Skip to main content

Showing Versus Telling: Shakespeare’s Ekphraseis, Visual Absences, and the Cinema

  • Chapter
Book cover Talking Shakespeare
  • 28 Accesses

Abstract

Drama offers the storyteller a simple choice about how to communicate each element of the story to the audience: show it, or have a character describe it. The use of both modes within one work is what distinguishes drama from mime, at one extreme, and from narrative recital at the other, but often we may sense that at a particular moment the use of one mode or other is conditioned by practical rather than aesthetic considerations. As a narrative unit the ‘car chase’ is confined to works in the medium uniquely suited to conveying its tension, the cinema, and we should expect drama’s strengths to lie elsewhere. Although physical playing space was limited, the theatre professionals of Shakespeare’s time did not shy away from attempting to represent events which are to be imagined occurring over large areas of space such as a battlefield, and they found a number of techniques to counter the physical limitations of their stage. The Chorus at the beginning of Shakespeare’s Henry V appears to apologize for the theatre’s inability to do justice to the events to be portrayed, but the rest of the play shows impressive ingenuity at representing battles and sieges by jumping from location to location, and by focusing on the Harfleur city-gate before which Henry makes his demands in III.iii.1

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. All references to Shakespeare are from William Shakespeare, The Complete Works, ed. Stanley Wells, Gary Taylor, John Jowett and William Montgomery (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  2. In Laurence Olivier’s film version, a flashback to the pirate attack was shown while Horatio read Hamlet’s letter describing it, but all reference to Hamlet’s fatal substitution of Rosencrantz and Guilden-stern’s letter to the English king was cut (Laurence Olivier, Hamlet, Motion Picture. Two Cities/Pilgrim, 1948). Grigori Kosintsev and Franco Zeffirelli made Hamlet’s departure and the switching of the letter a seamlessly realistic continuum with no flashback or narration, but removed the pirates entirely and offered no explanation for Hamlet’s return to Denmark (Grigori Kosintsev, Hamlet, Motion Picture. Soyuz-film, 1964; Franco Zeffirelli, Hamlet, Motion Picture. Warner/Le Studio Canal+/Carolco/Icon/Marquis/Nelson, 1990). Kenneth Branagh used the play’s narration technique for the letter switching and the pirate attack, but as we shall see, he depicted other events which are only referred to in dialogue (Kenneth Branagh, Hamlet, Motion Picture. Turner/Castle Rock/Columbia/Fishmonger, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Although it need not constrain modern producers, Caliban and Ariel — once the latter became like a ‘nymph o’ th’ sea’ (I.iii.303) — were originally played in aquatic costumes. See Michael Baird Saenger, ‘The Costumes of Caliban and Ariel qua Sea-nymph’, Notes and Queries 240 (1995): 334–6 and

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gabriel Egan, ‘Ariel’s Costume in the Original Staging of The Tempest’, Theatre Notebook 51 (1997): 62–72.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gabriel Egan, ‘Reconstructions of the Globe: A Retrospective’, Shakespeare Survey 52 (1999): 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Antony Hammond, ‘|“It Must be Your Imagination Then”: the Prologue and the Plural Text in Henry V and Elsewhere’, in ’Fanned and Winnowed Opinions’: Shakespearean Essays Presented to Harold Jenkins, ed. John W. Mahon and Thomas A. Pendleton (London: Methuen, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  7. E. K. Chambers, The Elizabethan Stage, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923), vol. 3, p. 40.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Tim Fitzpatrick, ‘Shakespeare’s Exploitation of a Two-door Stage: Macbeth’, Theatre Research International 20 (1995): 207–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. John Fletcher and William Shakespeare, The Two Noble Kinsmen (London: T. Cotes for J. Waterson, 1634), M1v–M2r.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth (eds), The Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd edn Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Grant F. Scott, ‘The Rhetoric of Dilation: Ekphrasis and Ideology’, Word and Image 7, 1 (1991): 301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Oliver Parker, Othello, Motion Picture. Castle Rock/Columbia/Dakota/Imminent/Sony, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  13. William Shakespeare, Othello, Dir. Alan Parker: Shooting Script (Beverly Hills: Castle Rock, 1995), p. 12a.

    Google Scholar 

  14. William Shakespeare, Hamlet, ed. G. R. Hibbard, The Oxford Shakespeare (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 280–1.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Authorial revision commonly entails the cutting of some things and the addition of others, and important differences between early editions of Hamlet most likely reflect such planned changes. In this situation conlation effaces authorially sanctioned cuts and brings together material which the dramatist would have thought mutually exclusive or pleonastic. For the evidence concerning Hamlet see Stanley Wells et al., William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. 396–402.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. This image is preceded by one of Hamlet Senior asleep in his orchard surrounded by midwinter snow. His behaviour might be thought eccentric and Deborah Cartmell observed that ‘it’s hard not to imagine why he didn’t die of hypothermia’ (Deborah Cartmell, ‘The Shakespeare on Screen Industry’, in Adaptations: From Text to Screen, Screen to Text, ed. Deborah Cartmell and Imelda Whelehan, London: Routledge, 1999, p. 36.). However, Branagh apparently wanted the juxtaposition of these images of inversion: that which should be within (Hamlet Senior) is without and that which should be without (curling is normally played on snow) is within.

    Google Scholar 

  17. William Shakespeare, The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke. Newly Imprinted and Enlarged to Almost as Much Againe as it Was, According to the True and Perfect Coppie (London: [J. Roberts] for N. L[ing], 1604), B2v, C2r.

    Google Scholar 

  18. William Shakespeare, The Norton Facsimile of The First Folio of Shakespeare, ed. Charlton Hinman (New York: Norton, 1968), Hamlet, TLN 374.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Carol Chillington Rutter, ‘Snatched Bodies: Ophelia in the Grave’, Shakespeare Quarterly 49 (1998): 316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ibid., n. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kenneth Branagh, ‘Hamlet’ By William Shakespeare: Screenplay and Introduction (London: Chatto & Windus, 1996), pp. 181, 195, 203.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kenneth Branagh, Much Ado About Nothing, Motion Picture. BBC/Renaissance/Goldwyn, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rutter,’ snatched Bodies’: 317.

    Google Scholar 

  24. David M. Bergeron, ‘The Deposition Scene in Richard II’, Renaissance Papers (1974): 37.

    Google Scholar 

  25. William Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, ed. Horace Howard Furness, New Variorum, 12 (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1899), III.iii.142n.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Philip McGuire, Shakespeare: The Jacobean Plays, English Dramatists (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1994), pp. 87–90.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Ibid., p. 89.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ibid., pp. 91–2.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Peter Brook, King Lear, Motion Picture. Filmways/Laterna/Athena/RSC, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Peter Holland, ‘The Shapeliness of The Tempest’, Essays in Criticism 45, 3 (1995): 224.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Derek Jarman, The Tempest, Motion Picture. Boyd’s, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Peter Greenaway, Prospero’s Books, Motion Picture. VPRO Television/Camera One/Le Studio Canal+/Channel Four Films/Elsevier/Ven-dex/Cinea/Allarts/NHK/Palace Pictures/Penta Films, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Fred M. Wilcox, Forbidden Planet, Motion Picture. MGM, 1956.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Deborah Cartmell Michael Scott

Copyright information

© 2001 Gabriel Egan

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Egan, G. (2001). Showing Versus Telling: Shakespeare’s Ekphraseis, Visual Absences, and the Cinema. In: Cartmell, D., Scott, M. (eds) Talking Shakespeare. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-333-98574-8_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics