THE COMPLETE WORKS

Liese Spencer
Friday 25 October 1996 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

A slew of Shakespearean screenplays are about to hit the multiplex. After this week's Twelfth Night, audiences can look forward to Branagh's Hamlet, Al Pacino's Richard III, Leonardo di Caprio's Romeo, and a resolutely RSC Midsummer Night's Dream from theatre director Adrian Noble. There's even talk of Tarantino directing Macbeth. So why the sudden bardolatry?

The current Renaissance boom began seven years ago with Branagh's Henry V, but Shakespeare has always offered film-makers a winning blend of non- copywrited violence, sex and cultural cachet. Just think of Olivier's Freudian Hamlet or Polanski's ultra-violent, Playboy-produced Macbeth with Lady Macbeth raving in the nude. As far back as 1908, Shakespeare was being used to generate melodrama and defend the industry against allegations of immorality - with mixed success. An early Julius Caesar drew the wrath of the New York clergy for showing a man in a "short skirt", while the Chicago police demanded the excision of the assassination scene.

Shakespeare also acts as an actor magnet. Stage players enjoy the international audiences, while screen stars will happily trade down their celebrity for some theatrical gravitas. From Orson Welles to Keanu Reeves, performers have sought prestige in iambic pentameter, and their willingness to accept low fees for the privilege has made the studios happy to play along with what would otherwise be risky box-office.

Critical snobbery has also waned, to the extent that adaptations slashed for the screen and stuffed with Americans no longer automatically generate contempt but are judged instead on cinematic merit. Branagh's soon to be released Hamlet boasts an unmolested text, but audiences will be helped through the long haul by familiar 19th-century costuming and a stellar cast that includes Robin Williams as Osric and Billy Crystal as a gravedigger. In contrast, Baz (Strictly Ballroom) Luhrmann's imminent Romeo and Juliet offers a trippy contemporary reworking, replete with sunglasses, sports cars and gang violence.

Such revisionism is nothing new. A 15-minute Indian Romeo and Juliet was released in 1912, and in the very first film Shakespeare in 1899 (starring stage legend Herbert Beerbohm Tree) irreverent producers inserted extra scenes to beef up the drama. Still, it's hard to imagine these early pioneers coming up with anything like this week's Tromeo and Juliet in which our hero soliloquises on the toilet, Juliet gives birth to live rats, and the chorus comes courtesy of Motorhead's Lemmy.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in