Open FULLDISSERTATION.Pdf
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts ADAPTATIONS: THE LONDON STAGE AS ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY, 1790-1890 A Dissertation in English and Women’s Studies by Lissette Szwydky © 2008 Lissette Szwydky Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2008 The dissertation of Lissette Szwydky was reviewed and approved* by the following: Paul B. Youngquist Professor of English Dissertation Adviser Chair of Committee Nicholas A. Joukovsky Professor of English Robert L. Caserio Professor of English Janet Lyon Associate Professor of English and Women's Studies Lori D. Ginzberg Professor of History and Women's Studies Robert E. Edwards Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of English and Comparative Literature Graduate Director, Department of English *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School ii ABSTRACT Scholars have consistently critiqued Hollywood for producing adaptations that ignore the narrative intricacies and cultural critiques characteristic of the novels chosen for adaptation. This project argues that this practice has a long history—one that is almost as old as the novel—and that the nineteenth-century theater industry has much more in common with Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s understanding of the modern culture industry than we might first imagine. The dissertation investigates how nineteenth-century theatrical adaptations significantly changed the politics espoused in their parent novels. Chapters on early theatrical adaptations of the history of Three- Fingered Jack (1800), Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818), Victor Hugo’s Notre Dame de Paris (1831), and Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) demonstrate how the radical politics that informed these novels were changed when adapted for the stage in order to promote narratives that closely fit England’s political aims both at home and abroad. The project includes analyses of adaptations staged in London throughout the nineteenth century, and argues that these early stage adaptations solidified their parent novels’ place in the popular literary canon. The methodology employed is primarily historicist, drawing upon theater history, advertisements, reviews of the performances, and political movements. Together, these documents illustrate the highly-commercial nature of the nineteenth-century theater industry and the financial and political motivations behind staging adaptations in London’s major theaters. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES vi INTRODUCTION 1 It Lives! Adaptation and Everlasting Life CHAPTER ONE 26 The Nineteenth-Century Culture Industry: Theoretical Spotlights and Historical Backdrops Censorship, Meet Spectacle . 34 A Disciplined Theater Industry . 45 Melodrama: Its Delights and Discontents . 57 The Business of Adaptation . 65 Teaching Machines . 75 Novel Celebrities . 86 CHAPTER TWO 91 Making History: How Three-Fingered Jack Became Famous The (In)Famous Three-Fingered Jack . 99 Erasing Re-writing the History of Black Resistance . 116 White Obi . 133 A Star is Born . 140 CHAPTER THREE 145 “My Hideous Progeny” Made Visible: The Spectacular History of Frankenstein Radical Revisions . 152 Presumption Sets the Stage . 163 Spectacular Death Scenes . 174 Domesticated Creatures . 181 Original Frankenstein? . 191 CHAPTER FOUR 198 From Historical Romance to Domestic Melodrama: The “Timeless” Characters of The Hunchback of Notre-Dame iv Notre-Dame’s English Stage Progeny . 202 Stock Timeless Characters . 209 Happily Ever After; or, Saving Esmeralda . 217 The Politics and Economics of Translation . 231 Victor Who? Quasimodo Superstar! . 238 CHAPTER FIVE 244 Keeping it Real: Uncle Tom “Mania” and the Marketing of Authenticity Uncle Tom “Mania” at a Glance . 252 Buying into Abolition . 260 Authentic Reproduction . 267 The Real Thing . 281 EPILOGUE 297 Going Global: Birth of an International Entertainment Industry SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 307 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Dust jacket for the Barnes & Noble Classics edition of Frankenstein, 8 featuring a still from the 1931 film starring Boris Karloff as the monster. Figure 2. Cover art for the Oxford World Classics 2008 edition of Dracula, 8 featuring a still from the 1930 film starring Bela Lugosi as the Count. Lugosi also appears on the 1998 cover. Figure 3. O. Smith as Three-Fingered Jack with darkened arms and legs. 143 Figure 4. O. Smith as Three-Fingered Jack in full black face. 143 Figure 5. Fred Leslie as the Monster in Frankenstein; or The Vampire’s Victim 147 (1887). Figure 6. Peter Boyle as the Creature in Young Frankenstein (1974). 147 Figure 7. Scene from The Model Man (1849), starring Paul Bedford as the 184 Creature and Edward Wright as Frankenstein. Figure 8. R. Norman, “Joseph Grimaldi and the Vegetable Man,” published by 195 R. Ackerman (8 February 1811). Figure 9. Charles Laughton as Quasimodo during his short reign as King of 218 Fools (1939). Figure 10. Disney’s rendition of the same scene in The Hunchback of Notre- 218 Dame (1996). Figure 11. The final scene of Edward Fitzball’s Esmeralda, promptbook, c. 223 1836. Figure 12. Cover of the 1881 edition of Josiah Henson’s Autobiography 279 published in London, Ontario by Schuyler, Smith, & Co. Figure 13. Title page of the 1881 edition of Henson’s Autobiography. 279 Figure 14. Promotional card for the 1878 Jarrett and Palmer production of 289 Uncle Tom’s Cabin. vi 1 INTRODUCTION It Lives! Adaptation and Everlasting Life Adaptations share a lot in common with Frankenstein‟s monster. Adapting a novel to a dramatic format (stage or screen) first requires the selection of choice parts. The pieces are then stitched together into a new creation that is brought to life through the use of modern technology. Both are also considered by many to be ugly creatures— imperfect (or even hideous) copies of the original. However, no matter how ugly they may appear to some, they both possess significant appeal for others. The Creature in Shelley‟s novel may be ugly and violent; however, he manages to gain the reader‟s sympathy through his articulate speeches. Adaptations too have their ugly side— distortions of the story that often make scholars (or fans) of the novel cringe. Nevertheless, they possess strong appeal for many people. We know this for a number of reasons that have been theorized elsewhere.1 The most obvious reason is that no matter how much criticism they may receive, they are always around us. The best ones always keep coming back in sequels and spin-offs. Like the most famous Hollywood monsters, you cannot stop them. Most importantly, we know that adaptations are an important popular practice because adaptations inform all of our daily lives. We can find adaptations in every popular medium today. Films stand out as the most visible, accessible examples. If one were to look through a list of blockbuster films from the last few years, Hollywood‟s 1 Two recent studies are Linda Hutcheon, A Theory of Adaptation (New York and London: Routledge, 2006), and Julie Sanders, Adaptation and Appropriation (New York and London: Routledge, 2006). An earlier work of interest is Robert Giddings, Screening the Novel: The Theory and Practice of Literary Dramatization (New York: St. Martin‟s, 1990). 2 lucrative love affair with adaptation would be apparent instantly. Quite a few forms find their way onto the big screen: novels, short stories, comic books, graphic novels, video games, and television series. “Adaptations are everywhere.” This pointed, three-word sentence opens Linda Hutcheon‟s A Theory of Adaptation. They need not say more. Some novels have been adapted so many times that there is no doubt that the story and characters are more widely known through adaptations. The abundance of Frankenstein adaptations to date makes it an easy example of how adaptations can overshadow the novels and short stories that bring them to life. Everyone knows Frankenstein, even if they do not know Frankenstein. The version of the story known to most is not the one found on the pages of Shelley‟s novel. Yet, Frankenstein is merely one example of how popular entertainment appropriates literature and reconfigures it for new audiences, often with little regard to textual faithfulness or historical accuracy. Nineteenth-century texts in particular find their way into current cultural visibility through films, television, animation, and comic books. A “Scrooge” is understood by most to be a grumpy penny-pincher, but current students are more likely to associate the character with George C. Scott, Bill Murray, or the cartoon character $crooge McDuck rather than attribute him to Charles Dickens.2 In a similar vein, Dracula and the notorious one-man duo of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde have become icons of twentieth- century cinema, detached from the fictions of Bram Stoker and Robert Louis Stevenson. Quasimodo, Victor Hugo‟s unforgettable hunchback, has inspired memorable performances from at least three major twentieth-century actors; he also became a 2 During a class discussion of this text in 2006, my students made a considerable case for the inclusion of The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992) in this list of “influential” (or at least most memorable) adaptations. 3 friendly face for five-year-olds in 1996 courtesy of an extreme Disney makeover complete with lessons in song and dance. All of these twentieth-century incarnations of nineteenth-century characters have at least one thing in common: they are fairly easy to dismiss as products of capitalist ventures more interested in profits than in