Writing Formations in Shakespearean Films
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
WRITING FORMATIONS IN SHAKESPEAREAN FILMS ROBERT GEAL MA BA A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Wolverhampton for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy March 2017 The work has not previously been presented in any form for publication, excepting some elements, referenced throughout, which appear in the following publications: Geal, R. (2014) ‘Suturing the action to the word: Shakespearean enunciation and cinema’s “reality-effect” in Shakespeare in Love and Anonymous’. Literature/Film Quarterly, 42(2), pp.438-450. Geal, R. (2015) ‘Theory is always for someone and for some purpose’: Thinking through post-structuralism and cognitivism. New Review of Film and Television Studies, 13(3), pp.261-274. Another element, again referenced, has been submitted for publication in the upcoming Routledge companion to adaptation, scheduled for publication in 2017. Save for any express acknowledgments, references and/or bibliographies cited in the work, I confirm that the intellectual content of the work is the result of my own efforts and of no other person. The right of Robert Geal to be identified as author of this work is asserted in accordance with ss.77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. At this date copyright is owned by the author. Signature………………………………… Date……………………………………… 1 Abstract 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 2 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 3 conceptualised as explanations for different but contiguous aspects of filmmaking practice, rather than as mutually exclusive claims about film’s effects. 4 Acknowledgments First of all, I must thank my supervisors, Glyn Hambrook and Fran Pheasant- Kelly. The questions they asked me about my research have been invaluable in shaping its development, and I think it is no exaggeration to say that I have modelled my own attempt to be an academic on the example they have shown me. I would also like to thank Eleanor Andrews, Stella Hockenhull and Pritpal Sembi, my colleagues in the Film and Television Studies department at the University of Wolverhampton. They have stoically put up with my PhD background radiation for a number of years, and provided invaluable advice and reassurance. My studies have been partly financially supported by the University of Wolverhampton, and I am indebted in particular to John Pymm and Andy Cooper for their assistance in this regard. Finally, I would like to thank my family, as I could not have undertaken this task without their support. I am grateful to my parents, who helped me to enjoy learning from an early age, and I would especially like to thank my wife Abby and daughter Livia, for all their encouragement and love. 5 Table of Contents CHAPTER ONE: Introduction…………………………………………………..... 9 1.1 Overview………………………………………………………………… 9 1.2 The impasse between poststructuralism and cognitivism……….… 20 1.3 Shared socio-cultural determinants in academic theorising and filmic writing formations………………………………………….. 27 1.4 The relationships between academic theorising and filmic writing formations……………………………………………………… 33 1.5 Shakespearean adaptation and filmic writing formations……….…. 44 1.6 The structure of the thesis……………………...…………………....... 48 CHAPTER TWO: Rationale and Methodology………………………………….. 52 2.1 Introduction…………………………..…………………………............. 52 2.2 Rationale……………………………………………………………....... 52 2.2.1 Poststructuralism and cognitivism: Working definitions……… 52 2.2.2 The continuing relevance of the impasse between poststructuralism and cognitivism…………………………………….. 56 2.2.3 Failed attempts to address the impasse………………………. 61 2.3 Methodology……………………………………………………………. 65 2.3.1 The thesis’ subject position…………………………………… ...66 2.3.2 Addressing the impasse by analysing the shared socio- cultural determinants in academic theorising and filmic writing formations……………………………………………………………….. 69 2.3.3 Shakespearean adaptation and the diachronic analysis of filmic writing formations…………………………………………….. 76 2.4 Conclusion……………….…………………………………………....... 84 CHAPTER THREE: A filmic poststructuralist writing formation in realist adaptation: Theory………………....................................................................... 86 3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………....... 86 3.2 Poststructuralism and enunciation: “Who is speaking?” (Lacan 1977a, p.321)………….. ……………………......... 88 3.3 Film, adaptation and enunciation: ‘Who’s there?’ Hamlet (1.1.1)………………………….………………………....... 92 3.4 Discursive containment – Auteur-ism, canonicity and the ‘dead’/hidden author: “Who is speaking thus?” (Barthes 1995, p.125)…………………….…………………….......109 3.5 Conclusion………………………………………………………………125 CHAPTER FOUR: A filmic poststructuralist writing formation in realist adaptation: Taxonomy……….……………………………………………………...127 4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………127 4.2 ‘Fainomaic’ translation from verbal discours into visual histoire: ‘Form of the thing, each word made true and good’ (Hamlet 1.2.210)……………………….…………………..128 4.2.1 The drama of cutting…………………………..…………………130 4.2.2 Fainomaic convention………..……………………..……………133 6 4.2.3 Translating verbal imagery……………….…………….………..137 4.2.4 Translating subjective viewpoints……………………..…..........142 4.2.5 Translating character narration……………………..……..........143 4.2.6 Diegesis and direct address………..……………………………146 4.2.7 Metacinema…………………………..……………………………158 4.2.8 Fainomaic translation and realist adaptation’s ontology……………………….…………………………..173 4.3 ‘Állagmic’ translation from the avowedly Shakespearean to verisimilitude: ‘[A]cted over/In states unborn and accents yet unknown’ (Julius Caesar 3.1.112-3) ………………….........173 4.3.1 Shifting context(s) while keeping the Shakespearean language………………………….……………..........175 4.3.2 Shifting context(s) and changing the Shakespearean language…………..…………………………..………192 4.3.3 Shifting gender from boy actors…..………………...…………...200 4.4 The drama of foreknowledge: ‘[T]he end is known’ (Julius Caesar 5.1.126)………………. ………………...…………207 4.5 The drama of Shakespeare: ‘I’ll play the orator as well as Nestor/Deceive more slily than Ulysses could’ (3 Henry VI 3.2.188-9)…………………….………….……………..225 4.6 Conclusion………………………………..………………………..........241 CHAPTER FIVE: Filmic writing formations’ diachronic development: Theory………………………………………………..………………244 5.1 Introduction…………….…………………………..……….……………244 5.2 Academic theory’s historic contingency and/or essentialism……………………………………….……….…..........245