Options
Why are film adaptations of Shakespeare unpopular?
djfunnyman
Posts: 12,585
Forum Member
✭✭
I've thought of 2 possible reasons;
1. Shakespeare films can be boring to watch when set in the 1500's and are too old fashioned and slow
2. When a modern adaptation actually was created with Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet it offended die hard Shakespeare fans so directors haven't been brave enough to try this since
What do you think?
1. Shakespeare films can be boring to watch when set in the 1500's and are too old fashioned and slow
2. When a modern adaptation actually was created with Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet it offended die hard Shakespeare fans so directors haven't been brave enough to try this since
What do you think?
0
Comments
2. They're bloody long. The likes of Hamlet and King Lear are three to four hours in their original form, and most film (and indeed theatre) adaptations cut major chunks out of it - or do what Kenneth Branagh did and keep everything, which makes a hell of a long film that many would struggle to sit through.
3. Despite groundbreakingly modern performances over the last several decades, mention Shakespeare to a lot of the general public and they'll think of tedious old-fashioned theatre shows with men in silly costumes saying silly words in silly deep voices, which is very rarely how any of his plays are performed today but the stereotype still remains. Coupled with that and bad memories of GCSE English and Drama scene studies, Shakespeare may forever be critically acclaimed and his plays constantly performed around the world - but put a film up against the latest Marvel superhero flick and the latter's going to win any day.
There is one fairly recent exception and that was the one you mentioned (Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet) but to be fair this sold massively on the strength of Leonardo DiCaprio's looks, which got teenage girls flooding to cinemas and acted as a warm-up for the behemoth of Titanic a year later.
I really don't think 2. works as an argument. Out of a typical cinema audience, how many are going to be 'die hard Shakespeare fans'? Very few is my guess. Lurhman's Romeo & Juliet was not aimed at Shakespeare aficianadoes at all; it was aimed at a populist audience. I rather liked it, although Shakespeare's dialogue never feels right when spoken by Americans. Anyway, wasn't Luhrman's film very successful? Surely that would mean that directors would be eager to emulate this success?
The other reasons why Shakespeare doesn't often work on film are practical ones. The length of the plays has already been mentioned. The plays have a large cast of characters, and it can take time to work out who's who, and why one character wants to kill/take revenge on/sleep with another. The plots are often implausible and rely on huge suspension of disbelief by the audience, and cinema undermines this because we can see the problems so much more clearly. I think the bottom line is that Shakespeare's plays have many strengths and many weaknesses, and that the stage brings out the strengths but the cinema brings out the weaknesses.
of King Lear,giving him three sons instead of three daughters,
and the BBC 'Hollow Crown' series was brilliant, comprised of
the four plays in the 'Henriad' 'Richard II, Henry IV Parts one and
two and Henry V.
Polanski's 'Macbeth' was also superb, (never mind what became
of the director later!) You have to attune your ears to the rhythm
of the language and once you do (takes me around ten minutes
on average) it is wonderful stuff,and that would be why it is so
often modernised, plagiarised and generally has plots stolen
from!
West Side Story has a 94% positive score on Rotten Tomatoes.
Forbidden Planet 98%
The Lion King 90%
Throne of Blood 98%
Henry V 100%
A Midsummer Night's Dream 67%
Much Ado About Nothing 84% Whedon and 91% Branagh
Richard III (McKellan) 96%
Prospero's Books 67%
Ran 95%
The Merchant of Venice 72%
Othello 61%
"O" 64%
Romeo & Juliet 72%
10 Things I Hate About You 61%
Even Gnomeo and Juliet managed 55%.
I've watched most of these, and I own several of them.
So instead of explaining why you think they are unpopular, how about explaining why you are under the impression they are unpopular.
Or is it just that you don't like them?
Not that I'm agreeing with the OP, but you're citing critical praise rather than popularity; both are often not the same. Maybe a more accurate way to show popularity would be to see how many bums on seats each of those films scored.
My question is mainly why not many film adaptations of Shakespeare are made
There aren't many playwrights who can compete with his influence on films. Particularly not ones from 300 years ago.
I can't remember hearing any of them lost a load of money, but I'm off to the pictures now so don't have the time to look it up.
Well how many film adaptations do you want? I thought that was a good list above, the best adaptation being 'Throne of Blood'.
I remember listening to Ken Branagh talking on the radio about the time that his musical version of 'Love's Labour Lost' was being released and he said something like "if Shakespeare was alive today he would do his plays quite differently". And I thought to myself if Shakespeare was alive today he probably be writing and directing a movie like 'Goodfellas' or a TV series like 'Breaking Bad', not redoing his old works.
Many of Shakespeare's plays are adaptations themselves, based on real events or the historical work of Hollinshed or Edward Hall. The language is a little difficult but the multi-layered aspect of the plays is reflected in films like 'Citizen Kane', 'The Godfather' or 'Bladerunner'.
Or even some of the recent BBC adaptations such as Patrick Stewart's Macbeth (great setting) or The Hollow Crown series (Richard II, Henry IV part 1 and part 2). I don't really go out of my way to watch Shakespeare but those were excellent.
There are 1,022 film and TV film adaptations.
The first film adaptation - Macbeth - was released in 1898. There are 22 film adaptations currently in production for the period between 2014 and 2015.
And you say 'not many'?
You're funny.
It'd be pretty impossible, though. Not just because of the language. The pacing, length and dialogue of a Shakespeare play will make the production long and extremely expensive. It'll bore the audience rigid as well. Even if it was made during the 1940s.
Maybe as a mini-series? In the style of 'Game of Thrones'?
Worth a try.
The BBC did attempt with The Hollow Crown in 2012: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2262456/ or http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00s90hz
You can certainly argue that Laurence Olivier's Hamlet is one of the great films of it's time. In terms of pure atmosphere it's up there with Night of the Hunter.
That said, I've not seen very much. Lurhmans Romeo, branaghs much ado (which I adore.) Liz and dicks taming of the shrew.
I'd like to get to see, mackellens Richard 111, gibsons hamlet, more branagh, and anything with Olivier in.....
Wow...that's a lot of remakes.
And then they did Webster's 'Duchess of Malfi' live in a Jacobean theatre.
The BBC are giving it a go.
Technically, they wouldn't be remakes.
try Derek Jarman's version of The Tempest.
http://www.fandor.com/keyframe/the-tempest
the famous 78 macbeth - remember when itv did shakespeare - also comes to mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xHlngY6Bgk
I know, but nowadays a lot of films are branded remakes, when they are not.