Navigation:
The Taming of the
Shrew: Grumio
Shakespeare and Music
in Three of His Comedies
Shakespeare on Film
(collective paper)
Love´s
Labour's Lost (my part in the collective paper)
Love's Labour's Lost (2000)
Plot and Structure
The original play was written by William Shakespeare between 1588 and 1597, probably in the early 1590s, and published in a quarto edition in 1598[1]. 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 takes the action to September 1939, just before the war. It sure is a long leap but it is fully justified by the intention of making a musical comedy whose best examples 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 original play from getting a happy ending, although it is different in the film. There are records of a sequel titled Love’s Labour’s Won[2] in which probably everything ended as it is supposed to end in a comedy, but it has been lost. We do not know if this is the reason for the ending of Branagh's adaptation which we are going to deal with later.
The most remarkable feature of this adaptation is that it is a musical that follows the style of those of the 40s and 50s. This implies several adjustments in the structure, the plot, and the staging that make it differ from the original play.
Part of the original text is omitted in the adaptation and substituted by musical numbers, but the most important fragments are maintained. There are also several changes in the order of the events, which alter the original disposition of Shakespeare's work, especially at the beginning of the adaptation, when the characters are introduced. In the film there is a cut at the end of Act I, Scene I[3], and then begins the only scene of Act II. After that, the film goes back to show us the rest of Act I and goes directly to Act III, where there is a significant amount of lines missing[4]. The first scene of Act IV is completely omitted and substituted by a sensual mask dance.
In the film Branagh uses black and white informative bulletins, typical of the first years of the television, to summarize some of the events of the plot.
As an example of fidelity to the original play, we can mention the funny scene between D. Adriano de Armado and Moth[5], followed by the song "I get a kick out of you". On the one hand, the actor chosen to incarnate the character of D. Armado, that is to say, Timothy Spall (unforgettable his participation in "Secrets and Lies"), plays his role reflecting wonderfully the definition which, referring to him, is made in the original work by Holofernes[6]. On the other hand, it has for us the added interest of being a Spanish character; it is really interesting to verify the archetypical image of Spaniards which they had in Shakespeare's time and still have nowadays.
Characters
The film we have analysed, by the Shakespeare Film Company, was adapted for the screen, produced, and directed by Kenneth Branagh in 2000 and, apart from himself (as Berowne), the cast includes Natasha McElhone (Rosaline), Alicia Silverstone (Princess), Alessandro Nivola (King), Adrian Lester (Dumaine), Matthew Lillard (Longaville), Carmen Ejogo (Maria), Emily Mortimer (Katherine), Timothy Spall (Don Armado), Stefania Rocca (Jaquenetta), Richard Clifford (Boyet), Anthony O'Donnell (Moth), Nathan Lane (Costard), Jimmy Yuill (Dull), Richard Briers (Nathaniel), Geraldine McEwan (Holofernia) and Daniel Hill (Mercade)[7].
Regarding characters, the most surprising fact is that Kenneth Branagh, who was almost 40 when the adaptation was filmed, represents the role of Berowne, a young student around 20 years old. But, apart from that little detail, we have to confess that his performance is spotless.
Another peculiarity we have observed is that in the original play Rosaline is black[8] and Maria is white, while in the film it is just the opposite. Maybe Branagh wanted to enjoy the presence of Natasha McElhone as his partner (one of the privileges you can have when you are the director of a film and are responsible for the casting).
Another remarkable variation is that of the character of Holofernes, that in the film becomes Holofernia, the only woman that is allowed to stay in the court of the King because she is his tutor. Her old age is not a threat to the vows of chastity of the King and his friends (though that does not prevent her from flirting with her erudite attendant Nathaniel, a parson).
Cinematographic techniques
Kenneth Branagh takes full advantage in his film of a great number of the cinematographic recourses at his disposal. He moves the camera, combines all types of shots (long, medium and close-ups) and he does not have any doubt in changing the angle of them every time he considers that the occasion requires it. Naturally, as we are dealing with a musical, music has a very important part to play. In this case, as well as the contribution from Patrick Doyle, the film brings to life songs of George and Ira Gershwin, Cole Porter, Jerome Kern, Irving Berlin, Oscar Hammerstein II, Desmond Carter, Jimmy McHugh, Dorothy Field y Otto Harbach[9]. Concerning dance numbers, they remind us of Hermes Pan’s choreographies which were carried out by Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers for the RKO, although there is a scene of a bathing in a swimming pool that is clearly inspired in Busby Berkeley[10].
There is a moment in the film which can be used as an example of all these characteristics we have been talking about. It is the part, about seven minutes long, with which Branagh puts an end to the film. The original play ends up with the separation of the protagonists because of the death of the King of France, and the promise that they will meet again, once the year of mourning has passed. In the film, however, Kenneth Branagh links the announcement of the king's death with the declaration of the war in Europe. He proposes an ending which, in our opinion, sums up magnificently what is meant by adapting a Shakespearean play, keeping loyal to its essence and making use of elements which can shock and scandalize the most puritan sectors. The four couples perform “They can't take that away from me" in what can be considered homage to the movie "Shall we Dance"[11]. Immediately afterwards, it is also paid tribute to the film "Casablanca". Next, we witness a succession of black and white images where real shots of World War II are mixed with others carried out by actors. Separation, destruction, pain, death, fall of France, resistance, the Allies' arrival and at last, the final victory and the reunion of the lovers in full colour. All together, it reaches its climax while we listen to those beautiful words of Berowne’s monologue: "And when Loue speakes, the voyce of all the Gods, make heauen drowsie with the harmonie... From womens eyes this doctrine I deriue. They sparcle still the right promethean fire, they are the Bookes, the Arts, the Achademes, that shew, containe, and nourish all the world."[12] Only just this moment is worth paying the ticket.
Just to finish, one last note. The members of the orchestra, in Act IV, wear wigs like Harpo Marx's. Another little homage in a film full of them.
We
started this paper wondering about the way in which Shakespeare’s works have
been adapted to cinema in the last century, from the Cinématograph to
contemporary films, and also wondering about the success of those adaptations
in their effort to transmit Shakespeare’s essence to today’s audiences. Through
this paper we have collected evidence and opinions from scholars and experts
trying to answer both questions.
The
first one, the evolution of Shakespearean films, is answered in our analysis of
history of films. We have witnessed that development from silent, black and
white, one-scene adaptations like Le Duel d’Hamlet to 1996’s full colour, four-hour-long Hamlet, and also in the four different film adaptations
that we have used as an example. Kenneth S. Rowell[13] summarizes in a simple way this effort of
transferring Shakespeare to the cinema:
The
history of Shakespeare in the movies has, after all, been the search for the
best available means to replace the verbal with the visual imagination, an
inevitable development deplored by some but interpreted by others as not so
much a limitation on, as an extension of, Shakespeare’s genius into uncharted
seas.
The
second one can be easily inferred: if there are versions of Shakespearean plays
through all of the history of cinema, it is because at least some of them were
able to transmit the same ideas, themes and feelings of the original texts.
Successful movies (both artistically and financially) like West Side Story or Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet are a consistent proof. In fact, many of these films
are used by teachers around the world as substitutes to talk about
Shakespeare’s plays (Michael LoMonico[14] tells us about this matter in detail) given
the impossibility of assisting to theatrical performances of all the plays. So
it really seems that these adaptations are worthy of being studied, therefore contradicting the vehement article
by Charles Weinstein[15] we mentioned in the introduction, and not
only that, many of these film versions are really enjoyable, even if they are
not masterpieces. There is no doubt that some of these films manage to offer
new and old audiences more than a glimpse of Shakespeare’s plots and
characters.
Of
course, as we have said through this paper, there are others who failed in this
purpose, but the abstract and ethereal concept of “Shakespearean adaptation” is
not to blame for those bad results. A Shakespearean plot (or just loosely
inspired in one of the plays written by the Bard) is not a guarantee of a good
film, that depends on the director and his idea about the film, on the actors
and their performances, on the professionalism of the technicians… just as in a
theatrical performance. Theatre and cinema are only two media (with many things
in common) in which to perform a certain plot. Considering that one of them is
superior to the other “per se” is only the result of an elitist view of
culture.
-Shakespeare,
William. Encyclopædia Britannica . 2006.
Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
16 Dec. 2006
<http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109536>.
-Love's
Labour's Lost. Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006.
Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
16 Dec. 2006
<http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9000152>.
-Love's
Labour's Lost (Folio 1, 1623)
Internet Shakespeare Editions. 16 Dec. 2006
<http://ise.uvic.ca/Annex/Texts/LLL/F1/Scene>
-Love's
Labour's Lost The Internet Movie Database
Inc.1990-2006. 16 Dec. 2006 <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0182295/>
-Lawson, Mark: Here comes Shakespeare: The remix. Guardian Unlimited. Guardian News and Media Limited 2006.16 Dec 2006.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,238064,00.html>
-Trench,
Philip: Love's Labour's Lost. Guardian Unlimited Film. The Observer. 16 Dec 2006.
<http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Observer_review/0,,155371,00.html>
Academic year 2006/2007
© a.r.e.a./Dr.Vicente Forés López
© Juan Manuel Ruano Silvano
ruasi@alumni.uv.es
Universitat de València Press