (! >RSA! "@@1C! 9illy <orrissette director Ma;bool >India! "@@/C! Qishal 9harad.a8 director Shakespea%e#Told Macbeth >R7! TQ! "@@PC 4thello 4thello >Silent! 1er any! 1B""C .ith Di itri 9ucho.et'ki director and ? il 0annin#s as )thello 4thello >R7! 1B/AC .ith Da&id <ac7ane director 4thello >RSA! 1BP"C: )rson Welles director and as )thello 4thello >*ussia! 1BPPC:Ser#ei Xutke&ich director and screenplay 4thello >R7! 1BAPC fil of the *oyal Dational Theatre;s sta#e production .ith Stuart 9ur#e director and %aurence )li&ier as )thello AA, Television Shakespeare 4thello >TQ! R7! 1BF@C >&ideotapedC *eleased in the RSA as part of the HCo plete Dra atic Works of Willia ShakespeareH series! .ith Anthony -opkins as )thello 4thello >TQ! R7! 1BB@C &ideotape of the *oyal Shakespeare Co pany;s sta#e production. The !nimated Shakespeare 4thello >TQ! *ussia and R7! 1BB/C 4thello >RSA! 1BBPC )li&er +arker director ! 3ouble *ife >RSA! 1B/GC is a fil noir adaptation of the )thello story! in .hich an actor playin# the oor takes on fri#htenin# aspects of his character;s personality! directed by 1eor#e Cukor !ll )ight *ong >R7! 1BA"C is an adaptation set in the conte porary %ondon 8a'' scene. ,atch My Soul >RSA! 1BG/C is adapted fro the rock usical based on the play. .aliyattam >India! <alayala ! 1BBGC! directed by 0ayaraa8 4 >RSA! ade in 1BBB! but not released until "@@1C is a odern adaptation of ShakespeareBs 4thello! directed by Ti 9lake Delson 4thello >TQ! R7! "@@1C is an adaptation by Andre. Da&ies of Shakespeare;s )thello! set in the police force in odern %ondon. 4mkara >India! "@@AC &ago >Italy! "@@BC is an adaptation directed by Qolfan#o De 9iasi. Ia#o >Dicolas QaporidisC is an architecture school student about to #raduate .ho falls in lo&e .ith his fello. student Desde ona >%aura ChiattiC! the noble and beautiful dau#hter of the acade ic dean! professor 9raban'io >1abriele %a&iaC. 9oth his career and lo&e hopes are ruined .hen )tello >Aurelien 1ayaC! a youn# and handso e french noble an! co es on the scene. With the help of his friends ? ilia >1iulia Stei#er.altC and
100

*oderi#o >%oren'o 1lei8esesC! Ia#o .ill achie&e his re&en#e by playin# e&eryone a#ainst each other throu#h a co ple5 sche e of lies. Romeo and Juliet The ost si#nificant screen perfor ances are: %omeo and 0uliet >RSA! 1B@FC! 0. Stuart 9lackton director %omeo and 0uliet >RSA! 1B$AC! 1eor#e Cukor director %omeo and 0uliet >R7! 1BP/C! *enato Castellani director %omeo and 0uliet >Italy! 1BAFC! 6ranco =effirelli director AA, Television Shakespeare %omeo and 0uliet >TQ! R7! 1BGFC >&ideotapedC The Tragedy of %omeo and 0uliet >RSA! 1BF"C! Willia Wood an director The !nimated Shakespeare %omeo and 0uliet >TQ! *ussia and R7! 1BB"C ?fi 1a bur# director %omeo90uliet >RSA! 1BBAC 9a' %uhr ann director 2est Side Story >RSA! 1BA1C! *obert Wise and 0ero e *obbins directors %omie#E and 0ulie#L >Canada! 1BGBC! Cli&e A. S ith! director Tromeo and 0uliet >RSA! 1BBAC! %loyd 7auf an director The *ion .ing &&: SimbaBs (ride >RSA! 1BBFC! Darrell *ooney director %omeo Must 3ie >"@@@C! Andr'e8 9artko.iak director 1no eo and 0uliet >"@11C! 7elly Asbury director (rivate %omeo >"@11C! Alan 9ro.n director 2arm Aodies >"@1$C! 0onathan %e&ine director &ssa; >"@1$C! -indi <o&ie4F The reason for .hich .e ha&e chosen to list the adaptations of so e of the ost popular

Shakespearean plays! is to pro&e that the inte#ral literary .ork of the 9ard beca e a source for the screen productions! not only a part of it. The endlessness of his creations is a#ain indisputable! as it has been adapted in the .orld! fro border and ulticultural en&iron ents! su##estin# that essa#e he trans its to his reader or spectator is accepted in all the parts of the India and 0apan to the A erican continent. Shakespeare #oes beyond any ore than this he adapts to any cultural en&iron ent! because he represents

the essence of hu an nature. &.1.1 $acbeth in the adaptations of Orson We!!es and Ro+an 7o!anski
8

http:EEbuf&c.ac.ukEshakespeareE

101

We are #oin# to try for the be#innin# of our analysis re#ardin# the fil directors! )rson Welles and *o an +olanski. 9oth of the fro

adaptations of the

Shakespearean dra a! to study t.o i portant e5a ples carried out by t.o illustrious are adaptations of Macbeth. The first (uestion that opens our topic is: .hich are the ad&anta#es of transferrin# a play the sta#e to the cine a? Tryin# to ans.er this (uestion leads ine&itably to address adaptation achie&e this? The oreo&er! the reputation other (uestions: .hat is the &alue of the perfor ance at the theater? Does a play ac(uire its real di ension .hen it is represented? If yes! can the fil choice to focus on a s all nu ber of e5a ples is the result of the .ill not to disperse and lose si#ht of the ob8ecti&e of our study. This play Macbeth has! of bein# a cursed one: its fil a real interest in seein# ho. inspired fil difficulty of adaptin# a cursed Shakespeare. The choice of t.o fil s .as also not ade rando ly. There are indeed! in addition to adaptation .ould thus be particularly difficult and there is akers proceeded to deal .ith the double

Welles and +olanski and the silent &ersions! t.o other adaptations of <acbeth at the cine a: The castle of the Spider >1BPGC! by Akira 7urosa.a! .hich transposes the story in 1Ath century 0apan! and Makibefo by Ale5andre Abela >"@@@C! .hich places the action in a &illa#e in <ada#ascar. We preferred not to are adaptations directly inspired fro ention these fil s in our study! as they the history of Macbeth but they do not hi#hli#ht the

ori#inal te5t and the conte5t. This type of .ork is thus not a proper basis for our study because it in&ol&es classical! nor al fil s! .ithout the actual constraints of dialo#ue! characters! scenario. It only ser&es as a source of inspiration to create a fil and does not ust ad it use the .ritten te5t that .ould i pose so e una&oidable constraints. This is .hy .e shall confine oursel&es to the study of the HrealH adaptations! althou#h .e fro is all the ore e5citin#! because .e see ho. fro these co the be#innin# that each director takes so e liberties .ith the ori#inal te5t. The .ork on re(uire ents and the

artistic effort of Welles and +olanski cul inates in really uni(ue and distinct .orks. The difference of culture and ti e bet.een the t.o directors is indeed also an interestin# ele ent of our study. )ur approach has as ain ob8ecti&e to focus on the fil aspect of the research. If a

preli inary study of the play itself is of course necessary! anyone .ho deals .ith it
102

should do it &oluntarily in order to fa&our the study of fil throu#h the analysis of the fil s .e .ill study the

adaptations. It is therefore the be#innin# the

ain the es of the piece. The

adaptation of a play for the cine a re(uires the director to accept fro parallel bet.een the theatre and the cine a: the li#htin#! or the usic! .hereas the fil

characters! the dialo#ue and the succession of scenes. Another interestin# aspect is the ain ele ents that the director of theatre needs to #i&e shape to its interpretation of the play! na ely the scenery! the costu es! the director has purely cine ato#raphic ele ents director also has ore liberties since he pro&ided by the handlin# of the ca era. The fil obtained throu#h all these criteria. We be#an our study naturally! fro the .ritten play and fil s! but also usin# .orks of ercial failures! the &ersion ore uch ore analysis than +olanski! yet

is li ited neither in ti e nor in space. We thus e5plain the differences bet.een the fil s

literary or theatrical analysis. If the t.o fil s ha&e been co of )rson Welles #a&e rise subse(uently to relati&ely unnoticed. The analysis of the fil personal in nature. <acbeth is a tra#edy in fi&e acts by Willia uncertain. De&ertheless

by +olanski is less docu ented and

Shakespeare! .hose creation date is

any ele ents lead to the belief that the first perfor ance of the

play took place in 1A@A. Tra#edy of a bition and re orse! it is one of the peaks of the Shakespearean theatre. )n the <oor! <acbeth and 9an(uo! returnin# triu phant fro the battle .ith the 7in# of Dor.ay! eet three .eird sisters. These .itches predict that <acbeth successi&ely is #oin# to beco e thane of Ca.dor and 7in# of Scotland! and that 9an(uo .ill be father of a future kin#! .ithout bein# one hi self. -o.e&er! upon his return! <acbeth is na ed thane of Ca.dor by the 7in# Duncan! in reco#nition of his .arrior pro.ess! for ha&in# sa&ed the kin#do . 9e.ildered! the latter! .ho no. belie&es in the predictions of the .itches! talks to his .ife! .hose a bition is unbounded and she con&inced hi to urder Duncan to fulfill his destiny. After the first urder! <acbeth beca e 7in#! decides to kill 9an(uo and his son to re o&e his prophetic ri&al. 9ut the atte pt fails half and only 9an(uo dies. <acbeth! pla#ued by re orse for his cri es! is unable to en8oy its po.er. -unted by hallucinations! he belie&es to see! durin# a feast! the spectru of 9an(uo appear before hi . %ady <acbeth suffers the sa e illness and she
103

e&entually dies. While his 7in#do 9irna

is in decline! <acbeth returns to see the .itches .ho that he .on;t be defeated until the forest of an born of a .o anH .ill har hi . <acbeth

can re&eal his future. They predict hi co es a#ainst hi ! and that Hno

is reassured te porarily! but the troops of <alcol ! son of Duncan ea#er to a&en#e his father! ad&ance to the castle of <acbeth. -idden behind branches! the soldiers #i&e the i pression that the forest .alk! thus creatin# the first prediction of the .itches. <acbeth thro.s hi self into the fray and is killed by <acduff and this .ay the second prophecy .as fulfilled because <acduff .as born pre aturely. We 8ust entioned here the co only accepted as funda ental the es in the play.

Macbeth is the first and fore ost tra#edy of hu an consciousness: it e5plores the boundaries bet.een #ood and e&il! &irtue and cri e! and sho.s ho. they are blurred. The #enius of Shakespeare is to portray accurately the .eakness and uncertainties of hu an nature despite the e phasis of the dialo#ues and the e5traordinary e&ents of the story. This e5plains that durin# all the play <acbeth connects .ith the reader! despite his cruelty! in a feelin# of sy pathy spirituality akes hi Shakespeare portrays a i5ed .ith ad iration. -is re orse! .hich tor ents his truly hu an and allo.s relati&ely surpassin# his deadly follies. an torn bet.een a bition and loyalty. The final punish ent ore open to interpretation. -o.e&er! a fact see s ost e5citin# fe ale

does not entail a sense of acco plished 8ustice. *e#ardin# %ady <acbeth! her character is ore a bi#uous and re ains perhaps undeniable: the fascination that she #enerates to the reader! .hich increases after the urder. This e5plains that she has al.ays been considered as the prota#onist of Shakespeare. The adaptation of Welles has a parado5ical nature: it has the characteristic of bein# in so e .ays &ery close to a play and yet its success see s to be because its conditions of e5ecution e5plain ainly due to the talent is &ery i portant! a#ic any and cine atic inspiration of its director. The #enesis of the fil

any of its features. At the ti e! )rson

Welles .as e5tre ely acti&e on the cultural area represented by radio! theatre! sho.s! as .ell as on the political space! not lackin# to e5press his opinion on conte porary sub8ects. Despite its ener#y and its

edia co&era#e! he .as not yet popular

.ith producers! as his .orks often outflo. in financial failures. -is production co pany!
104

Colu bia! .as pessi istic about the success of his last fil listeners. In fact it is

in date! The lady from

Shanghai. ?&en his radio acti&ity! once &ery producti&e and successful! be#an to lose ore thanks to its early #lory years that his creations of the ti e eans! Welles had the al ost all re ained on the front of the sta#e. As his personal

in&ested in his theatrical adaptation of !round the world in LE days by 0ules Qerne. To achie&e his .ish to adapt a theatrical .ork of Shakespeare! Welles needed the support of a production house. -olly.ood houses .ere reluctant to this type of cine atic e5peri entation! .hich did not see to be able to brin# co ercial success. The last t.o atte pts for the adaptation of the .orks of the *enaissance .riter dated back to the years thirty .ith the Midsummer night7s dream of <a5 *einhardt and %omeo and 0uliette by 1eor#e Cukor. To con&ince production co panies to 8oin his pro8ect! Welles had a theory: he thou#ht that it .as possible to achie&e a #ood adaptation of a play by Shakespeare into a fil .ith a li ited bud#et! and so to ake the business profitable. usicals! the *epublic Colu bia,s boss -arry Cohn .as not persuaded and refuses to hear about it. Welles then turns to a production house speciali'in# especially in .estern +icture. The Second World War #a&e a ne. boost to the fil industry! .hich had #reatly

benefited the s all production houses. It had allo.ed *epublic +icture to produce each year a s all nu ber of presti#ious fil s intended to enhance its i a#e! and )rson Welles pro8ect .as part of this policy. Welles of fil ocks the 8eers that .ere related to in its sub8ect atter! .ho critici'e its passa#e anufacture inferior series. )n ake a ore is the

a8or -olly.ood production houses to this factory to .ith little

the contrary! the i perati&es of *epublic +icture corresponded to his pro8ect! to he had created for pre&ious productions .ithout seekin# to build ne. ones! consistent .ith the conte5t of the piece. Another #reat ori#inality of this fil

eans and in a short period. -e .ill also directly use the decorations that

preparation of a perfor ance at the theater directly precedin# the actual shootin#. This feature is e&en directly at the ori#in of the pro8ect itself. A De. Xork theatre had indeed asked Welles to create a sta#in# of 7in# %ear for the festi&al of the centennial of Rtah in Salt %ake City in <ay 1B/G. It .as then that after re(uirin# to replace 7in# %ear by <acbeth! the latter asked -erbert Xates! president of *epublic +icture! about the fil .
105

The esti ated bud#et .as li ited to FF$ /AG dollars and the duration of the fil in# at three .eeks. Si5 perfor ances took place in Salt %ake City! fro Another .ay to sa&e ti e! Welles decides to pre re#ister the order to shoot the scenes in playback! allo.in# hi "F till $1 <ay 1B/G. If a8ority of dialo#ues in their decor is not the sa e as that of the fil ! the distribution is lar#ely si ilar. to #i&e sta#e directions to the actors

.hile they play. -e had already e5peri ented .ith this techni(ue on The lady from Shanghai. When recordin#! Welles re(uired his actors to use the Scottish accent to recreate the at osphere of a pri iti&e and disturbin# Scotland. 0eannette Dolan played the a#nificent role of %ady <acbeth. The actual fil in# can be considered ideal astery of the te5t by the actors! recently e5ercised at the theatre! and the the first shootin#! he ore than ten ana#ed the coup to finish at idni#ht the because of the

pro8ect as a .hole by Welles. The latter .as able to apply the techni(ue of Hfil in# in continuityH. Thus! fro co ple5 plane for Duncan. 6inally! the fil in# is co pleted on 0uly 1G! 1B/G! a total of "$ days! and the final bud#et! esti ated at bet.een G@@!@@@ and GP@!@@@ dollars! is e&en s aller than it .as announced. The fil and .as finally released to the Rnited States on the first of )ctober 1B/F o ent to ade a total flop! both for the critics and to the public. -e had already been &ery bad ain proble .ith the fil .as the use of the Scottish y costu es and dWcor of inutes durin# .hich occurred the urder of 7in#

recei&ed at the Qenice 6esti&al! so that )rson Welles had decided at the last step out of the co petition. The accent .hich .ere the cuts cardboard. It tradition. To sa&e his fil reasse ble it to fro 1@G to FA of the disaster and try to ake it ake it

ade Shakespeare,s te5ts inco prehensible to the public. Also critici'ed ade in the ori#inal te5t! as .ell as the du ust be said that the fil .as released si ultaneously .ith the Hamlet of

%aurence )li&ier! .ho sta#ed a faithful &ersion of the te5t and of the Shakespearean

ore popular! Welles decides to passes uch .ithout

ore in line .ith the e5pectations of the public: the fil

inutes and part of the dialo#ue is re-recorded to re o&e so

e barrassin# Scottish e phasis accordin# to the critic. The result is a fil

coherence and unity! a poor sound (uality and co pletely dis8ointed. This &ariant of the
106

fil

released in 1BP@ also

ade a total flop. Accordin# to Welles his fil

is Ha &iolently

sketched charcoal dra.in# of a #reat play4B. It assu es that the cine a can render the #reatness of Shakespeare;s plays. The position of Welles is therefore clear: any adaptation of Shakespeare! theatrical or fil ! is doo ed to ha&e a li ited scope. It directly opposes the idea that a play >at least in ShakespeareC doesn,t ac(uire its true di ension than throu#h its representations. We;ll look at the liberties taken by Welles for the ori#inal te5t takin# into account this postulate of departure: .ithout .antin# to choices .ere #uided by the desire to render the essence of the piece in a the desi#n of Welles! the fil ake .ealth! his odest o&ie. In

appears as a kind of illustration of the te5t of Shakespeare!

.hose (uality is conferred by the #randeur and the #enius of the ori#inal te5t! that is indeed i possible to co pletely render. In his te5t 4rson 2elles and the remodeling of the Shakespearean te5t 6ran]ois Tho as establishes fifteen cate#ories in .hich he tidies the processes of adaptation of the te5t of Shakespeare in the fil s of )rson Welles. Accordin# to hi 2In Macbeth, 4thello and to se&eral ,himes at Midnight, his three Shakespearean adaptations! )rson Welles thorou#hly restructured the te5t of the plays. -e broke lines do.n in order to #i&e the characters instead of one! he altered the eanin# of lines by insertin# a fe. .ords in the

iddle of the ! ,himes at Midnight re&erses the proportion of prose and &erse found in both parts of Henry &8! and so on. Abo&e all! he turned the structure of the te5t upside do.n: he constantly chan#ed the order of a scene,s lines or a play,s scenes .hile se(uences blend lines taken fro not ean at Welles alteration but rather reco&ery! subli ation. -e tries to ost different scenes4.1@As already noted! adaptation does ake the te5t

co patible to the i perati&es related to the cine a! in order to screen the po.er of the literary .ork. An inte#ral perfor ance or representation of <acbeth .ould last for nearly three hours! or Welles .anted to shoot a short fil . 6or this reason he re o&ed the scene P of Act $! .here the #oddess -ecate 8oined the .itches. -e also cut the &isions of <acbeth caused by the .itches! as the o ent .here <alco tests <acduff,s loyalty. on the

-e eli inated .hole fra# ents of te5ts of secondary characters to refocus the fil lines of the
B 1@

ain characters. Another

a8or chan#e that he brin#s to the te5t is a

http:EE....#uardian.co.ukEfil E"@1$EaprE"BE ichael-fassbender-play- acbeth http:EE....societefrancaiseshakespeare.or#Edocu ent.php?idO"B@

107

deco posed dialo#ue that accentuates the tra#ic intensity of the fil . T.o e5a ples are spectacular: the e5tre ely fra# ented deco position of replicas of the .itches and the li&ely discussion that follo.ed the urder of Duncan. A &ariation fro the ori#inal te5t ost can be considered the allocation of lines to another character. In this cate#ory the in this case

spectacular re ains the creation of a co posite character! the old priest! .hich influences ore the interpretation than the personal addition to the si ple fil an plays a key role because it is supposed to represent the conflict essa#e that Welles .ants to send to the of replicas borro.ed an of Act "! scene / and Christianity! the basic adaptation. This old bet.een pa#anis fro

&ie.ers of his fil . In total! the te5t of the old priest is an a al#a fi&e secondary characters >*oss! %enno5! Caithness! the old

and the <essen#er of the Act /! scene "C! but also to 9an(uo and <acbeth. The chan#e of order of scenes is also an i portant &ariation than needs to be considered. There is the displace ent of %ady <acbeth sleep.alkin# scene! precedin# the announce ent of his suicide in the fil ! besides it is e5plicitly fil ed .hile in the roo The Welles fil brin#s a sin#le add on the part of the fil it is only su##ested. aker! .hich is not

insi#nificant! the t.o prayers said by the priest! one in %atin! on the arri&al at the Castle. This interpolation is desi#ned to e phasi'e the opposition bet.een Christianity and pa#anis ! an i portant idea! as .e ha&e seen! in the eyes of Welles. 9ut this interpolation also has another effect! this ti e on the psycholo#y of the characters: it accentuates the cruelty of %ady <acbeth! .ho described the preparations for the urder of Duncan durin# the prayer! and increased the tor ent of her husband ay be .ho .as listenin# fri#htened. *e#ardin# the sta#in#! in order to adapt a play a director has t.o options: first the te5t itself! if it is nor ally an untouchable support! it sub8ect to chan#es arran#ed by the Director. Thus! .e ha&e seen! Welles is not bothered to crush the ori#inal te5t into a short &ersion and that he considered proper for the screen. )n the other hand! nothin# pre&ents the Director to proceed .ith additions. In the latter case the cine a offers ore opportunities than the theatre. The first constraint of .ith re#ard to the theatrical perfor ance is! as its na e su##ests! to take place in a theatre. This tautolo#y is not .ithout conse(uences for the de&eloper! since it reduces his roo settin# and the nu ber of characters that ay be present at the sa e ti e. This

i perati&e re(uires a fictional settin# .hose di ensions are li ited to those in the scene.
108

The second essential characteristic of the theatrical perfor ance is the unit of ti e. Rnlike the fil a5i u adaptation! perfor ed in se&eral ti es and the ti e constraint only ust be perfor ed in the theatre at once! .ith depends on production house! the play

a break .hich corresponds to the inter ission. <ore #enerally! this obli#ation

to represent the play in a (uick and sudden period of ti e si#nificantly restricts the possibilities of the theatre in ter s of special effects. It reduces the possibility of chan#in# sets! costu es: it li its the #a es of li#htin# and special effects. In total! it restricts the nu ber of fire.orks akin# ti e to be put in place. adaptation is

6inally the last funda ental difference bet.een the theatrical and the fil and then broadcast throu#h a screen. The fil freedo he .ants the &ie.er to see the scene and can holds at his ercy the eye of the &ie.er: it can .hat he .ants. -e is also throu#h the ca era and

that the first is perfor ed li&e before the spectator! .hile the second is fil ed in ad&ance director has therefore a funda ental in co parison to the director of theatre: he chooses the an#le of &ie. by .hich odify it per anently. With the ca era he o&e it .here he .ants to and sho. hi

aster of the distance bet.een the &ie.er and the actors. This ay not be reproduced online. and the reduced eans!

difference also has repercussions at the le&el of tricks! because so e effects are obtained

In our case! at first si#ht the fil in# conditions! the short-ter eans! Welles the fil ade his fil

.ill ine&itably #i&e it a theatrical di ension. We ha&e seen! that because of lack of in confined space! .ith totally sta##ered costu es. And yet eans. .orks and Welles de onstrates the &eracity of its initial pre ise! the possibility

to build a capti&atin# adaptation of Shakespeare .ith little

The talent of Welles is to #i&e these poor shootin# conditions a po.erful e5pressionistic and sy bolic di ension. It should be noted! ho.e&er! that the ele ents of settin# and the costu es are far fro bein# totally ha'ardous. 0ean-+ierre 9ertho W note that t.o and Christianity. ultitude of crosses! reasons oppose throu#hout the fil : the cross and the fork. This dichoto y sy boli'es the opposition! so i portant in the eyes of Welles! bet.een pa#anis 6ro forks of the .itches. And then the three forks are follo.ed by a
109

the first scene of the fil ! the priest lance sur ounted by a Celtic Cross pushes the

sy boli'in# a +a#anis

on the decline. 9ut this predo inance of crosses is

isleadin#

and the .itches are the ones .ho lead the dance. In <acbeth Welles also uses cuts of rhyth ! breakin# the lon# se(uence shots by short shots. Another tool .idely used by )rson Welles in the fil his is the li#htin#. )b&iously! the

#a es of li#ht are also deter inant in the theatre! and else.here their use by Welles in o&ie often recalls its theatrical ori#ins. 9ut it see s to us that cine a! .here ore spread out at the theatre! offers ore possibilities in this area. adaptation is The fil

is &ery dark and #ossips had proclai ed that the darkness .as a ploy intended to buff in ana#es li#htin#. The o&ie bathes in a darkness that is

hide the lack of fil . It feels like the double influence of past theatrical and fil the .ay )rson Welles

so eti es occasionally band by rays of .hite li#ht. These bursts of clarity are li ited to &ery directional li#htin#! e phasi'in# both their theatrical ori#in and the styli'ation of a #enre in .hich )rson Welles has #i&en a lot: the fil that #li uni(ue ers of hope in the dra a noir. They are often used to sho. is the i#ht be only short-li&ed. 6or e5a ple .hen

<acbeth sho.s his arro#ance on the pro ontory! the .hiteness that li#hts hi ark of his delusions of in&incibility.

6inally .e cannot finish .ithout

entionin# a last possible techni(ue only to cine a: the

use of &oiceo&er to e5press the thou#hts of the characters. This techni(ue allo.s to a&oid asides addressed aloud to the audience to the internali'ation of the actors. The fil presents nine interior onolo#ues: ei#ht for <acbeth and one for %ady <acbeth! .hen her husband. So e already .ere onolo#ues in ode of appearance of the she e5alts after readin# the letter fro

the piece! other asides or e&en the ele ents of dialo#ue. The &oice is .hisper. 6or the last

onolo#ues of <acbeth is al.ays the sa e: he is isolated in one .ay or another! his onolo#ue! .hich contains the fa ous tirade of Act P! eans nothin#H! ist! #ettin# a double utility. scene P Hlife is a story told by an idiot! full of fury and sound! and that Welles had the idea to illustrate it by an i a#e of cloud or

There on the one hand! there is an e5pressionist &alue that increases for the spectator the i pression created by the line. 9ut it also allo.s a&oidin# the clichW of a close-up on the actor recitin# a fa ous line.
110

Since .e are in the sound field! .e #enesis of the fil the distinction

ust not for#et another prero#ati&e of cine a: the entioned in the ade by Welles bet.een the i a#e and the sound

possibility to chan#e the intonation of the &oice actors. We ha&e already

recordin# in ad&ance dialo#ues. It should be noted that he chan#ed the recordin# techni(ues accordin# to the i portance of the characters. In <acbeth! this sound processin# applies pro5i ity of ainly to the onolo#ues: the dialo#ues are sa&ed re otely! .hile the .ith an effect of internali'ation. The use onolo#ues records pro&ides the onolo#ues! purely cine atic.

of this techni(ue allo.s to theatre! and the

ark the difference bet.een the dialo#ues! as found in the

Welles bet .as to build an adaptation of <acbeth faithful to the spirit of the play .ith little eans. This initial postulate! and the fil in# conditions! rendered the Welles is not in this uch location close to that of a Director of theatre. Xet the stren#th of his fil

pro5i ity to scenic representation. -e e5celled in the prero#ati&es of the director! that of the handlin# of the ca era. It is therefore a purely cine atic talent that confers so force in his .ork. In his adaptation of the play! *o an +olanski takes the opposite &ie. of the approach of )rson Welles by optin# for realis and fidelity to the te5t of Shakespeare. oti&ations of about <acbeth a#a'ine +lay 9oy announced to the This para#raph can ne&ertheless pro&ide so e tracks to understand the +olanski in his search for realis . In1BG@! the #eneral surprise that he created a production house to finance a fil by *o an +olanski! .hose .ife had 8ust been pro ised lots of &iolence and contain so .itches .ould be a on# the +lay 9oy

scripted by 7enneth Tynan! .ho had produced the erotic sho. )hICalcuttaI! and directed urdered. +lay 9oy founder -u#h -efner any nude scenes. *u ors .ere that the cast of the three odels! and that the script for +olanski .ould

uch se5 and &iolence that it .ould re&olutioni'e the interpretation of the

play. We see therefore ho. the pro8ect see ed sour at the ti e. At the &ie. of the fil these e5pectations .ere decei&ed: +olanski si#ned a fil faithful

to Shakespeare! .ithout se5! and .hose &iolence is a concern for realis .illin#ness of pro&ocation.
111

rather than a

The fil ! despite its (uality! .as poorly recei&ed by critics as by the public and has re ained no.adays still relati&ely unnoticed. The failure of his fil ain proble of its creation at the ost possible the ti e .as the &iolence of so e scenes re#arded as unsustainable. +olanski attributes the to his search for realis . +olanski stri&es to eet the ori#inal te5t! .hich also earned hi chan#es of .ords! pri arily to the ad iration of the a&id readers of Shakespeare;s

.ork. 6or e5a ple! in Act P! scene P! he re o&es only nine lines and does only a fe. oderni'e an archaic lan#ua#e.

*o an +olanski felt the pre&ious adaptations of <acbeth! that of Welles! unsatisfactory and decides to adopt a co pletely opposite approach! confessin# in his autobio#raphy his old drea to fil one of Shakespeare,s plays. -e takes the opposite &ie. of the old to replace the a5i u .ith a so eti es historical authenticity: &ersions and usual stereotypes of the historical fil harro.in# naturalis . -e stri&es to reach a Shakespeare;s play takes place in the

iddle a#es! at a bloody and &iolent ti e! and the

<acbeth that +olanski sho.s us is the i a#e of this period. Decorations! accessories! costu es! fi#htin# and co .ouldn,t ha&e been less on life scenes are described so

realistically that they tend to look so plausible that! if they had been inspired by real facts! a#nified than the poetry of Shakespeare. *ealistic and assacres! utilation! e5ecutions! blood and crisis dra atic: +olanski has an undeniable sense of i a#e and photo#raphy! especially .hen he tries to e5press &iolence. <urders! catapult bet.een the e5pected tirades. The fa ous cursed couple is by the .ill of +olanski! perfor ed by a couple of youn#! al ost anony ous actors. 0ohn 6inch returned re&ealed one side al ost ordinary! deeply hu an of <acbeth. It no lon#er appears as a tra#ic hero dri&en by obscure forces! but as a bra&e but #ullible one! a bitious and confused! cruel! but .ithout )ne of the #reatest successes of the fil alice.

lies in the di ension that +olanski #i&es to the

character of %ady <acbeth >unlike! perhaps! to the &ersion of )rson WellesC. Despite his concern to respect the te5t of the ori#inal .riter! in the scene P of Act P +olanski #i&es her a ore i portant role than did the ori#inal piece. At the be#innin# of the se(uence he fil ed her cryin# bitterly about readin# aloud the letter of the first act in .hich <acbeth
112

re&ealed the three .itches prediction. This addition has a considerable effect on the &ie.er by recallin# hi uch ore hu an. ho. the infernal action be#an. Sho.in# %ady <acbeth sob to this readin#! +olanski actually brin#s to li#ht a character torn .ith re orse and therefore

In addition to this added se(uence! +olanski continues to deepen the a.fulness of e&ents keepin# this %ady <acbeth in the .hole scene. The ori#inal te5t the announce ent of her death by Seyton and the lon# (uote fro entions her only after <acbeth that follo.s onolo#ue .hile

can be taken as a state ent about life in #eneral on the death of his .ife. +olanski takes another direction. -e uses the &oice of 0ohn 6inch to enunciate the and then lookin# at the top of the to.er! su##estin# that she co All in all! in this scene the fa ous +olanski see s to o&er.hel fil in# the latter #ettin# do.n the stairs to see the body distorted of his deceased .ife! itted suicide. <acbeth and unload his her

.ife. %ady <acbeth loses a bit the disturbin# fascination that she e5erts on the reader and #ains hu anity. )ne has the i pression that her influence on <acbeth deri&es fro beauty and her youth and not fro her ascendin# the cruelty de onstrated at the be#innin# of the story! it see s inordinate a bition as to a cold and <achia&ellian plan. The respect for the ori#inal te5t and the realis of the fil create to#ether so eho. a ystical psycholo#ical (uality. As to ore due to a fiery and

disturbin# effect. +olanski sho.s us in a delicate

anner .hat happens usually behind

the scenes durin# theatrical perfor ances .ithout the use of &erb and of theatricality. We touch here on an essential point in the study of our proble : a play is co patible .ith a realistic adaptation? We understand therefore ho. the challen#e #i&en by *o an +olanski is a bitious! because its ob8ecti&e see s to be contradictory. +olanski adopted the approach opposite to that of Welles. -e creates a natural en&iron ent! .ith a deep attention to the detail of the costu es and of the ti e sets. -e uses ori#inal cine a special effects to fil te5t than Welles! he uses contains any silent ore than hi the prophetic hallucinations of <acbeth! the ore faithful to the Sabbath of .itches! the realistic scenes of ultra &iolence. If he stays

su##estions and o issions of it. +olanski,s fil

o ents! .hich are not prohibited by the te5t of Shakespeare but

113

.ho still e5press the interpretation of the director. In addition to the pre&iously described P of Act P scene! .e can also consider the asks hi to ser&e hi o ent precedin# the urder of the 7in#! in urder and .hich prince Duncan casts a .ry s ile to <acbeth .ho still hesitates on the insist on the #uilt of the latter to.ards 9an(uo or dra a to .hich .e attend. In conclusion! +olanski built a realistic fra e around the te5t of Shakespeare! unlike )rson Welles .ho focused on it. -e reached this .ay his ob8ecti&e! to create deeply hu an characters and al ost #i&e the i pression of a historical reconstruction. It is this success that arises precisely the co posed only of dialo#ues. It alaise that .e ha&e described: this rou#h realis ust therefore con&ey e otions only in this .ay! this is contrasts .ith the te5ts of Shakespeare unsuitable to such naturalistic treat ent. A play is .hy the te5ts are often bo bastic. Why a play can! re#ardless of its content! al.ays escape this constraint of realis ? The reason is the follo.in#: do not for#et that before anythin# else! a play is .ritten to be perfor ed. )r representation al.ays #i&es the play a deeply practical! hu an! realistic character. The o&ie screen doesn;t ha&e such an ore profound i pact than is not a i pact on the &ie.er: actually seein# actors on sta#e has a concern for a theatrical author. &.1.2 $a(ren'e O!i*ier5s "amlet adaptation It see s that Shakespeare and his plays ha&e al.ays eant for A ericans ore than a

to drink. We can also e&oke the hallucinations of <acbeth! .ho editate on the last i a#e of the fil !

.hich sho.s the three .itches hut! su##estin# that they ha&e played a decisi&e role in the

any i a#e displayed on a .hite screen. Therefore .e understand .hy realis

successful e&enin# at the theater. In the years after the .ar of independence! it has beco e for so e a sy bol of A erican .riters! of ?n#lish and a founder of A erican literature for others. Shakespeare;s .orks ha&e inspired a on# foundation of clubs! perfor ance co bookstores. 9e#innin# .ith the 1BG@s! any of the A ericans ha&e be#un to pay ore attention to any others! the unities! festi&als! the settin# up of so e

the historical and cultural conte5t in .hich literary .orks .ere .ritten. Instead of ha&in#
114

the plays treated as isolated .orks! throu#h the ne. approach .ere taken into account the social aspects of the conflicts of politics! philosophy! reli#ious beliefs or other ideas. In this conte5t! Shakespeare could ha&e been able to be understood by its conte porary audience! .ithout any e5planation. The relationship bet.een Shakespeare and A erican cine a is another interestin# aspect not to be bypassed. -o.e&er! the A erican inspirations for It ay see any usicals. usical theater .as &ery interested in the ac(uisition of Shakespearean sub8ects. Shakespeare splays pro&ide intri#ue! characters or

surprisin#! but Shakespeare;s /@@-year-old dra a had been a part of

A erican fil s since the be#innin# of cine a. At the be#innin# of the fil ! his plays .ere a #ood topic for short fil s. ?&en then there .ere t.o kinds of fil s: cine a .orks .ith Shakespeare and adaptations of his plays. The connection bet.een Shakespeare and -olly.ood has not only lasted! but has thri&ed since then lar#e pro8ects fro fil s for teena#ers. Shakespeare is kno.n to lar#e audiences! a real celebrity not only in A erica! but all o&er the .orld! he is a brand. -is tracks are reco#ni'ed! Shakespeare is a #ood channel to send a essa#e to a public! Shakespeare sells. Today! Willia Shakespeare re ains the o&ies! schools! festi&als ost sta#ed play.ri#ht! presented in theatrical perfor ances! and read in o&er.hel in#. A on# the specific adaptations after Shakespeare is re arkable the 1B/F &ersion of %aurence )li&ier! that is considered the e orable. Shakespearean dra as! deep and co ple5! al.ays present a challen#e! at the sa e ti e! fascinatin# and difficult for fil scene to perfor Hamlet! .ith akers! .ho ust co e up .ith a concept of the current the dra a of the *enaissance period. <any ha&e tried their luck .ith ore or less success. Thus .ere born adaptations that strictly respect the
115

the 1B"@s! ;

$@s and ; P@s before tele&ision productions! e5peri ental and independent fil s! and the

illions of ho es. -is influence on conte porary society and beyond! is

ost pro&ocati&e and contro&ersial! and the

ost

Shakespearean &ersion! but also others are deeply opposite to the ori#inal! can be considered ore or less alterin# in relation to it.

The apolitical and pronounced oedipal Hamlet of )li&ier pro&ed to be a land ark in the history of this reco#nition! as .ell as in the director;s career. -e .as no inated for G Acade y A.ards! .innin# the title in / cate#ories: best picture! best actor in a leadin# role! best cine ato#raphy settin# >black and .hiteC and best costu e desi#n >black-and.hiteC. 9ein# a 9ritish production! it .as also the first fil .ho .on the 1rand +ri'e of the 6esti&al. Hamlet is neither the first nor the last Shakespeare adaptation of )li&ier! .ho has ounted an i pressi&e trilo#y: the series started in 1B// .ith Henry 8! continued .ith the beautiful Hamlet in 1B/F and ended in 1BPP .ith %ichard &&&. There is no doubt that the best play is Hamlet! and success is due only to %aurence )li&ier. Its o&ie! casted A1 years a#o! can be .atched and en8oyed today! and e&en a #reat play thanks to the intensity that it pro&es. )li&ier drastically #a&e up the political the appearance of the ori#inal play and the chan#es to the ori#inal! but the the director states the o&ie erit is that this ore: it re ains fro outside the -olly.ood

beco es the e5clusi&e personal tra#edy of -a let. -is &ersion brin#s se&eral i portant ost serious is the narrated prolo#ue of the fil ! .here an .ho could not ake up his ain idea of the play! reducin# -a let to pure si plicity or to the

ost hu an co ple5ity: 2This is the tra#edy of a associated .ith a##ression! .hich e5tends -o.e&er! perhaps the

ind.411: -a let;s i potency in the conception and interpretation of %aurence )li&ier! is ainly o&er the entire plot.

ost radical decision in the adaptation of )li&ier is the o&ie insists on it! a plifyin# it. In this

a plification of the oedipal side of the relationship bet.een 1ertrude and -a let. This trend is percei&ed in the ori#inal te5t! but the adaptation! not only -a let betrays an attraction for the Uueen throu#h his .ords and actions! but also &ice &ersa: The passionate kisses clearly betray 1ertrude,s erotic desire and not the lo&e of the
11

other. While the air &ibrates bet.een the

other and the son! the

http:EEthere&ie.pile.blo#spot.roE"@1@E@AEha let-fil s-thin#.ht l

116

relationship .ith )phelia #i&es the +rince a sincere and pure lo&e that cannot sur&i&e the po.er #a es of the royal fa ily. )ne of the bi##est achie&e ents of the o&ie is )phelia! a pure and transparent ons! her

character! al ost beyond hu anity. The .hite .eddin# dress of 0ean Si It is her absolute innocence the reason .hy her operates .ith si ple

blond hair! her serene face are ele ents that indicate each a ri#hteous soul! full of candor. adness and death desolate the &ie.er to ons such an e5tent. These scenes are true pieces of resistance of the fil . 0ean Si

eans: a #a'e lost in the hori'on! the sudden transitions bet.een

deep cryin# and cra'y lau#hter helps in interpretin# the .ild )phelia! floatin# a on# the dyin# flo.ers petals. She is the only character that #ets up to -a let;s le&el in ter s of the (uality of interpretation. <ost of the actors #i&e life to characters in a plain tryin# to touch the li it of authenticity. %aurence )li&ier had a bold approach in ter s of the Shakespearean te5t: the te5t reduced to one-third! chan#in# so e aspects re#ardin# the characters! akin# the better .ith uni(ue features and re.rote the .hole story so that it beca e the personal tra#edy of a -a let that so eti es is a##ressi&e or on the contrary unable to take any kind of action. Whether .e a#ree .ith hi the *enaissance sta#e. &.1.& The ,o!!o0 Cro0n 1oin# further in our analysis it is i possible to i#nore the e5peri ental adaptations series de&eloped by Sa <endes for 99C T.o in "@1". The Hollow ,rown! as it .as called co&ers an essential part of the Shakespearean dra a! the Henriad! for ed of the four fa ous plays: *ichard II! -enry IQ! +art 1! -enry IQ! +art " and -enry Q. The Hollow ,rownFD has been a bet .on for 99C. ?&ery episode has lasted for Shakespearean plays that are not e5pected to be the
1"

anner (uite

or not! one thin# is for sure: he pro&ed that Hamlet

has re ained a conte porary play that can ha&e the sa e effect on the bi# screen as on

ore than

t.o hours! ratin#s ha&e been #reat! takin# into account that .e are talkin# about historical ost appreciated reality sho.s all

See Anne5 F

117

o&er the .orld. A series that brou#ht to the sta#e the best actors .ho offered representations and interpretations that pro&ed their indisputable talent. +roducers had the brilliant intuition that this .as a perfect arketin# opportunity! takin#

into account the distribution and the plays chosen! so e of 9ritish public fa&orites. Actors are di&ided into those .ho .ere in the centre of the public focus for a lon# ti e and the be#inners! .ho had the occasion to display their hidden talent on sta#e >9en Whisha.! To decay! the i -iddleston! 0oe Ar stron#C. The central idea .as the e&olution and ense pressure of the cro.n on the shoulders of the onarchs. The usic.

producers relied a #reat deal on the talent and the passion of the actors in&ol&ed in the pro8ect as .ell as on the theatrical at osphere created by the costu es and the the interest of the &ie.ers in this fil Another i portant support for the confidence of those .ho belie&ed in this pro8ect .as series. An i portant part of the public hadn,t had the interest or the curiosity to disco&er the ori#inal plays of Shakespeare before .atchin# the -ollo. Cro.n. The curiosity to see the e&olution of the fa&orite actors in these o&ies! tri##ered the i pressi&e audience of 99C durin# the four .eeks! in the e&enin# of Saturday. It .as a bet .on not only fro the point of &ie. of audiences! but as .ell as in respect of the (uality of the plays adaptations. Actors elected in&ested passion and ener#y! pro&ed their talent and this .as felt beyond the screen. The first play chosen for this e5peri ental adapti&e process has been *ichard II. Dai&e and conceited! the youn# an *ichard starts his .ay to the head of the social pyra id and later to the decay torturin# -enry 9olin#broke >*ory 7innearC! his cousin! to#ether .ith Tho as! count of <o.bray >0a es +urefoyC. De5t! follo.s the forfeitin# of his uncle,s lands! 0ohn of 1aunt >+atrick Ste.artC! 9olin#broke;s father to be able to finance the .ar a#ainst Ireland! a .ar he .ill lose. These actions of the youn# kin# attract the discontent of any courtiers! a on# the ! the Duke of Xork >Da&id SuchetC. -e *ichard;s court. 6inally the 7in# is arrested and in prison itted .ill house 9olin#broke once returned to ?n#land. The youn# -enry .ill be#in to eli inate all the nobles fro he is urdered. 9olin#broke! no. kin# -enry the IQ-th has re orse for the co

cri es and looks for the di&inity for#i&eness.

118

9en Whisha. plays a

essianic role of *ichard. A youn#

an beca e kin# bein#

surrounded by a &icious en&iron ent. +ercei&ed fri&olous and i pulsi&e! he beco es the prisoner of his decisions that .ill beco e .eapons a#ainst hi return fro ark the course of history. Any action! his life style ana#e to defeat hi and to .in and those .ho .ere once band to destroy hi . After his urder of a kin# .ill follo. hi for the rest of his life!

e5ile! his cousin! -enry 9olin#broke .ill

the po.er. 6or 9olin#broke the

the cro.n once .orn by *ichard bein# a hea&y burden that you .ill ha&e to carry until his son .ill pro&e to be a .orthy successor to the throne. 6or t.o hours and t.enty inutes .e are .itnessin# to the decay a kin# *ichard and the

ascension of another -enry IQ. 9en Whisha. played a #reat role: fra#ile! .ith a look of artyr! riskin# it all and e&entually losin# e&erythin#. -e beco es a.are of the conse(uences of his acts uch too late! .hen he is no lon#er able to do anythin# about it istakes! *ichard in order to chan#e so ethin#. With all the .eaknesses! .ith all his deli&ers an e otional speech e5cited! the speech of a defeated kin#: 2I ha&e been studyin# ho. I ay co pare This prison .here I li&e unto the .orld: And for because the .orld is populous And here is not a creature but yself! I cannot do it: yet I;ll ha er it out. <y brain I;ll pro&e the fe ale to y soul! <y soul the father: and these t.o be#et A #eneration of still-breedin# thou#hts! And these sa e thou#hts people this little .orld! In hu ours like the people of this .orld! 6or no thou#ht is contented. The better sort! As thou#hts of thin#s di&ine! are inter i5;d With scruples and do set the .ord itself A#ainst the .ord: As thus! ;Co e! little ones!; and then a#ain ;It is as hard to co e as for a ca el To thread the postern of a s all needle;s eye.; Thou#hts tendin# to a bition! they do plot Rnlikely .onders: ho. these &ain .eak nails
119

ana#es to take the audience into the uni&erse of the intensi&e action and Whisha.

<ay tear a passa#e throu#h the flinty ribs )f this hard .orld! y ra##ed prison .alls! And! for they cannot! die in their o.n pride. That they are not the first of fortune;s sla&es! Dor shall not be the last: like silly be##ars Who sittin# in the stocks refu#e their sha e! That any ha&e and others ust sit there: And in this thou#ht they find a kind of ease! 9earin# their o.n isfortunes on the back )f such as ha&e before endured the like. Thus play I in one person any people! And none contented: so eti es a I kin#: Then treasons ake e .ish yself a be##ar! And so I a : then crushin# penury +ersuades e I .as better .hen a kin#: Then a I kin#;d a#ain: and by and by Think that I a unkin#;d by 9olin#broke! And strai#ht a nothin#: but .hate;er I be! Dor I nor any an that but an is With nothin# shall be pleased! till he be eased With bein# nothin#. <usic do I hear?41$ In the solitude of the prison! .aitin# for the final transfor ation! *ichard re&eals the inner ost feelin#s and thou#hts re#ardin# this co ple5 .orld! .hich pro&e to be the stru##les of any hu an bein# in the eternal fi#ht a#ainst the hardship of life. -is attitude is a odernist one! inclined to.ards the escape fro the collecti&e en&iron ent to the solitude of the self. This sorro. of this isolation is su##ested throu#h a .ide palette of ne#ati&e ter s: 2prison!4 2&ain!4 2.eak!4 2sla&e!4 2silly!4 2be##ar!4 2 isfortune!4 2penury4. This .ay! Shakespeare dra.s the attention of the reader or of the spectator to the seclusion of the hu an bein# in front of the difficulties! .hich is e5actly the condition of the odern character. Another aspect that e phasi'es the sa e idea is the onolo#ue by 2the 7in#4 and 2the be##ar4. oscillation bet.een the #ood and the e&il! the hi#hest and the lo.est borders of social scale! represented in *ichard,s interior

The second play brin#s to the focus of the 99C audience 7in# -enry the IQth played by 0ere y Irons faces the re&olts or#ani'ed around ).en 1lendo.er and rebel -enry
1$

http:EE....youtube.co E.atch?&O1PAiLS$PIhA

120

-otspur played by 0oe Ar stron#! the son of Duke of Dorthu berland ! the t.o of the bein# dissatisfied because the kin# has not paid the atone ent re(uested by 1lendo.er for <orti er! Dorthu berland;s son-in-la.. -enry has another proble played by To an old an a.ay fro re#ardin# -al -iddleston! his son! #usty and arro#ant! influenced by Sir 0ohn 6alstaff! the #ood old ti es! .ho hides his bitterness behind the curtains of ana#es to suppress durin# a confrontation. The &ictory is

a dirty life. -al 8oins his father in the battle of Shre.sbury .here he the or#ani'ed re&olt of -otspur! by killin# hi short duration for no. -enry and -al

ust face the re&olts or#ani'ed by 1lendo.er and

Dorthu berland! supported this ti e by the cardinal of Xork. 0ere y Irons has the ain role of the old kin# -enry IQ. -e finds hi self in the an! the son he .anted. The pro ises iddle

of re&olts! .eak under the pressure of his throne and the burden of the past: -enry sees in -otspur! the rebel youn# ade in the e&e of *ichard;s abdication .ere ne&er fulfilled. Those .ho are .aitin# for ans.ers are blocked by the absolute silence of the ;-otspur; 8oins the rebels. In addition to the court intri#ue and the riots in the country! -enry has the deal .ith his son -al! influenced by the pro iscuous life of 6alstaff. The youn# prince prefers the co pany of si ple people rather than the courtiers but not for lon#. 9eco in# a.are of the duties of a heir! -al 8oined his father at the battle of Shre.sbury .here he lead the ar y to &ictory. There are any e5citin# o ents in this first part! such as the shootin# and the decors of ake a onarch. Considerin# hi self betrayed! -enry +ercy

?astcheapside! the fello.ship of ordinary people. -iddleston and *ussell 9eal .hich the t.o i itate kin# -enry IQ. 0ere y irons! To

credible duo that sends hu or beyond the border of the screen! especially in the scene in

-iddleston and Si on *ussell 9eal create &ery #ood roles in this first ost e5citin# o ents bein# the confrontation

part. Irons and -iddleston offer interpretations full of passion and e otion .hich pass beyond the screen! one of the bet.een father and son.

121

This first part also offers a re&elation! /"-year old actor 0oe Ar stron#! kno.n fro played in plays of Shakespeare! in co parison to the other e5peri ented players fro the co ple5ity of his character.

the the

99C series *obin -ood! in the role of -enry +ercy -otspur. Ar ostron# has not so far distribution. This does not represent an i pedi ent! as Ar stron# pro&es that he can face

The story #oes on .ith part II of 7in# -enry IQ. Dorthu berland s.ears to re&en#e his son;s death! -otspur and #athers allies around hi (uite pleased at this! and as he prepares to lea&e his to or#anise a ne. battle a#ainst the istress! Doll Tearsheet! he starts to 7in#. 6alstaff has to #ather an ar y in the na e of -enry! but the old soldier is not critici'e and to insult on -al .ithout kno.in# that he .as hidden! listenin# to hi . In the eanti e -enry IQ is dyin#. -al belie&in# his father is dead! takes the cro.n and sits on the throne. There is a touchin# dialo#ue bet.een the father and the son! cul inatin# .hen -enry puts the cro.n on his son,s head. -enry the fifth is assi#ned ne. 7in# of ?n#land and his first co aturity! a break bet.een hi and ent is to banish 6alstaff fro and the fri&olity of youth. onarch beco es a.are that the court! as a si#n of

This episode brin#s out the deep chan#e of -al. The future

he has to fulfill his responsibilities and he assu es the difficulties that co e .ith the title and the cro.n. Director *ichard ?yre e phasi'ed the actors, charis a and talent. -al is sho.n as a playboy of those ti es. 0ere y Irons! a dyin# an! fra#ile! pathetically re orseful! fearful in the role of -enry! .ins the co passion of the audience. The offer anner in .hich the plays are adapted creates a product a&ailable to the public! in a ore than 8ust a recitation. The dedication and the passion behind this pro8ect are

classical presentation! but .ith popular actors! actors fa iliar .ith the te5t! actors that t.o ele ents to be found in the #a e of actors! that attracted the interest of the public. Dot only the e otional scenes bet.een -iddleston and Irons ha&e been effecti&e! but also the separation and the banishin# of 6alstaff ha&e aroused sy pathy. The last e5a ple for this series is dedicated to 7in# -enry Q. 6alstaff died and -al has beco e a responsible onarch. 9ein# infor ed that he is entitled to the throne of 6rance!

122

-enry Q

akes a series of offers to the Dolphin but recei&es a hu iliatin# reply! a #ift

representin# se&eral tennis balls. -enry is preparin# for .ar. -e sho.s cle ency to the inhabitants but authori'es the e5ecution of the soldier 9ardolph for the robberies co itted. When the 7in# of 6rance refuses a ne. round of ne#otiations! -enry is arries the princess Catherine of Qalois! beco in# the la.ful #ettin# ready for the battle .hich takes place at A#incourt. The battle is #ained by the ?n#lish and -enry successor to 6rance;s throne. At the a#e of $P years! -enry Q dies and his son! -enry Q .ill lose the 6rench territory durin# his rei#n. When you;re thinkin# of the play -enry Q .hat co es to one,s speeches told by the fil interest in the .ork of Shakespeare disco&ered his plays! is the akers and producers! the ind are the fa ous erit of the actors!

onarch. The fact that people .ho ha&e ne&er before had any erit of 99C and is the &isible the e&idence that Willia

Shakespeare .ill be read! .ill be redisco&ered and .ill ne&er be for#otten. &.1.: Ro+eo and /(!iet adaptations In the ne5t part of this chapter! .e are #oin# to sketch an analysis of the fil 0uliet by 9a' %uhr ann! a fil )ne of the adaptation of %omeo and 0uliet by Willia %omeo 9

Shakespeare.

ost faithful adaptations to the .ork of Shakespeare is .ithout no re ains faithful to the Shakespeare! althou#h the t.o lo&ers are transported to the the .est! as W. 9.

doubt %omeo 9 0uliet of the director 9a' %uhr ann. The fil .ritin# of Willia

conte porary period. In this case .e cannot talk about an intercultural adaptation! as this &ersion 8ust brin#s to the conte porary sta#e a popular story fro Worthen co ents in his book Shakespeare and the $orce of Modern (erformance :

2Althou#h the dyna ics of #lobalEinterculturalEpostcolonial Shakespeare are #i&en specific J and different J force in any indi&idual production! 9a' %uhr an,s 1BBA fil 2illiam Shakespeare7s %omeo 9 0uliet brin#s these issues into a particularly useful focus. The fil is not! let e be clear! 2intercultural4 in any si#nificant sense. It does not ode of entertain ent production J the -olly.ood fil J to produce Shakespeare throu#h a perfor ance practice 2forei#n4 to Western theatre M3N: it uses the .orld,s do inant sta#e one of the West,s ost fa iliar dra as.4 >W. 9. Worthen! "@@/: 1$$C This is an
123

A erican

o&ie that transports Qerona in the nei#hborhoods of De. Xork by keepin# a has the particularity of ha&in# kept the eet his .ork

conte porary decor of the 55th century. This fil

dialo#s of the Shakespearean play. -o.e&er! the lan#ua#e of Shakespeare does not kno. the barriers of ti e! it is al.ays conte porary .ith those .ho choose to and this is .hat akes its uni&ersality.

In this adaptation! the t.o fa ilies are related to the #an#sters .ho are seekin# to ha&e the control o&er the city. *o eo! youn# and as .ell as his cousins to a ballroo i success and .on elancholic is dri&en by his friend <ercutio eet 0uliet. They fall in lo&e .as a .here he is #oin# to

ediately and s.ear their lo&e for al.ays! a lo&e that .ill kill the . The fil any )scars. The fil

aker 9a' %uhr ann has put in scene t.o

fa ous actors: %eonardo Di Caprio and Claire Danes. )f course! the challen#e of the adapter is to take a play that takes place in ?n#land at the end of the 1Ath century and to pro8ect it in the odernity .hile re ainin# faithful to the odernity is pryin# .hole of the .ork. This transposition is si ply i possible .ithout the e er#ence of so e alterations. The scene .hich under#oes the #reatest influence of this the scene chan#ed so eho.. So the t.o lo&ers are in the s.i situation and keep the tradition of the fa ous scene fro play .ith the probably that of the balcony. Since the terrace is under &ideo sur&eillance! the reality of in# pool! far fro eyes! to kiss and .isper .ords of lo&e. %uhr ann could ha&e been able to i#nore this the balcony. Xet he prefers to odern technolo#y and create a ne. ori#inal scene. %uhr ann .anted to

e phasi'e in this .ay that the story does not de&elop in its ori#inal ti e! that he had the duty to adapt the play to the realities of the "@th century. Another i portant chan#e that should be entioned is that the prota#onists do not tra&el ore on horses but by car. They are not fi#htin# ore .ith s.ords but rather .ith firear s. <oreo&er! the director

clearly refers to this chan#e of .eapon! as the firear s ha&e the .ord Hs.ordH en#ra&ed on the handle: 29en&olio,s 2s.ord4 in the openin# scene is a pistol en#ra&ed .ith the anufacturer,s label! 2S.ord B 1$/C. Series P4! a lo#o .e see repeatedly on billboards thy +istol and thy 6riend4 >ibid: throu#hout the fil ! acco panied by the slo#an 2I a

124

Certain passa#es of the ne. &ersion of the play ha&e been retained .hile others ha&e been odified. 6or instance the choir of the prolo#ue has been kept. In the fil it is a presenter of a tele&ision 8ournal .hich tells it. 6ro also conser&ed fro the be#innin# of the plot! .e ha&e a

(uarrel bet.een the cousins <ontai#ue and the Capulets cousins. The scene of the ball is the opennin#. At the end of this scene! the t.o lo&ers disco&er their identities. 6inally! the role of the nanny has also been kept. She is al.ays present for the couple and .ill help the . )n the other hand the scene fro the balcony! the ythical scene does not happen on a in# pool. Then! there is the

balcony because *o eo and 0uliet are face to face in a s.i

arria#e bet.een 0uliet and +aris .ith a &ery detailed or#ani'ation in the book .hereas there is only a sin#le reference in the fil . 6inally! in the book! at the ti e of the death of *o eo and 0uliet! +aris! 9altha'ar and the pastor are present. 9altha'ar acco panied *o eo. The pastor talked to *o eo before he died and +aris .as killed. 0uliet .oke up after that *o eo died. In the fil ! this scene is happenin# in a church in the center of the city! +aris and 9altha'ar are absent! and 0uliet .akes up .hen *o eo .ants to take the poison. All these chan#es brou#ht to the Shakespearean dra a are due to the transposition of the plot into the alle#ori'ed .orld of #lobali'ation. This fil is connected to the trend of a unication lan#ua#e. ythic! as .e are dealin# #lobali'ed conte porary landscape! in .hich ad&ertisin# is the co In %uhr ann,s adaptation! ti e and place beco e essential

.ith so e sort of utopia! or ate porality! a tendency to dislocate any classical stability: 2%uhr ann sta#es this disorientin# #eo#raphy! elidin# the slick boundaries bet.een #eo#raphies and ethnic positionalities! and bet.een the ad&ertised #eo#raphies of the #lobal arket! the ythic borderland! and the actual border4 >ibid: 1$FC. The references to the ?li'abethan theater are &ery nu erous throu#hout the fil . 6or e5a ple! <ercutio! the best friend of *o eo! .ears the costu e of a .o an at the ball of Capulet fa ily. )f course this is a direct reference to the fact that .o en .ere e5cluded fro the theater and that the en played the role of these .o en. In addition!
125

the first ti e that one sees the character of *o eo to the screen! it is in the recallin# that the bluntly that his fil

iddle of an

old theater. The reference is &ery clear. The Director pro&ides a &ery i portant detail! o&ie industry has far e5ceeded that of the theater. -e pointed out is an adaptation of a theater play. 6or that the .orks still e5ist and ust ake the transition fro ust be adapted and updated to the period .here .e li&e to

that they ha&e the sa e echo as before! they absolutely theater to the cine a. A play

sur&i&e. That is e5actly .hat 9a' %uhr ann does takin# the .ork of Shakespeare and the pro8ectin# it a #iant screen. This transfer brin#s to li#ht a beautiful i a#e! because sy bolically! the cine a takes the lefto&ers! the ruins of the theater and #i&es the a secondary! but a fresh breath. Despite e&erythin#! adapters .ant to keep the ori#in! one .ants to be faithful to the ori#inal &ersion of %omeo and 0uliet and it is for this reason that in this case! the director keeps the te5t of the author identical. ?&en the prolo#ue of the play! that announced the tra#ic death of *o eo and 0uliet! is inte#rated under the for of a ne.scast. aintained! bein#

Also! .e should not i#nore the eccentricity of the #a e. This is not a #a e of a -olly.ood actor that %uhr ann presents to the public but that of an actor of theater. The characters are Hbi#H and the al.ays o&e ents are detailed. ?&erythin# is e5a##erated! the ore tra#ic and the co ic is e otions! as .ell as the body #a e. The tra#ic is al.ays .ho are #athered in the sho.roo . This

ore co ical. The actor is not playin# for the ca era! he plays for the spectators eans to keep the principle of the ?li'abethan any. 6or e5a ple! .hen

theater. What %uhr ann has done is to re ain faithful to the creation of Shakespeare. The references to the ?n#lish play.ri#ht and to his ti e are so eone bit his thu b! it .as a si#n of derision to.ard another person. It is like this that the Director opens the conflict bet.een the Capulet and the <onta#ue fa ilies at the be#innin# of the fil . Althou#h this does not see a rele&ant detail for a lon# ti e! the intention of the Director .as to keep this aspect of the 1Ath century. Also! *o eo and the <onta#ue are held at the beach of Qerona. In front of the beach of sand! there is a essa#e .here .e can read H1lobe TheaterH. This is a direct link to Willia the inscription H1lobe TheaterH is presented in the fil of %uhr ann. Shakespeare as it represents the space .here he has e&ol&ed throu#hout his career. This e5plains .hy

126

In "@@B! %omeo K 0uliet is played by Reda Tatsuya! a sin#er of 0-+op part of the boy band 7at-tun and 7obayashi *yoko! an actress and series! both fro odel .ho played in any tele&ision ystery? 0apan. The .hole .orld kno.s the Shakespearean story! e&en .ithout

ha&in# read the fa ous tra#edy. 9ut .hat details re ain still under the si#n of

That of the ene y fa ilies! the scene on the balcony or the poison and the death? And <ercutio! .ho .as he? Did they ha&e se5ual intercourse? Who died first or pretended to? And such feelin#s are this still possible? In the process of an adaptation so e aspects beco e deeply i portant: the cultural constitution of a yth! the transfor ation of a for e ory! the re e brance! the >reC of e5istence into a yth. In the

particular case of Shakespeare! the literary herita#e beco es the sub8ect of a conte porary story! of fil history. The lar#est and probably the atte pted to transpose the ost kno.n fil yth throu#h a adaptations of %omeo and 0uliet is 2est akers ha&e usical fil .ith a story that de&elops in .on ten )scars >the best usical co edy HWest e ory creates literary opportunities fro .hich the director can de&elop the stran#est scenarios possible. We are #oin# to present so e other e5a ples adaptations of *o eo and 0uliet and .e .ill see that they are all different fro yth althou#h aintainin# the each other and that each brin#s so ethin# ne. to the

Side Story by *obert Wise and 0ero e *obbins in 1BA1. The t.o fil De.-Xork. This .as an international triu ph and the fil of the sa e na e had had a hu#e success. That Side StoryH. The fil their co

directors! best fil ! best actorsC. 9ut before the reali'ation of this fil ! a

ade its appearance on 9road.ay! the Septe ber "A! 1BPG and usical co edy .as the source of inspiration of the fil

is happenin# in the heart of the 9i# Apple .here the t.o lo&ers li&e on different unities hate each other. These t.o fa ilies of the producers .as to ake the la. in the district of

sides of the city. They are na ed Tony and <aria. They are in lo&e! but unfortunately West Side. Then the action de&elops .ith the tra#ic story of Tony and <aria .ho li&e a forbidden lo&e. The ai is probably the first &iolence. This oderni'e the play of Shakespeare. This and the urban usical co edy .hich brou#ht to sta#e the racis

usical sho.s us the conte porary social realities in the fra e of the
127

Shakespearean dra a. The distribution of roles has been assi#ned to Datalie Wood for <aria and to *ichard 9ey er for the role of Tony. Shakespeare in *ove is an A erican-9ritish fil story takes place in %ondon durin# the su ade by 0ohn <adden in 1BBF. The Shakespeare is a youn# ust deli&er a ne. play to his use and .ill find it in Qiola an >*o eoC but &ery

er of 1PB$. Willia

poet and play.ri#ht .ho #ot into debt. -e absolutely sponsor but he has no inspiration. -e is lookin# for a ne.

.ho is a youn# .o an drea in# of beco in# an actress and .orshippin# the dra a of Willia . She then decided to play one of these parts! the role of a (uickly! Shakespeare disco&ers the truth and falls in lo&e .ith her. Then they .ill act to#ether in this play and .ill be able to lo&e each other only for this ti e. )f this i possible lo&e .ill be born the ost i portant and beautiful .orks of the play.ri#ht.

<any periods in the life of Shakespeare ha&e been resu ed by the script.riters to recreate the best as possible his past. -o.e&er! the lo&e story bet.een Willia al.ays kne. ho. to stay discreet. The script.riters! To are then #uided by the to i a#ine this lo&e story. We ha&e chosen =effirelli,s &ersion of %omeo and 0uliet! created in 1BAB! at the end of our analysis! as his interest in the co ple5ity of the Shakespearean dra a has been ateriali'ed in four cine a adaptations: The Taming of the Shrew in 1B"B! 4tello, in 1BAF and Hamlet in 1BB@. These four plays of the 9ard opened the curiosity and the inspiration of the fa ous Italian fil aker! pro&in# once a#ain that Shakespeare can be a source of artistic creati&ity for any a#e. As .e ha&e been able to conclude! %omeo and 0uliet has been #reatly adapted to the cine a! but this &ariant has been &ery .ell recei&ed by the public and its &alue is still reco#ni'ed in the conte porary a#e. The t.o ain actors .ere %eonard Whitin# >1G yearsC and )li&ia -ussey >1A yearsC. The choice of actors .as &ery contro&ersial because the t.o appear there naked .hile they are not a8or. -o.e&er! this .as the first ti e that actors .ho play the role of *o eo and 0uliet and Qiola .as only fiction because &ery little .as kno.n about the personal life of the latter .ho Stoppard and <arc Dor an ythical story: %omeo and 0uliet .ritten by Shakespeare hi self

128

.ere the sa e a#e as the characters in the play! detail .hich de&eloped the credibility and the rese blance bet.een the ori#inal te5t and the adaptation. The interpretation of =effirelli .as fil ed in Italy and it pro&ed to be a success! a natural e5pression of the purest for of lo&e of all ti es. The proof of its triu ph are the four Acade y A.ard no inations and the t.o )scars for the best cine ato#raphy and the best costu e desi#n. ?5cept for the 0uliet played by )li&ia -ussey! da''lin# beautiful and the *o eo played by the blue-eyed %eonard Whitin#! =effirelli kept fro bet.een the t.o ene y fa ilies and the suicide of the alteration that the producer brou#ht to the fil dialo#ue for that ti e. =effirelli chose to tri ori#inal &ariant! the reader en8oys one of the literature: 26are.ellI 1od kno.s .hen .e shall eet a#ain. I ha&e a faint cold fear thrills throu#h y &eins That al ost free'es up the heat of life. I,ll call the back a#ain to co fort e. DurseI`What should she do here? <y dis al scene I needs ust act alone. Co e! &ial. What if this i5ture do not .ork at all? Shall I be arried then to orro. ornin#? Do! noI This shall forbid it. %ie thou there M%ays do.n a da##er.N What if it be a poison .hich the friar Subtly hath inistered to ha&e e dead! %est in this arria#e he should be dishonored 9ecause he arried e before to *o eo? I fear it is: and yet ethinks it should not! 6or he hath still been tried a holy an. -o. if! .hen I a laid into the to b! I .ake before the ti e that *o eo Co e to redee e? There,s a fearful pointI
129

the

ori#inal story 6riar %aurence! 0uliet,s Durse and re#ardin# the plot the con&ulsi&e scenes ain characters. An i portant is the adaptation of the Shakespearean so e of the se(uences .hich could ha&e asterpieces onolo#ues of the uni&ersal

been borin# for his public. An e5a ple is 0uliet,s potion speech. In the Shakespearean

Shall I not then be stifled in the &ault! To .hose foul outh no healthso e air breathes in! And there die stran#led ere y *o eo co es? )r! if I li&e! is it not &ery like The horrible conceit of death and ni#ht! To#ether .ith the terror of the place` As in a &ault! an ancient receptacle Where for this any hundred years the bones )f all y buried ancestors are packed: Where bloody Tybalt! yet but #reen in earth! %ies fest,rin# in his shroud: .here! as they say! At so e hours in the ni#ht spirits resort` Alack! alack! is it not like that I! So early .akin#`.hat .ith loathso e s ells! And shrieks like andrakes torn out of the earth! That li&in# ortals! hearin# the ! run ad` I! if I .ake! shall I not be distrau#ht! ?n&ironed .ith all these hideous fears! And adly play .ith y forefathers, 8oints! And pluck the an#led Tybalt fro his shroud! And! in this ra#e! .ith so e #reat kins an,s bone As .ith a club dash out y desp,rate brains? )! lookI <ethinks I see y cousin,s #host Seekin# out *o eo! that did spit his body Rpon a rapier,s point. Stay! Tybalt! stayI *o eo! *o eo! *o eo! I drink to thee. MShe falls upon her bed .ithin the curtains.N4 >*o eo and 0uliet! Act IQ! scene $C The attitude of 0uliet is outlined by the 9ard throu#h such a lon# and co ple5 solilo(uy! in order to underline the tension and the #radual increase of 0uliet,s fear and terror in front of the possibility of death or of an une5pected end to her decision to drink the potion. -er sense of insecurity is trans itted to the reader throu#h the re arkable len#th of her onolo#ue.

In the case of =effirelli,s adaptation! he chose to a&oid the Shakespearean &ersion by reducin# the onolo#ue to a toast. She o&erco es her fear .ithout e5pressin# all her

130

thou#hts and feelin#s! by si ply prayin# by a toast for stren#th to face the fatality of death: 2%o&e #i&e 6ro e stren#thI4

the be#innin#! the prolo#ue is classical! ha&in# the role of settin# the scene! briefly ain articulations of the plot:

announcin# the

7ro!o"(e: T.o households both alike in di#nity! In fair Qerona .here .e lay our scene! 6ro ancient #rud#e break to ne. utiny. Where ci&il blood akes ci&il hands unclean. 6ro forth the fatal loins of these t.o foes! A pair of star-crossed lo&ers take their life: Whose isad&entured piteous o&erthro.s Do .ith their death bury their parents; strife.41/ As in the e5a ple entioned before! =effirelli chose to ease the ori#inal &ariant cuttin#

off a part of the prolo#ue: 2The fearful passa#e of their death- ark;d lo&e! And the continuance of their parents; ra#e! Which! but their children;s end! nou#ht could re o&e! Is no. the t.o hours; traffic of our sta#e: The .hich if you .ith patient ears attend! What here shall iss! our toil shall stri&e to end.41P The option of the Italian producer to cut se&eral sections of the Shakespearean play can be e5plained by the i inent transfor ations i posed in the translation of a tra#edy to akin# a 2Shakespeare the cine a. ?lsie Walker talks about 2the stru##le inherent in

fil !4 bet.een the sense of >financial and ideolo#icalC obli#ation to 2decode4 Shakespeare for a .ide audience and the necessary ad ission of the li itations in any interpretation.4 >(uoted by Diana e. -enderson! "@@A: BC +robably this is the e5cuse or the personal option of any cine a producer that decides to brin# se&eral alterations to the ori#inal .ork of Shakespeare.

1/ 1P

http:EE....fil site.or#Ero e.ht l http:EEshakespeare. it.eduEro eoL8ulietEfull.ht l

131

The

yth of *o eo Z 0uliet .as not only adapted to the theater and to the cine a! it has

also been reflected in the dance! in ballet as .ell as on the sta#e for the opera or e&en for usicals. %omeo and 0uliet, from hatred to love is a 6rench created in "@@1 and inspired by the play of Willia passions: the co edy and he usical co edy of 1erard +res#ur&ic Shakespeare. It is in 1BBF that the arry his t.o artistic

author 1erard +res#ur&ic decided to fulfill the old drea ! that to

usic. It is in passin# the door of 1%?< +roductions! .here

et producers Daniel %e <oyne! and 1erard %ou&in! fascinated by the idea of

adaptin# the Shakespearean dra a! that the pro8ect *o eo and 0uliet! finally sa. the li#ht of day. *o eo and 0uliet! e bodied by the youn# sin#ers! Da ien Sar#ue of 1F years old and Cecilia Cara .ho .as 1P years old. The usical co edy is (uite different fro the ori#inal play: the ori#inal ?li'abethan

te5t is not used! al ost all the characters are a.are of the 2secret4 arria#e of t.o lo&ers! and the dead of the t.o prota#onists differ dependin# on the production. There are se&eral &ariants of the adaptation! since it has been translated into se&eral lan#ua#es such as -un#arian! *ussian! ?n#lish! 1er an! 0apanese and e&en *o anian. ?&ery country brou#ht personal additions or alterations to the ori#inal 6rench &ersion and this .ay the on#oin# process of adaptation of the Shakespearean .ork de&elops all o&er the .orld! earns an indisputable uni&ersal &alue. In the ori#inal production! the plot is inter.o&en .ith ore than thirty son#s that are the source of a#ic and inno&ation of the adaptation. In the 6rench! the *ussian or in the Detherlands productions appears a ne. character Death! to increase the dra atic sense of the action. In the 6rench &ersion! another character! the +oet! is created for the sa e reason. In all &ersions %ady Capulet has an i portant role and Tybalt, part beco es deplorable in the eyes of the public because he is do inated by hate and the unhappiness of an i possible lo&e. Another alteration that appears in the 6rench production is that after *o eo sin#s 3eath of %omeo! the character of the Death of the kills hi .hile kissin#. When 0uliet .akes up and finds hi dead! she stabs herself .ith the da##er of *o eo.

132

The &alue of the Shakespearean play de&elops in this conte porary representation to the sta#e! throu#h the po.er of usic: sin#in#! the characters di&ul#e their ost hidden feelin#s! share their thou#hts .ith the public. There is a closer link bet.een the spectator and the actor and a #ood e5a ple for this is a son# fro the first act! .ings of the 2orld! in Qerona .hen *o eo and his friends 9en&olio and <ercutio han# on the streets: 2*)<?) 7in#s of the .orld runnin# our li&es +o.erful husbands .ith a bitious .i&es ?&er-so-s u# ;cause they ake all the rules They are not kin#s! 8ust a bunch of old fools 9?DQ)%I) 7in#s of the .orld plannin# ahead They ha&en;t noticed they;re already dead They eat the fat and they toss us the bones Transparent kin#s sittin# on paper thrones C-)*RS We kno. ho. to li&e .e s(uee'e the 8uice fro e&ery o ent We ake lo&e day after day ni#ht after ni#ht .e sin# .e dance It akes no sense in bein# careful not .hen ti e files like an arro. We take e&ery risk that;s out there .e;re prepared to take that chance We are the... <?*CRTI) 7in#s of the .orld! free as the .ind %ookin# for sins that .e ha&en;t yet sinned They think they;re s art! but they;re really (uite du b Xou iss the tune .hen you;re ban#in# your dru *)<?) Z 9?DQ)%I) 7in#s of the .orld! they;re 8ust a 8oke They are not kin#s! they;re 8ust is#uided folk 9orin# as hell and as dull as can be 9?DQ)%I) )ne thin#;s for sure: they .ould lo&e to be *epeat C-)*RS *)<?) We;ll take the chanceI *epeat C-)*RS >5"C Ti e is like an arro. We take e&ery risk that;s out there We;ll take the chance 7in#s of the WorldI 21A eI

1A

http:EE.... a5ilyrics.co E#aC$aABrard-pres#ur&ic-ro aC$aABo-a"A-8ulieta$a-the- usicallyrics-1be".ht l

133

Shakespeare,s dra a .ent beyond the li its of all for s of art! e&en to the sta#e of opera and ballet. The opera is a #eneric ter sta#e! belon#in# to a classical .hich desi#nates a play intended to be sun# on a usical #enre. The dra atic force of this sort of

representation is de&eloped by the po.er of hu an &oice. 9rin#in# to#ether the t.o essential senses the hearin# and the eyesi#ht! the effect is deeper than in the case of other for s of sta#e representations. The .orld culture in this area can #i&e us nu erous e5a ples! but an i portant one can be the opera of the 6rench co poser Charles 1onoud. -e published %omeo and 0uliet, opera after Shakespeare in fi&e acts! of .hich the ost popular fra# ent is the char in# .alt' of 0uliet, & want to live: 4I .ish to li&e only in this into5icatin# drea . S.eet fla e! y heart holds you as a treasure. The fla e of youth! alas! burns but a day. The ti e to .eep co es! and the heart surrenders to lo&e. And 8oy flies off fore&erI AhI I .ant to re ain in this into5icatin# drea . S.eet fla e of youth! y heart holds you as a treasure. 6ar fro sno.y .inter! do not .ake e today! 9ut let e breathe in the rose! before it .ithers.41G After a hundred representations! it .as perfor ed in fa ous ?uropean capitals and later on all i portant #lobal sta#es. After an orchestral introduction depictin# the ani osity bet.een the <onta#ues and the Capulets! the curtain rises on a choral prolo#ue that e5poses the su ary of the tra#edy:

7ro!o"(e T.o households! both alike in di#nity The <onta#ues. The Capulets. Their endless feud! fatal to the both! <ade ci&il hands unclean. As a ray of li#ht in a stor y sky! 0uliet appeared! and *o eo lo&ed her. They for#ot the na es that outra#ed the ! And e(ual hearts e(ual lo&e did share. 6atal destinyI 9lind passionsI
1G

http:EE....#oo#le.roEurl?saOtZrctO8Z(OZesrcOsZsourceO.ebZcdO$Z&edO@CDRU68ACZurlOhttp a$Aa"6a"6....operacarolina.or#

134

These star-crossed lo&ers paid .ith their li&es! ?ndin# the ancient #rud#e that #a&e birth to their lo&e.41F The prolo#ue of this adaptation depicts as si ple as possible the co ple5 story of the Shakespearean dra a. In fact! the essence of this story is the si ple truth of hu an nature that lies on the basis of the ost pure and al ost barbarian feelin#s.

&.2 6raphi' Representations Another interestin# e5a ple of Shakespearean adaptation is an#a. The #raphic no&els anner to brin# an#a is a

kno.n as manga >0apanese for 2.hi sical pictures4C are an ori#inal of the 9ard! is used in 0apan as an effecti&e education

Shakespeare in the focus of conte porary readers. This &isual tool to represent the plays ethod. Actually! a aterial representation! a practical .ay to con&ert the her etic dra atic te5t into a clear &ersion! open for the understandin# of the no.adays hedonist indi&idual. Without bein# li ited by the physical constraints of a theatrical sta#in#! this #raphic anner to depict a classical te5t is able to dra. the details of any situation or of hu an nature throu#h ink and shapes. The <an#a1B &ariants of the Shakespearean plays brin# to#ether the po.er of .ords! .hich are of course adapted for the sa e reader .ho needs the &isual artifice to beco e interested in the ori#inal te5t! and the i pact of dra.in#s that inspire the i a#ination of the person .ho turns the pa#es of this kind of artistic creation. It is ob&ious that the ain reason for the e er#ence of these creations .as the fact that essa#e! adapted for the e5pectations and the taste of a Shakespeare is not at all an easy author. All in all! <an#a is a ne. uni&erse for the translation of the dra atic intense landscape that conte porary public: 2Workin# in stark .hite and inky black! he has created a spare but irrors the e otions of the characters! and co bines a sense of ini al backdrop that su##ests a sta#e on .hich the dra a is drea like isolation .ith a
1F 1B

Ibid. See Anne5 G

135

nor ally enacted. Rsin# shado.! he has

ana#ed to

ake the assassination

si ultaneously #raphic yet subtle! and by alternatin# ti#ht focus and lon# shots! and usin# a thick brush to e5e plify e5pressions! he has fittin#ly crafted a &isual tour de force of <ark Anthony,s speech. ?specially for the ore artistically inded! this is a ra.! strikin#! and po.erful introduction to Shakespeare.H"@ This testi onial re#ardin# the essence of the artistic creation called <an#a! is a synthesis of all e5a ples that one could analyse. This type of adaptations ha&e beco e a trend no.adays! as the conte porary an needs as uch support for the understandin# of a the e5plicit the classical! apparently her etical te5t! and in this case the support co es fro openin# of act 1 fro author Manga Hamlet, by Ada

deploy ent of the character,s feelin#s as .e can see in anne5 1! an e5cerpt fro to this &isual style of creation are nu erous! but so e of the case of Ada Se5ton! the ori#inal plays are respected as

Se5ton. The e5a ples of plays adapted ost elo(uent belon# to the

entioned abo&e. We are not #oin# to insist on the te5tual alterations! as in the uch as possible! the lan#ua#e

is kept! .ith the re ark that this The Shakespearean plays ha&e been re ade not only .ith the use of .ords! but also throu#h the i pact of colour in paintin#. This last e5a ple of Shakespearean representation cannot be ne#lected! as his stories ha&e al.ays influenced the art of paintin#! sy boli'in# not only a source of creati&e reproduction! but also the i pulse for ne. interpretations of his characters and their actions. Therefore! fro the &ery be#innin# .e can state that the illustration of his plays is an on#oin# process .hich leads to an ine&itable reinterpretation and recreation of the ori#inal .orks. The purpose of this topic is to pro&e that Shakespeare .ent beyond the li it of ink! to the color of paintin#. This creation area does not resu e to the idea of representation! but it surpasses the border i posed by the play source! it in&ol&es creati&ity and the freedo to e5press a ne. &ision! #i&in# the &ie.er the opportunity to understand Shakespeare in a ne. .ay. This approach .as accepted at first throu#h the concept 2ut pictura poesis4 in&ocated by -orace. This traditional analo#y bet.een painters and poets can be e5panded to any kind of connection in the field of art. +oets! dra atists! .riters! painters! actors! directors or
"@

http:EE an#ashakespeare.co Etesti onials.ht l

136

critics! they all influence one another! li&e and create in an interdependence .hich cannot be ne#lected. Shakespeare,s plays ha&e been illustrated in paintin#s preser&ed and e5hibited in useu s all o&er the .orld! sho.in# the enor ous interest of artists and public in his .ork. *ichard Altick calculates in (aintings from Aooks that Hpictures fro Shakespeare accounted for about one fifth - so e "!$@@ - of the total nu ber of literary paintin#s recorded bet.een 1GA@ and 1B@@H"1. -is analysis in&ol&es only the paintin#s of 9ritish artists. It is ob&ious that a #reat part of these creations .ere lost or si ply belon# to pri&ate o.ners. This pro&es the fact that art has al.ays influenced literature. This analysis can be opened by the e5istence of a .ide &ariety of Shakespeare,s portraits. An appro5i ate nu ber of si5ty portraits .ere offered to sale at the Dational +ortrait 1allery clai in# to depict the i a#e of the .riter! but only t.o pro&ed to be accepted as portrayin# hi ! both of .hich .ere posthu ous. The ost fa ous e5a ple is the Cobbe portrait"" considered by professor Stanley Welles! an authentic portrait of Shakespeare! painted in oil! on .ood panel! around 1A1@. The history of this portrait is &ery interestin# as it has stood for centuries in the ho e of the Cobbe fa ily! outside Dublin! .ithout any suspicion. In "@@A! Alec Cobbe! the inheritor of the portrait sa. a paintin# fro si ilarities! feelin# sure that it .as a copy of the one fro the 6ol#er Shakespeare %ibrary! at an e5hibition in %ondon and noticed the ob&ious his fa ily collection. This .ay! the no. fa ous portrait .as analysed by specialists and .as declared authentic by Welles. 1oin# further! to the topic of this paper! Shakespeare,s plays pro&ided an enor ous capital of inspiration for the painters such as Willia 0ohn Waterhouse! Walter De&erell! Willia could #o on. We are #oin# to choose only a fe. of these representations to pro&e that the ori#inal plays .ere adapted throu#h the process of paintin# illustrations. All the paintin#s born of Shakespeare,s plays can be percei&ed as a sort of #raphic criticis 6ord <ado5 9ro.n! an ?n#lish painter .hose .ork focused on
"1 ""

9lake! ?u#bne Delacroi5!

-od#es! Charles *obert %eslie and the list

and interpretation. oral and historical

http:EE....en#lish.e ory.eduEclassesEShakespeareLIllustratedEintro.ht l See Anne5 A

137

sub8ects! popular for a #raphic style sketched .hile he .as in +aris! in 1F$/ a set of ei#hteen pen-and-ink studies for .ing *ear" )nly t.o of these .ere later de&eloped as finished paintin#s: *ear and ,ordelia"$ and ,ordelia7s (ortion""/ With 8ust a fe. bold lines 9ro.n captures the psycholo#y of the characters! as .ell as %ear;s physical decay and #radual fall into adness. The personalities in 9ro.n;s representation of *ear are closer to the reality than the ori#inal play allo.s the reader to i a#ine. In the first picture %ear leans for.ard on his throne and tries to inti idate Cordelia! #larin# at her as if he .ould be .aitin# for her ans.er. -er reaction is si ilar to her attitude in the Shakespearean play! .ith her pal s out as if she .ould be askin# understandin# and tolerance fro the old an. In the second picture %ear slu ps back in his seat! an#ry! disappointed! as Cordelia hides her face in her hand and looks for the support of 6rance. These paintin#s sho. ho. deeply 9ro.n .as affected by %ear;s story arked by suspicion! lack of .isdo and cruel betrayal. All these dra.in#s constitute an al ost cine ato#raphic scenario! #i&in# the reader the opportunity to &ie. details! aspects! i pressions .hich could ha&e been o itted. 9ro.n .as probably inspired by an earlier painter Delacroi5! .ho also published in 1F/$ a series of ei#hteen litho#raphs based on Hamlet. Three of the litho#raphs .ere rendered as paintin#s: The 3eath of 4phelia >1F$F and 1FP$C"P and t.o of -a let and -oratio in the 1ra&eyard! one in 1F$P and another in 1F$B. Delacroi5 also preser&ed a pencil sketch of Hamlet reading that .as incorporated into the litho#raph of -a let and +olonius. In Delacroi5;s &arious depictions of )phelia .e see! accordin# to +eter *aby! the first real ele ents of se5uality and eroticis : 2There is a stron#ly sensual (uality in the i a#e! created by the loose! partly transparent clothin# and the trance-like e5pression on )phelia;s features! as she lies poised bet.een life and death. The ood is less poi#nant than (uietly triu phant . . . The sa e sense of barely suppressed eroticis is present in the litho#raph of the ad )phelia! kneelin#! .ith bare ar s and pro inent breasts: this illustration reproduces the traditional sta#e properties of the &eil istaken for a shroud! and the hair
"$ "/

See Anne5 1 See Anne5 " "P See Anne5 $

138

decorated like a cro.n of thorns. Delacroi5;s .orks at the least testify to the potency of )phelia as i a#e for the *o antic period! a sy bol both of .ounded! self-absorbed se5uality and of the destruction of innocence by an indifferent .orld.4"A Throu#h this representation! )phelia surpasses the static and one di ensional i a#e .hich are characteristic for her in the play. +resented as a #entle! loyal! and obedient youn# .o an .ho hides in the back#round as a supportin# character! she has no &oice and no ob&ious heroine (ualities: yet her life and death ha&e a #reat influence on the paintin#! openin# a ne. door for the fe inist criticis that she #oes ost essential characters! especially -a let. This i a#e of )phelia is con&erted in Delacroi5,s of the "@th century .ho ar#ues ad .ith #uilt because! .hen -a let kills her father! he has fulfilled her

se5ual desire to ha&e -a let kill her father so they can be to#ether. Stressin# the se5uality of the character! the painter #i&es an ori#inal interpretation of the Shakespearean te5t! turns his creation into a #raphic adaptation. Delacroi5 .as not the only one .ho depicted )phelia in his .ork. Waterhouse is another author of a paintin# called 4pheliaD< .hich desires of the others! dependin# on the ana#es to break the tradition built o&er the decades. The Shakespearean play colors a ta e character! al.ays acceptin# the .ill and until the final! tra#ic act:

HAnd I! of ladies ost de8ect and .retched! That suck;d the honey of his usic &o.s! Do. see that noble and ost so&erei#n reason! %ike s.eet bells 8an#led out of tune and harsh! That un atch;d for and feature of blo.n youth 9lasted .ith ecstasy. )! .oe is e T;ha&e seen .hat I ha&e seen! see .hat I see.H >Willia Shakespeare! Hamlet! Act III! Scene IC Waterhouse,s paintin# chan#es dra atically this &ision. The nai&e )phelia .earin# a si ple .hite dress! sy boli'in# her purity is no. represented by Waterhouse in a radical different her
"A "G

anner. -is )phelia .ears a blue dress .ith #olden e broidery sy boli'in# the brid#e! una.are that

aturity and self confidence. T.o children look fro

....en#lish.e ory.eduEclassesEShakespeareLIllustratedEDelacroi5.)phelia.ht l See anne5 /

139

)phelia decides to end her destiny. With each of these character and action illustrations the ori#inal play #ains ne. &alues in the ind of the reader facin# the i a#ination of a painter. Waterhouse painted also other Shakespearean characters such as <iranda in the can&as .ith the sa e na e"F. This scene depicts an i pressi&e seascape and .ind.hipped .aters .hich .e ne&er .itness in the The Tempest .The play opens on board the sinkin# ship! and .e learn that <iranda has .itnessed the sinkin# in Act I! .hen she says to her father +rospero: If by your art! y dearest father! you ha&e +ut the .ild .aters in this roar! allay the . The sky! it see s! .ould pour do.n stinkin# pitch 9ut that the sea! ountin# to th; .elkin;s cheek! Dashes the fire out. )! I ha&e suffered With those that I sa. sufferI a bra&e &essel >Who had no doubt so e noble creature in herC Dashed all to piecesI )! the cry did knock A#ainst y &ery heartI +oor souls! they perishedI -ad I been any #od of po.er! I .ould -a&e sunk the sea .ithin the earth or ere It should the #ood ship so ha&e s.allo.ed and The frau#htin# souls .ithin her.4 +rospero ans.ers her: H9e collected: Do ore a a'e ent. Tell your piteous heart There;s no har done.H >Willia Shakespeare! The Tempest! Act I! Scene IIC Waterhouse .as noted for his capacity to e5press e otion throu#h #esture. In this paintin# .e cannot fully see <iranda;s face! but a sin#le si ple #esture! her left hand placed o&er her heart! e&okes her .orry for the passen#ers. 6ocusin# on ne. ele ents such as the &iolence of the te pest! the artist e otion representation! akin# it ana#es to dra# the public into a .orld of odern public or aybe uch easier than the te5t. -e adapts a scene of the ori#inal play throu#h this ore accessible and appealin# to the

raisin# its interest to read the te5t.

"F

See anne5 P

140

These e5a ples are

eant to pro&e that besides the classical for s of adaptation! aterial. %iterature and art are a8or anners of

paintin# can beco e another recreation source of literary

t.o co ple entary fields of creation! idea sustained by <ichel Tournier in his .ork The mirror of ideas. -e defines the si#n and the i a#e as the t.o co unication bet.een people in space and ti e. -is co entary puts in connection

the t.o poles of creation. The case of the Shakespearean plays illustrated in paintin# underlines this idea and also the fact that all types of representation in&ol&e i plicitly a sort of adaptation. ?ach painter dra.s on the can&as his o.n perception of the ori#inal .ork! transfor in# its uni&erse! addin# or e5cludin# &arious ele ents of it! stressin# or i#norin# so e of the aspects. This #i&es us! as readers! &ie.ers or spectators! the opportunity to deepen our kno.led#e and perception on Shakespeare,s plays. Con'!(sions 2+erhaps the desire to .rite is the desire to launch thin#s that co e back to you as as possible in as any for s as possible. That is! it is the desire to perfect a pro#ra uch or a

atri5 ha&in# the #reatest potential! &ariability! undecidability! pluri&ocality! et cetera! so that each ti e so ethin# returns it .ill be as different as possible.4 >Derrida! 1BFP: 1PG1PFC The state ent of Derrida can be a #ood start for the conclusions of this thesis. It e phasi'es the essential co on characteristic of any artistic creation! the fact that art under all its possible for s is a continuous process of recreation that cannot be ne#lected. Writers! theatre or cine a producers! painters or #raphic artists! all are seekin# for 8ust one #oal! ori#inality. This is the cause fro .hich deri&e all these recreations. The product that co es out of this co ple5 process has to fulfill all the conditions re(uired in order to #ain &iability in front of the receptor. What Derrida calls 2different4 is in fact the ori#inality that haunts the .riter in front of the blank pa#e! the theatre producer on sta#e or the script.riter behind the screen. This thesis pro&es that ori#inality in the case of the Shakespearean dra a playin# the role of an inspiration source can be achie&ed. The authors analysed throu#hout the three

141

chapters

ana#e to con&ert the 9ard,s plays into adaptations that capti&ate the attention

of their public. We can no lon#er talk about a relation of inferiority or superiority bet.een the ori#inal and its adaptation or representation. It is not acceptable to consider secondary of an alteration the product of an adapti&e process. At the be#innin# of this research! .e asked so e (uestions such as: .hy is Shakespeare so popular all o&er the .orld! .hy is Shakespeare an inspiration source for all the fields of artistic interpretation! ho. can Shakespeare e5press the ost subtle feelin#s and thou#hts of the hu an bein# or .hy is Shakespeare considered our conte porary? So e of these ha&e found ans.ers: others re ain under the si#n of doubt. *e#ardin# Shakespeare,s popularity! .e ha&e pro&ed that he is the author .ho a.oke the interest of literature all o&er the .orld. Shakespeare is a transnational author. -e #oes beyond the borders of any country! fro indi#enous fro the A erican to the Asian continent and beco es a cultural point of &ie. throu#h the help of .riters .ho choose to

present his dra a to their fello. country en. In the first chapter .e tried to sol&e the proble re#ardin# the authority of the 9ard in the

case of translations to other cultural back#rounds. Althou#h se&eral critical &oices such as ?rich 6ried .ho pro&es that all the atte pts to translate the Shakespearean dra a to 1er an fail to reproduce the essence of his .ork! the e5a ples #i&en in the second and in the third chapters pro&e the contrary. Shakespeare,s .ords can be con&erted to another lan#ua#e! but only if the translation process is considered a for the translator,s ori#inal country! as Shakespeare hi self put the ti e on his o.n creations. -o.e&er! that does not of adaptation. We cannot a&oid the transfor ations i posed by the cultural and the social back#round of ark of the ?li'abethan essa#e of the akes hi the ean that the #eneral

author cannot transcend throu#h ti e and space. Shakespeare,s popularity is based on the possibilities that his te5ts offer to translators of all lan#ua#es. This is .hat 9ard! the intercultural &alue of his plays. 9e#innin# fro translation4 .e #ot to the conclusion that the pure an accurate the e5pression 2lost in

essa#e of a play can be trans itted in

anner to the receptor. The only alteration i possible to a&oid appears at a

le5ical le&el. ?5a ples to sustain this ar#u ent are the differences bet.een the lin#uistic re#ister of ?n#lish and other lan#ua#es such as 6rench! 1er an or Chinese. It is ob&ious
142

that each one of these e5press the sa e idea throu#h different the len#th of the *ussian or 6rench translations that need idea in ?n#lish. Another conclusion that deri&es fro

anners! .hich e5plains

ore .ords to e5press a si ple

the first chapter is the fact that the three

ain ter s

of our research! adaptation! appropriation and representation re&eal si#nificant differences e&en in their basic dictionary definitions. The first ter .hich eans fit synony to adapt co es fro the .ord aptus %atin and at the ori#in it represented a positi&e process! as it deri&es fro the sa e ter

.ith &i#orous! robust or .ell. The conte porary definition of eanin# of the .ord .as a positi&e one! an

#i&es it a ne#ati&e si#nificance! a dose of inferiority and the attribute of an

alteration. This pro&es that the ori#inal

adaptation bein# the ori#inal result of a literary effort to create so ethin# fit for the anticipations of a ne. reader or of a different audience. The second ter related to the topic of our research! appropriation hides a ne#ati&e any ti es connected to a ain focus is not the (uality of the artistic product! but

(uality! e5plained by the i plication of a personal interest! financial reason. In this case! the

the prospects of its i pact! its reception. Therefore .e can state that an appropriation presents an indisputable lack of ethics! .hich places it behind the adaptation. The last ter ediu of our research! further de&eloped in the last chapter! is representation. If in

the other t.o cases .e discussed about transpositions of a literary .ork into the sa e of presentation! this ti e .e are dealin# .ith a transfer to a totally different orality! but .e that akes possible the transfer fro the paper to the screen or creation en&iron ent. In this situation! .e are not discussin# issues of are talkin# about a ter e&en to the sta#e. All these three .ords lie at the basis of our analysis re#ardin# the Shakespearean trans ission to other ti es and spaces! offerin# the key for a better understandin# of this co ple5 process. Critics such as 0an 7ott! Andr'e8 =uro.ski or 0ohn ?lso asked the sel&es the (uestion

that opened the second part of the first chapter: &s Shakespeare our contemporary' We
143

tried to clarify fro

a theoretical point of &ie. .hether .e can consider a *enaissance

author conte porary to our ti e or not. After enu eratin# se&eral positions re#ardin# this issue! .e can conclude that Shakespeare! as any other author can break the barriers of ti e! throu#h the fascination that his .ork can de&elop in any a#e. The topics of his plays are &alid not only for the ?li'abethan a#e! but also for the odern an! .ho faces the sa e fears and en8oys the sa e basic pleasures as hundreds of years a#o. The surface of the social back#round is in per anent transfor ation! but the spirituality of the hu an bein# .ill ne&er chan#e. This is the ain reason Shakespeare is still a &alid ark in odern society. Talkin# about this sub8ect Andr'e8 =uro.ski e5plained: 2Is Shakespeare still our conte porary? Do. Shakespeare has so eti es been our conte porary and could be so in future! but only on the condition that he is translated into the (uestions of our ti e and takes on the colour of our historical personality.4 >(uoted by 0. ?lso ! "@@/: 1ABC This state ent reinforces our conclusion that a translation is a for of adaptation before

anythin# else. The translation discussed by =uro.ski touches ho.e&er issues that re#ard the i portance of the social back#round! the cultural history of the country that adopts Shakespeare. The ain proof that Shakespeare can be considered a conte porary .riter ediu s! all o&er the planet. -is odern is the fact that he is still adapted in all social

transnational &alue that .e discussed before! allo.s us to #i&e an affir ati&e ans.er to ?lso ,s or 7ott,s (uestion. The (uestion is not .hether the Shakespearean adaptations are as &aluable as the ori#inal fro dra as penetrate the daily routine of any a literary or oral point of &ie.! but .e

are talkin# only about ho. present is this author in our li&es. We discuss only the .ay his odern indi&idual! re#ardless of the social le&el odern he or she belon#s to. All in all! Shakespeare is e&ery.here! in super arkets! bookshops or on 99C! he li&es .ith us. Shakespeare li&es e&en behind bars! throu#h a adaptation of 4thello perfor ed in an A erican 8ail fro it is possible to perfor Chica#o. The rapper 1U

created a ne. &ersion of the Shakespearean play called 4thello: The %emi5! pro&in# that a classical dra a under any conditions: HShakespeare .as a usical lan#ua#e and poetry!H he says! and the sa e is true aster storyteller .ho used

of the best rappers. HSo at the &ery basic le&el they;re doin# the e5act sa e thin#. ...

144

Xou;re usin# poetic de&ices like alliteration and repetition and ono atopoeia. ... They;re &ery si ilar art for s despite ho. different they tend to be 8ud#ed.H"B 1oin# back to the conclusions of the first chapter! another issue of our research .ere the typolo#ies of adaptations. 9esides the translation! there are t.o other i portant for s the theatrical and the cine a adaptations. The e5a ples analysed in the second and the third chapters pro&e that the theatre is perhaps the ost fa&ourable ediu for the Shakespearean dra a. This conclusion has a si ple e5planation: Shakespeare .rote his plays in order to be perfor ed on sta#e. -is connection to the .orld of theatre and to his pleasure in actin# is not a secret for anyone! but the ain reason for .hich his plays re&eal their &alue on sta#e is the purpose for odern adaptations apply to se&ere Tate. .hich they .ere created. This e5plains .hy the

alterations! such as the cuttin# of characters! scenes! e&en entire acts or the rearran#e ent of the plot e&ents as in the case of The History of .ing *ear by Dahu

A stron# point of the theatrical adaptation is the closeness that it creates bet.een the story and the spectator. We ha&e already entioned the i portance of the spectator,s role in the ?li'abethan theater. There .as a direct i plication of the audience in the de&elop ent of the play! as the actors .ere surrounded in three parts! .hich created an inti ate relationship bet.een the t.o parts. Do.adays! this situation is no lon#er possible because odern theatres are built .ith a distance bet.een the sta#e and the odern perfor ances. -o.e&er! in both cases! the ore e&ident for the &ie.er than it is for the reader. anner in .hich the e&ents of the plot are uch ore si plified this ti e throu#h the spectators. The closeness of the ?li'abethan theater is replaced by coldness and an isolation of the actor specific to essa#e of the .ritten play is far

The theater producer is responsible for the understood by the spectator. This process is

transfor ation of descriptions and narrations into the act of speech! e bellished by the tonality of &oice and the &isible actions. Conclusi&ely! .e can say that the Shakespearean dra a is ore ade(uate to the sta#e and this transfer si plifies the task of those seekin#

"B

http:EEbi#story.ap.or#EarticleEhip-hop-&ersion-othello-resonates-behind-bars

145

to understand his plays! as the actors render throu#h their roles .hat the te5t su##ests throu#h its lines. Another i portant adaptation typolo#y is the cine a representation. This one is the popular for of brin#in# Shakespeare to the focus of ost

odern audience! as it is the

si plest and easiest &ariant of the 9ard,s dra a. The &ie.er does not ha&e to fi#ht a#ainst the usual constraints of theater or literature: he 8ust recei&es in a co fortable en&iron ent the essa#e of the ori#inal play! filtered by the i a#ination and the conception of the producer. <any ti es! this si plification is percei&ed as so e sort of de#radation of the ori#inal source! re#ardless of the fact that it akes the i penetrable classical te5t accessible to the o&e fro theatre to cine a hi#hli#hts odern hedonist public. In this last situation! the

the i portance of the reception factor! as it directly depends on the financial result. 6ro this perspecti&e! .e could consider cine a adaptations closer to appropriations than to adaptations! but this concession does not ean that a cine atic sta#in# is inferior to a of theater perfor ance! ar#u ent further de&eloped in the third chapter. We should ho.e&er ention the fact that a screen representation is beyond anythin# else a for ori#inal source and its adaptation. 6urther .e discussed the anner in .hich factors such as politics! culture and the entertain ent and this conditions the producer to so e sort of co pro ise bet.een the

historical back#round influence the adaptation typolo#ies discussed before. It is ob&ious that the t.o coordinates when and where ha&e an essential role for the creation and after.ards for the reception of any sort of adaptation. Cultural #lobali'ation is another pheno enon that has a #reat i pact on this process. %inda -utcheon studies this correlation in her book! ! theory of adaptation, hi#hli#htin# the idea of transcultural adaptations. Cine atic representations depend #lobali'ation. ore than the literary and theatrical for s utations ine&itable in the process of of artistic creations! on the political and cultural

146

Another essential issue in the case of screen adaptations re#ards the ad&anta#es of technolo#y and possibilities to ass co unication that lead to inno&ation and the ost spectacular and ore une5pected e5a ples of Shakespearean adaptations. The fil the conte porary &ie.er. All these aspects bein# considered! .e can reaffir ra ifications of the sub8ect into other t.o chapters. The second chapter is dedicated to the study of theater adaptations. Interte5tuality is the factor that leads to the de&elop ent of this per anent process of recreation. The opinion of *oland 9arthes accordin# to .hich any .ritten te5t is nothin# else than the result of all its inspiration sources! e5tended to the le&el of theater perfor ance! opens the e5ploration of the second part of this thesis. The list of Shakespearean sta#e adaptations! fro chapter of the thesis sho.s fro co ple5 author arouse the interest of .riters fro this the startin# point of this analysis that the .ritin#s of this all cultural spheres. The chronolo#ical the theoretical approach of the first director en8oys far

ake a *enaissance her etic te5t pleasant and appealin# for the taste of

chapter! a synthesis of critical theories and an analysis of the ter s that open the

factor is the proof that Shakespeare has built an entire history in the do ain of artistic creations all o&er the .ord. <ichael 9ristol co pares his cultural success .ith the one recorded by The 9eatles or by ?l&is +resley. This incontestable popularity con&erts hi into a conte porary author. The e5ploration of se&eral e5a ples fro Shakespearean dra a a on# the this cultural area pro&es that the popularity of ain topics that

odern theater directors is due to the

he touches in his .orks! #enerally related to the indi&idual typolo#y. This could be the e5planation for the adaptability of his plays in .ho find &arious interpretations for his lines. At the be#innin# of this chapter! .e ha&e tried to find ans.ers for the possible (uestions that a odern theater producer could ask hi self .hen tryin# to adapt one of the 9ard,s odern public. The plays. These are &ery intri#uin# because of the anticipations of the odern creations fe inist! post colonial! historical or (ueer. The Shakespearean .ork can be read differently by theater producers

147

ain difficulty that any sta#e director can encounter in such a challen#e re#ards the li ited possibilities to respect the ori#inal te5t and in the sa e ti e to for his audience. The conclusion .e found is that this dile throu#h ake it suitable a cannot be sol&ed than

inor or so eti es e&en radical chan#es brou#ht to the source of the adaptation.

Another i portant conclusion of the research on this topic is that the political and social conte5t is essential not only for the understandin# of the Shakespearean .ork! but also for a clear perception of the conte porary adaptations. 6or instance! kno.in# that -einer <Tller .rote his adaptation Hamletmachine at a ti e of political stru##le! influenced by his re&olt a#ainst socialis is a crucial criticis criterion. Another e5a ple is The %esistible %ise of !rturo :i by 9ertolt 9recht that hides behind the lines clear insinuations to the Da'i re#i e. 9esides the i portance of the conte5t! the director,s personal interests and options on si ple hu an issues or his preferences re#ardin# the ele ents buildin# dra a are &ital factors that #uide the plot of the adaptation. An e5a ple for this ar#u ent is an adaptation by the +olish director Warliko.ski! The taming of the shrew in .hich he denies the option of the happy endin#! addin# an intri#uin# (uestion ark at the classical final (uestion: and lived happily ever after. -is ori#inality stands in this uncertainty that arria#e could be the happy endin#. Another inno&ati&e alteration that he brin#s to his Shakespearean adaptations is #i&in# the spectator the possibility to lea&e or to stay till the end of the plays Hamlet and Twelfth )ight. The audience can also decide .hether the representation should be perfor ed until the end or not. 1i&in# these options to the public! e po.erin# the person .ho recei&es the crucial decisions! he essa#e of the dra a to ake such ay be fulfillin# one of Shakespeare,s o.n drea s.

To hi#hli#ht in clear e5a ples the role of the theater producer and the alterations or odifications brou#ht to the ori#inal Shakespearean dra a by the adaptation process! .e ha&e chosen so e of the ost popular plays and their transpositions to the sta#e. Tate and *ear7s

6or .ing *ear .e ha&e analysed The History of .ing *ear by Dahu 3aughters by The Wo en,s Theater 1roup. 9oth of the

brin# radical &ariations to the

148

ori#inal te5ts! as .e ha&e seen in the second chapter. Tate chose to create a happy endin# lea&in# %ear ali&e! .hich transfor s the entire second e5a ple the public deals .ith the essa#e of the play! .hereas in the a fe ale aterial absence of the father fro

do inated play that focuses on issues of ethnicity! class and #ender. The (ublic is a odern adaptation by 6ederico 1arcia %orca of the ost popular

ro antic story %omeo and 0uliet" The

odern dra atist chose to rebuild the story eanin#less and therefore she

transfor in# it radically. In his &ersion the t.o lo&ers don,t die to#ether! 0uliet understands after *o eo,s suicide that her death .ould be prefers eternal loneliness instead of death. The play also focuses on ho ose5ual repressed feelin#s and fe inis . )n a le5ical le&el! %orca uses a poetic theater throu#h the use of an allusi&e lan#ua#e! a fra# entary structure and alle#orical (uestions. Another e5a ple fro this chapter is 9ertolt 9recht,s adaptation of %ichard &&& called

The %esistible %ise of !rturo :i . The dra atist depicts in his &ersion real characters! hi#hli#htin# *ichard III .hose counterpart in real life is -itler! the anti-hero of World War II. The parallel bet.een the endin#s of the t.o &ariants of the sa e story brin#s to li#ht the conclusion that odernity can chan#e the structure and the essa#e of the Shakespearean dra a! keepin# the standards of the literary &alue and ori#inality in the sa e ti e. If Shakespeare ends his play in a spirit of resi#nation in front of the ine&itable destiny! 9recht ends in re&olt! callin# for action! askin# his audience to sub8ect of the play and to find possible solutions. The conclusions of this chapter confir those sketched in the theoretical section of the editate on the

thesis. A theatrical adaptation of Shakespeare,s plays should not be 8ud#ed inferior to the ori#inal! at least not at first! before studyin# the conditions of its creation and its purpose .hich is al.ays i posed by the spirit of the ti e and the social en&iron ent. The third chapter focuses on the representations of the 9ard,s plays. As .e ha&e seen in the first part! a representation focali'es on i a#e and sound effects. 9esides the #eneral option of the public for a cine a representation and not for the .ritten te5t! thanks to the

149

co fort induced by the screen! this kind of adaptation is the thanks to the tele&ision odern techni(ue.

ost popular no.adays

An i portant ans.er that .e had to ans.er at the be#innin# of this part of the thesis re#ards the adaptability of the Shakespearean plays to the tele&ision. Co parin# the ?li'abethan dra a to the odern cine a! .e deduced that there are a8or differences bet.een the t.o. As .e sa. before! in the ?li'abethan theater there is a direct i plication of the spectator in the de&elop ent of the perfor ance! .hereas in the cine a adaptation the spectator can percei&e the an#le! the perception of the fil In order to pro&e the i ha&e listed so e of the director. essa#e of the play throu#h a sin#le

ense popularity of the Shakespearean dra a to the screen! .e ost i portant fro the database created by the 9ritish Arts Z

-u anities *esearch Council. T.o i portant e5a ples of fil adaptations analysed in this chapter belon# to )rson chose Shakespeare,s Macbeth as an

Welles and *o an +olanski. 9oth of the fil

inspiration for their fil s. The difference bet.een the t.o is radical! as Welles created a .ith a &ery lo. bud#et and +olanski used all the techni(ue of his ti e to respect the o&ies inspired by his ori#inal Shakespearean &ersion. The detailed co parison bet.een the t.o pro&es that Shakespeare re ains our conte porary! #i&en the success of the plays. *e#ardless of the representation popularity they built on the Shakespearean aura. In 1B/F! %aurence )li&ier directs a contro&ersial and fascinatin# adaptation of Hamlet. This director practically eli inated the political side of the ori#inal play! focali'in# on the inti ate tra#edy of the ain character. )ther a8or &ariations fro the Shakespearean Hamlet are the reduction of the play to one third and the a plification of the oedipal relationship bet.een the central character and his other. All these aspects lead us to another i portant conclusion. Shakespeare,s plays do not only sur&i&e on the conte porary sta#e! but they are in a perpetual process of transfor ation! the de&elop culti&atin# different &alues and structures! ore akin to the conte porary indi&idual. anner chosen by the directors! .e cannot deny

150

99C launched in "@1" a TQ series of adaptations called The Hollow ,rown. It co&ered an essential part of the Shakespearean dra a The -enriad. This e5peri ent brou#ht to sta#e the best actors and had an une5pected success. The historical plays adapted in this case pro&ed to be another rich source of inspiration for all the producers in&ol&ed in the pro8ect! .hich lead to the idea that the stories e&en if there are inor odern public is an5ious to en8oy the classical odifications. Therefore! .e can state that Shakespeare is

popular not only for the indi&idual typolo#ies of his plays! but also for the historical back#rounds and characters he built. The ost popular play of the .orld literature is .ithout any doubt %omeo and 0uliet. In o&ie

the sa e chapter .e tried to study se&eral different adaptations of the play. )ne of the belon#s to 9a' %uhr ann and it is called %omeo 9 0uliet. This typical A erican that the Shakespearean te5t does not need to be updated to the transfers the *enaissance story to the nei#hborhoods of De. Xork. Its success pro&ed odern a#e. The transfor ation of the back#round is sufficient for the reco#nition of its &alue at any ti e. =effirelli,s &ersion of the sa e play had the sa e triu ph on the cine a podiu ! althou#h he decided to cut se&eral i portant se(uences of the literary .ork! such as 0uliet,s potion speech! considerin# these could ha&e been a source of boredo adaptation. The 6rench +res#ur&ic pro&ed one in a fil usical co edy! %omeo and 0uliet, from hatred to love of 1erard ore ti e that the this story can be represented e&en throu#h the usic and sin#in#.

e otion and sensiti&ity inspired by

All these cine atic adaptations e5a ined in the third chapter lead to the conclusion that Shakespeare can cross the barriers of tele&ision. The anner in .hich the directors choose to reproduce the 9ard,s plays is no lon#er a factor of cate#ori'ation! as .e ha&e concluded Shakespeare is successful under all circu stances of artistic creation. At the end of this chapter .e ha&e discussed other t.o e5a ples! this ti e belon#in# to the #raphic representation. <an#a is a 0apanese ori#inal techni(ue to brin# literature to the focus of odern readers. In the case of Shakespeare there is a lar#e palette of essa#e. e5a ples. It depicts a ne. uni&erse for the trans ission of the dra atic

151

Throu#h the use of black and .hite dra.in#s! the 0apanese artists Shakespearean stories! akin# the attracti&e for the readers

ana#ed to rebuild the

ost difficult to satisfy! the

teena#ers. -o.e&er! .e cannot consider <an#a Shakespeare a sufficient source of infor ation of his dra a. It can be only a pleasant and interestin# introduction to the study of this co ple5 author. *e ainin# in the area of the #raphic representations! Shakespeare has been a perfect inspiration source for painters all o&er the .orld. The 6ord <ado5 9ro.n ! Waterhouse or Delacroi5 Shakespearean plays pro&es once a#ain his i artistic creation. At the end! .e can say that all the conclusions of this research study can open ne. directions of Shakespearean interpretation! considerin# not only the essa#e! the structure and the &alue of his dra a! but also the &ast ra ifications of his .ork! throu#hout all ti e and spaces. This thesis opens further debate on the possibility to disco&er Shakespeare on a secondary le&el! after fa iliari'in# .ith his adaptations. +erhaps the best eet his te5t in the artistic .orks that he inspired. That is the last ;uestionM odern anner to deter ine the true essence of his dra a is to anner in .hich artists such as ediu of ana#ed to depict scenes of the

ense adaptability! to any

152

4I4$IO6R 7,8 Ada son! S.! -unter! %.! <a#nusson! %.! Tho pson! A. and Wales! 7. >edsC >"@@1C %eading Shakespeare7s 3ramatic *anguage: ! 6uide! %ondon: Tho son. Albanese! D. >"@@1C SThe Shakespeare fil *outled#e. Al ereyda! <. >"@@@C 2illiam Shakespeare7s NHamlet7: ! Screenplay !daptation! %ondon and De. Xork: 6aber and 6aber. 9arker! 6. >1BB$C The ,ulture of 8iolence: /ssays on Tragedy and History! <anchester: <anchester Rni&ersity +ress. 9ennett! S. >1BBAC (erforming )ostalgia: Shifting Shakespeare and the ,ontemporary (ast! %ondon: *outled#e. 9lake! D.*. >1BF$C Shakespeare7s *anguage: !n &ntroduction! 9asin#stoke: <ac illan. 9loo ! -. >1BBFC Shakespeare: The &nvention of the Human! De. Xork: *i&erhead. 9oose! %.?. and 9urt! *. >edsC >1BBGC Shakespeare, The Movie: (opularizing the (lays on $ilm, T8 and 8ideo! %ondon and De. Xork: *outled#e 9ristol! <ichael D. >1BB@C Shakespeare,s !merica, !merica,s Shakespeare. %ondon and De. Xork: *outled#e.
153

and the A ericani'ation of culture,! in 0.?.

-o.ard and S. Cutler Shersho. >edsC Mar5ist Shakespeares! %ondon and De. Xork:

>1BBAC Aig#Time Shakespeare. %ondon and De. Xork: *outled#e.

9rode! D. >"@@@C Shakespeare in the Movies. )5ford: )5ford Rni&ersity +ress. 9ro.n! 0.*. >1BBBC )ew Sites for Shakespeare: Theatre, the !udience, and !sia! %ondon: *outled#e. 9ullou#h 1.>1BPG-1BGPC )arrative and 3ramatic Sources of Shakespeare! %ondon: *outled#e 9ul an 0.C. >edC >1BBAC Shakespeare, Theory and (erformance! %ondon: *outled#e. 9ul an! 0.C. and -.*. Coursen >edsC >1BFFC Shakespeare on Television. -ano&er! D.-.: Rni&ersity +ress of De. ?n#land. 9urnett! <.T. and Wray! *. >edsC >"@@@C Shakespeare, $ilm, $in de SiIcle! 9asin#stoke: <ac illan. Carlson! <. >1BAAC (erformance: ! ,ritical &ntroduction! %ondon: *outled#e. Claek! S. >1BBGC Shakespeare Made $it: %estoration !daptations! %ondon: 0.<. Dent. Cohn! *. >1BGAC Modern Shakespeare 4ffshoots! +rinceton: +rinceton Rni&ersity +ress. Crystal! 9. >"@1"C! Shakespeare on toast! Icon 9ooks Da&ies! A.! and Wells! S.>edsC >1BBPC Shakespeare and Moving: The (lays on $ilm and Television! Ca brid#e: Ca brid#e Rni&ersity +ress. Deleu'e! 1illes. >1BBPC 3ifference and %epetition! trans. +aul +atton! De. Xork: Colu bia Rni&ersity +ress. Dessen! A.C. >1BFAC SShakespeare and the theatrical con&entions of his ti e,! in S. Wells >ed.C The ,ambridge ,ompanion to Shakespeare Studies! Ca brid#e: Ca brid#e Rni&ersity +ress.

154

Dobson! <. >1BB"C The Making of the )ational (oet: Shakespeare, !daptation and !uthorship! )5ford: )5ford Rni&ersity +ress Dutton! *. and -o.ard! 0.?. >edsC >"@@$C ! ,ompanion to Shakespeare7s 2orks@ vol" F: The Tragedies@ vol" D: The Histories@ vol" G: The ,omedies@ vol" O: The (oems, (roblem ,omedies, *ate (lays! )5ford: 9lack.ell. ?lso ! 0. >"@@/C &s Shakespeare still our contemporary'! De. Xork: Taylor Z 6rancis ?sslin! <. >1BG/C &ntroduction, in 0".oot, Shakespeare our ,ontemporary! De. Xork 6oucault! <. >1BGBC 2hat &s an !uthor' In 0. -arrari >edC Te5tual Strategies (erspectives in (ost Structuralist ,riticism! Ithaca: Cornell Rni&ersity +ress. 1ilbert! -.! and To pkins! 0.>1BBAC (ost#,olonial 3rama Theory, (ractice, (olitics! %ondon: *outled#e. 1rady! -u#h. >"@@@C Shakespeare and Modernity: /arly Modern to Millennium! De. Xork and %ondon: *outled#e. 1raha ! 0.6. >1BFPC 3ifference in Translation! Ithaca: Cornell Rni&ersity +ress. -er ans! T. >ed.C >1BF$C The Manipulation of *iterature, Studies in *iterary Translation, %ondon: Croo -el

-od#don! 9. >1BBFC The Shakespeare Trade: (erformanances and !ppropriations, +hiladelphia: Rni&ersity of +ensyl&ania +ress. -ort ann! W.! and -a bur#er! <. >1BBFC Shakespeare on the 6erman Stage: The Twentieth ,entury, Ca brid#e: Ca brid#e Rni&ersity +ress. -o.ard! T. >"@@@C SShakespeare,s cine atic offshoots,! in *. 0ackson >ed.C The ,ambridge ,ompanion to Shakespeare on $ilm! Ca brid#e: Ca brid#e Rni&ersity +ress. -utcheon! %. >"@1$C A Theory of !daptation! %ondon: *outled#e
155

0abes! ?. >1BB@C The Aook of %esemblances, -ano&er: Wesleyan Rni&ersity +ress. 0ohnson! D. >1BBAC Shakespeare and South !frica, )5ford: Clarendon +ress. 7ennedy! D. >1BB$C ;Introduction!; in $oreign Shakespeare: ,ontemporary (erformance, Ca brid#e: Ca brid#e Rni&ersity +ress. 0or#ens! 0.A. >1BBFC S*ealisin# Shakespeare on fil ,! in *. Shau#hnessy >ed.C Shakespeare on $ilm! 9asin#stoke and %ondon: <ac illan M1BGGN. 7er ode! 6. >"@@@C Shakespeare7s *anguage! -ar onds.orth: Allen %ane. 7inney! Arthur 6. >"@@$C Shakespeare by Stages: !n Historical &ntroduction" )5ford: 9lack.ell. 7riste&a! 0. >1BF/C %evolution in (oetic *anguage, De. Xork: Colu bia Rni&ersity +ress. %a b! C! and %a b! <. >1BP@C Tales $rom Shakespeare, De. Xork: <ac illan. %efe&ere! A. >1BF$C Why Waste )ur Ti e on *e.rites? The Trouble .ith Interpretation and the *ole of *e.ritin# in an Alternati&e +aradi# ! in T. -er ans >ed.C The Manipulation of *iterature: Studies in *iterary Translation, %ondon: Croo -el . %i! *. >1BBPC ;The 9ard in the <iddle 7in#do ! !sian Theatre 0ournal 1"!1: P@-F/. %oo ba! A.! and )rkin! <. >edsC M1BBFC (ost#,olonial Shakespeares, %ondon: *outled#e. %ynch! S. 0. >1BBFC Shakespearean &nterte5tuality: Studies in Selected Sources and (lays, Westport: 1reen.ood +ress. <cDonald! *. >"@@1C Shakespeare and the !rts of *anguage! )5ford: )5ford Rni&ersity +ress. <ac illan ?n#lish Dictionary >"@11C! )5ford: <ac illan +ublishers
156

<aro.it'! C. >1BGFC The Marowitz Shakespeare, %ondon: <arion 9oyars. <arsden! 0. I. >ed.C >1BB1C The !ppropriation of Shakespeare: (ost#%enaissance %econstructions of the Works and the Myth, De. Xork: St. <artin;s +ress. <artindale! C! and <artindale! <. >1BB/C Shakespeare and the Rses of Anti(uity! %ondon: *outled#e. <iola! *. S. >1BFFC ;Shakespeare and his Sources!; Shakespeare Survey" )sborne! %.?. >1BBAC ;*ethinkin# the +erfor ance ?ditions: Theatrical and Te5tual +roductions of Shakespeare! 1 in 0. C. 9ul an >ed.C Shakespeare, Theory, and (erformance, %ondon: *outled#e. +otter! %.*. >1BBPC ;Shakespeare;s HSistersH: Desde ona! 0uliet! and Constance %edbelly in 6oodnight 3esdemona =6ood Morning 0uliet>,B Modern 3rama " +ronko! %. C. >1BAGC Theater /ast and 2est: (erspectives Toward a Total Theater, 9erkeley: Rni&ersity of California +ress. *abkin! 1. >1BFPC ;Is There a Te5t on this Sta#e?; (erforming !rts Pournal. Salter! D. >1BBAaC ;Actin# Shakespeare in +ostcolonial Space!; in 0. C. 9ul an >ed.C Shakespeare, Theory, and (erformance, %ondon: *outled#e. Sasaya a! T.! <ulryne! 0. *. and She.rin#! <. >edsC >1BBBC Shakespeare and the 0apanese Stage, Ca brid#e: Ca brid#e Rni&ersity +ress. Scott! <. >1BFBC Shakespeare and the Modern 3ramatist, De. Xork: St. <artin;s +ress. Scra##! %. >1BB"C ShakespeareBs Mouldy Tales: %ecurrent (lot Motifs in Shakespearian 3rama, %ondon: %on# an. Sin#h! 0. 1. >1BBAC ,olonial )arrativesH,ultural 3ialogues: 3iscoveries of &ndia in the *anguage of ,olonialism, %ondon: *outled#e.
157

Spi&ak! 1. C. >1BFGC &n 4ther 2orlds: /ssays in ,ultural (olitics, De. Xork: <ethuen. Stern! T. >"@@/C Making Shakespeare: $rom (age to Stage! %ondon and De. Xork: *outled#e. Stoppard! T. >1BAGC %osencrantz and 6uildenstem !re 3ead, De. Xork: 1ro&e. Styan! 0.%. The Shakespeare %evolution: ,riticism and (erformance in the Twentieth ,entury" Ca brid#e! %ondon and De. Xork: Ca brid#e Rni&ersity +ress. Su ers! <. >ed.C >1BAAC Shakespeare !daptations, De. Xork: -askell -ouse.

Taylor! 1. >1BFBC %einventing Shakespeare: ! ,ultural History from the %estoration to the (resent, De. Xork Tri&edi! -. >1BBPC ,olonial Transactions: /nglish *iterature and &ndia, <anchester: <anchester Rni&ersity +ress. Wells! S. >"@@$C Shakespeare for all time ! )5ford: )5ford Rni&ersity +ress Wells! Stanley! and %ena Co.en )rlin! >"@@$C eds. Shakespeare: !n 45ford 6uide" De. Xork: )5ford Rni&ersity +ress. Willia s! S. >ed.C >1BB@C Shakespeare on the 6erman Stage, &ol. 1! Ca brid#e: Ca brid#e Rni&ersity +ress. =uro.ski! A. et al" >1BFBC ;Should Shakespeare 9e 9uried or 9orn A#ain!; in 0. ?lso >ed.C &s Shakespeare Still 4ur ,ontemporary, De. Xork: *outled#e.

158

We)sites and other e!e'troni' reso(r'es http:EEo5forddictionaries.co http:EE....re&istascena.roEenEinter&ie.Etho as-oster eier 9ertolt 9recht! The %esistable %ise of !rturo :i, source 9lockbuster )nline J ,ross of &ron The 1uardian! Theatre %eview, 1B Do&e ber "@@F! p./" http:EEbuf&c.ac.ukEshakespeareE
159

http:EE....#uardian.co.ukEfil E"@1$EaprE"BE ichael-fassbender-play- acbeth http:EE....societefrancaiseshakespeare.or#Edocu ent.php?idO"B@ http:EEthere&ie.pile.blo#spot.roE"@1@E@AEha let-fil s-thin#.ht l http:EE....youtube.co E.atch?&O1PAiLS$PIhA http:EE....fil site.or#Ero e.ht l http:EEshakespeare. it.eduEro eoL8ulietEfull.ht l http:EE.... a5ilyrics.co E#aC$aABrard-pres#ur&ic-ro aC$aABo-a"A-8ulieta$athe- usical-lyrics-1be".ht l http:E ....operacarolina.or# http:EE an#ashakespeare.co Etesti onials.ht l http:EE....en#lish.e ory.eduEclassesEShakespeareLIllustratedEintro.ht l ....en#lish.e ory.eduEclassesEShakespeareLIllustratedEDelacroi5.)phelia.ht l

160

NN9;9S NN9; 1

161

NN9; 2

162

NN9; &

163

164

NN9; <

165

NN9; =

166

NN9; >

167

NN9; ?

168