Nudge, Nudge, Wink, Wink, Know What I Mean, Know What I Mean? A Theoretical Approach to Performance for a Post-Cinema Shakespeare

  • D. J. Hopkins
  • Catherine Ingman
  • Bryan Reynolds

Abstract

The wave of success that has established William Shakespeare as the most popular and prolific screenwriter currently working in Hollywood shows no sign of abating.2 But, as evidenced by the disparity in style and quality of recent productions, there is more than one way to make a “Shakespeare movie.” In an article titled “Shooting Shakespeare,” written for the popular magazine Madison, movie columnist Graham Fuller sums up the last ten years of film versions of Shakespeare: “It has been a noble collective effort, a testament to the most inventive literature in existence—and, by extension, to the absence of invention in modern cinema” (83). Fuller notes a lack of inventiveness on the part of Hollywood writers who continue to raid Shakespeare’s collected works for their screenplays. We agree that there is an “absence of invention” in contemporary approaches to “shooting Shakespeare,” but we experience the problem less in the screenwriting than in the direction and acting.

Keywords

Amid Beach Liner Arena Defend 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Works cited

  1. 10 Things I Hate About You. Dir. Gil Junger. Perf. Julia Stiles and Heath Ledger. Disney, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Dir. Michael Hoffman. Perf. Calista Flockhart and Kevin Kline. twentieth Century Fox, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. Alcorn, Marshall W. Jr. and Mark Bracher. “Literature, Psychoanalysis, and the Re-Formation of the Self: A New Direction for Reader-Response Theory.” PMLA 100.3 (1985): 342–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Artaud, Antonin. The Theatre and Its Double. Trans. Mary Caroline Richards. New York: Grove Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  5. Auslander, Philip. Liveness: Performance in a Mediated Culture. New York: Routledge, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. Barton, John. “Using the Verse: Heightened and Naturalistic Verse.” Playing Shakespeare. London: Methuen, 1984. 25–46.Google Scholar
  7. Bateson, Gregory. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing, 1972.Google Scholar
  8. Baumlin, Tita French. “Petruchio the Sophist and Language as Creation in The Taming of the Shrew.” Studies in English Literature 1500–1900 29.2 (1989): 237–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beier, A.L. Masterless Men: The Vagrancy Problem in England. London: Methuen, 1985.Google Scholar
  10. The Blair Witch Project. Dir. Eduardo Sanchez. Artisan, 1999.Google Scholar
  11. Blau, Herbert. The Audience. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. Blau, Herbert. “Universals of Performance; or Amortizing Play.” By Means of Performance: Intercultural Studies of Theatre and World. Ed. Richard Schechner and Willa Appel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. 250–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boose, Lynda A. “The Taming of the Shrew, Good Husbandry, and Enclosure.” Shakespeare Reread: The Texts in New Contexts. Ed. Russ McDonald. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994. 193–225.Google Scholar
  14. Boose, Lynda and Richard Burt, eds. Shakespeare: The Movie. New York: Routledge, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. Brecht, Bertolt. Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic. Ed. and trans. John Willet. London: Methuen, 1964.Google Scholar
  16. Burt, Richard. Unspeakable ShaXXXspeares: Queer Theory and American Kiddie Culture. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. Butler, Judith. “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre. Ed. Sue-Ellen Case. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990. 270–82.Google Scholar
  18. Carlson, Marvin. Performance: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. Case, Sue-Ellen and Janelle Reinelt. Introduction. The Performance of Power: Theatrical Discourse and Politics. Ed. Sue-Ellen Case and Janelle Reinelt. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1991. 9–29.Google Scholar
  20. Cohen, Alain J.-J. “Goddard/Lang/Goddard—The Film-Within-the-Film: Finite Regress and Other Semiotic Strategies.” American Journal of Semiotics 9.4 (1992): 115–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Contempt (Le Mépris). Dir. Jean-Luc Goddard. Perf. Brigitte Bardot and Michel Piccoli. Nelson Entertainment, 1964.Google Scholar
  22. de Lauretis, Teresa. “Imaging.” Alice Doesn’t: Feminism, Semiotics, Cinema. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984. 37–69.Google Scholar
  23. Diamond, Elin. “Rethinking Identification: Kennedy, Freud, Brecht.” Kenyon Review 15.2 (1993): 86–99.Google Scholar
  24. Dolan, Jill. “Geographies of Learning: Theatre Studies, Performance, and the ‘Performative.’” Theatre Journal 45 (1993): 417–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dusinberre, Juliet. “The Taming of the Shrew: Women, Acting, and Power.” Studies in the Literary Imagination 26.1 (1993): 67–83.Google Scholar
  26. Eco, Umberto. “Semiotics of Theatrical Performance.” The Drama Review 21.1 (1977): 107–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Elizabeth. Dir. Shekhar Kapur. Perf. Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, and Joseph Fiennes. Polygram, 1998.Google Scholar
  28. Eyes Wide Shut. Dir. Stanley Kubrick. Perf. Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. Warner Brothers, 1999.Google Scholar
  29. Freud, Sigmund. Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. 5th ed. Trans. James Strachey. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 1949.Google Scholar
  30. Friedberg, Anne. “A Denial of Difference: Theories of Cinematic Identification.” Psychoanalysis and Cinema. Ed. Ann E. Kaplan. New York: Routledge, 1990. 36–45.Google Scholar
  31. Fuller, Graham. “Shooting Shakespeare.” Madison (2000): 78–83.Google Scholar
  32. Garber, Marjorie B. Dream in Shakespeare: From Metaphor to Metamorphosis. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  33. Goffman, Erving. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  34. Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  35. Hamlet. Dir. Kenneth Branagh. Perf. Kenneth Branagh and Kate Winslet. Turner, 1996.Google Scholar
  36. Hamlet. Dir. Michael Almereyda. Perf. Ethan Hawke and Julia Stiles. Miramax Films, 2000.Google Scholar
  37. Haring-Smith, Tori. From Farce To Metadrama: A Stage History of The Taming of The Shrew, 1594–1983. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  38. Hedrick, Donald and Bryan Reynolds. “Shakespace and Transversal Power.” Shakespeare Without Class: Misappropriations of Cultural Capital. Ed. Donald Hedrick and Bryan Reynolds. New York: Palgrave, 2000. 3–47.Google Scholar
  39. Hodgdon, Barbara. “Katherina Bound; or Play(K)ating the Strictures of Everyday Life.” Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 107.3 (1992): 538–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hopkins, D.J. and Bryan Reynolds. “The Making of Authorships: Transversal Navigation in the Wake of Hamlet, Robert Wilson, Wolfgang Wiens, and Shakespace.” Performing Transversely: Reimagining Shakespeare in the Critical Future. New York: Palgrave, 2002: 265–86.Google Scholar
  41. Jameson, Frederick. Postmodernism: Or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  42. Kernan, Alvin B. “Shakespeare’s Stage Audiences: The Playwright’s Reflections and Control of Audience Response.” Shakespeare’s Craft: Eight Lectures. Ed. Philip H. Highfill, Jr. Carbondale: George Washington University, 1982. 138–55.Google Scholar
  43. Kristeva, Julia. “Identification and the Real.” Trans. Shaun Whiteside. Literary Theory Today. Ed. Peter Collier and Helga Geyer-Ryan. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990. 167–76.Google Scholar
  44. Londré, Felicia Hardison. “Confronting Shakespeare’s ‘Political Incorrectness’ in Production: Contemporary American Audiences and the New ‘Problem Plays.’” Staging Difference: Cultural Pluralism in American Theatre and Drama. Ed. Marc Maufort. New York: Peter Lang, 1995. 85–95.Google Scholar
  45. Marcus, Leah. “The Shakespearean Editor as Shrew-Tamer.” English Literary Renaissance 22.2 (1992): 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McMullan, John L. The Canting Crew: London’s Criminal Underworld 1550–1700. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  47. Mullaney, Steven. “Civic Rites, City Sites: The Place of the Stage.” Staging The Renaissance: Reinterpretations of Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama. Ed. David Scott Kastan and Peter Stallybrass. New York: Routledge, 1991. 17–26.Google Scholar
  48. Mullaney, Steven. The Place of the Stage: License, Play, and Power in Renaissance England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  49. Myerhoff, Barbara. “The Transformation of Consciousness in Ritual Performances: Some Thoughts and Questions.” By Means of Performance: Intercultural Studies of Theatre and Ritual. Ed. Richard Schechner and Willa Appel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. 245–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Never Been Kissed. Screenplay by Abby Kohn and Marc Silverstein. Dir. Raja Gosnell. Perf. Drew Barrymore. Twentieth Century Fox, 1999.Google Scholar
  51. Novy, Marianne L. Love’s Argument: Gender Relations in Shakespeare. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  52. O. Screenplay by Brad Kaaya. Dir. Tim Blake Nelson. Perf. Josh Hartnet, Mekhi Phifer, and Julia Stiles. Lions Gate, 2001.Google Scholar
  53. Orlin, Lena Cowen. “The Performance of Things in The Taming of the Shrew.” Yearbook of English Studies 23 (1993): 166–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Patterson, Annabel. “Framing The Taming.” Shakespeare and Cultural Traditions: The Selected Proceedings of the International Shakespeare Association World Congress. Ed. Tetsuo Kishi, Roger Pringle, and Stanley Wells. London: Associated University Presses, 1994. 304–13.Google Scholar
  55. Pavis, Peatrice. “Premature Synthesis: Temporary Closure for End-of-Century Inventory.” Theatre Forum 17 (2000): 74–81.Google Scholar
  56. Reynolds, Bryan. Becoming Criminal: Transversal Performance and Cultural Dissidence in Early Modern England. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  57. Reynolds, Bryan. “The Devil’s House, ‘or worse’: Transversal Power and Antitheatri-cal Discourse in Early Modern England.” Theatre Journal 49 (1997): 143–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Romeo Must Die. Dir. Andrzej Bartkowiak. Perf. Aaliyah and Jet Li. Warner Bros., 2000.Google Scholar
  59. Rouse, John. “Brecht and the Contradictory Actor.” Acting (Re)Considered:: Theories and Practices. Ed. Philip B. Zarrilli. London: Routledge, 1995. 228–41.Google Scholar
  60. Schechner, Richard. Performance Theory. Rev. ed. New York: Routledge, 1988.Google Scholar
  61. Schechner, Richard. Between Theater bAnthropology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  62. Scotland, PA. Dir. Billy Morrissette. Perf. James LeGros, Maura Tierney, and Christopher Walken. Lot 47 Films, 2001.Google Scholar
  63. Shakespeare in Love. Dir. John Madden. Perf. Joseph Fienes and Gwenyth Paltrow. Miramax, 1998.Google Scholar
  64. Shakespeare, William. The Taming of the Shrew. Ed. Brian Morris. London: Routledge, 1981.Google Scholar
  65. Shakespeare, William. The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1974.Google Scholar
  66. Shapiro, Michael. “Framing the Taming: Metatheatrical Awareness of Female Impersonation in The Taming of the Shrew.” Yearbook of English Studies 23 (1993): 143–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shurgot, Michael. “From Fiction to Reality: Character and Stagecraft in The Taming of the Shrew.” Theatre journal 33.3 (1981): 327–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Siegel, Lee. “What the Critics Failed to See in Kubrick’s Last Film (Review).” Harper’s Magazine. Vol. 299, No. 1793. October 1999: 79–81.Google Scholar
  69. Stanislavksi, Constantin. An Actor Prepares. Trans. Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. New York: Routledge, 1964.Google Scholar
  70. The Blair Witch Project. Dir. Edward. Sanchez. Artisan, 1999.Google Scholar
  71. The Full Monty. Dir. Peter Cattaneo. Twentieth Century Fox, 1997.Google Scholar
  72. Thompson, Ann. “Introduction.” The Taming of the Shrew. By William Shakespeare. Ed. Ann Thompson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. 1–41.Google Scholar
  73. Traister, Rebecca. “The Story of O, Weinstein Style: High-School Othello is Held Up.” New York Observer November 13, 2000: Fl.Google Scholar
  74. Turner, Victor. Drama, Fields, and Metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  75. Turner, Victor. On the Edge of the Bush. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  76. Weller, Barry. “Induction and Inference: Theater, Transformation, and the Construction of Identity in The Taming of the Shrew.” Creative Imitation: New Essays on Renaissance Literature in Honor of Thomas M Greene. Ed. David Quint, Margaret W. Ferguson, G.W. Pigman III, and Wayne A. Rebhorn. Binghamton: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1992. 297–329.Google Scholar
  77. Weller, Barry. “Identity and Representation in Shakespeare.” ELH 49.2 (1982): 339–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Williams, Gwyn. Person and Persona: Studies in Shakespeare. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  79. Worthen, William B. “Shakespearean Performativity.” Shakespeare and Modern Theatre. Ed. Michael Bristol, Kathleen McLuskie, and Chistopher Holmes. New York: Routledge, 2001. 117–41.Google Scholar
  80. Worthen, William B. “Is it Not Monstrous: The Demonic Dialectic of Renaissance Acting.” The Idea of the Actor; Drama and the Ethics of Performance. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. 10–69.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bryan Reynolds 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. J. Hopkins
  • Catherine Ingman
  • Bryan Reynolds

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations