Bachelor's Thesis (English) at Wisconsin Lutheran College

1. Grassell
“The realization of a Shakespeare text…involves a considerable departure from the
text. It is not, that is, what [one] would call a faithful representation of the text, or
of the author’s intentions as embodied in it.”
-Michael D. Friedman
The literary genius of William Shakespeare has labeled him as one of the best (if
not the best) writers of all time. His themes, characters, and plots have survived the ages;
in fact, many of them are timeless, and they will continue to affect the literary world.
Shakespeare’s masterpieces greatly affected the world of his time, caused tremendous
discussion in the immediate generations following his death, and continue to dominate
today’s art. No other author has been able to affect so many different eras, cultures, and
peoples. This is true, in part, because he is timeless. He understood humans in that they
all experience the same problems, drives, and struggles regardless of the age in which
they live; therefore, what Shakespeare wrote is always truly real. He dealt with real
social problems, internal struggles, and familial disorders (Scott 125).
Popular culture with a thread of intertwined postmodernism has posed, perhaps,
the largest threat upon Shakespeare’s works until this point. Reinterpretation,
modification, appropriation, and liberty of art have all played major roles in a growing
existential movement that has swept primarily across America as well as other advanced
societies. Not even art is safe within this movement; thus, Shakespeare is not exempt
from being reconditioned to “fit” the times. Postmodernism has indeed negatively
affected Shakespeare. Overall, this movement, while it has added some dimension to his
writings, has murdered original Shakespearean forms; no one is able to create his plays in
such a manner that consistently matches Shakespeare’s intellectual perception and vigor
(Scott 136).
1

2. Grassell
William Shakespeare lived a rather short life in terms of the number of plays and
sonnets he wrote. After reviewing the sum total, one would estimate that such a man
would have to live much longer than this author actually did. Born on April 23, 1564, in
Stratford-upon-Avon, England, this playwright set to work until his death, which
supposedly occurred on his birthday, April 23, 1616. During that time, William wrote
154 sonnets, his own works. The reason for mentioning this last fact is due, in part for
two reasons – he was a literary genius, and his plays were not entirely his own ideas. Of
his eighteen comedic plays, ten tragedies, and ten historic plays, along with the two
thousand-plus words he invented, only one play, Love’s Labour’s Lost, was the result of
Shakespeare’s original idea. Thirty-seven of his survived-texts are based on an existing
work or history (“Shakespeare Still the One or, Why Shakespeare Really Matters” 2).
Interestingly enough, Shakespeare actually “borrowed” his stories from historical
chronicles, prose and poetic romances, and classical, medieval, and Tudor drama. He
recreated these stories for public and private stages during a particular historic period
(Scott 1). Upon discovering much to introduce to his target audience, which was
composed of England theater-goers, professional theatre became his career and his goal,
especially after he saw the money that was involved in such an occupation. In fact, his
financial involvement in this business (actually his own business) probably affected his
success. He pushed to write more plays, and he pushed for more of them to be
performed.
“With four-hundred year old drama, there is the problem of what Shakespeare
actually wrote” (Scott 3). His plays were pirated, and he was likely guilty of pirating
some of his own. Some claim that he even took over the writing of several plays;
2

3. Grassell
supposedly, he reworked the original writing of Henry VI (Ioppolo 86). Other plays that
he wrote were either changed or later developed. The improvisations to his own plays
were not recorded because writing was much different in an era without the aid of
computers and modern technology. Then, rival companies looking to make a profit any
way they could cheated by stealing Shakespeare’s ideas, plotlines, and even entire plays
(Scott 3). It was a time without copyright laws, rules, and regulations; more was
permissible. This marked the beginning of adaptations of Shakespeare’s works. His
titles were changed, characters were edited in and out of stories, and lines were increased
or decreased (Scott 4). The first known reinterpretation followed shortly after
Shakespeare’s death. Nahum Tate’s King Lear appeared in 1681 (Scott 4). It contained
an alternate ending because Tate’s sensibility could not handle the violent ending of the
original play (Scott 123). While Tate’s version was less revolutionary than most
Shakespearean alterations, the trend had begun. Tate adapted King Lear to his own
political agenda; he aimed his text at a bi-partisan audience despite royalist propaganda in
the play (Marsden 6). This went contrary to William’s literary agenda, which focused
topically on large audiences, was composed of conservative values, and enabled him be a
spokesman for radical causes (Marsden 2). In addition, an eighteenth-century adaptation
of Julius Caesar was scripted by rival political groups in order to portray Brutus as a
Whig hero supporting British liberty (Marsden 6). Shakespeare used his plays as a pulpit,
where he preached lessons on social issues, history, rebellion, and whether or not females
could be trusted by the men who love them as seen in Othello and Much Ado About
Nothing (Brode 13).
3

4. Grassell
Appropriation, which means taking possession of for one’s own, to control by
possession, and to usurp, was also about to begin (Marsden 1). The appropriation of
William’s plays began with the reopening of the theaters after the restoration of Charles
II. The following generations would follow suit by rewriting Shakespeare to please a
particular audience for that generation’s own agenda. Soon, playwrights were revising
Shakespeare’s female characters in order to adapt them to a changed social climate,
which would continue to play a major role in appropriation until the twenty-first century
(Marsden 6). Between 1660 and 1820, “all thirty-seven of Shakespeare’s plays would be
revised, the total number of adaptations reaching at least 123...; the revised versions…
totally supplanted the originals” (Wheeler 438).
Beginning in the eighteenth century, a temporary shift occurred. Shakespeare’s
influence flew full-circle (Marsden 3). He had become a cult figure as his literary
influence spread from stage to other areas of literary production. Everyone knew his
characters and their lines (Desmet, Sawyer 203). Novelists during that same century
alluded to Shakespeare in their works because they assumed everybody was familiar with
him. This shows how famous he had become. The Romantic poets of the 1700 and
1800s regarded him as the ideal poet. Finally, because he was highly esteemed, the study
of his texts became more specialized than ever before as “battles over the methods of
approaching the Shakespearean canon” were fought. Giving such critical attention to
William’s works enshrined his texts as sacred, which resulted in the temporary cessation
from rewriting his texts (Marsden 4).
Regardless of how Shakespeare’s classics came into existence, his fame and
success offered him the authorship of such works; no one would attest to a great story on
4

5. Grassell
stage so long as one was entertained. Who really knew where his ideas came from at the
time, and did anyone really care? He was now a leader in the realm of playwrights and
poets. While Shakespeare directly affected the theatre industry of his age, most of his
popularity and recognition would come posthumously, as mentioned earlier. In following
eras, his works lived on and continue to do so. Despite the temporary cessation to rewrite
Shakespearean texts, other generations would fail to recognize the sacredness of such
works (this paper will focus solely on his plays). Thus, due to such ill-recognition, other
plays would be written based on William’s plays, books and modern novels would “spin-
off” his ideas, and films and movies would entertain audiences nearly four hundred years
later. The question remains: should his works be performed and read in their original
forms, and if so, what happened to the originals? With no originals, “every reading of a
Shakespearean play is already an appropriation limited by constraints… (Desment,
Sawyer 23).
Regarding the aforesaid mentioned question, the Bard was introduced. Webster’s
Dictionary defines the Bard as such – 4.) the Bard, William Shakespeare. His collected
plays are the standard and make up the canon for what is real and original. He has been
credited with such an overwhelming amount of authorship that no one dares to claim
Shakespeare’s works as his own without first recognizing that the new version is
borrowing from Shakespeare’s work. Shakespeare’s timeless works are the standard to
which all other works are compared, especially if they seem to stem from William’s
central message(s) from any of his plays. Since his death, however, much speculation
resulting in volumes of research and criticism has been documented concerning the true
nature of some of his plays. What makes this study difficult is that none of his
5

6. Grassell
manuscripts survived, except a few pages “which have been ascribed to him in The Book
of Sir Thomas More” (Ioppolo 5). Because of this, scholars have no evidence in his own
handwriting that he revised certain passages or scenes in the plays of the canon.
Shakespeare “did [not] know he was striking a chord with eternity because he never
actually published his plays during his lifetime. He wrote manuscripts and gave them to
actors, many of whom lost, destroyed, or otherwise ruined them” (“Shakespeare Still the
One or, Why Shakespeare Matters” 1). In addition, since Shakespeare’s plays were
intended to be performed, “very few contemporary records document the theatrical and
printing practices which may have introduced revisions into his plays” (Ioppolo 5). As a
result, “the editorial and critical methodologies developed to deal with Shakespeare’s
printed texts have often been based on scholarly speculation. Succeeding scholars can
only [do two things:] accept [the printed texts] or challenge [them]” (Ioppolo 6).
Several other problems and mysteries surrounding the originality of
Shakespeare’s own writings are recorded below. As William’s popularity increased, his
words and works began to be preserved by his contemporaries. Some of his later plays
were published individually in quarto form. This proved not sufficient enough.
Following his death, his own acting company gathered the only surviving copies of the
actors’ scripts and published them in an unofficial First Folio (“Shakespeare Still the One
or, Why Shakespeare Matters” 1). Only eighteen of the plays collected in the Folios
appeared in some previous printed form before being collected in the 1623 First Folio,
the first publication of a collection of thirty-six plays. Of the thirty-six plays, only thirty-
five of them are recorded in the Catalogue; Troilus and Cressida is omitted (Ioppolo 7).
These Folios do not provide any consistent information concerning William’s
6

7. Grassell
composition practices. In fact, the acting company had to fill in a lot of blanks in order to
attain a complete copy of a play’s script – they called in actors to see if they remembered
lines, contacted rival companies who had stolen script copies, and consulted audience
members to check their recollections (“Shakespeare Still the One or, Why Shakespeare
Matters” 2). Upon the completion of this Folio, many mistakes were noticed. Such
mistakes conflicted with the original Quarto forms.
In addition, William did not always subscribe his name on the title pages of the
gathered Quarto documents. In fact, his name first appeared in 1598 on the first Quarto
of Love’s Labour’s Lost and on the second Quarto of both Richard II and Richard III
(Ioppolo 6). What makes this study even more interesting is that some of the later
Quartos show differences when compared to the earlier Quartos. “Three credible Quartos
with variants not found in preceding bad Quartos advertise on their title pages that they
have been altered” (Ioppolo 6). Most Quartos show substantial variants when compared
to Folio texts; eighteen plays were printed for the first time in the Folio texts. “Variants”
are described as “discrepancies between an earlier text and later text of the same play”
(Ioppolo 9). This should not be confused with “revisions.”
Some scholars have argued that multiple texts are the result of authorial revision,
but their claims have been discredited. There are several reasons for this. Printers may
have used reports by members of the acting company or audience in printing a play’s
script. Also, editors were usually unwilling to consider revisions and noticeable variants
when he was responsible for collating different versions of a play. Thirdly, revisions of
plays by company dramatists as well as the original author, Shakespeare, were
commonplace. “Plays… [underwent] alterations or revisions to serve the company’s
7

8. Grassell
needs, the censor’s needs, the Master of the Revels, or the author” (Ioppolo 12). In terms
of the author making necessary revisions, Philip Henslowe’s Diary is a prime example.
His multiple revisions prove that it was the common practice of London theaters from
1590 to 1642, the time during which Shakespeare lived. This playwright even paid free-
lance writers to alter or add to the plays, which became a trade in itself (Ioppolo 12).
Also, it has been said that neither Shakespeare nor his lead actor in most plays, Richard
Burbage, performed the same play each night; the plays had to be lengthened, shortened,
or cut according to circumstances (Brode 5).
Did actors have the freedom to make changes to a text? Well, it has been noted
that they did indeed add, interfere, or borrow texts despite the author’s negative view
toward such actions. Revisions were also made in the texts of a few plays to reduce the
number of actors needed or to allow some to double minor parts. Even songs were cut or
changed when pre-adolescent boys were unavailable. For example, the song “Willow”
was cut from Quarto 1 of Othello, which resulted in the absence of Desdemona in the live
showing of the play. Also, the song before the Duke in Twelfth Night was transferred to
another actor because there were no available of boys able to reach high-range notes
(Ioppolo 82).
“Suspicions that certain of the Folio texts contained matter from non-
Shakespearean writers arose as early as 1678, and the next century saw the creation of a
general climate…concerning the accuracy of the Folio….” (Marsden 111). Nicholas
Rowe began a movement in 1709 that was followed by other editors of original texts.
Rowe and other editors “collected variant editions of plays in an attempt to reproduce the
text that Shakespeare originally wrote” (Ioppolo 13). The task, however, was deemed
8

9. Grassell
impossible because his plays were never published during his lifetime (Brode 3). In
1873, the Shakespeare Society was formed in London by F.J. Furnivall. Furnivall had
suspicions toward the Folio texts. He then led his society to use a scientific approach
such as closely analyzing spelling to answer questions regarding the chronology and
authorship in the Shakespearean canon (Marsden 112). In connection with this society,
Frederick Gard Fleay spent much of his time devoted to scanning William’s woks and
reporting the results back to Furnivall’s men. His approach involved disintegrating the
received Shakespearean texts through metrical texts in a systematic fashion. Through his
research, he found three plays to be non-canonical, three others held to be William’s
revisions of other works, three more plays were drafted by Shakespeare but revised by
others, three others were abridged, two plays were jointly written with a man named
Fletcher, and two others included interpolations from other playwrights (Marsden 113).
From the 1700s until today, no one could (or can) agree about the debate over
Shakespeare’s original texts versus their revisions. This is supported in that the Oxford
version of Shakespeare’s texts does disagree to an extent with the findings of Fleay;
nothing is certain. The Oxford version seeks “to present a version of the play as it was
sometimes enacted by Shakespeare’s troupe with the understanding that even then
revision must [have] been freely practiced” (Marsden 114). No one can even be sure if
the previous information is accurate; the presented data is merely a result from analyses
performed almost three hundred years ago. And while many critics tend to blame the
1990s for solely destroying the Bard, the deconstruction had begun much earlier as is
evident in Greenway’s Prospero’s Books, Jarman’s Tempest, and Godard’s Lear (Boose
11).
9

10. Grassell
Compared to Shakespeare’s “originals,” all textual variations do betray the
collections of his works. There are, however, degrees by which these transformed texts
portray Shakespeare. No one can ever recreate Shakespeare’s plays with certainty
because his manuscripts simply do not exist, which means that there is really no basis for
an authentic production (Friedman 4). While Shakespeare is certainly subject to
performance, those involved must be careful not to detract from Shakespeare’s original
message (Friedman 33-34). Since the edited Quarto and Folio forms are all that exist
today, they still serve as the “originals,” or basis, by which all others are judged
(Friedman 36). To abuse Shakespeare would be to misuse the liberty that is available in
not having a certain documented compilation of plays. As previously stated, Shakespeare
can never be recreated authentically, but that “is not to say that in order to be authentic,
modern editions must reproduce, like facsimiles, every aspect of the [Q]uarto and/or
Folio texts; rather, it means that authentic modern editions should endeavor to bring as
much coherence to the text as possible without altering its meaning” (Friedman 36). To
recapture the play’s original meaning would necessarily involve, then, “the reproduction
of an ideology that may seem repugnant to contemporary audiences” (Friedman 35).
Thusly speaking, most adaptations reveal more about a particular audience’s culture and
era than about Shakespeare’s works (Friedman 34). This has been the problem since
appropriation began, and it still serves as the main problem today.
“Shakespeare can no longer be read or watched or studied outside of the context
of revision when even commercial newspapers and theater programs are spreading new
doctrines of revision to mass audiences” (Ioppolo 16). Theatrical audiences were once
forewarned that the plays they were watching may be “revised Shakespeare.” “Today,
10

11. Grassell
editors of Shakespeare’s plays sometimes use the Folio edition, sometimes the Quarto,
and sometimes later editions. That is why different editions of Shakespeare’s plays will
vary” (“Shakespeare Still the One or, Why Shakespeare Matters” 2). Shakespeare
definitely caused the Bard some disagreement and separation by not recording everything
he intended, edited, or wrote; today’s Bard has loosened its criteria for an authentic
Shakespearean production, which is obvious in the vast amounts of appropriated works
available to the public. In light of this, the Bard has and continues to influence
Shakespeare’s writings by adapting to culture rather than “sticking to” the norms.
Shakespeare has certainly been the subject of much criticism and speculation
since his unfortunate death. A period existed that hoped to preserve his writings, but it
quickly faded. Hence forward, his works have been reproduced, edited with extreme
liberty, appropriated, revised, and reinterpreted. The people guilty of such acts have
discredited the Bard as the standard by which all Shakespeare should be measured. In
fact, postmodernism has been a key player in this ongoing abuse of William’s writings.
Postmodernism gives today’s writer the freedom to do whatever he wants in terms of
interpretation, even if it means using Shakespeare’s writings completely contrary to what
William intended. Because his plays were originally meant to be seen or performed
rather than be read, writers and directors in a postmodern entertainment industry are
granted more freedom to reinterpret Shakespeare’s original works and effectively present
them in a way to attract an audience (Brode 3).
From the previous point evolves another major problem. When modern
appropriators of Shakespeare’s texts come into contact with his writings, they are guilty
of what appropriators are known for – misusing the intent of the original work and
11

12. Grassell
reinterpreting it according their perception. Today’s society is one that accepts
“whatever kind of interpretation [one] can think of” (Desmet, Sawyer 24). This is
especially true in today’s entertainment industry composed of television and movies.
Mark Van Doren, a modern critic, said that the key question “is not whether the text is
sacred. For movie purposes it certainly is not. The question is whether the whole of
Shakespeare’s effect in a given play can somehow be preserved on screen” (Brode 9).
The next question that arises is “how then should an artist proceed?” Ultimately,
Shakespearean texts will be presented by a filmmaking approach as an original art form,
or a hybrid of two arts – immortal poetry and immortal imagery (Brode 8). But to whom
should the credit be given? There is debate over this issue. Certainly, the adapter is
responsible for recreating Shakespeare’s work in a new art form, but William, too, should
receive due praise for his original work that inspired the modern interpretation (Brode 9).
Regardless of the outcome, the Bard has been changed, and in some cases completely
rejected. Artists are free to express themselves at the expense of a literary genius who
lived hundred of years ago.
Due to the freedom these artists have been given by the entertainment industry, a
real Shakespearean “corporation” has emerged, which has absolutely no regard for the
authenticity of William’s works. In fact, there are two main types of this corporation –
Big Time Shakespeare and Small Time Shakespeare (Desmet, Sawyer 23). The former
serves corporate goals, entrenches power structures, and conserves cultural ideologies.
The latter emerges from local, more pointed responses to the Bard (Desment, Sawyer 23).
These two types cannot easily be separated. Why? Shakespearean appropriation has
become a world phenomenon, and it cannot be stopped. “The author, no longer regarded
12

13. Grassell
as the origin of writing, becomes simply a proper name by which [society] describe[s] a
piece of discourse…. Shakespeare’s name is merely a forum on which literary criticism is
based….” (Desment, Sawyer 5, 24). No more is the emphasis on an appreciation for
literature and sacred texts; rather, it is on money-making in a market economy.
“Whatever the protests, [William] was bound to be swept up in the ‘mass distribution and
mass consumption of television programs for huge profits’” (Rothwell 96).
The entertainment industry has taken Shakespeare and led him to the slaughter.
Appropriation began much earlier than the twenty-first century, as stated earlier, but it
was not until recently that appropriation was used for abusive purposes bordering on
extremity. While Britain’s BBC radio broadcasted several versions of William’s plays
for years, it was not really until the introduction of the television that the world was
subjected to Shakespearean appropriations in a true abusive fashion. For example, the
radio only provides for Shakespeare’s texts to be “murdered” on one level – the words
and the manner in which they are spoken. Television, however, allows directors more
freedom to take control of William’s texts by capitalizing on visual imagery.
The first phase of televised Shakespeare began long before the recent version of
David Thacker’s Measure for Measure. Thacker moved William’s script into a modern
political environment that entailed a contemporary police state. In doing so, Thacker
diminished the religious conventions that are so strong in the play (Esche 27). Actually,
the televised history leaps much further back. It began winding down with Dallas
Bower’s one hundred minute version of The Tempest in 1939. This version included
incidental music and several dance numbers by Sibelius and the London Ballet (Rothwell
198). Between 1953 and 1970, the Hallmark Greeting Card Company underwrote eight
13

14. Grassell
televised Shakespeare plays – Hamlet (2), Macbeth (2), Richard II (1), Taming of the
Shrew (1), The Tempest (1), and Twelfth Night (1). Between 1949 and 1979, nearly fifty
major televised programs in the United States were versions of William’s plays (Rothwell
202). James Earl Jones’ performance as King Lear was televised in 1977; thousands
were finally able to see a famous African-American actor cross a color line by
impersonating a white English king (not authentic Shakespeare) (Rothwell 106). Using
the most modern form of technology, electronovision allowed for a closed-circuit
transmission of Hamlet to be broadcast from Broadway to 976 American movie theaters
(Rothwell 106). Hamlet was not the first play to be produced on Broadway. Musicals
had been performed as far back as the 1940s when The Boys from Syracuse was
performed. Kiss Me Kate (1953), West Side Story (1961), and Catch My Soul: Santa Fe
Satan (1973) also followed (Rothwell 225).
American movie theaters could not wait to get a hold of Shakespeare’s plays
because much profit could be found in their showings. After all, as Orson Welles said,
“Shakespeare would have made a great movie writer…. [He] is a visual dramatist, relying
on the associative and metaphorical power of words. Action is secondary. What is
meant is said” (Brode 3). This type of thinking brought many to believe that William’s
plays would raise dollars for American theaters. After all, theater owners claimed that
Shakespeare’s plays have much in common with the American motion picture industry –
murder, sex, ghosts, and witches. The audiences of yesterday and today want a “bloody
good time” (Brode 5). Peter Hall, a Shakespearean critic, disagreed – “Shakespeare is no
screen writer” (Brode 3). While Shakespeare’s plays were meant to be performed, they
were not meant to be performed in light of Hollywood’s capitalistic tendencies. There is
14

15. Grassell
a large difference between live theatre and motion pictures as storytelling forms – the
word is primary in plays, but image dominates film (Brode 4). These two prominent
figures differed in their opinions; however, Welles’ opinion was favored in the business.
Still today, Shakespearean cinema is the only subgenre of narrative film that remains the
center of ongoing debate – should it exist (Brode 3)?
Shakespearean film adaptation began in the early twentieth century. It is then that
the first movie moviemakers would direct short “flicks” adapted from William’s plays for
immigrants in the United States. One of the major threats to the success of filming his
plays was the use of iambic pentameter in its original form; many believed that this
would be impossible to portray in movies (Brode 7). This, of course, sparked critics to
boast faithfulness to Shakespeare’s essence, which meant that moviemakers should not
reinterpret his plays to fit the theatre’s cause. A critic, Richard Mallet, who agreed with
this claim, also stated that “the basic trouble with any Shakespearean film is that the more
circumstances and scenery are made life-like and convincing, the less easy it is to accept
the convention of heightened dialogue” (Brode 7).
From the “flicks” came an era of silent films. Many silent films were based on
William’s plays. In fact, Hamlet is the recipient of the most silent film versions with
twenty-six. A ten-minute version of this play was filmed by George Mélix in 1907
(McClellan 185). Close behind in numbers were Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, and
Richard III (McClellan 185). These films paved the way for a large outbreak of
Shakespearean feature films beginning in 1936, although a lone production appeared in
1912 in The Life and Death of King Richard III, the oldest surviving US feature film
(Corliss, Gibson 86).
15

16. Grassell
Laurence Olivier is credited with paving the way for the filming industry of
Shakespearean plays as it is known today. In order to further the dramatic effect of
Shakespeare’s intent, he used tracking and close-ups on film. He attempted to avoid
“stock Hollywood conventions” (McClellan 189). To prove that Shakespeare is not
meant for reinterpretation, especially on the “big screen,” it must be noted that
Shakespeare cannot be truly grasped or comprehended in his original intended form.
Olivier immediately encountered this problem. His 1948 version of Hamlet was a
disaster. What is more is that his revisions to Richard III in 1955 were not looked upon
favorably. He also struggled with the use of too much music. Olivier, while not entirely
unsuccessful at directing, showed signs of wrestling with maintaining an authentic
Shakespearean experience. He often fluctuated between film and theatre; these two
mediums do not go well together for they require completely different tactics for a
successful showing. As a result, Olivier came across as too static to his viewers (Boone
85). At the same time, George Schaefer attempted to produce a Shakespearean play
worthy of watching on film. He wanted to capture the essence of Shakespeare’s intent.
Rather, he produced a poor cinematic film with “goodish” Shakespeare (McClellan 192).
“Shakespeare’s adaptations [were] turning from classical to populist
appropriation” (Burt 9). After years of poor black-and-white films, director Franco
Zeffirelli arose to the occasion. He sought to give the audience something with which to
identify. In addition, he aimed at helping the audience understand that the classics are
living flesh. Zeffirelli wanted to be faithful to Shakespeare’s works and hold true to what
is at the core of William’s plays (Boose 81). He tried to revitalize the qualities that
originally made the plays popular (Boone 92). Thus far, it sounds as though this director
16

17. Grassell
finally had in mind to accomplish what no one else had done – be true to Shakespeare. In
fact, he openly labeled his scripts as “adaptations” (Boone 92). This actor, however,
thought of himself as a “popularizer” with a responsibility to bridge the gap to the
classics and the present day (Boose 81). Here, it is evident that Franco was not going to
retain everything that the original playwright had intended; he was going to incorporate
modern vices into his films. For example, Zeffirelli believed that Shakespearean words
have parallels in cinematic versions, which resulted in using modern language (Boose
85). In addition, he used mood music to capture the audience’s attention (Boone 92). He
also saw the money-making qualities in producing the right type of film; thus, he targeted
films about younger people because such films hold more appeal to an audience.
Following his 1966 version of Taming of the Shrew, he took upon himself the daunting
task of directing Romeo and Juliet (1968). The only reason his version of this timeless
classic was made possible was because he promised the financial contributors two things
– the film would appeal to young audiences, and it would sell. They believed him (Boose
83). Well, his version appeared more mature than any previous version of Romeo and
Juliet. His key to “success” was focusing on the relationship between the lovers,
showing distinct personalities between them, and empowering the portrayal of human
relationships (Boone 91). All of this provided for richer characterization, which was
absent in his version of Taming of the Shrew, because the focus was solely on the
relationship between Kate and Petruchio. Franco decided to direct yet another version of
the already popular Hamlet (1990). In this version, Mel Gibson played the main role of
Hamlet. No one believed him to be Shakespearean until he took the chance; now, he is
labeled as the “Hamlet of the ‘90s.” Zeffirelli saw a similarity between Gibson’s
17

18. Grassell
“abortive meditation on suicide in Hamlet” and in his suicidal scene as Martin in the
movie Lethal Weapon. Because of his risk in casting Gibson, the film was a moderate
success; however, he capitalized on the entertainment industry’s success in using a
popular actor. “America tends to cast Royal Shakespeare Company actors around an
American star while other countries tend to portray Shakespeare purely in their own
culture” (Boose 13). In addition, the film seemed to flow for those unfamiliar with the
play because it was adapted into shorter segments. Franco used quick shots that took the
place of dialogue (Boose 88). Finally, Franco’s key to success was allowing the audience
to identify with the protagonist (Boone 89).
While were are undoubtedly other film directors that directly followed Franco
Zeffirelli’s earlier films, no other is as popular as Kenneth Branaugh. In fact, Branaugh’s
version of Hamlet (1996) quickly replaced Zeffirelli’s 1990 version. One should sense
the rapidity of Shakespearean plays being reproduced for popular appeal. Branaugh is
“distinctive for having made the manners that have revitalized ‘Shakespeare’ for a
postmodern clientele” (Burt 83). He is noted as such because of his major advantage
over the other directors of Shakespearean cinema – “he is able to continually revise
Shakespeare to match the demands of modern taste because of his investment in the film
industry” (Burt 96). By participating in non-Shakespearean films, he has been exposed to
filming and acting tactics that cater to a modern audience; he knows what sells. This
director was, at one time, the master of popularizing Shakespearean film and presenting it
before a pop-culture audience in an entertainment-run society. With an eye for
marketing, he is known for infusing Shakespeare with popular culture (Boose 14). Now,
he finds himself competing with others “to appeal to the masses using the same means”
18

19. Grassell
(Burt 83). Despite the fact that most revenue from Shakespearean films is acquired
through video rental sales, Branaugh has not ceased his work (Desment, Sawyer 201).
Branaugh’s Shakespearean filmic career debuted with a version of Henry V
(1989). In this version, Branaugh incorporated narrative “re-jiggings,” cameo-like
biographical interventions, a fast-paced approach, a sentimental cast, and Anglicized
accents. He also worked to “play down” the social and political altercations present
throughout the play (Burt 83). His next Shakespearean feature film, Much Ado About
Nothing, was released in 1993. In this film, Branaugh is guilty of using his own art and
pushing it to modernity. This should not be surprising to any Branaugh followers
because his films have progressively developed “in scope and crept steadily into the
present” (Burt 86). He has become more accepted by the American people as a great
entertainer (rather than a true representative of Shakespeare) by showing how much “fun”
Shakespeare can be; Much Ado About Nothing earned $23 million dollars at the US Box
Office on an $8 million dollar budget (Corliss, Gibson 86). Branaugh struck yet again in
1995 with his version of Othello.
As mentioned earlier, Branaugh released Hamlet in 1996. His interpretation of
this classic is perhaps more his own work than any of his previous films. First, he had
been sliding toward Americanism prior to this work (he cast Lawrence Fishburne in
Othello), but it reached full-scaled in Hamlet. He cast Billy Crystal (Grave Digger),
Robin Williams (Osric), Charlton Heston (Player King), and Jack Lemmon (Marcellus)
(Boose 14). In Hamlet, he “exploit[s] images familiar to newer audiences and his
willingness to locate Shakespeare in [modern] times” (Burt 90). Branaugh purposefully
used the previously mentioned tactics and a story such as Hamlet as a mere vehicle to
19

20. Grassell
appeal to a mass audience. And he was able to accomplish such a task because of his
positive reputation accumulated among the people in his other transformations of
Shakespeare. His previous cinematic successes granted him recognition, which helped
catapult this piece to acclamation. Of course, his offer to selected theaters that Hamlet
would only be shown on their screens certainly did not cause his film any harm (Desmet,
Sawyer 201). Indeed, Branaugh is not concerned with preserving Shakespeare in the
original form or even about the freedoms of interpretation and abuses to which William’s
texts have been subject. Kenneth is guilty of this, too. His reported comment fully
supports this accusation – “We have broken away from the various earlier periods of
Shakespeare movie-making that were linked more closely to theatre…. Now these stories
are free for exploration in a way they were [not] before. The canvass is blank again”
(Burt 97).
If the aforesaid mentioned examples were not enough to label Branaugh as an
initiator of artistic freedom, then his version of Love’s Labour’s Lost will. This is indeed
his boldest attempt to make Shakespeare speak to the present generation; it is filled with
appropriation that touches upon modernity. He completely disregarded Shakespeare in
filming this adaptation. Branaugh dispensed lines and scenes, exploited cinematic ploys,
and used energetic feminist scores to show the power of females as the various courtships
throughout the play fail to materialize in marital outcomes (Burt 97). This film is
directed at a teen audience, which is a major target audience of today’s films. Teens are
the ones who will go to the theaters to see movies, especially if the films contain youth
appeal. In addition, Branaugh incorporates modern music into the film, which is quickly
becoming a popular medium through which to advance the play’s plot (Burt 101).
20

21. Grassell
Yes, Kenneth Branaugh has loomed like a parasitic worm over Shakespeare’s
plays and texts. He has abused them and used them for his own good. In support of this,
Branaugh included on the reverse side of the Hamlet movie box a line that reads as
follows – “Shakespeare’s greatest creation in its entirety” (Desmet, Sawyer 22). This
claim by Branaugh is obviously false because his version is contrary to the Quarto and
Folio texts. Branaugh’s creation is not Shakespeare’s creation. Branaugh simply needed
Shakespeare’s name on the box because the name sells and grants power to the film.
“Those who represent a production to the public ought to recognize that a theater event
advertised as a performance of Shakespeare’s may reasonably be expected to demonstrate
an authentic relationship to the text commonly known by that name” (Friedman 9). His
purpose was to turn filmic Shakespeare into an industry; this he did successfully and
profitably. “The ‘Branaugh phenomenon’ suggests ultimately that Shakespeare can, in
the space of one filmic incarnation, shed the vestige of his visual history and embrace a
postmodern Bard” (Burt 102). This has negatively affected Shakespearean interpretation;
it has merely provided Branaugh with a medium through which to give a version of his
narrative. Branaugh has indicated a desire to transform Macbeth into the postmodern, but
fortunately he has yet to do so (Burt 101).
Just when one thought Kenneth Branaugh would be the worst threat to
Shakespeare, Baz Luhrmann entered the Shakespearean filmic industry during what
appeared to be a “mild movie renaissance for the Bard” (Lyons 1). Fortunately, he was
only responsible for one reinterpretation, William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet (1996),
which, like his counterpart Branaugh, ascribed William’s name to a work that is not
Shakespeare’s; it is Luhrmann’s own work based on a known story. Baz Luhrmann’s
21

22. Grassell
version of this romantic tragedy is certainly not Shakespeare’s work. It does not deliver
an authentic reenactment of the original text; he cut more than one-third of Shakespeare’s
original text from his film (Lehmann 201). Due to this, the film should be properly titled,
Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet (Friedman 10). This interpretation is merely a modified
version geared for an age of media-savvy youngsters; in fact, the film uses media within
the plot to advance it (Burt 9). His Romeo + Juliet is the most media-saturated of all
Shakespeare films. Luhrmann “depicts a world saturated by image where mass media
and corporate power have won” (Burt 61). For example, a surreal Verona is created
where televisions are found on the beach and in pool halls. A kaleidoscope succession of
video, newspapers, and news magazine coverage replicates the details of the Capulet-
Montague feud (Burt 61).
Some have praised this interpretation for its blend of pop-culture, mass media,
and sophistication, but it uses Shakespearean text apart from the plays overall
authenticity – swimming pools, televisions, floodlights, and mansions are portrayed; 9
mm pistols are used rather than swords; Los Angeles is featured rather than Verona; the
actors speak in their original accents rather than Shakespearean-English all the while
maintaining proper iambic pentameter form (Burt 61, Boone 14). Furthermore, the
iambic pentameter is softly spoken and difficult to understand; most of the words are
drowned out by editing cuts or static imagery. Even the soliloquies are rendered as
voice-overs. Putting the emphasis back on the actors, it is noteworthy that most of the
actors are Latino or African-American except for the lead characters played by Claire
Danes and Leonardo DiCaprio. The feuding families resemble drug kingpins (Lyons 57-
58). Luhrmann had done nothing positive to Shakespeare; in fact, he defined
22

23. Grassell
“Shakespeare down to the taste of today’s youth culture, a culture so corrosive that it
dissolves anything it comes into contact with” (Lyons 58). At least Olivier’s version
filmed the “Prologue” at the Globe Theater, but Luhrmann used modern-day anchor
coverage (Burt 63).
How did such a media-saturated, Shakespearean-abused film fare at the Box
Office? It came in first place the first week of its release. How? Luhrmann, famous for
his music videos and popular on MTV, capitalized on the same technique he used in his
film – media. He produced a tremendous amount of advertising, cast popular teenagers
(who were already stars) such as Danes and DiCaprio, and created a soundtrack featuring
hit teen bands – Everclear, Radiohead, and Garbage (Boose 18). Luhrmann also used one
other clever technique – he researched what teenagers would be familiar with and
realized that most of them were required to read Romeo and Juliet in high school
(Desmet, Sawyer 201). Finally, this director, aimed largely at postmodernism, negatively
used religion as a metaphor throughout the film. He wanted to portray its ongoing
irrelevance to teens of the modern day (Esche 24-25). In an era when religion has taken a
“backseat” to other codes of conduct, teens want to hear Luhrmann’s message.
While Luhrmann is the last noteworthy director to mistake Shakespeare’s original
intent, enough “trendy” versions have been produced that deserve notice without regards
to the director. Romeo and Juliet has undoubtedly been the subject of much change
throughout the ages. This should not come as a shock to anyone since it is Shakespeare’s
most commonly known work. It has also been the most commonly adapted text. While
this timeless piece has always existed, been performed numerous times, and been subject
to a number of films, it did not get momentum, at least in America, until it was adapted in
23

24. Grassell
1957 from a book by Arthur Laurent into a 1961 musical, West Side Story (Burt 251).
This adaptation of William’s classic masterpiece depicted situations in Shakespeare’s
play with circumstances faced by contemporary United States’ youth (Burt 251). Aimed
at the youth, the adult audience falls into the background in this version, which shows the
beginning of a generation gap, which is still experienced today. Here, Romeo and Juliet
are once again subject to a mass-marketing ploy for the sake of a well-earned dollar. The
ploy worked as the impact of the musical gained momentum after claiming ten Academy
Awards.
Romeo and Juliet was not always commonplace in high schools across the
country; adults viewed it as defying parental wishes and societal norms while containing
a certain embarrassment in its teaching. Then, (after the debut of West Side Story) in
1973, the play became part of the Schools Project at Folger School Library because
Shakespeare was seen as being able to speak to disaffected youth at the end of the
Vietnam era. During this period of post-war adolescents, the teenager was becoming a
widely accepted norm, and the perception of adolescence was changing. As a result,
West Side Story aimed at this growing market by portraying flaming youths, juvenile
delinquents, and gang situations. As a result, teachers needed to adapt their curriculum to
accept new categories (Burt 252, 247).
Romeo and Juliet became identifiable with the youth beginning with the second-
half of the 1900s (Burt 245). Before then, this classic story was considered rather “grown
up” for any teen to understand despite the youthfulness of the characters. Romeo was
viewed as a romantic admirer and erotic aggressor, and popular criticism showed Juliet as
being Romeo’s match in assertiveness (Burt 246). Since then, younger audiences have
24

25. Grassell
come to “understand” the conflicts of the cast lovers. Through the differences of each
person’s independent understanding, the perception of Romeo and Juliet changed
resulting in a new marketable industry in pop-music and theatre (Burt 245). References
to Romeo and Juliet have changed as the play has become more strongly identifiable
among youth and shifting societal attitudes (Burt 243). Also, the essences of Romeo and
Juliet’s character have changed with the times. They have been transformed to fit into a
mass-marketed pop-music industry. They are geared toward the youth as the adolescents
are more independent in choosing their representatives (Burt 245). Economic factors
have certainly contributed to the success of Romeo and Juliet, but have also abused
Shakespeare. These factors have now portrayed Romeo as a subject to passionate
commitment while Juliet now resembles independence. Their characters have been
revived for an adolescent market that can identify with the changing characters (Burt
244). In summary, today’s teens are not necessarily more educated about William, they
are merely a market audience that continues to line up to see “hip-hop renditions” of this
age old playwright, which one director after another is willing to rush to the movie
theaters (Brode 11).
Another popular story that has evolved with the trends of society and
entertainment is Hamlet. In fact, it has become so popular that Hamlet as a character has
become a “type.” Oliver Stone used the plot in his 1991 film, JFK. He actually cast the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy through the lens of Hamlet’s character
(Boose 9). In 1992, Arnold Schwarzenegger played a hero in John McTiernan’s Last
Action Hero. Arnold transformed Hamlet “from a melancholy man into an image that
could be valued by male consumers to whom the newly 'technologized' violence of the
25

26. Grassell
1990s was being played…. [He] was the insurance that consumers would stay interested”
(He was the highest paid actor in the early ‘90s) (Boose 9). Danny DeVito also used
Hamlet as a transforming force for misfit soldiers in Penny Marshall’s Renaissance Man
(1994). It is a story “of Bill Rago’s journey from downwardly mobile adman to teacher
of Hamlet for disadvantaged army recruits” (Lehmann 167). In addition to Kenneth
Branaugh’s versions of Hamlet, he also filmed another movie about a production of
Hamlet entitled A Midwinter’s Tale (1995).
No other Hamlet has defied Shakespeare as much as Michael Almereyda’s
version (2000). This film takes the classic story of Hamlet, which has been reproduced,
reinterpreted, and reworked by directors of all sorts, and places it in a modern setting.
For example, Shakespeare’s setting, seemingly not effective enough for today’s movie-
goer, was transferred to Manhattan, New York. Surrounding the plot is the business
world with tall skyscrapers, executive offices, cellular telephones, suits and ties, and
advertisements. Like Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet, this film allows the actors to maintain
their original accents all the while speaking in soft iambic pentameter hardly recognizable
due to the constant flow of traffic and background movement and noise. Also in
comparison, popular actors were cast to make the movie appeal to those out-of-touch
with Shakespeare’s story (i.e., Ethan Hawke, Bill Murray, and Julia Stiles). He turns
Hamlet into an “amateur videographer and his Ophelia a photographer, both artists
immersed in a visual-media culture yet struggling to find ways of resisting the corporate
system the older generation exemplifies” (Lehmann 172). In general, Almereyda’s
Hamlet makes “liberal use of ‘Generation X’ iconography” (Burt 101). Another
murderer in the eyes of Shakespearean tradition has marketed a movie toward a media-
26

27. Grassell
saturated, modern society that feeds on advertising and entertainment. Once again, the
American media has proved its readiness to embrace the ever-changing Bard. The media,
with support from American capitalism, New York-styles, and Hollywood’s influence,
has negatively popularized original Shakespeare as seen by this example (Boose 10).
Hamlet has been the subject of much reinterpretation on stage, as well. Robert
Wilson’s Hamlet: A Monologue was written as a fifteen-scene monologue in five acts,
which makes use of different characters. It is considered to be a “response to a culturally
activated shift in textual authority in Shakespeare’s plays” (Burt 270). Wilson actually
attempts to demonstrate textual authority over Shakespeare’s Hamlet. For example, he
includes subjective sides of the characters from the play in a way that reflects influences
on his own life (Burt 271).
Al Pacino attempted something quite clever on film, yet at the expense of
Shakespeare. His Looking for Richard (1996) attempted to portray the split that the
character, Richard Duke of Gloucester, perceives within himself by showing the debate
between body and soul. Pacino’s documentary unifies different interviews with actors,
scholars, and various others. He even interviewed random New Yorkers taken to the
streets; this attempt shows the relevance of Shakespeare to a postmodern culture
(Rothwell 226-227). While Pacino played the character of Richard III, other famous
actors such as Winona Ryder, Alec Baldwin, and Kevin Spacey added appeal to the film.
As Richard III, Pacino actually alternated reading lines with himself. First, he is a
modern-day actor in rehearsal on the floor of the Cloisters. The film suddenly cuts to
another version of Pacino as Richard III “sweating in the dawn before death of life and
soul” (Esche 31). By doing this, he turned a powerful soliloquy into a dramatic film. It
27

28. Grassell
is “a low-budget, small-market street authenticity tied specifically to the stage,
paradoxically using film to praise the rehearsal process and the camaraderie of theatrical
ensemble in an age in which live performance…has become a dead art form” (Lehmann
166).
In the past decade, a number of films have been released that seemingly “borrow”
from Shakespeare’s texts. In fact, it has become a trend, or the “’Bardification of
culture,’ where markets grab any pre-tested public domain property with instant name
recognition” (Esche 16). “Appropriation can take many forms as each generation seeks
to possess and usurp the literary holdings of the previous generation” (Marsden 9). These
next film examples are proof enough that a pop-culture era complete with its
entertainment industry has culturally conditioned the interpretations of Shakespeare
(Marsden 5). His plays have inspired fictional appropriations and “off-shoots” that
exploit the Bard’s words and characters and cause new questions to arise about the plays’
texts (Rozett 143). These films have allowed Shakespeare to create new territory as vast
markets are honed, but his reputation will never be the same as it was during the reign of
Queen Elizabeth (Desmet, Sawyer 197). While the aftermath of mass media has changed
the modes of production in the film industry, Shakespeare is still produced, which means
that he has become subjected to modern ways of telling his stories. This so-called
“teenager trend” actually began when Amy Heckerling turned Jane Austen’s novel,
Emma, into a modern film called Clueless, starring Alicia Silverstone (1995). A hit
among the youth, directors saw an opportunity to turn boring texts into modern
screenplays, which equals dollars. Some claim that Hollywood has helped turn
Shakespeare into the most beloved author of all-time by returning him to the masses “in
28

29. Grassell
style.” Today’s generation does not know Shakespeare. If they claim to know him via
modern film versions, they merely know the director and not the playwright. Michael
Hoffman directed a clever version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1999) starring
celebrities such as Kevin Kline and Michelle Pfeiffer. 10 Things I Hate About You
(1999), starring teen idols Julia Stiles and Heath Ledger, is a modern “spoof” on
Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew. Never Been Kissed (1999) directed by Kaja Gosnell,
Let the Devil Wear Black (1999) directed by Stacy Title, and Midsummer (1999) directed
by James Kerwin are other recent adaptations (Lehmann 162). Director Tim Blake
Nelson together with first-time screenwriter Brad Kaaya collaborated on a modern
version of Othello simply called O (2000). In this adaptation, Othello is a modern young
black man who is accepted into an all-white preparatory school for his basketball skills.
Other releases in 2001 were Get Over It directed by Tommy O’Haver, Rave Macbeth
directed by Klaus Knoesel, The Glass House directed by Daniel Sackheim, and Scotland
P.A. directed by Billy Morrissette. 2002 saw the release of King Rikki directed by James
Gavin Bedford (Lehmann 163).
This trend would never have been made possible had it not been for a popular
movie that was not adapted from Shakespeare’s texts at all. It is a poor attempt to
emulate his life and times while playing on several “funny” scenarios through allusions to
Shakespeare’s more popular plays and lines. Shakespeare in Love (1997) starred
Gwyneth Paltrow, a rising star. This film actually set in motion the emerging trend. It
received even more steam when it received seven of thirteen Academy Awards. That
same year at the Academy Awards, the Motion Picture Academy also presented a ten-
minute salute to movies based on the Bard’s work (Brode 241). Since its popularity, this
29

30. Grassell
film has actually become a staple in schools across the US (Desmet, Sawyer 12). The
characters of Viola and Shakespeare actually parody the balcony scene from Romeo and
Juliet, which teachers have opted to use rather than other filmic versions of Romeo and
Juliet. In this case, it is once again evident that the name sells, and the name is William
Shakespeare. To use a cliché – to add insult to injury – Scary Movie (2000), a crass
movie aimed at immoral teens of a corrupt society, referenced Shakespeare in Love
during one of its sequences (Burt 23).
Yes, even Walt Disney’s has affected William Shakespeare. Through its
“innocent” films geared toward children, one would guess that nothing Shakespearean
could exist within an animated film (although animation of Shakespeare’s characters was
noticeable as far back as the 1920s in Anson Dyer’s black and white cartoon of Othello)
or a family classic, but it does (Rothwell 227). Take, for example, the aforesaid
mentioned Shakespeare in Love; it is a Disney Miramax production. Moreover, The
Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and The Lion King, despite using “low art,” make isolated
allusions to Shakespeare. In fact, they borrow from the playwright. It is an attempt to
use Shakespeare’s clever plot and character structures and gear them toward theaters,
where parents will take their children to see the newest popular animated film. In the
end, Walt Disney gains capital while Shakespeare’s stories lose authenticity.
The Little Mermaid (1989) suggests Shakespeare generally, but the characters
point to The Tempest (Desmet, Sawyer 185). Ariel represents Shakespeare’s Miranda.
She has never before seen a human man, she is innocent and desires freedom, and she has
little knowledge of the human race. In Disney’s version, however, Caliban is absent; he
is the central antagonist in Shakespeare’s play. In addition, Ursula, the antagonistic sea
30

31. Grassell
witch, fights a battle against King Triton, Ariel’s father. “Ursula is created by inflating
the role of Caliban’s absent mother, Sycorax, and by conflating Sycorax with her son”
(Desmet, Sawyer 186). In her war with Triton, Ursula fights for control of the undersea
domain just as Sycorax fought with Prospero for the island. The focus of both stories is
on female desires for independence, possessions, and sexuality. Similarly, The Little
Mermaid and The Tempest use comic heroines that accommodate themselves to a society
in which the husband’s role replicates that of the father. When Ariel joins Prince Eric’s
world on land through an agreement with Ursula that involved the surrendering of her
beautiful singing voice, she had to adapt to a new way of life. But in doing so, she joined
a “new patriarchal order in [the] human realm [apart from her father’s underwater realm,
which] mean[t] subsiding all that Ursula represents and prevents her from emasculating
the King” (Desmet, Sawyer 187).
A smaller off-shoot of Shakespeare is present in Disney’s 1992 release of
Aladdin. Here, a bird plays friends with Aladdin. The bird is given the name Iago as in
Othello. His isolated lines work as a sort of thought process, or conscience for Aladdin
just as Iago led Othello through the murky realms of jealousy through his lines.
The Lion King (1994), on the other hand, incorporates both Hamlet and Henry IV
(Desment, Sawyer 187). A high-concept reading of Hamlet and The Lion King is as
follows – “a prince is prevented from taking his place in the masculine world of action
and politics because of improper belongings” (Desmet, Sawyer 191). Simba, the young
lion cub, had been educated by his father, leaving him feeling ready to take over for his
father, yet small when next to the greatness of his father (Desmet, Sawyer 190). Simba
becomes weighed with the guilt that he killed his father when Scar, his uncle, is actually
31

32. Grassell
guilty of conspiring to kill Simba’s father and making it seem as though his nephew was
at fault; thus, he runs from his past and denies his royal duties, which is similar to
Hamlet. Simba, like Hamlet, avoids all effective actions; Simba lives with Timon. He
“seems immobilized by psychological conflicts originating in guilt over his [father’s]
death” (Desmet, Sawyer 190). Finally, Scar takes over the royal duties, as a result. In
comparison to Henry IV, Timon becomes a father-like substitute during Simba’s flee just
as Falstaff was to Prince Hal. It remains so until a matured Simba returns later to
dethrone his uncle, another reference to Hamlet.
Turning from the typical American dominated world of entertainment and film,
other cultures and smaller corporations have appropriated Shakespeare on film and in the
theatre, but they have been given less recognition. Shakespeare is the most widely
known author of all time. Granted, popular culture has given him some of this
recognition through ill-use of his material, but he is globally known nonetheless. The
most prominent “foreign” Shakespeare films were released in the former-USSR because
the Russian film industry flourished under the VGIK (Rothwell 178). In 1979, more than
seven hundred feature-length movies in the Indian film industry were appropriations of
Shakespeare (Rothwell 168). In Ghana, Hamlet was turned into Hamile: The Tongo
Hamlet (1994). Romeo and Juliet has been adapted in cultures such Egyptian
(Shuhaddaa El Gharam, 1942), Indian (Henna, 1992), and Portuguese (Romero and
Julieta, 1980) (Rothwell 170). Aki Kaurismaki, a Finnish director, released Hamlet Goes
Business in 1987. This film adapted Shakespeare’s Hamlet to show Ophelia’s suicide as
resulting in drowning in a bathtub after simultaneously gazing at Hamlet’s photograph
and listening to a teen pop lyric that pertained to a boyfriend’s wishes only to make up
32

33. Grassell
with his girlfriend so his dreams would come true – a combination of multi-cultural
Shakespeare and pop-culture (Boose 18).
But it is often due to the treatment of a subordinate group in Shakespeare’s plays
that “mobilizes authors to revisions” (Novy 8). “Transformations of Shakespeare have
flourished at the end of the twentieth century precisely because many writers of both
sexes and many different racial and ethnic backgrounds are conscious of how different
the stories they want to tell are from his” (Novy 9). For example, an all-Africa-American
cast appeared in a small version of Othello (1980). Mass media has had to embrace
culture and racial differences, which has allowed for African-Americans to be heard in
Shakespearean film (Burt 17). A.R. Gurney’s play Overtime (1996) is really a sequel to
The Merchant of Venice. Gurney, despite being a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant
heterosexual male who typically writes about American upper-class, was even influenced
by oppositional perspectives – Jews, homosexuals, African-Americans, and feminists
(Novy 8).
Because of these subordinate groups, many different reactions, including
feminism, have emerged. The three other major emerging trends are psychoanalytic, new
historicist, and cultural materialist. These reactionary groups have all attempted to
approach Shakespeare in a harmonious fashion, but they can never agree. As a result,
Shakespeare has been interpreted and modified in many ways by these criticisms in a way
that loses authentic Shakespeare. There are many problems with all three.
Psychoanalysis develops too much of a reliance on a self-enclosed world view. It also
leaves out historical and social analysis that may make the story important (Erickson 11).
Finally, it is too fixed on gender roles and sexuality. New historicist, however, avoids
33

34. Grassell
gender issues completely. It is a one-sided “preoccupation with containment” (Erickson
12). Moreover, it has developed a silence about contemporary political implications
(Erickson 12). Finally, cultural materialism places more stress on class divisions and
national identity. It uses its political stance in emphasizing a difference between social
life in England and America (Erickson 12).
Perhaps the most prominent perspective that influences Shakespearean
appropriation today is feminism, a direct result of postmodernism. It is actually
strengthened by the new historicist and cultural materialist approaches (Erickson 10).
The late twentieth century brought about an explosion of literature in which women
actually rewrite Shakespeare, which is causing the world to remember Shakespeare in a
different tone. Women have even been “popping up” on stage and in film. Many of
them seek to let Shakespeare’s original characters “escape [from] plots that doom them to
an oppressive marriage or death. [Others] seek to demythologize myths about male
heroism and female martyrdom” (Novy 1). Overall, feminism has given women a push
to address such topics in literature, even Shakespeare. They want women to be known as
subjects of his plays rather than mere objects. This thinking results from a drastically
different society of today as compared to the society of Shakespeare’s day. Women are
treated differently in legal, social, political, and cultural forms. This is agreeable. But
feminists believe that Shakespeare should be rewritten to address women’s changing
roles. They want to see a reality in Shakespeare’s women that is not merely in relation to
the men in their lives. These feminists believe that William’s women are pleasing
because they are seen as men see them (Novy 3). Many admit that they do not want to
break from Shakespeare, but merely transform him into their liking. How is this any
34

35. Grassell
different from the previous film adaptations or theatre versions of Shakespeare that have
been mentioned? Either way, it is an appropriation because the context is completely
different than originally intended (Novy 3).
Shakespeare has been completely dismissed from his own works by feminists.
Since he was a white male author, he was free to write with more authority than any other
race or gender during his lifetime. Since society has changed, especially toward its views
on women and culture, many believe that he framed his writings around assumptions,
perceptions, and values. This has been a direct cause of the rise of feminist writers in the
world. In addition, there has been an emergence of African-American women authors
who call attention to equivalency between being white and male; thus, white male critics
have begun to lose credibility (Erickson 168). Since feminists have started to detract all
masculinity from Shakespeare’s texts, masculinity cannot be announced anymore, but it
must be worked through by bringing together common culture and identity politics and
realize the tensions between them. Male feminist perspectives have been begun to rise
(Erickson 169).
Continuing with the feminist theme, William’s history plays are considered least
by women appropriators because there are so few main roles for women in them,
although women are beginning to accept leading roles portraying men (Novy 8). Among
these plays are Henry IV (Parts 1 & 2), and Henry V (Novy 4). Comedies, however, are
an area of power for women. For example, feminists view As You Like It as being to
masculine; so, they reworked it by targeting the final marriages of the play. Taming of
the Shrew is another example. They say it “shows a spirited woman forced into an
accommodation with husband and society” (Novy 4). Several rewritings of this comedy
35

36. Grassell
include portraying the woman as the beholder of power or turning it into a tragedy by
having Kate commit suicide (Novy 4). Finally, tragedies, incorporating the most cultural
force, are most often rewritten by women authors (as well as “feminist men”). Othello,
for example, is a favorite target. The Tempest is also a goal for many because of its
dominant father-daughter motif (Novy 5). The most recent popularized reaction to
Shakespeare is Jane Smiley’s novel, A Thousand Acres. If reinterpretations of
Shakespeare’s plays were not bad enough, the issue has been taken to yet another level.
A Thousand Acres was further transformed into a film version by director Jocelyn
Moorhouse in 1997, which starred Michelle Pfeiffer and Jessica Lange. To think – a film
version of a literature version of Shakespeare’s original play!
Jane Smiley was disgusted by the dominant masculinity in Shakespeare’s King
Lear. As a result, she transformed the play into a female-oriented story about life in
1970s Midwestern America. To express it plainly, the father is portrayed as a mean-
spirited, secretly incestuous child beater (Novy 1). In her response, Smiley suggests that
King Lear generates femaleness as the cause to a fallen world (Novy 145). To tell her
story she uses the narrative as the method and the novel as the instrument (Novy 145).
Smiley was upset that Lear dominated Shakespeare’s play while the daughters – Regan,
Goneril, and Cordelia – all received few lines in comparison (187, 181, and 115
respectively). She used her authorial power in controlling the point-of-view of the story;
the female character Ginny is used as the instrument of power. Even the narrator of the
story is a woman – Virginia Cook tells the story of her family. Briefly, while Virginia is
unstable in the novel, she is only so because she has been misguided by the male
pressures and institutional powers in her life (Novy 147). The readers are forced to
36

37. Grassell
mistrust the male figures in Smiley’s version because of their abuses heaped upon
Virginia.
In keeping with modern literature, a plethora of books is released each year based
upon Shakespeare’s life and works. In addition to these books, many criticisms and
journals dedicated to studying Shakespeare seem to be released just as rapidly.
Shakespeare, while gaining his literary fame by writing, has been abused by the very
agent that gave him popularity – literature, specifically the modern novel. The novel has
taken Shakespeare’s plots and reworked them to fit a certain political, social, or economic
agenda. In response to opposing perspectives, Salman Rushdie’s novel, The Satanic
Verses (1988), reworked Othello. Caryl Phillip’s novel, The Nature of Blood (1997),
rethinks Othello and The Merchant of Venice as a combined effort for the very same
reason (Novy 8).
Turning toward the music industry, Shakespeare has not been devoid of
exploitation here, either. It began in the 1960s with the previously mentioned “teen
revolution.” Following the Vietnam War, teens were roused in joining a cultural
revolution as university students rebelled against normal conventions and demanded
personal liberation (Rothwell 143). Lyricists saw vast market appeal in the teen audience
in connection with rising popularity in the music industry. Once again, both Romeo and
Juliet were favorite targets for song lyrics, which exploited Shakespeare’s characters with
alternate interpretations. Peggy Lee’s hit “Fever” (1958) and The Diamonds’ “Soft
Summer Breeze” (1956) portrayed Romeo and Juliet as being too childish (Burt 248).
Jackie Wilson released a song in 1959 called “That’s Why I Love You So,” which placed
an emphasis on Juliet’s devotion and response (Burt 248). During the 1960s, Romeo was
37

38. Grassell
portrayed as being sincere while Juliet was viewed as proactive. During the 1980s, Juliet
took on an assertive tone. Even Bruce Springsteen, Grammy Award winner, stressed
Juliet in three of his songs – “Incident on 57th
Street,” “Fire,” and “Point Blank.” In these
songs, he chose to pose a possible outcome to Juliet’s love relationship with Romeo had
she not participated in the tragic series of events (Burt 253). Popular writer Bob Dylan
wrote “Highway 61 Revisited” (1965). This song pondered the question – what if
someone else had stumbled into Romeo’s story (Burt 262). More recently, he wrote
“Love and Theft” (2001), a song in which he is obviously frustrated by Romeo. Tom
Waits released “Romeo is Bleeding” (1978), a song about romanticized violence; the
protagonist feels futile and dies as a result of his choices (Burt 255). Lou Reed’s “Romeo
Had Juliette” (1989) criticized the romanticism in the popular version of West Side Story.
In fact, he went as far as to reconstruct an interracial love-affair between Romeo
Rodgriguez and Juliette Bell through his lyrics. It resulted in a deadly turf battle between
crack-cocaine dealers (Burt 255). To bring the situation into postmodernity, Aerosmith’s
“Flesh” (1989), Madonna’s “Cherish” (1989), and Alanis Morissette’s “Superman”
(1991) all reference Romeo and Juliet (Burt 258). In the end, both forms began to
embody forms “of cultural negotiation that recognize complicity in the political and
economic institutions that resist them” (Burt 248). These songs and many more reveal
how a culture can affect or change a certain perception of something as simple as a
Shakespearean character. Lyricists claim that these songs allow William’s characters to
speak (Burt 262). These characters, however, are not free to speak; they are speaking as
a direct result from societal pressures aimed at a changing audience filled with varying
values. Again, Shakespeare is used to attract customers, which, in this case is the youth.
38

39. Grassell
Romeo and Juliet have become so widely known with a rather large fan-base. William,
as usual, is abused for the sake of the pop-culture dollar.
While this paper has focused on the growing popularity of Shakespearean
appropriation due to the effects of entertainment and media on society, it must be noted
that Shakespeare himself has been abused by the growth of advertising and the power of
the dollar. If abuse of his works was not enough, the poor man has been subject to
character abuse as well. Why? Shakespeare’s name is responsible for a growing trend in
the media; his name has been known to sell products and attract audiences. The
capitalization upon Shakespeare’s name in the mass media world began, in large part, in
the aftermath of the Cold War era. “Electronic and digital mass media, along with shifts
in the global political landscape [following this era] and the development of global
capitalism, have begun to transform the ways in which [society] attends to Shakespeare
and conceptualize him and his writings” (Burt 8). All in all, the growing trend of
“Shakespeareanism” is negative; the various ways in which he has been used to represent
companies, advertising campaigns, and entertainment mediums can only be counted as a
loss, especially for the literary world (Burt 8). This sort of statement cannot be made,
however, without proper support or examples to verify its legitimacy.
Shakespeare is everywhere. His name carries much weight. He “is held as an
icon of good taste, cultural refinement, and intellectual ability” yet, he “has crossed over
from high art representation to the realm of commodified icon available to all consumers”
(Desment, Sawyer 21; Esche 17). A feature article in the December 1996 version of
Newsweek heralded the title, “Shakespeare Rocks.” This article revealed Shakespeare’s
success after “going Hollywood.” In the article, success is further measured by the fact
39

40. Grassell
that William is on the Web, has a teen fan-base, and has a theme park. There is even a
Shakespeare karaoke CD-ROM, various Shakespeare computer games, and a disgusting
pornographic industry that misuses Shakespeare’s titles, characters, and famous lines to
attract some sort of “intelligent” or “cultural” appeal. William’s picture is even on his
own credit card in England. He was enshrined as “Briton of the millennium” during the
1990s for a number of reasons, which has nothing to do with his authentic literature but
rather with his modern appropriators making Shakespeare out to be something he never
intended to be. The reasons behind this “esteemed” award were among the following –
his works are studied by more than twenty million plus students as English departments
hold him as a staple of a core requirement for graduation, Shakespeare in Love received
more Academy Awards than other movie in 1998, and Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet
was the number one grossing film in America the weekend it opened in 1996 (Desmet,
Sawyer 197). He is so highly looked upon that even the Prince of Wales referenced
Hamlet’s soliloquy, “To be or not to be,” in his political speech to the public. Even this
shows the decline of Shakespeare, especially in the recent past. This use of Shakespeare
demonstrates the decline of language from Shakespeare’s day to the present. The Prince
of Wales has “the ability to call on Shakespeare even though no one in Shakespeare’s
time would speak Hamlet” (Desmet, Sawyer 21).
Still more, Star Trek, a popular television show in the past decade among science
fiction fans, has been shown to cite or even quote Shakespeare; this runs parallel to the
academic tradition (Burt 10). This example is yet a perfect example of something else –
how “Shakebites” use famous quotes from Shakespeare out of context and trivialize them
to fit the a certain situation. “Shakebites” are prevalent in various postmodern self-help
40

41. Grassell
or “feel-good” books such as Shakespeare on Leadership: Timeless Wisdom for Daily
Challenge, William Shakespeare Quotations, or Shakespeare on Love: The Love Poetry
of Shakespeare. In these books, Shakespeare’s quotes are used as purple-passages, while
out of context, to fit people’s personal needs. “The purple passage tradition, however,
carries over into film and other visual media and fragments of plays called ‘Shakebites.’”
(Burt 12). This has already been shown from incidents in the movies Scary Movie and
Shakespeare in Love, but several plays also use select lines and scenes from
Shakespeare’s original texts. Examples of this are The Royal Box (1930), Prince of
Players (1954), and Theatre of Blood (1973) (Rothwell 226). Additionally, Shakespeare
has been the subject of other types of reference books aimed at Shakespeare illiterates –
Shakespeare for Beginners (1997), Shakespeare for Idiots (1999), Shakespeare for
Dummies (1999) (Burt 14).
Shakespeare is even promising as a tourist industry. The tourist industry, much
like Shakespeare’s appropriated plays, is a direct result of postmodernism among a
changing social and cultural climate. As society, affected by postmodernism, has
changed the way in which Shakespeare is perceived, so too, tourism has been the result of
a changed society affected by different values. Tourism began to explode as the
technology of travel increased. People began to see the world as achievable. After 1960,
there was a reported increase in domestic and international tourism as people received
paid holidays amidst an expanding US economy and improvements in the airline industry
(Esche 7). In a world where Disneyland is becoming part of American culture’s heritage,
theme parks and historical sights are trying to capitalize on the same venue. Historical
theme parks “are successful because they provide an accessible and diverting
41

42. Grassell
thoroughfare to an imagined history or mythical world” (Esche 8). Once again, anything
can be merchandized if there is a market, which is the ongoing dogma at the Disney
Institute in Orlando, Florida. It is clear from previous examples that there is certainly a
market for Shakespeare. As a result, there is a gift shop at the place of Shakespeare’s
birthplace and the new Globe Theater was opened in 1997 (not be completed until the
1999 season).
While the builders of the Globe want it to be a Shakespearean experience in all its
authenticity, it can never be so. It is merely a tourist trap based on the makers and
designers claim that it is accurately comparable to the construction of the original Globe.
How can this be when renovations and expansion projects have already highlighted its
history? The main reason for this is because it is really just a timely renovation at the
heart of the tourism age. Dollars are its aim rather than pure Shakespeare. Targeted at
cultural tourists, the new Globe has profited greatly over the past few years. In
December 1996, it was honored as the top tourist attraction in Europe. Its 1999 season
allowed it to operate at a profit without public subsidy (Esche 11). Even the
performances that take place during the day at the new Globe show signs of Elizabethan
inaccuracy. Acting styles, gestures, and body postures reveal unrelenting signs of
modernist concepts of performance (Esche 13). Some plays such as The Two Gentlemen
of Verona are being performed in the new Globe when they were never even presented in
the original. In keeping with the performances within this theater, the modern day
spectators treat the groundling experience (watching the play while standing up in front
of the stage as the poor class tended to do during Shakespeare’s time) much like an
American football game or rock concert. For example, they hiss, cheer, and applaud at
42

43. Grassell
random moments, and even these moments are not the result of the majority audience;
sole members may feel the need to do so at any time throughout the production (Esche
14).
At London’s new Globe Theater, people are being drawn in for more reasons than
just the inauthentic productions. The Globe offers displays, tours, educational programs
with a postmodern veneer, and spectator plays aimed at Shakespeare’s authenticity, but
they all “miss the boat.” In addition to these attractions, there is a restaurant with a great
view of the Globe. It has a high art appeal, which some may find fascinating. It is
appears historic in nature; it looks like late Elizabethan structure. The only problem with
this is that it is modern architecture. Sam Wanamaker, director of the Globe, said that “it
was not a Disneyland, but it has become one” because it is very capable of operating
within a tourist postmodernity (Esche 15).
Why Shakespeare all of a sudden? The people of Shakespeare’s day had very
little use for live theatre. The following centuries brought about an acceptance of
literature and plays, and they began to be the focus of study. Studies bring about more
reaction and criticism. Bringing it to the modern day, 1927 saw more universities
studying the Bard. Students began complaining that William was outdated, or out of
comprehension, which saddened them because the plays were meant for commoners.
Soon, students were being forced to read Shakespeare in junior high and high schools
across the country. They grumbled at the thought of reading Elizabethan language, and
they never had the opportunity to see authentic Shakespeare performed live. Then,
adolescence began changing in America. Schools were forced to adjust their teaching of
Shakespeare to fit this rising change. At the same point, film and music industries were
43

44. Grassell
capitalizing on Shakespeare’s characters and throwing them into the changing mode of
society. It all seemed to fit together; Shakespeare had become a star. “There was a time
in history when one could make a classic version of Shakespeare and have it last for
many years. This is no more; the classic era has passed” (Brode 10).
Today, teachers have to help students recognize the barrier between
Shakespeare’s world and theirs because of the misinterpretation of Shakespeare
throughout the past few decades. Students have little understanding of what is really
Shakespearean. While the language is still a problem for many students, it will remain so
regardless of how he is taught. While annotated versions of Shakespeare make efforts to
rend him accessible by providing introductions, appendices, and notes for obsolete words,
these editions also require a reader to “constantly move back and forth from text to note”
and so forth (Rozett 166). Students are becoming too reliant on assistance in
understanding, reading, and comprehending the texts. Teachers, too, become frustrated
because they cannot address every issue that arises. The answer is not to run from the
texts or to use some abused appropriation, which seems easy in an age when Shakespeare
has been transferred to animated films, comic books, and MTV videos (Boose 17). In
fact, one teacher saw the benefit of immersing her students in historic fiction before
diving into William’s plays. In this case, she assigned the reading of Patricia Finney’s
Firedrake’s Eye (Rozett 167). This process familiarized the students with Shakespeare’s
words and phrases and a history of the time. Films lack this ability; they may allow for
visual stimulation, but Shakespeare has been entirely misinterpreted in the recent past
that no visual imagery is safe. Films may give students the wrong idea. For example, in
the Shakespearean film industry in America, directors aim to be as indirect as possible so
44

45. Grassell
as not to lose any part of its audience; they even cut original lines from films in case
some of them may lend the wrong impression to a young or uneducated viewer (Boose
14). Film cutting and editing can “generate unexpected responses among our student
audiences (Osborne 228). In addition, there is a main singular difference between the
ending of a Shakespeare play and that of a film adaptation – the ending is spoken by
characters on stage, but it is visualized by the camera in film. This “foregrounding of
sight over speech in the narration of the ending…draws attention to another seeing of the
play….” (Li Lan 128). This is the sole reason that teachers refrain from showing any
film in its entirety, unless it is done after studying Shakespeare’s original text as a whole
(Osborne 229). All these adaptations of Shakespeare produced during the second half of
the twentieth century all claim to be genuine, but as they multiply in number, they lose
Shakespeare (Taylor 308). “Film diverges from analysis because its representations
differ from the accepted modes of academic profession” (Osborne 237). It is comforting,
at least, to note that most classrooms are attempting to preserve Shakespeare in its
original form by not straying too far from the original works. In fact, books such as
Teaching Shakespeare Today and Teaching Shakespeare into the Twenty-First Century
have been released to assist teachers at all levels on how to get students “hooked on”
Shakespeare (Newlin 543).
As the world grows older and generations pass, the Bard will continue to
experience separation from the age of Shakespeare; his plays and texts will never be the
same. From the time William wrote, he began to be the product of appropriation and
reinterpretation. Today, directors, authors, and actors feel that they are free to modify his
texts with extreme liberty according to what they feel to be true to the age in which they
45

46. Grassell
live. This playwright's texts have changed along with society. In addition, society has
embraced worldly and cultural influences upon Shakespeare’s texts so as to represent a
growing minority among this new age Shakespeare. Shakespeare has become an industry
as well as the victim of several other industries. Capitalism and entertainment have
abused him because there is money to be made through him. Authentic Shakespeare is
gone, and there are very few who are attempting to keep him alive. As a result, future
generations are losing Shakespeare as well. Two or three generations from now may
even lose the little grasp today’s society has on Shakespeare.
46