Shakespeare's works and literary influence

Shakespeare

Translating Shakespeare

William Shakespeare has long been considered one of the greatest writers -- perhaps the greatest -- in English or indeed possibly any language. This might seem strange given a cursory examination of his stories -- originality and creativity are often associated with great writing, and Shakespeare "borrowed" almost all of his stories and plots from other sources, including other contemporary playwrights of his era. But although Shakespeare did not actually make up the plots of his plays, he showed an enormous amount of creative genius in the way he told these stories. It is his use of language, and the depth of human emotion and character that he is able to plumb and render clear through the scenarios and stories he borrowed, that have made Shakespeare the enduring literary figure that he is today. His plays not only reflect the artistic values and political leanings of his time (as well as his own commentary on society and historical events), but their universality in the way they speak to humans regardless of culture, language, or place in the increasingly global society we live in today.

Shakespeare was a master of both comedy and tragedy, and often saw the potentials for both in many human scenarios -- several of his plays contain similar plots with vastly different effects. What this illustrates more than anything else is the importance of character; Shakespeare's characters are some of the most enduring and emblematic figures in the English and Western literary canons. Romeo and Juliet are the archetypal young and innocent lovers (though this innocence could be questioned in the play itself); Richard the Third, though ostensibly an historical character, is still invoked as the embodiment of ambition, greed, and vicious cunning' Shylock was for many years (and likely still is to some) the epitome of the miserly, money-hungry Jew, and his name is still synonymous with shady lawyers or "shysters."

Two only slightly less well-known characters that illustrate the importance of individuality in determining the outcome of a plot -- which itself speaks to Shakespeare's ability to perceive and render human emotions and motives clearly, allowing his plays to speak universally to everyone -- are Othello and Iago from one of Shakespeare's most socially complex tragedies, Othello. The basic plot of Othello is very similar to the major subplot of Much Ado About Nothing, which is one of Shakespeare's most beloved comedies: a man (Othello in the former and Claudio in the latter) is tricked into thinking that their wife/betrothed is having an affair with another man, and their jealousy causes them to spurn their lovers and ignore their protestations of innocence. Because Much Ado About Nothing is a comedy, no one dies (though Claudio and his companions believe his fiance, Hero, to be dead for a time), and when the plot is uncovered everyone forgives everyone else (mostly), and there is the wedding typical for the end of Shakespeare's (and indeed most Elizabethan) comedies.

Othello, not surprisingly, is more tragic. The plot to deceive Othello, the brainchild of his supposed friend and officer in his army, Iago, is eventually uncovered, but by this time Desdemona is dead and many lives have been ruined. Still, these two plays quite clearly illustrate the adaptability of the stories that Shakespeare told. He is able to perceive and to portray both a comic and a tragic outcome of the same basic set of circumstances, and in both plays the characters are fully rendered as flesh-and-blood human beings with deep underlying psychological motives.

These characters are the reasons that Shakespeare's plays have remained so enduring, and so adaptable. There are illustrated volumes containing children's stories based on Shakespeare's tales, and countless novels and other adaptations have sprung up from his plays and characters as well. Many of these have included re-imaginings of certain characters, plots, or events that Shakespeare used. The nineteenth century saw a particular fondness for plays based on Shakespeare's, often (though not always) using some of his language but with additions and emendations and often significant changes made to the plots (including several versions of The Merchant of Venice with widely varied representations of Shylock). Other more recent well-known examples of adaptations or spin-offs from Shakespeare's plays include Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and The Complete Works of Shakespeare Abridged. Both of these use the basic plots of Shakespeare's plays, but neither uses much of his original language to tell the stories. In a way, this is what Shakespeare himself did -- he appropriated known stories that he felt he could reinterpret in a meaningful and/or entertaining way, and he proceeded to do so by writing a new script from the old stories.

Then, of course, there are the countless productions of Shakespeare's plays, which are themselves necessarily interpretations and adaptations of his scripts -- insofar as they have survived. The nineteenth century also saw heavy editing of "Shakespeare's" plays, and those texts for which folio and quarto texts do not exist are at least partially -- and perhaps largely -- the creation of certain intervening editors. Then there is the propensity for modern directors to set Shakespearean plays in any setting but the one suggested by the script, and likewise very few productions are performed in the style that Shakespeare's own company likely performed them. This leads us to an interesting development of the twentieth century in the reinterpretation of Shakespeare.

Just as Shakespeare himself told few if any original stories, the stories told by many films have already been told before in other terms and in other sources. The medium has proven itself to be uniquely adaptable to the telling of almost any story; the ability to depict things of practically any scale and of immense detail, as well as the ability to direct focus in ways that are simply impossible in theatre and not defined enough in novels and other works of literature, has given filmmakers immense power in the construction and interpretation of a story. As one of the most adapted and re-interpreted artists n the world, it is not surprising that Shakespeare has had his plays turned into many different films. Like adaptations of Shakespeare's work in other media, some of these films have attempted to remain faithful at least to Shakespeare's language. A surprising number of them also recreate the settings described in his scripts, and though this is not how Shakespeare's companies would have performed his plays this type of realism in cinematic versions of Shakespearean plays is notable given the diversity of theatrical interpretations.

The fact that so many cinematic interpretations of Shakespeare attempt some level of realism and a true adherence, as much as possible, to his scripts could have something to do with the fact that there is room for interpretation in so many other ways with film. Without distorting the story by changing settings, costumes, and other elements outside the script, every film and filmmaker is able to tell a slightly (or hugely) different version of any story by deciding where to focus things, color schemes, what cuts should happen where, and the entire host of cinematic techniques necessary to the making of a good film. Shakespeare has provided ripe fodder for such cinematic reinterpretations, as the recent run of Kenneth Branagh films proves.

Branagh, considered one of the preeminent Shakespearean actors of our age, as also directed several film adaptations of Shakespeare's plays, including Henry V, Hamlet, and Much Ado About Nothing, with its plot so similar to that of Othello -- a film version of which Branagh starred in as Iago but did not direct. Oliver Parker took the helm of this adaptation, and in order to make the film more palatable he cut enough of Shakespeare's script to get the entire movie's running time down to just over two hours. Yet despite the massive cuts to the script that this time reduction required, the movie stays remarkably close to the play not just in language but in spirit and intention as well. Rather than attempt to modernize the play at all, Parker keeps it set in the time and place that the play itself suggests. He also manages to enhance the script (or what's left of it) not by using fancy effects or overly elaborate scenery, but focusing instead on the characters themselves as the story unfolds. This seems most in keeping with Shakespeare, whose own productions of his plays made use of virtually no scenery at all.

Strangely, this film is truer to Shakespeare's script than Shakespeare' own productions of Othello, at least in one regard. Othello is described in the play as a Moorish officer; the Moors came from Northern Africa and were dark skinned. There are many references to Othello's color in the script: "Your son-in-law is far more fair than black" and "Haply, for I am black" are two of the most explicit examples, and there are other less obvious ones (Shakespeare Act I, scene iii, lines 289-91; III.iii. 263). This is the first film version of the play to actually have a colored actor (Laurence Fishbourne) in the title role; previous great Shakespearean actors have done the part, but the racial tension of the play is made far more clear here.

Yet despite the fact that the play's title is nothing but his name, Othello is arguably not really the central figure of the story. Iago is far more instrumental in moving the plot forward; it is his (not fully explained) hatred of Othello that the play is concerned with, and though Othello is obviously necessary as the object of Iago's hatred and jealousy, he takes a largely passive role in the bulk of the events as they unfold. It is Iago who truly effects the twisted and complex machinations that eventually lead to Desdemona's death and his own rather emasculating evisceration. Iago more time onstage and almost exactly the same number of lines as Othllo, making him a clear rival for the audience's attention. The tide begins to shift enormously in Iago's favors when his many soliloquies -- monologues generally delivered to the audience when no one else is present onstage -- are taken into account.

Something about hearing Iago's plans as a sort of confidant draws the audience into the play, and even seems to have the effect of making one not exactly root for Iago, but enjoy watching his progress perhaps more than we would like to admit. Shakespeare was always quite adept at creating entertaining and gripping villains who simply seem to drip with evil, and the Iago that emerges from a careful reading of the script is absolutely drenched in greed, ambition, and jealousy. The reader/audience member knows almost from the very start of the play that Iago is two-faced, and loathes his commander and supposed friend Othello. This makes the interactions between the two characters incredibly titillating, as we are able to perceive the layers of Iago's meaning.

The very first conversation in the play takes place between Iago and Roderigo, the latter of whom quickly becomes a pawn in the former's scheming, and gets straight to the point of Iago's jealousy and dislike for Othello. Iago has several longer speeches in this scene, but it is the first speech which is truly expository and yet raises some major questions about the central conflict of the play. In this speech, Iago outlines how he should have been preferred for advancement in Othello's army, but that despite the recommendations of several noblemen and his own record of service, he is passed over for the younger and less experienced Michael Cassio: "Now, sir, be judge yourself, / Whether I in any just term am affined / To love the Moor." (I. i. 38-40). This speech to Roderigo suggests that Iago's main reason fro disliking Othello is a mixture of indignation at being passed over for a promotion he felt was rightly his, in addition to jealousy of Othello's power to choose and act how he pleases. Other speeches in the play, however, propose other motives for Iago's actions and his extreme hatred of the Moor, which could suggest that he is being at least slightly disingenuous with Roderigo by supplying him with a more practical reason for acting on his hatred.

The other reasons that Iago has for hating Othello are certainly less practical, yet for this they are perhaps quicker to stoke Iago's temper and will to violence. In a later scene between he and Roderigo, as well as in other instances during the play, Iago hints that it is Othello's status as a Moor (and therefore his race and color) that at least in part makes leads to his hatred of his commander. Speaking of Desdemona (whom Roderigo also loves), Iago says "Her eye must be fed; and what delight shall she have to look on the devil?... very nature will instruct her in it and compel her to some second choice" (II. i. 239-47). This could be a tactic to increase Roderigo's anger against Othello, but it also shows Iago's irrational hatred of the Moor.

Yet Iago is essentially a rational character; except for the passion of his hatred, everything he does is carefully reasoned and calculated. This is shown most clearly in his soliloquies, in which he outlines his thinking and his plans for the audience/reader. The film does an excellent job of capturing this element of Iago's character and Shakespeare's play. It has become more and more acceptable again in theatre for an actor to speak directly to the audience (the standard mode of delivery for much of theatrical history, including in Shakespeare's day), but films rarely have actors addressing the audiences by speaking directly into the camera. This is exactly what Oliver Parker has Kenneth Branagh do for certain of Iago's speeches in his version of Othello, and the effect is to draw the viewer into Iago's plans.

Branagh's charismatic portrayal of the villain also helps to establish the strange yet very apparent feeling of camaraderie between Iago and the audience, but it is truly the cinematic techniques that Parker employs that drive this relationship home. In one of Iago's ore well-known and most deliciously evil soliloquies, which falls towards the end of Act II, scene iii, Parker has the camera following Iago as he slowly strolls through a courtyard at night. Branagh speaks into the camera -- and therefore directly at the audience -- as if it is a close and intimate friend with whom he is sharing his plans. This interpretation could be used onstage, but somehow the monologue reads as more exclamatory off the page. Film has the ability, in many ways, to provide more intimacy than theatre, such that even fourteen years after this film was released it still feels as though the viewer is becoming complicit with Iago in the present action, and though Iago never explains himself it feels almost as though we can understand him here.

Another subtle but interesting device that Parker uses in this scene is his use of light. In both theatre and film, lighting is of prime importance not only in literally illuminating the scene and rendering things visible, but also in setting the mood and often providing symbolic commentary on the action. As Iago strolls through the courtyard with his friend the camera, the only visible sources of light are a few distant torches that continue to pass through the frame punctuated by even deeper darkness. On a superficial level, this reflects Iago's subterfuge and the darkness of his character. At the same time, the warm light of the torches and the soft gray of the stone in the background make the scene more inviting than it otherwise might be, aiding in the feeling of connection and even sympathy between Iago and the audience.