ANALYSIS OF FILM
ADAPTATIONS OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS
When we first faced
the hard decision of choosing a subject for our paper, we started by thinking
about those things that have made Shakespeare a universal author. His themes,
his characters, his plots… all of them are easily understood by
contemporary readers or audience. Not many authors from four centuries ago can
be read and enjoyed almost as if they had written their texts yesterday, and
none of them has been adapted as many times as the author from
Stratford-upon-Avon.
Following that line of
thought we realised the enormous amount of film adaptations of
Shakespeare’s plays. As this course deals with the concept of
performance, we finally agreed that it would be interesting to study several of
those adaptations. Cinema is probably the most important cultural manifestation
of the 20th century and it is a direct offspring of theatre. Watching these
film-versions of Shakespeare’s works is in some way like assisting to a
performance filtered by current ideas and tendencies. Some of them are faithful
but some of them definitely are not, even though all of them serve to prove
that Shakespeare’s literature is alive today.
Therefore, the purpose
of this paper is to compare some of those adaptations from Shakespeare’s
comedies with the original texts. We will pay special attention to the
differences and similarities, trying to compile the changes that each director
has made to the plot, the structure, the language, the characters... and at the
same time, we will try to explain the reasons that are behind those changes.
The first of our
comparisons is an analysis of Kenneth Branagh’s adaptation of the play
“Much Ado About Nothing”, which was produced in 1993. The film made
use of well-known actors such as Kenneth Branagh, Emma Thompson, Denzel
Washington, Keanu Reeves or Michael Keaton. It deals with two young lovers,
Hero and Claudio who are to be married in one week; wedding which is intended
to break up by Don John who conspires against Hero accusing her of infidelity.
Meanwhile, Don Pedro tries to set a “lover’s trap” for
Benedick and Beatrice, both characters who stand out as sceptic, arrogant and
who proclaim will never become “fools for love”.
William
Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing is set in Messina, an island of
Sicily, whilst the Kennet Branagh’s film version is set in Villa
Vignamaggio, Chianti, a region of Tuscany (rather than a city). Both settings
convey Shakespeare’s intention of escapism in that they are placed in a
foreign country in order to create the sensation that the problems within the
text were also foreign to Elizabethan society. However, the film’s first
scene portrays a bucolic image in which Beatrice is reading a song, accompanied
by a guitar, amidst a field near Leonato’s house, while sitting in a tree
eating grapes. A messenger announces the approach of Don Pedro of Aragon, which
creates an excitement amongst the people in the villa who rush up to bathe and
dress themselves up for the occasion. The arrival of Don Pedro and his men is
performed with glorious music and a powerful imaginary which sets the mood of
victory and power; whilst in the text his arrival is merely announced and this
bucolic scene is absent.
Concerning structure,
Shakespeare’s play follows the classical unities of place (one single
location), time (brevity of events) and action (one main story with sub-plots).
As the comedy it is, it deals with the struggle of young lovers overcoming
problems and confusions which are gradually resolved with a happy ending. One of
the differences which makes Branagh’s version more light-hearted than
Shakespeare’s is that the director minimizes the tragic aspects of the
play. This is emphasized by the fact that he focuses less on Hero and
Claudio’s relationship and therefore less sadness and uncertainty exists
to contrast the happy ending.
At the time the film
was produced cinema was a business and having famous people enabled the
director attracting a massive audience. This leads Kenneth Branagh to choose
well-known actors such as: Emma Thompson as Beatrice, Denzel Washington as Don
Pedro of Aragon, Keanu Reeves as Don John, Michael Keaton as Dogberry and he
himself as Benedick. One is surprised when Branagh chooses Denzel Washington, a
coloured person, as Don Pedro of Aragon, which may reinforce the escapism in
the setting: having a black-skinned character makes the audience feel the
play’s location is remote.
Cinema opens up new
possibilities when compared to theatre, and as Shakespeare is a playwright who
does not specify concrete stage directions, (rather he avoids doing so), this
gives complete freedom for Branagh to perform and interpret Much Ado About
Nothing with subtle differences. The camera allows Branagh to show the audience
his understanding of the events, especially when it comes to a
character’s reaction to a given comment, and feeling free to communicate
a message not given within Shakespeare’s lines through actors’
gestures and movements. For example, the scene in which Beatrice listens that
Benedick loves her may be ambiguous in the initial text, but through focusing
on facial expressions and the tone of her speech, Branagh’s version
implies that she is delighted with the idea.
Casting is important
when adapting Shakespeare’s plays, but most importantly, the
director’s own will of portraying a character is indispensable to
one’s interpretation. Shakespeare’s portrait of some characters in
the text is different from Branagh’s representation of them, and to prove
this, we are going to analyse the most important differences found in the
characters of Claudio, Dogberry and Don John.
Firstly, Claudio in
the film is seen as an emotional and sensitive character. His voice shakes when
he is refusing Hero in their wedding and he is unable to speak when he
discovers Hero alive, being capable only of kissing her hand. In the text,
Claudio is portrayed as a heroic and brave man, proud of his victorious actions
in war and there’s a hint to superficiality in that economic reasons
prevail in their marriage, while in the film these are omitted.
Secondly, Dogberry is
portrayed as loony and mad in Branagh’s version, pretending to ride a
horse and using malapropisms, whilst in Shakespeare’s version he appears
to be slow-witted, ignorant and stupid.
The third important
character is Don John, who is represented as a villain in the film. Whilst
Shakespeare relied on portraying Don John through his words (i.e with language
as his only tool), making a verbal sensuality, Branagh is allowed to use visual
effects, including gloomy music and a dark atmosphere .Whilst almost the whole
film is placed outdoors, Branagh places Don John in the underworld, in the wine
cellar. His setting emphasize his bad intentions: whilst the other characters
are enjoying the masked ball outdoors, Don John is seen running through an
underworld corridor laughing fiendishly. Kenneth Branagh links Don John’s
bad intentions with darkness and obscurity in the villa and he is portrayed as
moving around torch-lighted and sinister places, which help him to create a
determinate image; a jealous and despicable villain inhabiting an underground
world of evil and malevolence.
Furthermore, one must
take into account that Much Ado About Nothing had to be shaped into a popular
film, and although Branagh’s adaptation seems loyal to the text, it is
true he omits on the one hand, phrases which are purely ornate language, mainly
to speed the action of the film and possibly because they could be
incomprehensible for today’s general public, and on the other hand,
phrases which could sound offensive to contemporary audience. Two examples of
offensive statements made by Benedick are “If I do not love her, I am a
Jew” or else “I'll hold my mind were she an Ethiope”.
Branagh’s
Messina is different from the play’s text, yet the general message of the
play remains unchangeable as Shakespeare had the quality of being everlasting
and contemporary for his time. His adaptation to cinema has had the need of
making the film more versatile and more entertaining for general public, as
well as more dynamic and profitable. In order to do so, Kenneth Branagh made
use of technologies and conventions which theatre lacked, making a product
which is completely open to all public. The film gives an ordinary person the
chance to get some insight into Shakespeare’s text, yet we must keep in
mind that certain subtleties were incorporated and many omitted and therefore,
we must be aware that our sensory system can be conditioned by a more
“image based world” rather than that Shakespeare truly cared of: a
world based on words.
Followingly, we are
going to analyse the play " Midsummer Night's Dream" by William
Shakespeare and its adaptation to cinema by Michael Hoffman in 1999 with the
following starring: Kevin Kline as Bottom (the weaver); Michelle Pfeiffer as
Titania (Queen of the Fairies); Rupert Everett as Oberon (King of the Fairies);
Stanley Tucci as Puck (or Robin Goodfellow); Calista Flockhart as Helena (in
love with Demetrius); Anna Friel as Hermia (daughter to Egeus and in love with
Lysander); Christian Bale as Demetrius (in love with Hermia); Dominic West as
Lysander (in love with Hermia); David Strathaireu as Theseus (Duke of Athens)
and Sophie Marceau as Hippolyta (Queen of the Amazons, betrothed to Theseus).
It is a comedy about two couples in love with the wrong partners and how during
a summer night all their love problems find a solution thanks to the King of
the Fairies.
The historical and
temporary context is not given in the film, because the play was written in
1595 whereas the film is based in the 19th century; we know this due to a new
invention that appears in the film version which was introduced in this
century: the bicycle. We can also find a different feature in the way they are
dressed, since the clothes in the film are more like we use nowadays. Another
thing is that in the play there are some mythological creatures, as Hyppolita
who is the Queen of the Amazons but in the film she is not.
The language used in
the movie is faithful to the verse written by Shakespeare although a lot of
puns disappear in the film and are replaced by images which increase the
moments of humour, with gestures that in the present time we know, such as
sticking one's tongue out.
On the other hand the
Shakespeare's text has not a prologue that introduces us into the story, while
the movie shows two sentences which say:
“The village of
Monte Athena in Italy at the turn of the 19th century.
Necklines are high.
Parents are rigid. Marriage is seldom a matter of love.
“The good news:
The bustle is in its decline, allowing for the meteoric rise
of that newfangled
creation, the bicycle”.
The play starts with
the scene taking place in Theseus' bedroom, whereas the film shows the entire
mansion, its gardens, its kitchen with all the servants preparing the wedding
of Theseus with Hippolyta, in a word, a scene showing us Theseus' richness. We
can differentiate without problem the changes in the acts, i.e we were reading
the play while we were watching the film, and we were able to easily see the
divisions between the five acts. Followingly, we are going to explain the
differences and similarities between the play and Hoffman's film, act by act:
ACT I:
Enough dialogue from
the text is rejected and in its place it appears a conversation between Hermia
and Theseus where she admits that she prefers to die instead of living without
Lysander. The introduction of the character of Helena is very different from
the play, because she
appears with a bicycle in Theseus’ garden, instead of the portrayal of
the dialogue between her and Hermia that we see at the text. In the film the
lovers kiss each other at every moment, but in the play Hermia seems to be too
pure to kiss a man. The comediants in the play seem to be poor people; one
expects to see a person with elementary clothes, but in the film one can see
people with suits, ties and other formal items, as if they belong to a higher
class.
The director has
introduced a new character: Bottom's wife, who appears when he returns home
after preparing Pyramus and Thisby's comedy. As far as we know Bottom is a
single man when we read the play because Shakespeare never talks about his
wife.
ACT II:
There is a play on
images, instead of the dialogue that Shakespeare uses to describe the scenes,
in the film we can see these scenes without hearing the words: the Fairies use
magic and invisible movement (a character is in a place and immediately it appears
in another), Titania's child is blue (Shakespeare never said the colour of his
skin) and then Oberon says with signs to Puck that he must leave the scene. In
the film there is a fountain from where it emerges Medusa. The play is a world
of fantasy since the beginning, but the film needs images to immerse us in this
kind of world.
In the play
Shakespeare says that the characters go on pilgrimage (they are walking around
the forest) but in the film the characters ride bicycles. In the film Puck
rides a tortoise and then he steals the bicycle from Lysander. In the text Puck
says he is the fastest in the world, it seems to be a satire in the film
because a tortoise is the lowest animal. Stealing the bicycle he demonstrates
that it does not matter how he moves, he can use a turtle or a bicycle or just
his feet than he will always be the fastest creature.
ACT III:
In the film the
characters smoke but not in the play. In the text Bottom treats the five
Fairies as men, but in the film these Fairies are women. In the play we do not
know about the genre of the Fairies. In the play Titania flirts with Bottom but
they never have sexual contact, whereas in the film we can see both of them
naked in Titania's bed. Nowadays we are used to see sexual images but at
Shakespeare's time it seems to be unusual.
In the film Hermia
fights against Helena while in the text they only have words.
In the Shakespeare's
text Hermia, Lysander, Demetrius and Helena fall asleep due to their tiredness
when Puck makes they follow him running, but in the film it seems that the
magical atmosphere makes the characters feel tired until they fall asleep.
ACT IV:
After supposing in the
play that Bottom and Titania have had sexual contact, he starts to ask for food
to the Fairies, he tries to order them as if he was their King, however in the
film the sex is explicit and he does not try to be the leader, there is an
omission of the original text. When Theseus and Hippolyta arrives in the forest
they find Helena, Hermia, Demetrius and Lysander lying together, but in the
film they are naked, something that Shakespeare never says.
When Bottom falls from
the bed in the film he finds Titania's ring and this makes him doubt about if
he has had a dream or it was reality. In the play when he wakes up he leaves
the forest without finding a ring. There is an important similarity between the
play and the film, it is the pun: " Bottom's dream because it hath no
bottom". It appears in both cases. This time the director is actually very
faithful to the text.
ACT V:
In the film when
Theseus and Lysander toast the wedding, Hermia's father leaves the scene very
angry, whereas in the play we do not know this action. In the text there is a
prologue to the interlude (Pyramus and Thysbi's comedy), but in the film this
prologue is a little introduction made by the Wall. In the play while the
actors are performing the interlude, the audience is gossiping about the way
they are carrying out the play. In the film the audience is impressed and it
says nothing and the performance is not interrupted.
Another similitude
between the play and the film is the way it ends with the conclusion made by
Puck (a monologue). In spite of the last words we hear in the film are the same
we read in the text, the last image we watch in the film is the comediants
being drunk and celebrating they have performed a truly notable performance.
Our next comparative
deals with the play Love’s Labour’s Lost, written around 1595, and
the film adaptation of the same name directed by Kenneth Branagh in 2000 and
starred by Alessandro Nivola, Alicia Silverstone, Nathan Lane, Emily Mortimer, Natasha
McElhone and, of course, Kenneth Branagh, among others.
The most surprising
part of this adaptation is that the director decided to transform
Shakespeare’s play into a musical comedy that develops just before the
start of the Second World War. The songs included in Love’s
Labour’s Lost are (or were) well-known melodies from the 1930s performed
by singers such as Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, Desmond Carter or Dorothy Field.
Historical and
temporal context in Shakespeare’s play is not really clear. The
historical data offered by the author does not correspond to reality so it is
of little (if any) help. In fact, the only king of Navarre under the name of
Ferdinand was Ferdinand the Catholic (1511). We can probably assume that the
story was settled during Shakespeare’s time. The adaptation, as we said
before, takes the action to the 1940s, just before the war. It sure is a long
leap but it is fully justified by the intention of making a musical comedy. The
best examples of that genre were made around the 40s and 50s.
The main plot is the
same both in the play and in the film: Ferdinand, King of Navarre and three
friends decide to give up women and other carnal pleasures to dedicate
themselves to academic studies during three years. The problem is that the Princess
of France and three of her ladies have an appointment with the King and,
inevitably, each one of the lords falls in love with one of the ladies. They
try to hide it from their friends but everything is finally revealed.
Unfortunately, the death of the King of France prevents the play from getting a
happy ending. There are records of a sequel titled Love’s Labour’s
Won in which probably everything ended as it is supposed to end in a comedy,
but it has been lost.
Although the story is
basically the same, there are important changes in the film version. Some
dialogues and even entire scenes appear in different positions inside the
general structure. Also, the secondary plot concerning the relationship of the
Spanish noble Don Armado with the humble Jaquenetta has less importance than in
the original play. This is probably done to get a better cohesion and to make
the story advance faster. We cannot forget that many scenes have been
substituted partially or completely by a musical show. Sometimes the result is
quite good and some other we have the feeling of having lost something
important, as in the scene in which the lords disguise themselves and have an
interesting and funny dialogue with the ladies. In the film all that
conversation has been changed for just a masked dance.
Apart from this, there
are some changes and details worth mentioning. For instance, the film includes
some summaries of what is happening in the form of a black and white
informative report typical of the first years of the television. And, more
important, in the film we do get a happy ending in which all the characters
finally meet after the war. There are also some other minor changes, like
Holofernes being a woman (Holofernia) instead of a man and her suspiciously
close relationship with Sir Nathaniel (a priest in the film). We can also find
some scenes and elements that pay homage to classic films like Casablanca (the
famous scene of the airport), Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire musicals, or the
Marx Brothers.
Don Adriano de Armado,
even though he is just a secondary character, carries a great deal of the
humoristic weight of the adaptation, as he does in the play. The actor Timothy
Spall uses a funny accent that tries to imitate how English is spoken by
Spanish people. Apart from that, his moves, expressions, clothing and general
interpretation are really laughable and match pretty well the description that
Shakespeare made of him in his play (Act V, Scene I):
“HOLOFERNES.
Novi hominem tanquam te. His humour is lofty, his discourse peremptory, his
tongue filed, his eye ambitious, his gait majestical, and his general behaviour
vain, ridiculous, and thrasonical. He is too picked, too spruce, too affected,
too odd, as it were, too peregrinate, as I may call it.
NATHANIEL. A most
singular and choice epithet.
HOLOFERNES. He draweth
out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument. I abhor
... such rackers of orthography, as to speak "dout" fine, when he
should say "doubt"; "det" when he should pronounce "debt";—d,
e, b, t, not d, e, t. He clepeth a calf "cauf"; half,
"hauf"; neighbour vocatur "nebour"; "neigh"
abbreviated "ne"...”.
There is not a real
adaptation in language in spite of the temporal change. The vocabulary and
structure used are practically the same as in the original play, but there is a
great amount of reduction. Sometimes, only the first one or two lines of what
one character says in the play appear in the movie. It goes without saying that
the fact that dialogues are shorter makes the film much more agile (and
probably much more commercial). It is a way of making it easier to enjoy by
nowadays’ audience. We could say the same about the typical falls,
stumbles and sometimes ridicule performances. They are there to make people
laugh and to substitute many of the puns, double meanings and plays on words
that have been lost in the reduction.
The use of musical
numbers could be interpreted also as an adaptation of narrative language. The
songs match perfectly with the mood of the film and there are some pretty good
moments concerning them. One of them would be when the four men sing
“Cheek to cheek” and imagine they are dancing with their
love-interests. Another one is when the four couples sing “They
can’t take that away from me” at the end of the film. And finally
we can see a funny number in which Don Adriano de Armado sings and dances the
song “I get a kick out of you”.
First of all, we must
bear in mind that Love’s Labour’s Lost is probably one of
Shakespeare’s most language-based plays. It was represented for members
of the Court, who had a higher cultural level, and most of its humour is in the
intellectual dialogues. Of course, not all of this made it to the film, but
Branagh’s work is still a faithful adaptation. Yes, it is true that it is
a musical, but the original play is too light-hearted to make a
“serious” film out of it, and the plot is just too simple and naïve
for it to be interesting to the general public today. The decision of
transforming it into a musical is probably a wise one, and the changes in the
historical time and situation are only logical steps after that first decision.
All in all, we can say that Branagh made a really good adaptation (as always)
of a difficult comedy.
Franco
Zeffirelli’s adaptation of William Shakespeare’s “The Taming
of the Shrew” is a fresh version of the classic comedy, highlighted by
performances by Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. Instead of simply filming
a play, Zefferilli turned Shakespeare’s text into a lively, cinematic
movie, with sweeping sets and cinematography. Set in Padua, Italy in the late
1500s, the story concerns the shy Bianca and the mean-spirited Katarina, the
two daughters of a rich merchant named Baptista. Though Bianca is being courted
by a number of young men, Baptista announces that she may not marry until
Katarina is wed. None of the men in town are willing to marry Katarina, so
Bianca remains unwed, even as more suitors, such as Lucentio, a student who
begins working as a tutor in the Hordern household just so he can be near Bianca,
line ap to wed the maiden. No man approaches Katarina until Petruchio, a
wanderer who arrived in Padua just to find a rich wife, falls in love with her.
After an intense, occasionally furious, courtship, Katarina eventually agrees
to marry him, and they move to Petruchio’s shoddy house, which is located
outside the city. Following the wedding, Lucentio reveals that he is not a
student, but instead the son of one of the most respected men in town. Lucentio
gets permission to marry Bianca and a mild-mannered Katarina shows up at the
wedding, giving advice to her sister on how to be a good wife.
“The Taming of
the Shrew” focuses on courtship and marriage, but, unlike most of them,
it devotes a great deal of attention to married life after the wedding. The
other comedies usually conclude with the wedding ceremony itself.
Although “The
Taming of the Shrew” filmed in 1966 has the same plot, characters and
settings that the play wrote by Shakespeare, we can find some differences:
- We don’t find in the film the prologue
in which the story gets form about Cristobal Sly being deceived by a Lord and
their servants.
- The film opens with a street carnival
that captures all the excitement of the first day at university where Lucentio
sees Bianca and follows her to her house. In the book Lucentio and Tranio are
talking and Bianca and her family arrive where they are talking. Neither in the
book Shakespeare makes reference about a woman liked by Tranio during the
parade.
- When Hortensio and Gremio, the
suitors, talk about finding a man for Katarina in the book they are at
Bianca’s house and in the film they are walking so a man can pass in
front of them and say “I don’t do it even for a cave plenty of
gold”
- When Petruchio arrives at
Hortensio’s house, in the film, he sleeps there and in the morning some
servants give him water with flowers. In the book Hortensio and Petruchio go to
Katarina’s house after a brief talk and who receives water with flowers
is Cristobal Sly, the drunken fellow who the Lord is misleading.
- In the book, when Petruchio is talking
about his most fierce fights (referring about more fierce than a woman) they
haven’t arrive at Katarina’s house and in the film they are at the
door so they (and we) can hear and see Katarina following and arguing with Bianca.
- In the film there is a scene lived in
first person by Petruchio and Baptista and in the book is Hortensio who
explains it to them (about being kick by Katarina when he tried to teach her
some music)
- When Petruchio is courting Katarina in
the film is seen as a sunny persecution through every room in the house but in
the book is very short and quickly
- Bianca’s wedding with Lucentio
is fixed before Petruchio and Katarina go away in the book but in the film they
have the news when they are at Petruchio’s “castle”
- On Katarina’s wedding day
Petruchio arrives late in both but in the film he arrives at the church and in
the book he arrives at Katarina’s house
- During the wedding Petruchio’s
behaviour is awful in both but in the book is more explicit and cruel than in
the film.
- When they go to Petruchio’s
house in the film Katarina is riding an ass and in the book all of them ride a
horse. Moreover, in the book both Kata and Petruchio fall down of the horse but
in the film is only Katarina who falls down.
- When they arrive at Petruchio’s
house, in the film, is very dirty and any servant has done anything but in the
book Grumio goes before them to make sure everything is prepared.
- In the book Petruchio explains why he
is performing in that way (to tame her) but in the film not.
- In the book we can read how Lucentio
and Bianca are kissing each other and Tranio and Hortensio can see them. Even
we can read how they don’t want to marry her anymore and Hortensio says
he will marry a widow he knows is behind him. In the film we can’t see
explicit love between them nor anything
of this occurred.
- In the book Hortensio visits Petruchio
and Katarina but in the film that doesn’t occur
- In the book even Grumio lies to
Katarina and makes fun of her saying he’s going to give her some food but
in the film there’s no mention of it.
- When Petruchio breaks Katarina’s
dress for Bianca’s wedding day in the film is much more aggressive than
in the book but less long.
- When they are going back to Padua in
the film is because Bianca’s marriage but in the book is only to see
Baptista. They even think Bianca maybe
is already married
- At the end when men make bets in the film is during the
feast because Bianca’s marriage but in the book it isn’t because
Bianca even was sleeping and the shouts wake her up.To conclude, at the end of
the story when they are proving the obedience of the women in the book
Petruchio orders Katarina to step her hat but in the film not.
Besides, talking about
other works based on The Taming of the Shrew, we can talk about 10 Things I
Hate about you, whose title is a twist on The Taming of the Shrew. 10 Things I
Hate about you is produced in 1999, directed by Gil Junger and performed by
Heath Ledger and Julia Stiles among others. It is an American romantic comedy film, an
adaptation of Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew set in a modern
American high school.
The
plot starts when Cameron falls in love with Bianca Stratford, a beautiful
sophomore student on his first day at Padua High. However, Cameron is faced
with the problem of Bianca being forbidden to date, due to a family rule set by
her strict father, an obstetrician paranoid about Bianca getting pregnant.
Cameron is told that Bianca can date when her older sister Katarina, or
"Kat" does as well, a rule the elder Stratford engineers because he
knows that no one is willing to date Katarina, a cynical nonconformist known as
a terror in her school. Not willing to give up, Cameron, along with his
newfound best friend Michael Eckman, search the entire school, and come across
what seems to be the perfect date for Kat - the mysterious Patrick Verona, who
has a reputation for having done hideous and criminal acts. Patrick has no
interest in Katarina, but Michael devises a plan to have another student, Joey
Donner, pay Patrick to take Katarina out. Joey, a self-centered model with
money, makes a bet with a friend that he could bed Bianca, and, in order to get
closer to her, pays Patrick to go out with Katarina so he may date Bianca, not
knowing that Cameron is attempting to date her as well. During his faux
courtship of Kat, she and Patrick form a genuine rapport, and fall in love.
Meanwhile, Bianca falls in love with Cameron. Eckman too gains the heart of
Katarina's best friend, Mandella after the two discover a mutual infatuation
with Shakespeare. Kat eventually discovers that Patrick was paid to take her
out, forcing their relationship to fall apart. Meanwhile, Joey discovers
Cameron's attempt to court Bianca, and physically attacks him, which earns Joey
the ire of Bianca, who responds by knocking Joey unconscious herself. Kat
writes a poem the next day in school, listing the "ten things" she
hates about Patrick, the last one being merely an admission that she doesn't
really hate him at all, in spite of what has transpired. As a gesture of
apology, Patrick buys Kat a guitar with the money Joey paid him so she can
start up her own band. This cements their relationship once again, and the film
ends with their love very much alive.
To sum up, 10 Things I
Hate about you contains many relatively subtle references to Shakespeare's
works. Careful comparison of Taming of the Shrew and 10 Things I Hate about You
reveals some similarities, mostly in character names and general plot ideas.
For instance, the two sisters in The Taming of the Shrew are named Katherina
and Bianca, while the two sisters in 10 Things I Hate about you are named
Katarina and Bianca. Katarina and Bianca's last name is Stratford, making reference
to Stratford-upon-Avon, the English town known worldwide as the birthplace of
Shakespeare. Katarina's suitor in Shakespeare's play is Petruchio of Verona
becoming Patrick Verona in 10 Things I Hate about you. In 10 Things I Hate
about you, the high school is named Padua, the city in which Shakespeare's play
is set. Comparison of the two works will also reveal similar plot ideas. For
instance, Shakespeare's Lucentio wishes to wed Bianca but cannot until her
older sister Katarina is married. Knowing that Bianca cannot enter into any
relationships, he poses as a tutor in order to become closer to Bianca, much as
in 10 Things I Hate about you where Cameron takes up French to tutor Bianca.
While still posing as Bianca's tutor, Lucentio confers with a somewhat wild
character, Petruchio. Like Patrick, he is an out-of-towner and little is known
about him. Petruchio agrees to marry Katherina simply for the dowry that comes
along with her, allowing Lucentio to pursue Bianca—just as Patrick agreed
to date Kat for the money offered to him by Joey. In both the source and the
adaptation, despite the initial monetary reasons the couples formed, both
partners genuinely fall in love. Compared to most other teen comedies of its
time, the characters of 10 Things are unusually verbose, regardless of the
cliques to which they belong, which is much in keeping with the styling of
Shakespeare. At several points the characters also either directly quote
Shakespeare or allude to his style of writing in their own speech, typically for
comedic value.
Bibliography
-http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=much+ado+about+nothing
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Ado_About_Nothing
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Ado_About_Nothing_(film)
-http://shakespeare.about.com/library/weekly/aa060100a.htm
-http://www.reelviews.net/movies/m/much_ado.html
-http://www.bardolatry.com/muchbran.htm
-http://www.william-shakespeare.info/script-text-much-ado-about-nothing.htm
-http://ise.uvic.ca/index.html
-http://www-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/much_ado/
“Love’s
Labor’s Lost.” Internet Shakespeare Editions
<http://ise.uvic.ca/Library/plays/LLL.html>
“Love’s
Labour’s Lost.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love%27s_labour%27s_lost>
“Love’s
Labour’s Lost.” Internet Movie Database.
<http://imdb.com/title/tt0182295/>
“Kenneth
Branagh.” Internet Movie Database.
<http://imdb.com/name/nm0000110/>
“Alessandro
Nivola.” Internet Movie Database.
<http://imdb.com/name/nm0005273/>
“Alicia
Silverstone.” Internet Movie Database.
<http://imdb.com/name/nm0000224/>
“Timothy
Spall.” Internet Movie Database.
<http://imdb.com/name/nm0001758/>
“Nathan
Lane.” Internet Movie Database.
<http://imdb.com/name/nm0001447/>
“Kingdom of
Navarre.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Navarre>
“Aquitaine.”
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquitaine>
Academic year 2006/2007
© a.r.e.a./Dr.Vicente Forés López
© Lucia Mataix Garcia
lumagar@alumni.uv.es
Universitat de València Press