Best Shakespeare adaptations on film

[bart]

That Macbeth was a Hallmark Hall of Fame tv special. Younger people might not believe it, but Hallmark actually produced respectable and VERY serious Shakespeare and other high-culture literary events on tv in the 50s and early 60s. Evans was in the Guilgud tradition, as I recall, excellent at articulating the verse, but not very plausible as a semi-barbaric political murderer. Anderson, who could be quite grand herself, was rather like a darker version of her Mrs. Danvers character.

[dirac]

One of the great what-ifs of movie history is the Laurence Olivier-Vivien Leigh Macbeth that never happened. They played it onstage to some of the best reviews they ever received, jointly or separately (although as always with Leigh in Shakespeare there were those with reservations about her). Alexander Korda was going to produce, but he died, and Olivier was unable to put together alternative financial backing. A heartbreaker.

I like the Roman Polanski Macbeth with Jon Finch and Francesca Annis.

Regarding the Shearer-Howard Romeo and Juliet: a choice bit of info I forgot to mention earlier. There is a story that the producer of the picture, Irving Thalberg, who was married to Shearer, offered the part of Romeo to.......Clark Gable, MGM’s biggest male star. He turned it down on the grounds that he was totally unsuited to Shakespeare, and remarked tactfully that Thalberg must be nuts to think of him, and that Mrs. Thalberg would be, um, equally unsuited to Juliet. Relations between the two men were never the same.

[Paul Parish]

Well, said, Bart: "Anderson, who could be quite grand herself, was rather like a darker version of her Mrs. Danvers character." Scary lady.

And Dirac, I agree with you, Vivien Leigh might WELL have been a riveting Lady MacBeth -- there's a beautiful, terrifying photograph of her in the role: she seems to be asking "Who's the fairest one of all?" You COULD play Lady macbeth that way; it could be toweringly vertiginously great.

[dirac]

Well, said, Bart: "Anderson, who could be quite grand herself, was rather like a darker version of her Mrs. Danvers character." Scary lady.

And Dirac, I agree with you, Vivien Leigh might WELL have been a riveting Lady Macbeth -- there's a beautiful, terrifying photograph of her in the role: she seems to be asking "Who's the fairest one of all?" You COULD play Lady macbeth that way; it could be toweringly vertiginously great.

I’ve seen an Angus McBean photograph of Leigh in the role; she looks ravishing and fierce. Apparently she played it not as a dragon lady so much as a siren. It was clear that part of her hold on her husband was a sexual one.

[canbelto]

I think Leigh might have been a great Lady Macbeth if only for the frantic, manic touch she brought to all her roles. Of course we now know that the frantic, manic touch also afflicted her 100 times worse in real life which is sad. But I can just imagine Leigh's huge, minx-like eyes lighting up when she reads Macbeth's letter, and the unhinged, scary way she would have done the Mad Scene.

And dirac I'm sorry but I spit coke onto my screen when I read that Clark Gable was considered for Romeo. I think a young Montgomery Clift might have been a great Romeo though. Imagine those sensitive cheekbones!

[Paul Parish]

yes, Canbelto --Did you see her in "Ship of Fools"? not a great picture, but an AMAZING performance -- thoguh I gather she was being herself. Manic, off hte hook.

Those who htought her hopelessly lightweight - -well, they have the advantage of having SEEN her, and I haven't -- seem to type her as a soubrette, trivial, brittle little pretty thing -- but it's those characteristics that she could bring into such focus and make poignant as Blanche duBois. Maybe it helped her to be playing an American, and a Southern belle, since it would require more warnth than she had by nature, and also since the material is great -- well, Streetcar Named Desire is GREAT material, and Gone with the Wind is under-rated. Scarlett OHara called for heroic grit and determination, ambition, and rock-bottom ability to endure ("as God is my witness, I'll never go hungry again!"), as well as all the prettiness and grace of a Sylphide. That's quite a spectrum.

[papeetepatrick]

yes, Canbelto --Did you see her in "Ship of Fools"? not a great picture, but an AMAZING performance -- thoguh I gather she was being herself. Manic, off hte hook.

I agree about Leigh, but the film itself is maybe not great, but extremely rich, with Signoret also a fantastic non-hysterical morphine addict ministered to ever-so-sensitively by Oskar Werner and other great assorted characters

[dirac]

It is true that Vivien Leigh suffered from manic depression, but I would caution strongly about drawing broad conclusions from that. Leigh was known for her professionalism, dedicated hard work, and carefully worked out (sometimes too carefully worked out) performances, and forgive me if I find statements such as “she was playing herself” a tad condescending (and in questionable taste). It is called acting, you know. I do not doubt that her experience in periodically living close to the edge of sanity gave her insight into the plight of characters such as Blanche DuBois and Mrs. Treadwell, but that’s not the same thing.

canbelto writes:

I think Leigh might have been a great Lady Macbeth if only for the frantic, manic touch she brought to all her roles.

All of them? Really?

Paul Parish writes:

Those who thought her hopelessly lightweight - -well, they have the advantage of having SEEN her, and I haven't -- seem to type her as a soubrette, trivial, brittle little pretty thing -- but it's those characteristics that she could bring into such focus and make poignant as Blanche duBois.

Leigh could be extraordinarily good, but you couldn’t call her a great natural talent. She was limited by certain physical characteristics – she was small, with a voice that could sound light and artificial, and that Dresden doll beauty that was a huge asset but also restricted the kind of roles she could play. When Olivier made his move into the new wave of British drama in “The Entertainer,” there was talk of her playing Mrs. Archie Rice, but she could not follow him; it wasn’t right for her. Paul is right in that she wasn’t a “warm” actress, and she often played women – Scarlett, Emma Hamilton, Cleopatra – who have less than admirable qualities (and Leigh doesn’t shirk from showing us those; she’s willing to take the risk that we won’t like her).

I thought that "Ship of Fools" was a travesty, to be blunt. Only Signoret and Werner came out of it alive -- all the other actors went down with the ship, as it were, through no fault of their own.

While I'm not cutting off all discussion on this point, we should stick with the topic a little more clsosely. Thanks.

[bart]

I've been out of commision owing to a wonky modem, but here are a few thoughts:

I like the Roman Polanski Macbeth with Jon Finch and Francesca Annis.

Annis brought class, sexiness, and great glamour to the part. Finch brought, in my estimation ... just Finch, which was not enough.

I agree that Vivien Leigh could have been a fascinating Lady M, despite the lightness of the voice and the strange, one-and-off charisma that she projected on the screen. I suspect she would have projected hints of the mental and emotional breakdown to come, long before the character actually descends into madness. If tragedy is intended to provoke a combination of awe and pity, Leigh certainly would have scored with "pity". Awe is another question, however.

And, regarding Clark Gable as Romeo. Why not? -- especially if Leonardo Di Caprio was considered by some to be up to the part. Once you throw the poetry out of Romeo, you might as well hire John Wayne, come to think of it.

[dirac]

canbelto writes:

I think a young Montgomery Clift might have been a great Romeo though.

Clift and Jerome Robbins were an item for awhile, and there is a well known story that says it was a discussion with Clift about the role of Romeo that gave Robbins the seed idea for “West Side Story.” Clift never did play it. I agree with you, he was perfect for the part, visually and otherwise. Sigh.

bart writes:

And, regarding Clark Gable as Romeo. Why not? -- especially if Leonardo Di Caprio was considered by some to be up to the part. Once you throw the poetry out of Romeo, you might as well hire John Wayne, come to think of it.

Well – Di Caprio is a good actor. He needs voice lessons, but I think he could handle the role in the right circumstances. (I admit I enjoyed the Luhrmann R&J – it’s lousy Shakespeare but fun to watch, although you do wonder why the actors are talking funny.)

[bart]

Well – Di Caprio is a good actor. He needs voice lessons, but I think he could handle the role in the right circumstances.

But with Shakespeare, is it really possible to be a "good actor" and be so lacking the vocal qualities and the sensitivity to sound, that are needed to get across the line? Especially with a part that consists almost entirely of poetry?

The thought raises questions that are also currently being discussed on our two "technique" threads. Would it be possible, for instance, for a dancer to interpret Albrecht, Siegfried, or James who had only a small grasp of both the method and the nuances of classical ballet technique?

[canbelto]

Ok, I'm going to admit: I really enjoyed Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet, in part because of diCaprio and Danes. I know this is going to sound funny, but their "wrongness" with language made them right for the part. Romeo's 16, Juliet's 13. It's the same reason I liked the very adolescent Hussey and Leonard Whiting in the 1968 Zefferelli film. In order to make all that poetic language sound natural, I think a certain kind of adolescent awkwardness is necessary. For me, at least.

dirac, it's too bad Clift was disfigured by that accident, because he might have made West Side Story (the film) much better, even if he was a bit old for the part, and couldn't sing. Come to think of it, Richard Beymer was a Clift lookalike, but without the talent.

[Anthony_NYC]

And, regarding Clark Gable as Romeo. Why not? -- especially if Leonardo Di Caprio was considered by some to be up to the part. Once you throw the poetry out of Romeo, you might as well hire John Wayne, come to think of it.

You remind me of a priceless story I read in John Simon's column. I would love to believe it is true.

"Dustin Hoffman used to tell a story (apocryphal, no doubt) about John Wayne's essaying the lead in a stage production of Macbeth. In no time, the audience erupted in guffaws. Angered, the Duke marched downstage and bellowed, 'Listen, I didn't write this crap!'"

[dirac]

Well......Laurence Olivier was already in his late twenties, had no classical experience outside the occasional school production, and no previous ambition to do Shakespeare, when John Gielgud, a few years older and already an established classical actor, offered him the chance to alternate Romeos and Mercutios. Olivier was accused of insensitivity to poetic values, mangling the verse, overathleticism, bad voice, etc., etc. I’m not making an analogy between Di Caprio and Olivier, only noting that casting a promising actor with little or no classical experience is not quite the same as casting an unqualified dancer as Albrecht (or casting a personality star like John Wayne or Tom Cruise as Romeo). Sometimes such an actor can bring something fresh to the part, like Jean Simmons in the Olivier Hamlet. On other occasions, the inadequacy is obvious. It depends on the circumstances.

canbelto writes:

I know this is going to sound funny, but their "wrongness" with language made them right for the part. Romeo's 16, Juliet's 13.

Yes, but that doesn’t mean that actors of that age have the skills needed to play the roles. Whiting and Hussey didn’t convince me that they are experiencing anything beyond puppy love, and they’re inadequate to the passions unleashed in the later parts of the play, IMO.

[bart]

Great story, Anthony_NYC. Thanks!

Canbelto, I have to admit that I also enjoyed the Luhrmann R&J, and that even includes the performances. The story of R&J is so iconic, so large, so very, very familiar, that it can impart strength and significance to all sorts of production. Shakespeare is big enough to survive a great deal from the hands of his many various interpreters.

Luhrmann's R&J was an example of the way that elements of Shakespeare -- plot, central "problem," the surface of the text -- can be married to a very different aesthetic vision from the playwright's own. For example, the ineptness of the way Danes recited her lines was quite touching. Her Juliet was a baby, really, forced by the grown-ups around her to take an role in adult matters for which she was not ready. Finding Di Caprio was kind of a double blessing: on one level, there's the spontaneous (and star-crossed) attraction created by Shakespeare; on another level, there's a shared innocense, childishness and vapidity, created by Luhrmann, I think. That Danes and Di Caprio both want to break away from the rules of their world -- Romeo's gang of friends; Juliet's rigid family rules -- and the way they do it, is actually quite interesting .

My concern, however, is different. Shakespeare without the poetry, without the ability to speak these lines beautifully, but also conversationally and apparently spontaneously, is in a real sense "not" Shakespeare. And that has to do with technique and an aesthetic vision.

To relate this to ballet, just imagine Odile and Siegfried danced by the cutest couple in the local dance school. It could be very touching. You could actually be impressed by how well they did ... considering. It would certainly bring a "feel" to the plot that had not been there before. And it would certainly attract a new kind of audience. But Swan Lake it would not be.

P.S. dirac, your last post appeared just before i posted mine. I agree about Olivier, but that was what some people SAID at the time. Examples of the young Olivier's acting on film show someone with a technique and charisma quite capable of doing the youthful Shakespearen roles. His was an approach which rang so true that it quickly and completely replaced the older versions. DiCaprio/Danes is what the British call a "one off." Very likeable and appealing. But leading nowhere in particular.

[canbelto]

Actually I caught on TCM the 1936 "As You Like It" with Olivier and Bergner. Olivier is off the charts in the drool factor, but sounds really awkward and "green" with the language. But somehow, it worked, because Orlando is this awkward youth who writes awful poetry. And as I said, the drool factor is huge.

dirac, I'm not saying only teens can be cast as R&J, just that Danes and DiCaprio managed to be convincing in the parts (IMO) without really having a grasp of the language. I thought they were better than Hussey and Whiting.

But I agree, casting actors who aren't familiar with Shakespeare can be a dicey affair. For example, Annette Bening in the otherwise excellent Richard III.

[Paul Parish]

The Shakespeare movie I'd LIKE to see is Quentin Tarantino's version of "Cymbeline"-- everything that's weird about that play would fall into place with his eye-peeling style, and the gazillion recognitions in the last scene would build to preposterous heights -- the old king would be so overjoyed he'd have to be hospitallized.

[dirac]

bart writes:

His was an approach which rang so true that it quickly and completely replaced the older versions.

I’m not sure if that was really the case. Olivier’s style took its place alongside Gielgud’s more poetic manner (if that’s what you’re referring to) but did not replace it, and not everyone would agree that it was truer or better, I think.

canbelto writes:

I'm not saying only teens can be cast as R&J, just that Danes and DiCaprio managed to be convincing in the parts (IMO) without really having a grasp of the language. I thought they were better than Hussey and Whiting.

Olivier is off the charts in the drool factor

I'll say. But he's unbelievably callow. He wasn't a prodigy like Richard Burton, or Branagh.

I agree. DiCaprio and Danes are both very talented.

Paul Parish writes:

The Shakespeare movie I'd LIKE to see is Quentin Tarantino's version of "Cymbeline"—

Wow. I never would have put Tarantino and Cymbeline together, but it would be interesting, wouldn’t it?

[canbelto]

dirac, that As You Like It film might have been a good vehicle for Katharine Hepburn (and Olivier). Hepburn would have brought her slight androgyny and also a prickly, acidic charm to the role. It would have been a better movie.

I also would have liked to see Cary Grant try a role like Benedick. Not likely to happen, considering how averse Grant was to "taking risks," but he had the kind of dry wit down pat, and he also had a smirk to launch 1,000 ships.

Getting back to actual Shakespearean adaptations, I saw Ran the other night, and it's really an impressive adaptation of this difficult difficult play. I highly recommend it. Also, Richard III with Ian McKellan.

[sidwich]

But I agree, casting actors who aren't familiar with Shakespeare can be a dicey affair. For example, Annette Bening in the otherwise excellent Richard III.

Bening may have been miscast and she may have given a poor performance (I haven't seen this adaptation, so I don't know), but I doubt she was unfamiliar with Shakespeare when she was cast since she was trained at the American Conservatory Theatre and was a member of the company for a while before transferring to film.

[bart]

Here's a quote from something posted on the Romeo thread. It's by Mikhail Lavrovsky, Artistic Director of the Stanislavsky Musical Theater and son of Leonid Lavrosky, whose worked with Prokofiev on the first ballet version of R&J. It applies, I would think, to R&J the play as well as R&J the ballet.

What’s peculiar about this role? “17-year-old Romeo is passionate and inexperienced, and obviously it has to be performed by a young dancer. There is a catch though because you ought to have been through a lot in your lifetime to be able to put the message across. You have to be emotionally mature to portray young enamored Romeo. But this is what art is for – to take us to a surreal, phantasmagoric world. If you were trying to convey reality in details, you would end up with a chronicle, a diary of events and not a work of art. Art and hope are related, and they show and magnify every image, and then vividly present philosophical and social aspects to the public. This is definitely an ‘over-reality’. So you have to have lived in order to portray a youngster in love. There is a very true saying of ‘experience in – strength out.’ This is our tragedy.”

I appreciate the paradox. And I love the way he expresses it in the last sentence. However -- and it's a big drawback in my opinion -- film isn't very kind to actors with life experience who try to play teenagers.

Here's the Link to Lavrovsky: http://www.georgiatoday.ge/article_details.php?id=1353

[dirac]

Bening may have been miscast and she may have given a poor performance (I haven't seen this adaptation, so I don't know), but I doubt she was unfamiliar with Shakespeare when she was cast since she was trained at the American Conservatory Theatre and was a member of the company for a while before transferring to film.

Thank you for that reminder, sidwich. She played Hedda Gabler in L.A. a couple of seasons back, too. I'm afraid I don't remember much about the McKellen film version except that I didn't think the political context translated very well. Bening was pretty good as Queen Elizabeth as I recall, and she looked beautiful. I'll have to check it out again.

[Paul Parish]

Sidwich, you are right--

When Annette Bening was just graduating from ACT in San Francisco, she played Hermione (the queen) here in Berkeley Shakespeare Festival's production of The Winter's Tale (roughly 1980). I sat in on rehearsals of that and saw one performance, and hers was one of the great Shakespearean performances I've seen in my whole life, on stage or in films. The language in that play is particularly difficult -- the atmosphere is over-wrought, the level of "customary compliment" is high and strained, and once the King's jealousy breaks out everyone is interrupting themselves and each other all the time -- but her understanding of the idiom and the depth of feeling she gave to the role was beyond anything. Everyone was frankly in awe of her talent. There was no aspect of the technique she lacked.

[bart]

It's good to learn that Bening has had classical stage experience. I haven't seen that Richard III since it came out, but Bening's is one performance other than McKellan's that I remember well.

Her Queen is an accomplished society hostess who senses very early on (long before her clueless CEO of a husband) that somethig awful and dangerous is in process. This happens in an early scene, at a kind of 1930s garden party, I believe.

Her fears for her husband, and especially for her children, are especially poignant because she is also aware that she has a public obligation, as Queen, to maintain the mask that everything is perfectd.

This not what is usually done with this role, and it's especiallylimpressive considering how many of her lines have been cut.

[miliosr]

I would put in a good word for Roman Polanski's MacBeth. (I didn't see this film mentioned on the prior five discussion pages.)

At times, it plays more like a horror movie than a dramatic film which is probably why horror fans regard it so highly. (The Passion of the Christ is another such dramatic film that found favor with gore hounds.)