The Global Journal of Literary Studies I Volume II, Issue I I February 2016 ISSN : 2395 4817

The Global Journal of Literary Studies I February 2016 I Vol. II, Issue I I ISSN : 2395 4817

Contextual and Intertextual Refractions in ’s screenplay for

Dr Anita Manuel Professor KCG College of Technology Chennai, INDIA.

Dr Rosalia Bonjour Professor Saveetha Engineering College Chennai, INDIA.

Ms Rajitha K Assistant Professor VIT University Chennai, INDIA.

Abstract

There have been many and varied adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays for the screen, enhancing as critics have pointed out, the cultural value of the cinema thereby changing the contemporary estimation of film as a low- culture medium. In 1999 Shakespeare in Love, scripted by one of the leading British Playwrights Tom Stoppard, was released to great critical and popular acclaim going on to win an impressive tally of awards (7), including the Golden Globe Award and the Academy Award for Best Original Screen play. One of the chief pleasures of watching the movie comes from our recognition of playwrights and familiar lines from plays subtly interwoven into the script. And for those in the know, the parallels with Stoppard’s own life.

The contextual and intertextual refractions in the movie are without doubt the reason for its great success. The paper looks at the various screenplays by Stoppard, and shows how the film Shakespeare in Love provided an entry into what was perceived as the high culture represented by Shakespeare. The paper analyses how the movie presents to the viewer glimpses of the Elizabethan era, Renaissance Drama, Shakespeare’s plays, Shakespeare the individual and the playwright whose plays have enthralled generations of theatre goers. Shakespeare in Love also plainly presents a world of continuum in which Shakespeare’s early life in corresponds with Stoppard’s own life. The film’s great appeal lies in the portrayal of a genius as a young man struggling to overcome his writer’s block, and in that story bringing alive the Elizabethan times, its flourishing theatre with its theatre owners, playwrights, actors and moneylenders, nobility and peasantry, as well as some of the major criticism of Shakespeare’s plays.

Keywords : Popular culture, Intertextuality, Tom Stoppard, Shakespeare in Love

The Global Journal of Literary Studies I Volume II, Issue I I February 2016 ISSN : 2395 4817

There have been many and varied adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays for the screen. Deborah Cartmel stated that Shakespearean plays were adapted to enhance the cultural value of the cinema thereby changing the contemporary estimation of film as a low-culture medium. She went on to say that a successful adaptation of Shakespeare must convey an awareness that the reproduction is both dependent on and inferior to the original (30, 31) Whether this observation is accurate or not, it is a common point of discussion in an adaptation of a novel whether the film was faithful or did justice to the text. It is also true that people who have loved a book often flock to the theatre to see its film version while many who have not read the book often apparently turn to the book because book sales inevitably rise after the release of a successful film version. In fact sometimes unknown books become part of public consciousness through the film. Case in points are the television adaptation of Tama, a Sahitya Academy winner of Balraj Sahney. A recent example may be Slum Dog Millionaire which went on to sweep the Academy Awards, though the novel Vikas Swaroop’s Q& A was comparatively unknown.

Stoppard claims that screenwriting is easier than writing for radio or stage. Yet, he admits a certain inability “to see a film in my mind, to experience the way it moves and its dynamics … the best parts of my film scripts are scenes which might be in a play – that is linked together.” (Hardin) But Stoppard also knows that you lose control over the work and be disappointed with the final result. What you write you almost never see on the screen since screen writing by definition invites interference by others, “the writer serves the director, and you kind of give it over to him” but in the theatre “the director is there to serve the writer. It’s more or less the opposite of the movies where there is a directorial vision and the writer comes in to serve that vision”(Stevenson, p 127).

He attends rehearsals of all his plays but not those of the movies because the vision is that of the director not the screen writer. John Boorman, television producer and director with BBC was the first one to suggest that Stoppard prepare scripts for television. He offered the first basic lesson of screenwriting to Stoppard “A script must be subject to alteration, development, evolution to various stages – to some extent the writing process is indivisible from the making of the film. Casting alters it, location often demand or suggests developments, rehearsal reveals problems, and shooting itself exerts constant pressures on the script…. A script is never really finished. During editing new lines are needed to replace ones that have suffered excision…” (quoted Ira B. Nadel, 90). A statement borne out much later by his experiences while writing the screenplay for Nabokov’s “Despair”. Stoppard admired Nabokov and wanted the dialogue, to be treated with lightness and speed. But his script was extensively reworked in ways which infuriated him. Stoppard objected to a betrayal of the spirit of the work rather than to changes of his words (Hardin, p. 163). The result was a critical and box office disaster.

The Global Journal of Literary Studies I Volume II, Issue I I February 2016 ISSN : 2395 4817

Despite the interferences, rewrites, cuts and frustrations Stoppard remains positive, and Stoppard’s success on stage led to more offers to script movies. In 1975, he worked on his first feature length film, an adaptation of “The Romantic Englishwoman” by Thomas Wiseman. It was directed by who called him in because he was not happy with the script. He said he contributed very little but in reviews Stoppard was praised for adding most of the humour (Nadel, 92). In 1985, he conscripted Brazil which went on to become a huge success and was nominated though it did not win the Oscar. The satire and wit of the film was highly appreciated and most of the credit given to Stoppard though he himself said modestly that he had only put in a few jokes (ibid, 94, 95). The film adaptation of Graham Greene’s bestseller “The Human Factor” in 1978, “Empire of the Sun” in 1987, based on J. M. Ballard’s novel and directed by Steven Spielberg, followed.

And then in 1999 came Shakespeare in Love which was released to great critical and popular acclaim going on to win an impressive tally of awards (7), including the Golden Globe Award and the Academy Award for Best Original Screen play. One of the chief pleasures of watching the movie comes from our recognition of playwrights and familiar lines from plays subtly interwoven into the script. And for those in the know, the parallels with Stoppard’s own life. Shakespeare in Love plainly presents a world of continuum in which Shakespeare’s early life in London corresponds with Stoppard’s. It is a portrait of every struggling artist. “One room scratching a living” (Ambushes for the Audience) is an image from Stoppard’s life that parallel’s the film’s introduction of Will. Even the changing titles of Shakespeare’s plays and the borrowing of ideas from others reflected in the film are parallels from Stoppard’s own lifting of ideas from Shakespeare’s plays itself (ibid, 166).

Viola, the name of the lead character in the movie, is the name of the heroine in Twelfth Night. who played Viola in BBC Twelfth Night, met the married Stoppard a year later as an actor in his play On the Razzle where she was in male attire ( Delaney, 33). In his screenplay, Stoppard shows the married Shakespeare falling in love with a young woman Viola who when they first meet is dressed as a man to audition for Sakespeare’s new play. Kendal went on to become Stoppard’s muse and long term romantic interest for eight years, just as Viola was Shakespeare’s muse in the movie.

WILL (despite himself) Orsino…good name VIOLA But fearful of her virtue, she comes to him dressed as a boy

The Global Journal of Literary Studies I Volume II, Issue I I February 2016 ISSN : 2395 4817

WILL (Catching it) and thus unable to declare her love It will be a love story … for she will be my heroine for all time INT. WILL'S ROOM. DAY. WILL looks up from the table. WILL (VO CONTINUED) and her name will be Viola…

Most striking of course is the success story of Shakespeare and Stoppard. A comparatively unknown Stoppard came on to the British stage in a similar blaze. His first full length play performed in The Edinburgh Fringe Festival after repeated rejections caught the interest of Kenneth Tynan of National Theatre. He asked for the script and the rest is history. Since then Stoppard has been the reigning Superstar of British theatre just as Shakespeare was in his own times. And it cannot be ignored that this play by Stoppard which catapulted him to fame was about two minor characters in Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. One of Stoppard’s letters in 1963 states “Kenneth keeps on about the play and I keep on lying that I am progressing” (Levenson, 166 -167), the same excuse Shakespeare makes in the film to his creditors. After three decades in Theatre and becoming Britain’s most celebrated playwright, Stoppard appears to contemplate his beginnings through the character of a young and callow Shakespeare.

As Dennis Kennedy once affirmed: “Shakespeare is now a machine to make theatre, to reveal other cultures, to observe their constant change” (quoted in Galery 42). Today we can wonder if Shakespeare’s force really lies in the idea that he is the “universally relevant inventor of the human” (Linnemann 8), or rather in the fact that he is a universally available resource, valuable, flexible, free, and allowing a vast number of reappropriations likely to generate new meanings. “It is this universal availability which constitutes the foundation of the cultural value of Shakespeare in the twenty-first century”, Linnemann stated (8). Shakespeare’s value is also based on his ability to contain, articulate and negotiate binaries, as the middle ground where tensions can interplay.

Matthew Arnold’s definition of culture as the civilized and corrective opponent to anarchy in Culture and Anarchy in 1869

Popular culture can be seen as the opposite side of erudite or high culture which is associated with pure and noble art connected to elite values; or as the traditional expressions (through paintings, dance, music, objects, clothes, etc) and values of the lower classes; or it could be equated with mass culture, produced by the cultural industry (Ramos 43-44). The Global Journal of Literary Studies I Volume II, Issue I I February 2016 ISSN : 2395 4817

In this sense, much of Shakespeare’s writing was created from these expressions considered popular, as being of the people

Still today Shakespeare is generally and frequently associated with a notion of high culture. However, that has not always been the case. Shakespeare has been a classic for such a long time now that the idea of his fitting popular culture has been obscured or taken for granted. But as Douglas Lanier explains in Unpopularizing Shakespeare (2002), Shakespeare’s special status stems from a complex history, one that shows the interplay of social forces, revealing how the playwright’s authority does not spring simply from a natural state, but as a social construction: “it is driven by specific cultural interests responding to developments in the theatre and publishing, the growing power and uncertain cultural status of a bourgeois middle class, the changing face of nationalism and colonialism, the professionalization of literary study...”

In Mass Civilisation and Minority Culture (1930), F. R. Leavis declared that Shakespeare was not a high-brow and explained it as an accommodation of both statuses: “there were no ‘high-brows’ in Shakespeare’s time. It was possible for Shakespeare to write plays that were at once popular drama and poetry that could be appreciated only by an educated minority” (28). However, still today, debates around the appropriation and production of Shakespeare are inextricably linked with questions of status, class, value, cultural ownership and educational achievement.

Shakespeare seems today to be everywhere, even beyond television, movies and theatre, as we find him in musicals, advertisements, toys, children’s books, computer games, etc. At the same time, Shakespeare still stands apart from theses subdivisions of what is commonly seen as popular culture, representing an icon of high culture. Douglas Lanier exposes a common perception about Shakespeare and popular culture:

Popular culture, so the story goes, is aesthetically unsophisticated, disposable, immediately accessible and therefore shallow, concerned with immediate pleasures and effects, unprogressive in its politics, aimed at the lowest common denominator, mass-produced by corporations for financial gain. By contrast, Shakespeare is aesthetically refined, timeless, complex and intellectually challenging, concerned with lasting truths of the human condition and not fleeting political issues, addressed to those few willing to devote themselves to laborious study, produced by a single genius ‘not of an age but for all time’.

The Global Journal of Literary Studies I Volume II, Issue I I February 2016 ISSN : 2395 4817

The screenplay of Shakespeare in Love written by Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard gives us a view of historical period that has always been fascinating whether as a period of the greatest drama ever written or as the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Stoppard bring them all alive. The experiences of Shakespeare as lover and Shakespeare as playwright intersect as the offstage world and onstage world reflect and inform each other even as the lives of the historical Shakespeare and the screenwriter Stoppard form a swirling kaleidoscope of reflections and intersections of life and art, with extraordinary dialogue instantly recognizable as Stoppardian ( Kelly, p 15). Shakespeare is presented to us at once as a man and a genius, a struggling playwright and a lover in a script enlivened with the trademark Stoppardian repartee.

The movie crisscrosses the different worlds of history and fiction, bringing in quotes from real plays. The latter creates a third dimension to that of historical truth and fiction for the reality of a play is both historical and yet imaginary. Though the film focuses on Romeo and Juliet, it cites other plays ranging from Titus Andronicus to the sonnets. The final image of Viola in male attire setting sail to distant lands ends with Twelfth night, a shipwreck in Shakespeare’s imagination. On the street, Shakespeare hears a Puritan preaching against the two London stages: "The Rose smells thusly rank, by any name! I say, a plague on both their houses!" Two references in one, both to Romeo and Juliet; first, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" (Act II, scene ii, lines 1 and 2); second, "a plague on both your houses" (Act III, scene I, line 94). When Kempe (a well known actor in the Shakespearean era) leads the dog into the wings, rummages in a box of props and finds a skull. He poses with one foot on the box, his elbow on his knee, he looks at the skull. As Stoppard makes the overt comment in his notes that the image of Krempe contemplating a skull alludes to the famous scene from Hamlet. Shakespeare utters the lines "Doubt thou the stars are fire, / Doubt that the sun doth move" (from Hamlet) to Philip. All of this coexists with the world of modern entertainment, from the West End to Hollywood. (Levenson, p 165). Shakespeare, lying on crumpled sheets, tosses a souvenir mug that says "A PRESENT FROM STRATFORD-ON-AVON." When he chases after the disguised Viola for the first time over the Thames, he tells his boatman in typical Bond/Hollywood thriller fashion: "Follow that boat!"

Literary history acknowledges various claimants to the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays. Bate gives a succinct account of these rivalling claims. In spite of incontrovertible proof, and reference by contemporaries to Shakespeare’s talent as dramatist (70, 71), many could not abide the image of an untutored dramatist. But though Shakespeare was not from the University he was an educated man,

The Global Journal of Literary Studies I Volume II, Issue I I February 2016 ISSN : 2395 4817

having attended one of the better grammar schools of the time. A number of personalities from Francis Bacon, the University Wits, Earl of Southampton, Earl of Essex have all been set up as the true author of the plays. The long standing argument whether Shakespeare wrote the plays is alluded to several times. The urchin asks, “Are you the author of the plays of William Shakespeare?” To this question Shakespeare replies unequivocally “I am”. Yet another point the same question is asked again, this time by Viola , “Answer me only this: are you the author of the plays of William Shakespeare?". Again the positive reply. Will is shown signing a paper repeatedly, with many relatively illegible signatures visible. This is a reference to the fact that several versions of Shakespeare's signature exist, and in each one he spelled his name differently.

It gives the viewer an authentic portrait of the theatre in those times and the various personages that peopled that theatre including the two leading actors Richard Burbage and Edward Alleyn. The latter’s towering reputation made by acting in Marlowe’s plays is referred to when the character Alleyn introduces himself with the words Silence… I am Hieronimo! I am/ Tamburlaine! I am Faustus!/ I am Barrabas, the Jew of Malta--of yes,/ Master Will, and I am Henry VI. What/ is the play, and what is my part?”. Philip Henslowe, theatre builder, producer, impresario owned the Rose Theatre was home to the Admiral's Men for a number of years, and Henslowe played a key role as a blend of manager and financier. It was here that Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet was first performed though entirely not written the way Henslowe wanted. The expose of the pitfalls of theatrical life forms some of the comic interludes in the movie. Henslowe is the practical man who wants to give the crowd what they want and is pitted against Shakespeare’s creative compulsions. He has the formula by heart “It's a crowd-tickler— mistaken/ identities, a shipwreck, a pirate/ king, a bit with a dog, and love triumphant”. Only the dramatist changes so when Lambert responds “I think I've seen it. I didn't like it”, Henslowe does not deny that it is an oft played plot but rebuts that this time it was going to be written by Shakespeare. The play was to those times what the movie is today – a source of entertainment for the commoner and the aristrocat alike, freely borrowing and adapting from each other. Shakespeare wrote his plays not for an elitist group or high brow intellectuals but for the ordinary man filling his plays with songs and fights and romance. Again and again Henslowe underline the importance of the ordinary man, telling Shakespeare “it is a comedy they want” only to watch a play emerge that does away with all the motifs and ends not as a comedy bit a romantic tragedy. Many of the comic moments in the play revolve around the rivalry of the two theatre groups Lord Admiral’s Men and Lord Chamberlaine’s Men. The irony is that Shakespeare’s later plays were performed by Chamberlaine’s Men and Richard Burbage gained fame playing the major tragic characters of Hamlet, Othello and Lear. Even in the movie, it is

The Global Journal of Literary Studies I Volume II, Issue I I February 2016 ISSN : 2395 4817

clear that Shakespeare will give his play to the highest bidder. Shakespeare is a harried artisan who must balance his failing finances with a forbidden love affair. Shakespeare the Genius is no longer perched on a pedestal, but is an accessible human figure, all the more so because of his foibles (village savant). The play within the play was a staple device in Elizabethan drama including Shakespeare. From early Renaissance plays like Kyd’s Spanish Tragedy and later plays like Massinger’s The Roman Actor where three playlets are embedded in a fourth, the play within the play has been a strategy to question both the reality of the play as well as the reality of the audience. The most famous Shakespearean example is probable the play within the play in Hamlet staged by the troupe of Players, in an attempt by Hamlet to get King Claudius betray his complicity in the murder of the king his brother. It is a device that Stoppard had used in his own plays like . As such the enactment of Romeo and Juliet within a larger play was one more layer of reference, both to the theatrical tradition of using plays within plays as well as to different perceptions and representations of reality. It interrogates both the reality of the spectators as well as the reality of the actors and the characters. Not only are the scenes of Romeo and Juliet enacted on stage, in the outer story of the movie, there are references to the play. The scene between Shakespeare and Viola parallels the famous balcony scene in Romeo and Juliet.

We also see that the theatre was a world of men. The women characters are played by men. This is one of the reasons why it was so common for the female character to disguise herself as a man, because the actor was only reverting to his true gender. In the movie, we see Shakespeare kicking out the “urchin” who was chosen to play the role of Juliet. In an ironic twist in the movie, we have Viola playing not Juliet but Romeo. So we have a man dressed as a woman playing Juliet and a woman dressed as a man playing Romeo. The “urchin” cannot be overlooked because that unprepossessing boy answers to the name of John Webster. He was again one of the leading playwrights of the later Renaissance period, author of The White Devil and Duchess of Malfi. Webster’s love of the macabre and the violent is foreshadowed twice in the urchin’s responses. When asked what he liked in Titus Andronicus by Shakespeare and later when asked by the Queen as to his favourite part in Romeo and Juliet, he refers to the scenes of violence and murder as his favourite moments.

WILL You admire it? The URCHIN nods grimly. URCHIN I like it when they cut heads off. And the daughter mutilated with knives.

The Global Journal of Literary Studies I Volume II, Issue I I February 2016 ISSN : 2395 4817

WILL Oh. What is your name? URCHIN. John Webster.

Indeed one of the special pleasures of the movie is the discovery of these familiar historical personages, hidden away in seemingly unimportant exchanges.

The other playwright that appears in the movie is Christopher Marlowe, the preeminent dramatist who had already written his much acclaimed plays before Shakespeare’s rise. Plays like Jew of Malta, Edward II and Doctor Faustus had already established his reputation as a grea dramatist. A reference is also made to Marlowe's final, unfinished play The Massacre at Paris in a scene where Marlowe seeks payment for the final act of the play from Burbage who promises the payment the next day. Marlowe refuses to part with the pages and departs for Deptford, where Marlowe is killed, and therefore the play is lost to posterity! His eminence is referred to several times in the movie, underlined by the fact that it is his lines that the actors inevitably recite when auditioning for Shakespeare’s plays, much to Shakespeare’s annoyance. As the moneylender observes “Of course, it was mighty writing./ There is no one like Marlowe”. It is an acknowledged fact that Shakespeare borrowed heavily from Marlowe for characters like Shylock or that his oft quoted lines like “Who loved that loved not at first sight?” was written by Marlowe. In fact there is are some that claim Marlowe would have been a far greater dramatist than Shakespeare if he had lived, though of the same age Marlowe had already produced extraordinary works when Shakespeare had little to show at that period.

Marlowe’s death, stabbed in a tavern, is still a matter of debate. Since Marlowe is thought by many as being a spy, his death is suspected to be political. This is borne out by the events leading up to his death. A warrant for Marlowe's arrest was issued on May 18, when he was staying with Thomas Walsingham, whose father was a first cousin of the late Sir Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth's principal secretary in the 1580s and a man deeply involved in state espionage. Marlowe was questioned on 20 May and released but was instructed to "give his daily attendance on their Lordships”. On Wednesday May 30, Marlowe was killed. In the movie Stoppard gives the stories regarding his death a further twist. When Shakespeare is questioned as to his identity by Wessex, Viola’s enraged suitor, he gives his identity as Marlowe. And at a second time, again gives Wessex to understand that Marlowe was in close terms with Viola. Thus when the news breaks that Marlowe has been stabbed to death, Shakespeare is seen as struck by guilty grief believing that Wessex had him killed. Only much later does he learn that Marlowe was stabbed by one of his creditors. This is indeed the popularly accepted version of Marlowe’s untimely death but there are many scholars who dispute this as a trumped up story for the coroner.

The Global Journal of Literary Studies I Volume II, Issue I I February 2016 ISSN : 2395 4817

In the movie ,Shakespeare has already begun to make a name for himself, but though more or less of the same age there is no rivalry; they are shown as casual friends. The story of Romeo and Juliet as an idea given by Marlowe to Shakespeare, when he confesses to writers block

WILL Well, there's a pirate (confesses) In truth, I have not written a word. MARLOWE Romeo is…Italian. Always in and out of love. WILL Yes, that's good. Until he meets MARLOWE Ethel. WILL Do you think? MARLOWE The daughter of his enemy. WILL (thoughtfully) The daughter of his enemy. MARLOWE His best friend is killed in a duel by Ethel's brother or something. His name is Mercutio. WILL Mercutio…good name. But while Stoppard credits Marlowe with the basic idea, Shakespeare’s genius is in turning that bare bones of a plot to a play that remains centuries after it was written as the iconic play about star-crossed lovers. This again refers to Shakespeare’s constant habit of lifting stories, plots and characters from earlier plays. And yet he takes them and creates something far greater and unforgettable. The existence of the parallels between the two dramatists work led in fact to the contention that Shakespeare’s plays

The Global Journal of Literary Studies I Volume II, Issue I I February 2016 ISSN : 2395 4817

were written by Marlowe. His death was treated as a false herring designed to believe his creditors and the government that he had sided, but in fact not only did he live bit used Shakespeare as a front.

In the movie, the beauty of that play is seen as emanating from Shakespeare’s own doomed love. It is his passionate love for Viola that causes images and words to flow non-stop from his lips and his quill. Stoppard places on Paltrow’s (Viola) lips, lines that rival Shakespeare’s own poetry. VIOLA Men at court are without poetry. If they look at me they see my father's fortune. I will have poetry in my life. And adventure. And love. Love above all. NURSE Like Valentine and Silvia? VIOLA No . . . not the artful postures of love, but love that over- throws life. Unbiddable, ungovernable, like a riot in the heart, and nothing to be done, come ruin or rapture. Love like there has never been in a play.

So while the fervour and beauty of the first acts comes from the first flush of his love while the tragic ending of is love becomes the ending of the characters in the play. Love is the central theme of the movie where the parallel worlds of ‘Romeo and Juliet’’ and Shakespeare’s personal life as imagined by Stoppard circle each other. When the Queen declares, “But playwrights teach nothing about/ love, they make it pretty, they make/ it comical, or they make it lust. They/ cannot make it true”, Wessex offers his non-existent fortune on the wager that no play can capture love observing “Nature and truth are the very enemies/ of playacting”. In a moment of bravado, Shakespeare wagers fifty pounds, a wager witnessed and noted down in court, a wager that the Queen forces Wessex to make good, declaring the collision of the twin worlds of “the play within the play” and the movie has indeed managed to present true love. As Hersh Zeifman “the most cerebral of contemporary playwrights has become ironically the foremost romantic dramatist of our time” (198).

The Global Journal of Literary Studies I Volume II, Issue I I February 2016 ISSN : 2395 4817

These contextual and intertextual refractions give the movie a dimension that undoubtedly contributed to its critical and commercial success. The movie is a romantic comedy which focuses on the thrilling romance of a struggling playwright with a rich young woman who becomes his muse and love. But its great appeal lies in the portrayal of a genius the whole world reveres as a young man struggling to overcome his writer’s block, and in that story bring alive the Elizabethan times, its flourishing theatre and its well-known cast of theatre owners, playwrights, actors and moneylenders, nobility and peasantry, men and women.

References

Adaptations from Text to Screen, Screen to Text, Ed by Deborah Cartmell and Imelda Whelehan, London & New York: Routeledge, 1999

ARNOLD, Matthew. Culture and Anarchy. London: CUP, 1932.

BORGES, RAMOS Luciene, Centros de cultura, Espaços de informação. Um estudo sobre a ação do Galpão Cine Horto. Belo Horizonte: Argumentum, 2008.

GALERY Maria Clara. Identifying Strategies for the Production and Reception of Shakespeare in Brazil and Argentina. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto, Toronto, 2001.

Harsh Zeiffman, The Comedy of Eros: Stoppard in Love, The Cambridge companion to Tom Stoppard. Ed Katherine E. Kelly, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press, 2001

Ira Nadel, Stoppard and Film in The Cambridge companion to Tom Stoppard. Ed Katherine E. Kelly, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press, 2001

Jill L. Levenson, Stoppard’s Shakespeare: Textual Re-visions, The Cambridge companion to Tom Stoppard. Ed Katherine E. Kelly, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press, 2001

Katherine E Kelly, Tom Stoppard in Transformation, in The Cambridge companion to Tom Stoppard. Ed Katherine E. Kelly, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press, 2001

LANIER, Douglas. Shakespeare and Modern Popular Culture. New York: OUP, 2002.

LEAVIS, F.R. Mass Civilisation and Minority Culture. Cambridge: Minority Press, 1930.

LINNEMANN, Emily. The Cultural Value of Shakespeare in Twenty-First-Century Publicly-Funded Theatre in . Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Birmingham, Birmingham, 2010.

The Global Journal of Literary Studies I Volume II, Issue I I February 2016 ISSN : 2395 4817

Paul Delaney Exit Tomas Straussler, Enter Tom Stoppard, in The Cambridge companion to Tom Stoppard. Ed Katherine E. Kelly, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press, 2001

SHANGHNESSY, Robert. ed. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare and Popular Culture. Cambridge: CUP, 2007.

Tom Stoppard, in “Interview”, Nancy Shields Hardin, Contemporary Literature, 22 (1981) The Genuis of Shakespeare, Jonathan Bate Picador London,2008

Village Idiot Savant, Shakespeare in Love. Wednesday, Feb 27, 2008www.villageidiotsavant.com/2008/02/analysis-shakespeare-in-love.html

William Stevenson, “For some Screenplays aren’t just Writers of Passage”, New York Magazine, 11 February 1991.

The Global Journal of Literary Studies I Volume II, Issue I I February 2016 ISSN : 2395 4817