PhD DOBRIN ANDREEA [605862]

PhD DOBRIN ANDREEA
University of Craiova
Faculty of Letters
[anonimizat]

Shakespeare Screen Adaptations in Europe
Shakespeare is without doubt the author of theater the most adapted to the cinema, either in
faithful transpositions of its plays or in adaptations to other settings in time and space. The first
question that opens this paper is: why does the Shakespearean drama transfer so easy to the screen?
A possible answer to this mystery could be related to the similarities, but moreover to the
differences between the structure of the Elizabethan theatre and the cinematic productions. Both of
these forms of artistic representation are based on a rapid and as natural as possible change of
scenes, which gives the possibility to the theatre or to the cinema producer to change the focus of
the spectator when least expected.
Going back to the differences between the two areas we discover the real basis on which a
Shakespearean play can be translated so naturally to the screen. At the age of the Bard, theatre was
directly connected to the spectators who were implicated in the development of the plot,
participating with their reactions to the actions of the actors. This way, there was a lack of control of
the play producer, who could not always send a clear, unique message beyond the stage, as those in
front of it had the possibility to view the dramatic act from different angles, whereas in the case of a
cinema performance, the person standing in front of the screen has only the possibility of watching
the action from a single angle. This apparent disturbing detail, gives the screen producer a unique
possibility to transfer his personal perception to the audience, without having to face the danger of
being misunderstood. Film and theatre are in a permanent process of influence, and in the particular
case of Shakespeare, this juncture underlines the adaptability of his works in all medium of
development.
The British Arts & Humanities Research Council created an impressive database containing
all the adaptations and representations of Shakespeare’s drama on television, film and radio created
from 1890 to the contemporary time. The result was a list of more than 410 films and television
variants of the Bard’s plays, some of which respect the original text and others rebuild it for a new
audience, for a new age. However, the most important aspect of this study is that it proves one more
time that Shakespeare is the author that raised the most the interest of producers, film directors and
simple writers all over the world.
The aim of the paper is to illustrate how Shakespeare's characters are represented across
different nations. My analysis is focused on the earliest silent movies of the twentieth century up to
the present era, movies which suffer various interpretations of their original plot.
Franco Zefirelli's Romeo and Juliet (1968, UK/Italy)
Zefirelli's interest in the complexity of the Shakespearean drama has been materialized in
four cinema adaptations: The Taming of the Shrew in 1929, Otello, in 1968 and Hamlet in 1990.

These four plays of the Bard opened the curiosity and the inspiration of the famous Italian
filmmaker, proving once again that Shakespeare can be a source of artistic creativity for any age.
Romeo and Juliet has been greatly adapted to the cinema, but this variant has been very well
received by the public and its value is still recognized in the contemporary age. The two main actors
were Leonard Whiting (17 years) and Olivia Hussey (16 years). The choice of actors was very
controversial because the two appear there naked while they are not major. However, this was the
first time that actors who play the role of Romeo and Juliet were the same age as the characters in
the play, detail which developed the credibility and the resemblance between the original text and
the adaptation.
The interpretation of Zeffirelli was filmed in Italy and it proved to be a success, a natural
expression of the purest form of love of all times. The proof of its triumph are the four Academy
Award nominations and the two Oscars for the best cinematography and the best costume design.
Except for the Juliet played by Olivia Hussey, dazzling beautiful and the Romeo played by the blue-
eyed Leonard Whiting, Zeffirelli kept from the original story Friar Laurence, Juliet’s Nurse and
regarding the plot the convulsive scenes between the two enemy families and the suicide of the
main characters. An important alteration that the producer brought to the film is the adaptation of
the Shakespearean dialogue for that time. Zeffirelli chose to trim some of the sequences which
could have been boring for his public. An example is Juliet’s potion speech. In the Shakespearean
original variant, the reader enjoys one of the masterpieces monologues of the universal literature.
The attitude of Juliet is outlined by the Bard through such a long and complex soliloquy, in order to
underline the tension and the gradual increase of Juliet’s fear and terror in front of the possibility of
death or of an unexpected end to her decision to drink the potion. Her sense of insecurity is
transmitted to the reader through the remarkable length of her monologue.
In the case of Zeffirelli’s adaptation, he chose to avoid the Shakespearean version by
reducing the monologue to a toast. She overcomes her fear without expressing all her thoughts and
feelings, by simply praying by a toast for strength to face the fatality of death: “Love give me
strength!”. From the beginning, the prologue is classical, having the role of setting the scene, briefly
announcing the main articulations of the plot. Zeffirelli chose to ease the original variant cutting off
a part of the prologue. The option of the Italian producer to cut several sections of the
Shakespearean play can be explained by the imminent transformations imposed in the translation of
a tragedy to the cinema.
Orson Welles' Macbeth (1948, USA/UK) and Chimes of Midnight (1966,
UK/Spain/Switzerland)
The adaptation of Welles of Macbeth has a paradoxical nature: it has the characteristic of
being in some ways very close to a play and yet its success seems to be mainly due to the talent and
cinematic inspiration of its director. When recording, Welles required his actors to use the Scottish
accent to recreate the atmosphere of a primitive and disturbing Scotland. Jeannette Nolan played the
magnificent role of Lady Macbeth. The actual filming can be considered ideal because of the
mastery of the text by the actors, recently exercised at the theatre, and the project as a whole by
Welles. The latter was able to apply the technique of “filming in continuity”. Thus, from the first
shooting, he managed the coup to finish at midnight the complex plane for more than ten minutes
during which occurred the murder of King Duncan. According to Welles his film is “a violently
sketched charcoal drawing of a great play”1. It assumes that the cinema can render the greatness of
Shakespeare's plays. The position of Welles is therefore clear: any adaptation of Shakespeare,
theatrical or film, is doomed to have a limited scope. It directly opposes the idea that a play (at least
in Shakespeare) doesn’t acquire its true dimension than through its representations. We'll look at the
1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/apr/29/michael-fassbender-play-macbeth

liberties taken by Welles for the original text taking into account this postulate of departure: without
wanting to make wealth, his choices were guided by the desire to render the essence of the piece in
a modest movie. In the design of Welles, the film appears as a kind of illustration of the text of
Shakespeare, whose quality is conferred by the grandeur and the genius of the original text, that is
indeed impossible to completely render. He eliminated whole fragments of texts of secondary
characters to refocus the film on the lines of the main characters. Another major change that he
brings to the text is a decomposed dialogue that accentuates the tragic intensity of the film.
In 1964, when Orson Welles played the lead role of Falstaff in his film Chimes at Midnight .
The title of the film is drawn from Falstaff’s poignant reminiscence of long-gone days of joy;
Welles makes it the movie’s first scene, setting the entire story in the shadow of loss. The movie’s
underlying drama is Welles’s identification with Falstaff. The script contains text from five of
Shakespeare's plays; primarily Henry IV , Part 1 and Henry IV , Part 2, but also Richard II, Henry V,
and uses some dialogue from The Merry Wives of Windsor . Welles considered Falstaff to be
“Shakespeare's greatest creation” and said that the role was “the most difficult part I've ever played” .
He believed that the core of the story was “the betrayal of friendship”.
Chimes at Midnight is often recalled for its Battle of Shrewsbury which is a true cinematic
achievement. Welles used editing techniques to give the appearance of armies of thousands.
According to Welles, the core meaning of the story is “the betrayal of friendship” and critics
characterize the movie as a depiction of the gap between political power and its human instrument.
It is thought that he wanted to depict modern political hypocrisy and militarism by producing this
somehow anti-war movie.
Welles always had a deep admiration for William Shakespeare. But beyond the tribute of an
artist to his spiritual father, Falstaff can equally be seen as an outline of a self-portrait: “Falstaff is
me!” said Welles and one can easily believe there are many similarities between the character and
the man who embodies. Same imposing physique, same shrewdness and especially same
worldview. The film often borrows the appearance of a farce, full of sound and fury, and mirrors
Welles' reflection on life, man and power.
The relationship that develops between Falstaff and Prince Hal, heir to the throne, will
quickly get a double meaning. We see, of course, the outline of a father/son relationship that will
allow the future king to know the true pleasures of life and to be aware of the human values. But
one can also see the outline of a testamentary speech that the old artist addresses to the world and to
younger generations: we don't have to regret our own mistakes and our life full of excess, because a
dreary existence is not a real existence. This epicurean and generous philosophy of life he wants to
transmit to the new generation. Only in this way we can have a life full of humanity.
“We have Heard the chimes at midnight”. The line delivered by a tired Falstaff in an icy
world, perfectly symbolizes this fact. His youth, with no worries, is now over. His sunny and bright
days are far now. The darkness is felt and now overwhelms the screen. The scene of the battle has
completed the final utopia of the character and dragged through the mud his dreams of the future.
The film then takes a surprising dark colouring. The film ends with Welles bidding farewell to
innocence and childhood. Silence replaced the laughter and the clinking of glasses, the solemnity
succeeded lightness, it can now leave the scene without regrets: he lived!
Aki Kaurismäki's Hamlet goes business (1987, Finland)
Another interesting interpretation of Hamlet is the tragic-comedy Hamlet goes business
directed by Aki Kaurism äki, where Helsinki replaces the former kingdom in Denmark and Hamlet

becomes a part of the modern business world. The black-and-white film is, in his essence, about life
and death. Hamlet Goes Business has roughly the same story as Shakespeare's Hamlet. The title
alone suggests more of a comedy than a serious attempt to film the masterpiece of Shakespeare. The
script is sometimes adapted in a hilarious way. An example is the scene where Polonius advises his
son before he goes on a journey to Sweden (the scene includes the famous phrase “clothes make the
man”). In Hamlet Goes Business the prince tormented by revenge is rather a spoiled brat who seems
especially busy to get Ophelia into bed. His father's spirit that summons him to take revenge is
abruptly spoken to, because “it is cold outside”. Scenes have little dialogue, and there is much
emphasis on the atmosphere. Sometimes little correlation seems to be between different events, so
Hamlet Goes Business is a messy film.

Kaurismäki tried to represent the late eighties in Finland. A corporate world with big
industrialists only concerned with themselves and who didn't care about other people. The movie is
a combination between cinematic talent, black humor and an atmosphere of betrayal and poetic
justice. The original play is transformed into a social satire with plenty of inspiration and originality.
Sven Gade's Hamlet (1920, Denmark/Germany)
In the silent film Hamlet, Hamlet is born female, but to respect the lineage, he is disguised
as a male. The Danish actress Asta Nielsen formed her own production company to produce this
film version of Hamlet. She inspired from the theory of an American literary scholar, Edward P,
Vining who published a book in 1881 entitled The Mystery of Hamlet . Vining suggested that the
“mystery” of Hamlet lay in the fact that “he” was in reality a disguised woman.
The plot of the movie is different from the original play. The Danish royal family is waiting
for an heir. However, the king goes to war and a rumor announces his death. The queen gives birth
to a daughter but pretends to be a son to keep the continuity and harmony of the dynasty. The living
king approves this lie on his return and the child is raised as a boy. As an adult, Hamlet must assume
its duality but secretly suffers. Hamlet falls in love with Horatio. Naturally Hamlet rejects Ophelia
but still feels jealous when Horatio falls in love with Ophelia. Only at Hamlet's death when Horatio
holds her in his arms is the prince's true gender revealed.
The movie is about love and emotions, but also refers to history. According to the
Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film, “the depiction of Fortinbras and Hamlet aș
reconciled sons of hostile fathers stems from the wish for reconciliation between the youth of
Europe after the senseless slaughter of World War I. It is a decidedly political message speaking to
the collective mentality of its German audience”.
Otherwise, the essence of the story is present: the murder of the king, the drowning of
Ophelia, the feigning of madness, the duel between Hamlet and Laertes. The movie is close to the
Gothic style, with dark landscapes, but also with expressionist photography; visual poetry replaces
oral poetry. It is considered one of the treasures of the early German cinema.
Ernst Lubitsch's To be or not to be (1942, USA/Germany)
The Jewish Ernst Lubitsch’s movie To be or not to be , produced during the World War II,
relates to European history and is a political satire against Hitler and the Nazi party. It is set in the
German-occupied Warsaw. The movie is rather humorous and makes fun of the Nazis. It can also be
considered a film that reminded the world of the humanity of the victims who died every day in the
war.

The film begins as a typical Lubitsch farce. We follow the ups and downs in a Polish theater,
but all lightness is shattered by the German invasion. The (mostly Jewish) actors are involved in an
espionage intrigue and suddenly need to play the roles of their lives to survive. Meanwhile, the star
actor's wife is having an affair with a handsome Air Force pilot. Adultery, vanity and heroism
tumble over each other and that's exactly the idea behind To Be or Not to Be : Poles and Jews who
were persecuted by the Nazis, were just as human as everyone else.
The clash between humanism and dehumanization is perfectly represented by Lubitsch in
the key scene in which an actor utters a famous passage of the persecuted jew Sylock from
Shakespeare's The Merchant Of Venice , while in the background the German national anthem is
sung “Deutschland über alles” versus “If you prick us, do we not bleed?”.
In an incredible mix of suspense and laughter, Lubitsch' satirical mechanics reached its
goals: the infinite vanity of actors, the marital infidelity and especially the monstrous and boundless
stupidity of Nazi dignitaries.
The integral literary work of the Bard became a source for the screen productions, not only a
part of it. The endlessness of his creations is again indisputable, as it has been adapted in
multicultural environments, suggesting that the message he transmits to his reader or spectator is
accepted in all the parts of the world, from India and Japan to the American continent. Shakespeare
goes beyond any border and more than this he adapts to any cultural environment, because he
represents the essence of human nature.