When a play is presented on film, the director takes the script, and with poetic license, interprets it. A film not only contains the actual words of the author (in this case Shakespeare), but it includes action, acting, and cinematographic techniques; the three are used to better portray the author’s story. Using these elements, the director’s interpretation of the plot is reinforced. The film provides symbolic images and a visual interpretation, hence Shakespeare’s play “Macbeth” is better understood by the viewers.
Beckett did not view and express the problem of Absurdity in any form of philosophical theory (he never wrote any philosophical essays, as Camus or Sartre did), his expression is exclusively the artistic language of theatre. In this chapter, I analyse the life situation of Beckett's characters finding and pointing at the parallels between the philosophical background of the Absurdity and Beckett's artistic view.
Samuel Beckett wrote Waiting for Godot between October 1948 and January 1949. Since its premiere in January of 1953, it has befuddled and confounded critics and audiences alike. Some find it to be a meandering piece of drivel; others believe it to be genius. Much of the strain between the two sides stems from one simple question. What does this play mean? Even within camps where Waiting for Godot is heralded, the lack of clarity and consensus brings about a tension and discussion that has lasted over sixty years.
The acting itself is seen as both exaggerated and over-the-top, by which past and present actors try to employ in carrying out Shakespeare’s plays (Britannica). Shakespeare meant for his audience to be engaged throughout the entirety of the play. The uniqueness and shear passion of the plays have helped in the continuum of their success.
When adapting a play for the screen, a director’s primary responsibility is to visualize an enactment that remains true to the original work’s perception. In addition to this task, the director must also build upon the foundations laid by the script; without this goal, (s)he would have no reason to have undertaken the project in the first place. Providing an innovative reading of a well-known play is undoubtedly a challenging task, but few directors have met the challenge so successfully as Peter Greenaway in Prospero’s Books, an adaptation of Shakespeare’s play The Tempest. Greenway’s most compelling accomplishment in the film is his elegant rendering of the play’s theme of the artist as a creator. Prospero’s Books, as well as the original The Tempest, is an exercise in artificiality, genesis, and performance.
In his essay “On the Tragedies of Shakespeare,” Charles Lamb criticizes the theatrical performances of Shakespeare for providing an experience that inherently provides at worst, a misrepresentation or at best, a shallow representation of a particular character’s emotional depth. This is not to say that Lamb is necessarily criticizing bad acting, but rather he argues that the activities of acting and judging of acting raise “non-essentials” to an unjustified importance that is “injurious to the main interest of the play.” In other words, the viewer’s experience of watching a play is an experience inferior to a reader’s experience of reading the play. It is precisely for this reason that dramatic plays, such as Byron’s Manfred, cannot be staged. The experience of reading Manfred, a closet drama about Manfred, a noble tormented by his guilt for a mysterious transgression, provides a more emotionally intense experience than seeing the play acted out. The chamois hunter’s struggle and eventual failure to empathize with Manfred’s emotional turbulence in Act II, Scene I of Manfred can be interpreted as an experience which parallels the inevitable emotional chasm between audience and characters and ultimately hinders the audience’s sense of character empathy.
Crowl writes this chapter to inform readers with an unbiased and fair review of directors who have successfully and profoundly constructed reproductions of Shakespeare’s plays. All three directors are considered artistic geniuses, because, as Crowl describes, each brings a new component on how to interpret Shakespeare’s work,
Henderson, Diana E. “A Shrew for the Times, Revisted.” Shakespeare the Movie II, Popularizing the Plays on Film, TV, and DVD. Eds. Burt, Richard and Boose, Lynda E. New York: Routledge, 2003. 120-139. Print.
Hamlet is not only a representation of the world, but it is a presentation of the theatricality of the world, and it aims to acquire the detachment that allows self-reflection. According to Catherine Jo Dixon, the word “meta-theatre” is derived from the Greek prefix meta, which signifies a “level beyond the subject that it qualifies” (1). Arguably one of the most memorable examples of meta-theatricality is from William Shakespeare’s Hamlet in Act III, Scene II, where Hamlet stages a play in an attempt to “catch the conscience of the King” (2.2.526). However, while this is one instance of meta-theatre in Hamlet, Shakespeare created an entire work infused with meta-theatre, either through the direct use of theatre or theatrical metaphors and imagery. Others include Polonius’ praise and report on the Players (Ham. 2.2.325-29), Hamlet’s advice to the Players (Ham. 3.2.1-39), and Hamlet’s antic disposition. The effect of this was that it allowed the emphasis of the contrast between truth and pretence, reality and illusion.
Rascaroli, Laura. "The Essay Film: Problems, Definitions, Textual Commitments." Framework: The Journal of Cinema and Media 49.2 (2008): 24-47. JSTOR. Web. 08 May 2014.
One notable difference between William Shakespeare’s The Tempest and Julie Taymor’s film version of the play is the altered scenes that made quite a difference between the play and the movie version. This difference has the effects of creating a different point of view by altering the scenes affected the movie and how Taymor felt was necessary by either by keeping or deleting certain parts from the play. I use “Altered Scene” in the way of how Julia Taymor recreates her own point of view for the movie and the direction she took in order to make the audience can relate to the modern day film. I am analyzing the way that the altered scenes changes to make a strong impression on the audiences different from the play. This paper will demonstrate
Samuel Johnson within ‘The Plays of Shakespeare’ highlights how ambition of a protagonist leads to detestation on the part of the readers: Or in other words an ambitious nature can be used as a tool by the playwright to produce a sense of loathing and dislike amongst the audience.
---. “Structure in Beckett’s theatre.” Yale French Studies. Vol. 46. Yale University Press, 1971. 17-27. JSTOR. 20 Mar. 2004.
How Does Beckett Use Time and Repetition in Waiting For Godot to Represent The Never Ending Cycles in Life?
Humans spend their lives searching and creating meaning to their lives, Beckett, however, takes a stand against this way of living in his novel ‘Waiting for Godot’. He questions this ideal of wasting our lives by searching for a reason for our existence when there is not one to find. In his play, he showcases this ideology through a simplistic and absence of setting and repetitious dialogue. Beckett’s ability to use these key features are imperative to his ability of conveying his message of human entrapment and existence.