This thesis comprises an exploration of the Shakespearean adaptations created by American director Charles Marowitz while he was Artistic Director of the Open Space Theatre in London, UK. In order of creation, they are: Hamlet (1964; revised 1966); A Macbeth (1969); An Othello (1972); The Shrew (1973); Measure for Measure (also called Variations on Measure for Measure) (1975); and Variations on the Merchant of Venice (1977). The central inquiry of this thesis is whether Marowitz’s Shakespearean adaptations adhered to his own parameters for such work, and if not, whether his objectives were subverted by other factors, political or psychological, which he unconsciously manifested dramatically within the works. Further, do Marowitz’s reconstructions of Shakespeare possibly spring from a latent desire to attack the cultural authority of Shakespeare himself? In order to accomplish this inquiry, the concept of ‘personal politics’ will be established, this being both the political orientation of an individual in terms of social government, as well as the underlying belief systems and paradigms which influence their perceptions and reactions, as factors influencing Marowitz’s adaptations. In terms of methodology, the author will examine Marowitz’s perceptions of Shakespeare’s original plays, highlighting the particular concerns that motivated him to create the adaptations under analysis. The validity of these perceptions will then be tested against a precise examination of the play text, and viewed against a survey of scholarly opinion on the original work. Any sociopolitical objectives expressed by Marowitz for the adaptation will be reviewed, then juxtaposed against the historical context in which they were written in order to discern where and how the politics of the period influenced his creative impulse. The collage technique, which characterized many of Marowitz’s adaptations, will be explored followed by a discussion of Marowitz’s stated parameters for the adaptation of theatrical classics. His approach to challenging the paradigm of Shakespeare’s work will be scrutinized, and an analysis of the adaptation given, as well as a discussion of the effect the changes from the original text might have had on an audience and a survey of critical reaction to the resulting production, based upon reviews in the major publications of the day. At this point, the central inquiry of the thesis will be addressed: to what degree does the adaptation hold to Marowitz’s own stated guidelines for Shakespearean adaptation, as well as his expressed objectives for the work in question, and if this degree is slight, what factors might account for this? In order to discern these influences, the adaptations will be examined through the lens of biographical criticism: Marowitz’s autobiographical writing, as well as personal opinions and beliefs gleaned from his theatrical reviews, journal articles and texts on acting techniques, will be gathered to shed light on dramatic choices which contravene the expressed intention for the adaptations. Aspects of psychoanalytical criticism will also be referenced, particularly focusing on trends common to the majority of the works which potentially sprang from an unconscious source. Finally, comparable adaptations of the same Shakespearean work will be reviewed in terms of how they differently, and possibly more effectively, redressed Marowitz’s stated concerns regarding the original work, in order to highlight why and how Marowitz’s personal politics may have overturned his stated intentions. Detailed synopses of all six plays under examination are provided in Appendix One.

No description available.

This thesis examines adaptations of William Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice (c. 1601–4) across media, comparing cinematic, televisual, musical, visual art, and online adaptations, among others, in an endeavour to determine its adaptability in various periods and cultural and societal contexts, with a focus on the issue of race. Shakespeare’s seeming endorsement of a racial stereotype has proved to be challenging in adaptations, which have not always been successful in either reproducing or interrogating the issue, despite the fact that the play has continuously been engaged with across media, periods, and cultures. Resultantly, the thesis considers the ways in which the race issues present in Othello have been exploited, adapted ‘faithfully’, ignored, and negotiated in different contexts. Sustained consideration of representations of the race issues of the play from a Western perspective has not been undertaken previously and this thesis analyses the use of Othello as a vehicle for commenting on and reflecting contemporary current events through the lenses of adaptation theory and the singular history that adaptations of Shakespeare’s work have. Initially, the thesis explores national readings of screen adaptations (from the United States, Great Britain, and outside the Anglo-American gaze), before grouping adaptations by media (such as music and online videos, as well as allusions in other media), deducing why specific adaptive trends have endured in Othellos, examining the relationship between the adaptability of the play and the media in which it is placed. A pertinent question addressed is: what is Othello’s place in adaptations of Shakespeare’s work – and how adaptable is it when both black and white performers and adapters perpetuate racial stereotypes? One conclusion drawn is that – despite its prevalence across media – Othello is inadaptable when its race issues are linked – through various methods – to the contexts in which it is placed, changing them in the process.

This thesis traces the construction and evolution of the star text of Laurence Olivier as it relates to cinematic Shakespeare production and formulations of nationhood in 1940s and 1950s Britain. Organised around an examination of Olivier’s four Shakespearean film adaptations (including the unmade Macbeth), the project focuses on the ways in which the concept of 'Shakespeare' – signalled throughout by its italicisation – is appropriated through Olivier’s image in relation to the industrial and cultural contexts of the wartime and post-war British film industry. It also examines articulations of Shakespearean selfhood and related reappropriations of the filmic image in Olivier’s life writing, exploring how Olivier engages with his own star persona. In examining the relationship that exists between broader industrial-cultural appropriations of 'Shakespeare' and a sense of a star’s personal connection with the national poet, the thesis explores (in addition to the film texts) extratextual materials such as fan letters, publicity documents, theatre and film ephemera, magazine interviews, newspaper criticism, industrial reports and personal and professional correspondence in order to interrogate the national-cultural function of a star text whose image is aligned to 'Shakespeare'. This thesis seeks to make an original contribution to Shakespeare on screen studies by constituting the fullest study of Laurence Olivier’s cinematic Shakespearean career to date. In introducing and analysing previously unseen archival material (including screenplays and shooting scripts relating to the unmade Macbeth), the thesis informs our understanding of the evolving history of British Shakespeare production and, therefore, of the history of Shakespeare on screen. Rethinking Olivier’s cultural currency as a Shakespearean star in 2012 and in the space of the archive, the thesis also contributes to the theoretical thinking underpinning Shakespearean performance studies and archival studies. Finally, the thesis opens the way for further considerations as to how (and to what effect) the Shakespearean star operates as a national and transnational phenomenon.

This thesis addresses a methodological impasse within film studies which is of ongoing concern because of the way that it demonstrates the discipline’s conflicting approaches to ideology. This impasse arises because proponents of poststructuralism and cognitivism utilise methodologies which not only make internally consistent interpretations of films, but are also able to discount the theoretical criticisms of the rival paradigm. Attempts to debate and transcend these divisions have been unsuccessful. This thesis contributes to this gap in knowledge by arguing that both academic theories (such as poststructuralism and cognitivism) and filmmaking practice are influenced by the same historically contingent socio-cultural determinants. Academic claims about film’s effects can then be conceptualised as aggregates of thought which are analogous to the dramatic manipulations that filmmakers unconsciously work into their films, with both forms of cultural activity (academic theorising and filmmaking practice) influenced by the same diachronic socio-cultural contexts. The term that I use for these specific forms of filmmaking practice is writing formations. A filmic writing formation is a form of filmmaking practice influenced by the same cultural ideas which also inform academic hermeneutics. The thesis does not undertake a conventional extended literature review as a means to identify the gap in the literature. This is because contested theoretical discourses are part of the thesis’ subject matter. I analyse academic literature in the same way that I analyse film, conceptualising both 3 activities as being determined by the same specific historical and socio-cultural contexts. The thesis analyses Shakespearean films because they offer multiple diachronic texts which are foregrounded as interpretations, and in which different approaches to filmmaking can be clearly compared and contrasted across time. They clarify the complex and often unconscious relationships between academic theorising and filmic writing formations by facilitating an investigation of how the historic development of academic discourse relates to the historic development of filmmaking practice. The corpus of texts for analysis has been confined to Anglo-American realist film adaptations, and European and American debates about, and criticism of, realist film from the advent of poststructuralism in the late 1960s to the present day. The thesis is structured as an investigation into the current theoretical impasse and the unsatisfactory attempts to transcend it, the articulation of a new methodology relating to filmic writing formations, the elaboration of how different filmic writing formations operate within realist film adaptation, and a close case study of the unfolding historical processes whereby academic theory and filmmaking practice relate to the same socio-cultural determinants using four adaptations of Hamlet from different time periods. It concludes by explaining how filmmakers exploit and manipulate forms of filmic grammar which correspond to academic theories about those forms of filmic grammar, with both activities influenced by the same underlying diachronic culture. The thesis argues, then, that academic poststructuralism and cognitivism can be 4 conceptualised as explanations for different but contiguous aspects of filmmaking practice, rather than as mutually exclusive claims about film’s effects.

Both theatre and drama were imported to Canada from European colonizing nations, and as such the canonical master-texts of European drama, particularly the works of Shakespeare, have always occupied a prominent place in Canadian theatre. This presents a challenge for living Canadian playwrights, whose most revered role model is also their most dangerous competition, and whose desire to represent the spectrum of contemporary Canadian experience on stage is often at odds with the preferences of many producers and spectators for the “classics.” Since the 1990s, a number of Canadian playwrights have attempted to challenge the role of canonical plays and the values they represent by appropriating and critiquing them in plays of their own, creating a body of work which disturbs conventional distinctions between “adaptations” and “originals.” This study describes and analyzes the adaptive dramaturgies used by recent Canadian playwrights to appropriate canonical plays, question the privileged place they occupy in Canadian culture, expose the exclusionary hierarchies they legitimate, and claim centre stage for Canadian perspectives which have hitherto been waiting in the wings. It examines how playwrights challenge, usurp, or exploit the cultural capital of the canon by “re-citing” old plays in new works, how they or their producers attempt to frame the reception of their plays in order to address cultural biases against adaptation, and how audiences respond. This study draws from and builds upon contemporary theories of adaptation and particularly (Canadian) Shakespeare adaptation, seeking an understanding of adaptation based on the motives, tactics, and efficacy of adaptation. Simultaneously, it challenges the dominance of “Shakespeare,” in critical as well as theatrical practice, by comparing appropriations of Shakespeare to appropriations of Chekhov which exhibit similar tactics and motives.

Both theatre and drama were imported to Canada from European colonizing nations, and as such the canonical master-texts of European drama, particularly the works of Shakespeare, have always occupied a prominent place in Canadian theatre. This presents a challenge for living Canadian playwrights, whose most revered role model is also their most dangerous competition, and whose desire to represent the spectrum of contemporary Canadian experience on stage is often at odds with the preferences of many producers and spectators for the “classics.” Since the 1990s, a number of Canadian playwrights have attempted to challenge the role of canonical plays and the values they represent by appropriating and critiquing them in plays of their own, creating a body of work which disturbs conventional distinctions between “adaptations” and “originals.” This study describes and analyzes the adaptive dramaturgies used by recent Canadian playwrights to appropriate canonical plays, question the privileged place they occupy in Canadian culture, expose the exclusionary hierarchies they legitimate, and claim centre stage for Canadian perspectives which have hitherto been waiting in the wings. It examines how playwrights challenge, usurp, or exploit the cultural capital of the canon by “re-citing” old plays in new works, how they or their producers attempt to frame the reception of their plays in order to address cultural biases against adaptation, and how audiences respond. This study draws from and builds upon contemporary theories of adaptation and particularly (Canadian) Shakespeare adaptation, seeking an understanding of adaptation based on the motives, tactics, and efficacy of adaptation. Simultaneously, it challenges the dominance of “Shakespeare,” in critical as well as theatrical practice, by comparing appropriations of Shakespeare to appropriations of Chekhov which exhibit similar tactics and motives.