John Boorman's Excalibur: a Film Resurgence of Male Conquest Mythology Stephen Tompkins Lehigh University

Lehigh University Lehigh Preserve Theses and Dissertations 1998 Who are the women of our discontent? and : John Boorman's Excalibur: a film resurgence of male conquest mythology Stephen Tompkins Lehigh University Follow this and additional works at: http://preserve.lehigh.edu/etd Recommended Citation Tompkins, Stephen, "Who are the women of our discontent? and : John Boorman's Excalibur: a film resurgence of male conquest mythology" (1998). Theses and Dissertations. Paper 547. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Lehigh Preserve. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Lehigh Preserve. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Tompkins, Stephen Where are the Women of our Discontent? AND John Boorman's Excalibur: ... May 13, 1998 Where Are the Women ofOur Discontent? and John Boorman's Excalibur: A Film Resurgence of Male Conquest Mythology by Stephen Tompkins Two Thesis Papers Presented to the Graduate and Research Committee ofLehigh University Master ofArts m English Lehigh University May, 1998 Table ofContents Certificate ofApproval 11 Table ofContents ill Thesis 1: Where Are the Women ofOur Discontent? 1 Notes 34 Thesis 2: Iohn Boonnan's Excalibur: A Film Resurgence ofMale 35 Conquest Mythology Notes 67 Bibliography 68 Vita ofAuthor 72 ill Where Are the Women ofOur Discontent? by Stephen A. Tompkins Laurence Olivier's translation ofWilliam Shakespeare's Richard III into:film has profound implications regarding the re-presentation ofwomen and this thesis paper argues that Olivier's RichardIII reflects a patriarchal ideology determined to erase woman as historical or political presence in favor ofwoman as sexual object. The omission ofQueen Margaret's character from the film text, the visual and aural manipulation ofthe character ofJane Shore, and the cinematic treatment ofLady Anne reveals a pattern that suggests an attempt to marginalize or constrain female subjectivity on the screen. 1 When a Shakespearean drama is made into a film it is often necessary to delete or omit material that appears in the original playl. Commercial exigencies and the desire offilmmakers to satisfy spectator expectations can result in the elimination of characters, dialogue, and even entire scenes. There is also a tendency towards adding material, generally in the form ofemblematic images that help to bridge the chasm that lies between the classic dramatic rhetoric ofElizabethan drama and the photographic realism offilm. The former relies on an oral/aural tradition ofdescription and imagination, while the latter thrives on visual cues that have the potential ofsubverting the utterances ofthe performers, especially when those utterances take the form of verse or poetry. Laurence Olivier resorts to a number ofadditions and subtractions in his re-visioning ofRichardIII, and an examination ofseveral ofthese differences between film and play proves illuminating from the perspective offeminist film theory. There are several changes initiated by Olivier in RichardIII that seem to suggest a patriarchal ideology determined to erase woman as historical or political presence in favor ofwoman as sexual object, as locus ofand for the privileged male gaze. The alterations in Olivier's film text ofShakespeare's RichardIII are numerous, but one discerns a certain pattern in these revisions that indicates a conscious or subconscious attempt to marginalize and constrain female subjectivity on the screen. Although the decision as to what material from the play is retained and what is cast aside is integrally related to film economy, it also can reveal the dominant ideology or apparatus from which these crucial decisions emerge. Judith Mayne notes that the insights ofpsychoanalysis expose how "cinema works to acculturate 2 individuals to structures offantasy, desire, dream, and pleasure that are fully ofa piece with dominant ideology" (18). What Olivier chooses to expurgate can be just as, ifnot more, revealing ideologically as what he decides to preserve. Olivier's most notable deletion from Shakespeare's RichardIII is the figure ofQueen Margaret, and his most noticeable addition is the visual insertion ofMistress Jane Shore. Queen Margaret, widow ofKing Henry VI, appears extensively in two ofShakespeare's five Acts, and she is an integral player throughout the entire first tetralogy, while Mistress Shore, though mentioned several times in the course ofthe play, never makes a physical appearance on stage. Olivier' s decisions as to what material and characters from the original play survive the director's cut are obviously informed by the demands of traditional filmmaking expediency and reflect, perhaps, the difficulties film producers face in transposing Shakespeare into film narrative, but they also may point to unconscious stratagems implemented by a patriarchal hegemonic discourse that reveals its intentions, when faced with the dilemma of"who gets to speak and who is silenced?" Why cut Queen Margaret? Why add Jane Shore? What are the repercussions for women in Olivier's interpretation ofShakespeare? Most ofthe criticism that addresses Margaret's absence in Olivier's text posits a desire on the director's part to centralize the figure ofRichard in the play, and points out the superfluous nature of Queen Margaret and her prophecies in a world no longer governed by notions of superstition and divine retribution. Dale Silviria observes that there are only two compositional elements in Olivier's film ofRichard III; "there is Richard; [and] there is 3 all else" (218). Virtually all ofthe other characters exist in order to lend significance to the figure ofRichard. Olivier, the director and lead character, surrounds himselfwith an ordered sphere ofsupporting props, which serve to give meaning to his, and only his, existence. Outside ofRichard, there is only a two-dimensional world ofmelodrama that he manipulates at will. Mary Ann Doane suggests, "Melodrama closely allies itself with the delineation ofa lack ofsocial power and effectivity so characteristic ofthe cultural positioning ofwomen" (The Desire to Desire 73). The major characters in melodrama are normally characterized as impotent and passive; the protagonist fails to act in a way that could shape events; instead, the characters are "acted upon," and melodrama "confers on them a negative identity through suffering" (The Desire to Desire 73). Women are particularly vulnerable within the economy ofmelodrama and its employment ofpathos, an emotion that is reinforced by the disproportion between the weakness ofthe victim and the seriousness ofthe danger to which she is exposed. The weakness ofthe female victim is most evident in Olivier's film when Lady Anne succumbs to Richard's amorous overtures, a decision that ultimately results in her death. But the expulsion ofMargaret from Olivier's text and the visual insertion ofthe muted body ofJane Shore are also examples ofthe exploitation ofwomen for phallocentric purposes. Olivier's portrayal ofRichatd is often viewed as the performance ofa performance. Jack Jorgens writes, "much ofour pleasure is in watching Olivier the. consummate actor play Richard the consummate actor....Olivier is more a splendid entertainer than psychologist or realist, but rarely has so external a performance fit the 4 work so well" (143). This certainly appears plausible as a "vision'" which Olivier has with regards to his re-presentation ofRichard. The film suggests that Olivier is not as interested in the social and political dimension ofthe playas he was with the portrayal ofan individual constantly warring with the demons ofvoyeurism and narcissism. Such a portrayal mirrors the perspective supposedly shared by the male film spectator according to feminist psychoanalytic film theory. In her article, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema," Laura Mulvey maintains that there are two possible male spectator positions, "Each is associated with a look: that ofthe spectator in direct scopophilic contact with the female form displayed for his enjoyment [voyeurism] and that ofthe spectator fascinated with the image ofhis like set in an illusion ofnatural space [narcissism], and through him gaining control and possession ofthe woman within the diegesis" (34). Olivier-as-Richard engages in these forms ofspectatorship throughout the film. For example, Richard is shown "spying" on Lady Anne as she passes by with her husband's funeral procession and the film is replete with instances where the Duke ofGloucester secretly observes members ofthe court. Richard's fascination with his own image is likewise documented in the film, particularly during the wooing scene with Anne when he vows, I'll be at charges for a looking glass, And entertain a score or two oftailors to study fashions to adorn my body: Since I am. crept in favor with myself (Iii. 255-258) The audience is encouraged to identify with Richard and to vicariously experience his voyeuristic and narcissistic impulses. 5 For Olivier, Richard is the prime mover, and a compendium oflesser satellites revolve around his eminence. Margaret becomes expendable in a plot centered on Richard because she is one ofthe few characters in Shakespeare's play who challenges the usurper and is overtly resistant to his devilish orchestrations. Abrief example from Act I illustrates the strength and command oflanguage Margaret possesses: o Buckingham, take heed ofyonder dog! Look when he fawns he bites: and when he bites, His venom tooth will rankle to the death. Have

Load more