Antony and Cleopatra

  Antony and Cleopatra

by Immi Marsh      

I looked at the Antony and Cleopatra 1974 film directed by Jon Scoffield, with Janet Suzman playing Cleopatra and Richard Johnson as Mark Antony. The setting of the film is rather basic, often with a white or black backdrop, but it also strips it back to basics by highlighting the characters with no distracting surroundings and thus perhaps making it more dramatic, as the focus is only on the speech and actions. However the costumes are quite elaborate to make up for the lack of setting.

(Focus: power relations between men and women) Act 1 scene 2- Enobarbus and Antony in the film lie back casually, whilst drinking, and make light-hearted conversation about how a man’s departure or absence from a woman essentially kills her- highlighting Fulvia’s predetermined weakness as a woman, as she is now dead, supposedly from the absence of Antony in Rome. When Antony exclaims to Enobarbus that Fulvia has died they both laugh, which is particularly derogative to women, as though they were disposable, highlighting male superiority.

Then in the following scene of Act 1 scene 3, Cleopatra highlights the cunning side to her that she has to exhibit in order to maintain Antony’s love and affection, which highlights important power relations, seeing as the Queen who actually has power over many people has to put on a front of illness claiming she is ‘sick and sullen’ in order to keep him interested. In the film Cleopatra plays an extremely melodramatic role, as seen in Egypt’s typically more theatrical side, especially when she discovers that Fulvia is dead, she goes from being upset to jealous and then endeavours to seduce Antony. This cunning yet erotic side to her is exacerbated by the two of them communicating and walking around playfully between drapes hanging from the ceiling, as though hiding behind facades of how they truly feel.

Then finally, it can link to Act 2 scene 2 where Agrippa suggests that Antony marries Octavia to bring him and Caesar together as brothers. Scoffield films the two parties on separate sides to each other and then shows them coming together over a woman when Antony agrees to marry her. This highlights the woman’s place as passive and disposable as Octavia has no say in it, and it shows why Cleopatra feels she must be so manipulative in order to survive in a world where men believe that women would die without them.

Measure for Measure

 Measure for Measure

By Ellen Mclaughlin

1979 BBC Version

Director: Desmond Davis

Duke: Kenneth Connolly 

Isabella: Kate Nelligan

Angelo: Tim Pigott-Smith

Claudio: Christopher Strauli

Lucio: John McEnry

·         The 1979 version is true to the original script, in plot and in dialogue

·         The setting is Vienna, the costume symbolising a portrayal of the time in which the play was written.

·         The themes of the exploitation of power, sexual harassment and Christian forgiveness are touched upon- but not as explicitly as they potentially could be (applicable to modern society)

·         Isabella is adorned in white- encapsulation of moral superiority, chastity and Christianity.

·         Women’s only power is their sexuality- Angelo is unconvinced when Isabella is at first feeble, but the more passionate her speeches and the closer she draws herself to him the more attention he pays her

·         Angelo is the figure head of patriarchal authority- he exploits his position to attempt to force himself on Isabella and taker her virginity in lust. Hypocrite- committing crime that Claudio is to be executed for (sex outside of marriage) in a more horrendous form. Claudio and Juliet’s sexual relationship was consensual. Angelo attempts to take Isabella’s vowed chastity through blackmail.

·         The darkest of Shakespeare’s comedies? Pompey, Lucio and Elbow offer comic relief however the majority of the plot is driven by dark undertones of corruption, sexual exploitation, deceit.

·         A Happy ending? Juliet and Claudio are married, as are Mariana and Angelo. However, the Duke offers his hand to Isabella. Despite saving Claudio in goodwill- does Shakespeare insinuate that there is an unspoken obligation for Isabella to be the Duke’s wife and give up her vows because she owes him that favour? Juliet speaks no lines- it is ambiguous as to whether she accepts his offer or not. In the BBC version it appears she concedes, aligning with a typical Hollywood ending (love?). However, such an interpretation re-emphasises the message that a woman’s only power is her sexuality.

Twelfth Night

Twelfth Night

By Alex Mackey

Trevor Nunn’s 1996 adaption of ‘Twelfth Night or What You Will’ takes a distinctly more dramatic and melancholy approach to the original play. The cast includes Imogen Stubbs as Viola, Toby Stephens as Orsino, Helena Bonham Carter as Olivia, Steven Mackintosh as Sebastian, Richard E. Grant as Sir Andrew Aguecheek and Ben Kingsley as Feste. The physical similarity between the main characters (Viola, Orsino and Sebastian, and Sir Andrew to a lesser extent) and the similarities in costume emphasises the sense of flexibility of their identities and the general equality between them. This also overcomes the problem faced by modern directors using a mixed-gender cast, whereas in original productions all-male casts would naturally look similar.

In terms of faithfulness to the original text, Nunn’s film is for the most part accurate, with a few cuts of peripheral scenes and lines. The adaption however has some more extreme editing to group major scenes together. The most notable element of the adaption is the focus on Feste’s songs and rhymes, which are used throughout the adaption and as ‘book-ends’ at the beginning and end of the film. This has the effect of placing the story in a bard-like oral tradition of storytelling, suggesting a more allegorical or fantastical understanding of the narrative. As mentioned however, the overall effect of Nunn’s adaption is dramatic and realistic, with austere countryside settings and toned-down comedic scenes.

Costume and setting also have a subtle effect on the tone of the adaption. By using 19^th Century Central European dress, the film suggests an impending end to happiness through its associations with the eventual First World War and collapse of various European empires. This recalls Bahktin’s Carnival and uses war as the ultimate historical example of an end to prosperity, and the freedom of the Carnivalesque, felt at the end of the 19^th Century.

Ben Kingsley as Feste the clown is one of the more unusual roles in the film, with not only his distanced songs of narration but also a character almost devoid of actual comedic lines. The delivery of the line “No Sir I live by the church” is disdainful and impatient, and his verbal wit suggests world-weariness rather than a mastery of language. He is presented as a melancholy seer who undermines the action of the play through frequent reminders of inevitable sadness and disaster. His costume also noticeably separates him from the rest of the cast, which combined with the blurred boundaries of his diegetic and non-diegetic songs removes him almost entirely from the play.

Overall, Nunn’s adaption offers an interesting approach to the limits of comedy. The sense of foreboding found in the original text is emphasised throughout through various means, and is a useful example of blurred genres in Shakepeare’s comedies. The film is also useful for an exploration of the Carnival, as well as issues of gendered identity and desire.

The Merchant of Venice

Find below the presentations on The Merchant of Venice:

The Merchant of Venice,

by Julie Lesouef

I chose the film The Merchant of Venice that was released in 2004. The movie was directed by Michael Radford. Some of the main actors are : Al Pacino playing as Shylock, Jeremy Irons as Antonio, Joseph Fiennes as Bassanio and Lynn Collins as Portia.

This adaptation follows the text very closely even though there are some missing lines, some scenes were made shorter and the director chose to change the order of some scenes. Some words used are different from the original text, certainly to make the movie easier to understand. In this adaptation, Shylock appears as a tragic hero. The film does not show Shylock only as a villain but also as a victim. This is clear from the beginning because it starts with a presentation on how the Jewish community is discriminated against in Venice.

I decided to focus on act III scene 1. In this scene, Shylock states that Christians and Jews are the same and thus they should be equal. The power of the scene is increasing because, at the beginning, when he talks about his daughter who fled he looks destroyed and lost. But then his tone of voice goes higher and higher, he becomes really mad. He reinforces the pronunciation of some words to put them forward. In short, he wants to draw attention to the similarities between Christians and Jews. By doing this he puts forward the fact that justice should be the same for everyone, Jews or Christians.

At the beginning of the scene when Shylock enters, Salarino and Salanio are sitting in a brothel with. This is interesting because it is not written in Shakespeare’s stage directions. Michael Radford insists on the irony of the situation: two Christians in a brothel who talk about mercy and who want to advise Shylock so that he can act properly.

Later on, in act IV, scene 1, during the trial, Shylock is in the middle of a crowd, everyone is against him, they shout at him. Antonio is standing in front of him, and the Duke is sitting in front of everyone. They are all against Shylock.

Michael Radford’s movie shows how desperate Shylock is. Shylock lost everything just in a few minutes. His voice is trembling; he is lying on his knees and crying as if he was praying. Shylock’s cultural identity is destroyed at the end of the trial; he has to leave the ghetto where he used to live because he is not a Jew anymore.

The Merchant of Venice,

by Allison Bader

Film: 1980 BBC production

-Minimalist approach: period costumes, bright/uniform lighting (no use of shadows)
-Sets are pastel-coloured and vague, more of a suggestion of a place than a literal, detailed depiction of one
-All of original Shakespeare text survives; occasionally an actor will make a very small, usually one-word mistake where only one word in the line will be different than the original; seems to add to the argument that the director wanted to create a close adaption of the play
-No plot changes at all
-Doesn't attempt to emphasize one theme over another-focus is always on the actors, camera often zooms in on an actor's face to highlight something of particular importance
-I read in an article about adapting Shakespeare to film that Shakespeare's language is "so rich in imagery that the photographic image is often merely redundant"--this seems to be the philosophy of the director as well, because he seems to want to focus the audience's attention on the facial expressions of the actors as they speak their lines rather than distract them with any overwhelming artistic features that could interfere with the power of the dialogue's language.
-I wasn't quite sure whether I liked the film or not--all in all, I don't think the director took advantage of the film genre to create his own interpretation of the play--no special effects, lighting, sound, etc. It was basically watching a play that had been filmed. While this certainly isn't bad, and the acting wasn't anything to lament, it would have been nice to watch a more artistic version that would have inspired a more complex analysis of a film adaptation.
 

A Midsummer Night's Dream

Here are this week's presentations:

A Midsummer Night's Dream,

by Lisa Droege

It is often argued that Puck or Robin Goodfellow is the closest thing to a protagonist, Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream has. However, Micheal Hoffman’s 1999 film version of the play makes Bottom the weaver the central focus of the production. The director abandons the caricature and clown in order to shift the focus from the aristocracy of Athens (in this case the town of Monte Athena in Tuscan, Italy)to the lower social classes. In earlier productions, the artisans were merely reduced to Puck’s contemptuous view of them: “A crew of patches, rude mechanicals”, “the shallowest thick-skin of that barren sort”. Hoffman’s Bottom (played by Kevin Kline) however is not simply a fool: He is presented as a character with unfulfilled longings for love and as a bit of a womanizer, who is finally redeemed by his fantastic experience in the woods. The director has also inserted an entire series of additional scenes that give his character more depth and complexity. The final scene, seems particularly central to the understanding of Bottom’s character. Hoffman presents Bottom, clinging on to Titania’s crown (now reduced to miniature size) as evidence of the validity of the dream. He then greets the passing fairies (dots of light in the night) and his smile of acknowledgement fades into Puck’s smile who has now joined the world of the workers and common men.

The music and setting of the film also indicate the new emphasis on Bottom and his social class in Hoffman’s version. As mentioned above, the play is set in Tuscan in the late 19^th century : a time that suggests social change and the growing importance of the upcoming working class. This growing importance of the working class is also stressed by the extensive inserted scenes at the beginning of the film. While Shakespeare’s play opens with a scene at the court of Theseus, Hoffman’s first scenes centre on the servants, cooks, and gardeners working at the court.

On top of that, the director uses music to underscore the central role of the lower classes – he drew from a number of operas that deal with the lower classes or challenges of class and social rank (see La Traviata by Giuseppe Verdi).

 

 

A Midsummer Night's Dream,

by Marguerite Devereux

“A Midsummer Night’s Dream” was put on by the Theaterrific Acting Group—a group comprised of young actors between ages seven and fifteen—of which I was a member. This first play that I was ever in is a cherished home video, so I have seen it many times and critiqued the way it was done. Due to the fact that this play was put on by children, the original script was heavily modified. Most of the lines were written in plain English so that the children could understand what they were acting out, but some of the poetic lines remained intact. In Act 2 Scene 1 Shakespeare opens with Puck saying, “How now spirit, wither wander you?” However in the children’s version, Puck simply says, “Hey there spirit, where are you going?” The fairy then replies in a sing-song poem which sticks to the original Shakespeare script. These rhymes helped to create the whimsical atmosphere which I believe Shakespeare envisioned.

-The play was also modified to be a bit more child-friendly in the fact that the word “ass” was removed entirely from the play. All of the lines surrounding Bottom were changed so that he was referred to simply as a donkey. In Act 3 scene 1 when Bottom is transformed and the other players flee, Bottom says, “I see their tricks. They’re trying to make a donkey out of me!” The line itself is still ridiculous, but it does not bear the same humor that Shakespeare intended for it. To us as children, it simply seemed like Bottom was commenting on the fact that he was now a donkey, rather than suggesting his friends were trying to make him look like a fool.
-The scenes involving the four lovers were also heavily cut. Any sexual innuendos were removed, and most of Act 3 Scene 2 was cut, in which the four lovers argue over who loves whom. The audience sees very little of the four lovers throughout the course of the play; we see only just enough to get the sense of their situation, Puck’s mistake, and his correction; more emphasis was placed on the fairies and the tricks that they play. 
-The play was also made interesting by the fact that there were more girls than boys, so several of the girls had to play boys’ roles. All of the players in the performance for Theseus’ marriage except Bottom were played by girls. This added an interesting element to the play because in Shakespeare’s time all of the girls would have been played by boys, so this reversal of roles added an unintended dimension to the play that made it in some regards more similar to the original.
-Overall, the play served as good introduction to Shakespeare for children, and reduced the old language into something a bit more understandable. The resulting play lacked some of the original meaning, but the play still retained its integrity as being a dreamy play performed at the height of summer.

A Midsummer Night's Dream,

 

by Beth Kirk

·         Michael Hoffman is the  director of A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1999) and the cast feature Kevin Kline as Bottom, Michelle Pfeiffer and Rupert Everett as Titania and Oberon, Stanley Tucci as Puck, and Calista Flockhart, Anna Friel, Christian Bale, and Dominic West as the four lovers.
·         The time and place are different to the play which is set in Athens, whereas the film adaptation takes place in Italy during the 20^th century which is portrayed through the transport such as bicycles, architecture and the taverns. However the language, the names of the characters and the scenes remain the same.
 ·         Act one scene 1: Focus on the disruption of power, Shakespeare portrays this in the play by Hermia rejecting her father and therefore the order of patriarchal society, and she is perceived as a rebellious, self- assured character. However, within this first scene Hoffman firstly dresses Hermia all in white which represents innocence. Furthermore, her spoken lines are either excluded from this adaptation or spoken to just Thesues alone which emphasises the fact that her voice is excluded from the public sphere and only within the private sphere between herself and Theseus can she reveal her anger as she violently insists ‘I do entreat you grace to pardon me.’ This I would argue contrasts with Shakespeare’s presentation of her character where the lines are violently spoken in front of the other characters and the film portrays her as a more submissive character than the play itself.
 ·         This power is further disrupted within the fairy kingdom and the sudden change in scenery from the Italian architecture to the woodlands, a place where the fairies, the actors and the four lovers all come together in a mythical world of chaos. Titania is portrayed as a confident, strong-minded female towards the deceiving Oberon, and Michelle Pfeiffer through her wicked and scornful manner emphasises the power she holds over the fairy kingdom, with her fairies there at her beckoning call. However, after the love potion is anointed upon her eyelids she falls immediately in love with bottom and through her laughter and flirtatious body language, she declares ‘I love thee.’ Her power deteriorates and her powerful position now weakened by love, and she becomes associated more with Helena under the spell of magic, Helena being the epitome of the winey, weak and love sick female.
·         Although peace and cohesion is finally restored at the end, Hoffman focuses on Nick Bottom as he looks out of his window to observe the flashing lights that come to represent the fairies. This scene is added in Hoffman’s adaptation to stress the connection between reality and the mythical and dream like world, with both the mythical world and reality portraying its constant struggle for power and how the two separate worlds are not so different after all.

HENRY IV, Part 1

Here are the presentations for this week on 1 Henry IV:

1 Henry IV

by Jess Wyer

The Hollow Crown – 2012 tv series, New adaptations of Shakespeare's tetralogy of history plays comprising the 'Henriad' for the BBC's 2012 Cultural Olympiad: King Richard II; King Henry IV, Part 1; King Henry IV, Part 2; King Henry V. Different directors for different episodes but Henry 1v part one adapted and directed by Richard Eyre.

Starts with act one scene 2 where we get a sense of Falstaff’s character as we see Prince Henry find him in bed with a woman which is a literal interpretation of Prince Henry’s line ‘the blessed sun himself a fair hot wench in flame-coloured taffeta’

Putting this scene before the war council scene presents the adaptation more as a comedy than a history play. Focus on the comic can be seen in the exaggerated presentation of Falstaff for example we see him urinating, slipping on leaves and falling over in the wood when sprung on by Poins and the Prince and his hearty performance in the tavern when he pretends that he was set upon by 100, then 16 and then 50 men in the woods.

The comic scenes are given more weighting in the play than the historical scenes because they are lengthier but in the tv show the comic scenes are given more weighting in the casting, for example Julie Walters is cast in the role of the Hostess, an insignificant role in the play made significant by Julie Walters, adding another comic layer to the tavern scenes through her performance. In choosing to expand the comic characters, the producers have recognised the value inherent in the comedy for without it the show would be quite drab.

Falstaff wears a saucepan for a crown when taking on the role of the king in performance which is a clever way of using props for the saucepan evokes the hollowness of the crown, echoing that the crown when stripped of its symbolism is just a piece of metal like the saucepan.

Interesting that Peto one of the Prince’s followers is cast as a man but some of his lines in act 2 scene 4 are given to a woman prostitute, for it is she and henry that distract the sheriff by pretending that the sheriff has interrupted there sexual involvement that sends him on his way when he comes looking for Falstaff. I think this combined with the bigger role created for the hostess shows the directors attempt to create more roles/space for women into the play. I think this creates an emphasis on the contrast between the warm, domestic slightly matriarchal space of the tavern with the cold patriarchal space of the court.

The contrast between the private domestic space and the public space of the court can also be seen in act 3 scene 1, when the scene starts with the rebels planning their attack by looking at maps and ends with them sat by the fire whilst Lady Mortimer enchants by singing in welsh. The two contrasted ends of the scene show the intermingling of public and private affairs.

These private scenes disappear as the time for battle approaches, and the ensuing battle is very underplayed in the tv performance. The battle is scaled to one field and a bit of woodland and the fighting is exaggeratingly play acted, perhaps because it was shown before the 9pm watershed or perhaps because the director felt that the focus shouldn’t be on the violence but on character. As we have close up of prince henry and Falstaff when they give their soliloquies on the battlefield.

 

1 HENRY IV

by Nick Ismail

After watching the BBC’s adaptation of Henry IV Part 1, in the programmes Hollow Crown series, it was clear that unlike various adaptations of Titus and Hamlet this screenplay followed the text very closely regarding context and setting. Indeed, it is a traditional close representation of the text.

            This performance was directed by Richard Eyre with a big budget, which is demonstrated by the climactic battle, where Prince Henry/Harry (referred to as both) kills Sir Henry Percy. The cast includes Jeremy Irons as Henry IV, Tom Hiddleston as Prince Henry/Harry and Simon Russell Beale as Sir John Falstaff. These actors’ prowess is demonstrated by their on-screen chemistry, which is excellent, portraying strong, tense and very real relationships.

            The adaptation does cut and switch around a variety of scenes. But in no way does this detract the audience from the goings on and themes within the play. It simply allows for the film to flow in a more believable and sequential way, i.e. Act III Scene 1 and 2 are swapped.

            Typical of a History play, there is no one central figure within the film. Although one could argue that Prince Henry and Sir John’s Falstaff’s relationship is integrally necessary to play and film’s success and popularity. This relationship is often comical with both individuals attempting to joke and make fun at the other, usually with Falstaff bearing the brunt. This good humoured relationship, however, mirrors the civil unrest that is ever-present in England at the time within the play. These comical scenes are mirrored by scenes of rebel activity concerning the Earl of Northumberland and the Earl of Worcester and their respective families. Equally, Falstaff and Prince Henry’s relationship may parallel the seriousness of Prince Henry and King Henry IV’s strained relationship, presented in the film (Act III Scene 2) in dark room with a scornful look on the King’s face regarding his discussions with his son. Prince Henry recognises the severity of the situation after his father slaps him hard across the face. It is this point of violence that brings Hal to a realisation of the severity of his father's disappointment, causing him to ascent to the dais in protestation of his own worth. The King responds to this speech: ‘Thou shalt have charge and sovereign trust herein.’ Here we see the theme of lineage and the notion of the King’s Divine Right. These themes are key to this play and film, and other History plays.

            The music within the film acts as too much as an indicator too the mood and tone of the scenes. Indeed, it is overly used and detracts the audience from the words being said. This is most true in Falstaff’s ‘honour’ soliloquy, which is presented as a melancholy voice-over. It is evocative, although the music manipulates the very words, presenting the speech as wholly downhearted, missing the elements of humour within it, in that honour, he concludes, is just a word (Act V Scene 1).

            This film (being true of the play) contrasts between the serious and the comical, the act of rebellion and the follies of certain characters (namely Prince Henry and John Falstaff). The scenes where this opposition takes place contrast completely, with the courtly scenes being deeply formal and played as a high drama. While the tavern scene containing carnivalesque and bawdy humour is made exceptional by the fact that a Prince is engaging in such activity.

Finally, there is great evidence of character progression, acted well by Tom Hiddleston. Especially in Prince Henry, who begins to realise the weight of his authority in state affairs, which is best reflected by his slaying of Sir Percy and the victory over the rebels. Ultimately, however, the play and film end where they began, in civil unrest, which makes for a more poignant ending; particularly in the eyes of the audience and Prince Henry. 

Richard III

Here are your presentations for this week:

 Richard III

by Laura Shield

 I looked at the 1995 film of Richard III which was adapted from a stage production by Ian Mckellan who played Richard, and was directed by Richard Loncraine. The context of the play has been changed to a fascist government in England in the 1930s, set in a fictitious, alternate world. It sees Richard attempt to install himself as a political dictator.
In Act One Scene One the film has manipulated Richard's opening speech so that it begins in a public forum as he toasts his brother's success but ends with him alone on the screen directly facing the camera as he reveals his real plans. In looking straight at the camera Richard attempts to make the audience an accomplice in his plans as he confides in us his true nature - we alone know what he actually intends to do. Or involvement is implicit - we are placed involuntarily almost on Richard's side. The switch from a public space to a private bathroom setting shows Richard's hidden corruption - a moral decline from who he portrays himself as around others and who he is in private - demonstrating and then stripping away Richard's use of performance.
The film changes Act 5 Scene 4 where Richard is sleeping and haunted by ghosts, so the ghosts don't physically appear on screen. Instead the audience hears their voices - the sole focus drawn to the effect that has on Richard as he becomes increasingly more agitated before waking. Richmond is removed entirely from the scene so we are only faced with Richard's turmoil as his unconscious mind dwells on what he has done. The dark setting of the scene and the increasingly louder overlap of voices emphasises Richard's inner crisis of conscience - battling the part of himself that acknowledges the wrong he has done.

Richard III

by Amrita Gill

Though under the genre of history, Richard Loncraine’s 1995 production of Richard III places the play out its own historical context. Instead of the traditional, medieval setting the play is set during the 1930’s and mirrors images of the Second World War.

Similar to the audience of Shakespeare’s time, we as Loncraine’s audience can be reminded of a bloody past we wish not to repeat- World War Two. By bringing a modern history to a historical play Loncraine complicates the idea of history as fixed and something that is always past. The most striking scene in the film is the director’s edition to the play which falls before Act 3, Scene 4 in which Ian Mckellen, as Richard, appears before the people in a Nazi-like rally. Despite not yet being ruler or King Richard is still equated to a tyrannical figure of a modern history, Hitler. Just as Shakespeare uses historical figures to warn his audience that chaos will ensure with an illegitimate King, the scene in Loncraine’s adaptation reminds a modern audience of the destruction that occurs with fascism. The bloody end of the film encompasses this theme as the battle between Richard and Richmond looks more like the footage from a battlefield in Normandy thank of a Shakespearean production. The use of guns and explosions demonstrates recent history’s bloody consequences as well as the result of Richard’s usurpation.

The changing of the historical background is not without consequences. Richard’s opening speech is not given until more than five minutes into the film as Loncraine has to set up, establish as well as explain what is happening and why it is happening at this historical moment.

Overall I thought the use of a different historical narrative managed to make the production more authentic. We are able to feel as a Shakespearean audience felt because, much like the dangers of falling back into civil war loomed over Shakespeare and his contemporaries, the rise of fascism in the 1930’s still hangs over our heads. Loncraine therefore shows that Shakespeare’s history is not static but flexible and transferable.

Richard III

by Leticia Bravo

Richard III is an early Shakespearean play (probably from 1591) that completes the first “tetralogy” of history plays. It was and still is really popular and follows the three previous parts of Henry I.

Shakespeare´s tale Richard III in which is represented the XV^th Century is relocated in the England of 1930s by Richard Loncraine in the homonym film Richard III. Therefore, we have an updated version in which swords and horses are replaced by guns and cars.

The play starts with a soliloquy of Richard III; however it is not how the film starts. It is quite shocking because Loncraine changes a London street for a “public toilet” for the initial soliloquy, what in my opinion gives to Richard a ridiculous and unreliable view.

Another important change is the fact that the marriage between Richmond and Elizabeth is moved to the night before the battle and the film finishes with Richard III shot by Richmond. This change probably occurs in order to increase both the romantic moment of the film and the film and the dramatic end for Richard.

Finally, two scenes in which we can perfectly see the relocation of the play are: firstly in the arrival of the Prince, by train. Very strange since Train is an invention of the XVIII^th Century. Secondly, the scene in which Buckinham, Richard and Lady Anne are seeing a recording of Richard´s III coronation in a big screen; something unbelievable in the XV^th Century.

We can see that Richard III is even nowadays a very popular and interesting play for today´s audiences.

Richard III 

by Jenny Sloan

Introduction

è 1995 film adaption directed by Richard Loncraine

è Ian McKellen plays Richard à acted in many Shakespearean stage productions such as Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, King Lear, Othello and Macbeth and also the 2008 film adaption of King Lear à well known as an actor of Shakespearean scripts

è Chose to set the film in 1930s England à looming Nazi presence à tension/conflict/confrontation at the time within England and on a global scale (escalating Nazi violence and increasing pressures for international involvement)

è Critically acclaimed and received positive reviews à won Academy Awards, BAFTAs and Prizes at the Berlin Film Festival

Differences between Film and Play

è Richard’s cunning nature is emphasised more in the film. In the opening scene of the play Richard talks about the celebrations over Edward being crowned king and the civil war being over, but in the film this is actually acted out  so the audience can more clearly see how he is pretending to celebrate to the rest of the party, but once he looked at the camera the audience hears what he is really thinking à his self-presentation is reinforced more in the film

è Also, part of his speech is turned from monologue (in the play) to  celebratory speech in front of the party (in the film) à emphasises his spilt personality

è Scenes are placed into a more contemporary arena à when Richard looks at the camera after the celebrations of Edward becoming King we follow him into the toilet while he uses the urinal and unmasks his violent hatred of his brother and reveals his desire to become king à also inside of a procession, it is a mortuary where Richard tries to seduce Anne à modernised to suit 1930s England

è For the sake of modernisation, the plays most climatic line ‘A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse’ (spoken by Richard during the final battle scene)

è Decadent, hedonistic jazz music plays as he leaves the toilet and walks up the stairs dancing à showing insanity perhaps? Good use of music that was perhaps not used during the first performances of the play

è James Tyrell is introduced much earlier in the film than he is in the play à In the play we meet him in Act 4 Scene 2 but in the film we are introduced to him ater the first half hour à to save characters and to make the audience familiar with Richard’s accomplices à Very specific setting of their meeting à Richard approaches James when he is feeding pigs and conspires with him à Richard throws the food at the pig and makes it squeal à highlighting his cruel, sadistic nature

è In the play Richard flatters Tyrell with phrases such as ‘king Tyrell’ and ‘gentle Tyrell’ but these are omitted from the film à perhaps Loncraine was worried in case they could be seen as not masculine enough and anachronistic

è In the play(Act 1 Scene 2) Annie is wooed over quickly by Richard, agreeing to take the ring and meet up with him à she goes to stab him but stops when Richard talks about her beauty à However in the film, it is not his ‘beauty’ talk that stops her (this has begun before she even holds the knife) but instead we get the impression it is more about her conscience as a brake, and the type of person she is à more realistic to modern day audiences à also she doesn’t take his ring, which would also be highly unrealistic à However they do keep linguistic devices such as the triple repetition of ‘cursed’ and she spits at him à shows her rage and hatred towards him

è Clarence’s dream (Act 1 Scene 4) in the film he stands bedside muddy water and it begins to rain and we hear thunder à pathetic fallacy (something that is not given in Shakespeare’s stage directions)

è Also Brackenbury is only a guard and is very unresponsive (unlike Brackenbury in the dream who encourages Clarence to talk about his dream) à save characters and to make it easier to follow for the audience

Hamlet

Here are our two presentations on Hamlet productions:

Hamlet

by Mim Ballard



Hamlet 1948 Production

Directed by and starring Laurence Olivier. The film is shot in black and white and the set is an old castle, which gives a Gothic feel to the production. This is capitalised on with the scenes with the ghost, mist and fog are used to add a sense of fear and contribute to the films Gothic atmosphere. Directorial decisions indicate that Olivier is clear on what he sees Hamlet as being about – over the opening credits is read ‘This is the tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind’, stating decisions as the focus for the film.

One of the most noticeable things about this performance is how the original text was cut and adapted. There are some significant changes to the original play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are omitted entirely, therefore meaning that many of the comic moments from the script are also gone, giving the film a more serious tone. In addition the character of Fortinbras in removed, and so the themes of political disorder and political threat to Denmark are less significant, meaning that the focus of the court is inward looking, and there is urgency for Hamlet to make a decision.

The ordering of various events is also changed; ‘To be or not to be’ occurs after Hamlet’s confrontation with Ophelia instead of before it, the result meaning that Hamlet makes this speech after an emotional confrontation. This appears to give more motive and depth to the speech, as it is said out of a reaction to events, rather than philosophical musings. For the duration of the speech Hamlet is in the open air, looking over the edge of a cliff. The lightness of the outdoors gives a strong contrast to the darkness and constraint of the castle rooms, indicating that suicide would give Hamlet freedom from the oppression of the court and his mind, and equally the camera’s focus on the long drop to the sea adds tension to the speech.

Overall, the production is good, the combination of the cuts and the frequent close ups of Olivier throughout make it clear that this productions focus is entirely on Hamlet, the other characters development and any political threat is only secondary.

Hamlet

by Vicky Carter

Hamlet is a famous production of Shakespeare’s and is constantly being reworked, reformed and reproduced for theatres and society today. The production I saw of Hamlet was in 2010 at the RSC theatre in Stratford Upon Avon. As it was performed in the birthplace of Shakespeare and with the renowned Shakespeare theatre group, I did expect the performance to be more traditional than it was, however the performance had been modernised to fit a 21^st Century performance.

The performance was directed by Gregory Doran, Gertude was played by Penny Dane, Claudius was played by Patrick Stewart, and Hamlet was played by David Tennant. All actors gave a memorable performance developing their characterisation through their use of facial expressions and body language, particularly David Tennant and his crazed eyes when demonstrating his descent into madness. The modernisation of this performance was demonstrated through the use of props and set. The set had mirrors, as well as, gold and black marble which emphasized the sense of luxury and wealth established by a King, which Shakespeare would have represented differently in his time. Costume is another significant factor in establishing the 21^st Century interpretation on the play, with the use of suits and ball gowns instead of traditional dress and costume, and even at one point Hamlet wearing a t shirt and jeans to establish his attire and it’s reflection of internal conflicting thoughts.

The most memorable part of the performance was Act 4 in which Hamlet speaks to Gertude about what his uncle has done to their father. In this production, Gertude expresses this theme of modernity by taking off her wig and pouring herself a drink whilst Hamlet enters her room. In the traditional production Hamlet notices a rat and cries “A rat, a rat!” Whilst taking out his rapier and slaying the hidden listener from behind the curtain. In this production, instead of seeing the hidden listener, Polonius cries for help when Gertude does, giving away his secret place and whilst he does this, Hamlet fires a revolver to the mirror. The replacement of modern weapons means that the shot of the bullet causes a break on the glass, which is an aesthetically important visual and sound effect.

Overall the performance was excellent and three years on, I still remember the effect it had on myself and the audience. I recommend all to go see it.

Titus Andronicus

Today's presentations from your fellow students:

Titus

by Flora Anderson

Titus is Julie Taymor's 1999 adaptation of Titus Andronicus, the first feature film version of the play. Taymor is interested in physical theatre and masks, as well as puppetry. This comes through in the scene after Lavinia is raped, in which she is stylised into a tree, with twigs and sticks in her severed arms. She stands on a rotten tree stump, fitting in with the ruined and barren trees around her. In the previous scene the forest is lush and healthy, and this change after Lavinia has been 'deflowered' (sorry), seems to reflect the damage inflicted by the twisted sexuality emphasised in the film. We can see this, almost dangerous, sexuality strongly related to human influence. Saturnine's court is an overly decadent, extremely architecturally  aware space in contrast to the outside world. Bodies are draped naked around a swimming pool, indulging in the excess of the court, only for it to lead to violence when the court is attacked by Titus' army. 

The fact that the film was made in 1999 affects its approach to violence. The young Lucius appears at the beginning of the film in a scene which starts off as a seemingly innocent game turning into a violent outbreak in his kitchen. In many of the goriest scenes there is a shot of the young 20th century boy looking on, which questions our approach to violence, what does it say about our own tastes, and how we are affected by the violence in our own modern culture. This would not have been such a strong issue in contemporary Shakespearean times, as violence was much further integrated in the policy of the country e.g. public hangings. Chiron and Demetrius are strongly linked to our contemporary culture, playing arcade games and dressing in 90s fashion. I think this shows a very interested  approach to the nature of violence in our modern society in relation to Titus Andronicus, which is acutely relevant to many of the issues, such as American gun culture, that we think about today. 

Titus

by Alba Arnau Prado

I chose to watch the film adaptation Titus for Shakespeare’s play Titus Andronicus. Titus was directed by Julie Taymor and released in 1999. Some of the main actors are Anthony Hopkins as the main character Titus, Laura Fraser as his daughter Lavinia, Jessica Lange as Tamora and Harry Lennix as Aaron. The approach Taymor decided to take is to mix some elements from the play’s Rome and some elements more modern, so the result is that sometimes we see chariots and sometimes cars, some people are dressed very modernly - some resembling rock stars - and some others with armor. In the DVD commentary, Taymor explained her choice by saying that this mixture of past and present time represented the timeless of violence.

It is worth saying that this bizarre setting gives her the freedom to be very literal about some parts of the original play and these parts don’t look weird or out of place. The script is almost word for word Shakespeare’s play and few changes are done on the chronological order of the plot. Also, every time the play indicates the characters have to be ‘aloft’ they are in the film.

However, it’s in Lavinia when we find the more literal parts. It starts in the beginning when she has a little vase with her tears for her brother that she pours to the floor before her father’s feet. Then in the scene after her rape, when her uncle Marcus finds her, she is presented with twigs instead of hands in her arms as the monologue says: ‘Speak, gentle niece, what stern ungentle hands| Hath lopped and hewed and made thy body bare| Of her two branches, those sweet ornaments|’ (Titus Andronicus, William Shakespeare (1995: The Arden Shakespeare) p.188). It goes on with her opening her mouth and a flow of blood comes out as it is, too, described: ‘Alas, a crimson river of warm blood,| Like to a bubbling fountain stirred with wind| Doth rise and fall between thy rosed lips!’ (1995: 188). This gives credibility to the dialogue, which does not seem out of place or forced because it is describing exactly what is happening in the scene.

Nonetheless, there are other times that are not so directly related to Lavinia that also reflect this take on literality. In the moment when the hand and the heads are returned to Titus, in the film they make an actual mockery of it with music and dance.