From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Regarding Henry:Henry V vs Henry V: Shakespeare and Men's
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:45:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <28781@brahms.udel.edu> conrad@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Conrad) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.162229.4877@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>
>>Then you'll have to explain why Shakespeare is rarely placed on stage
>>unaltered, whereas he is almost always read in uncut form.  
>
>Easy.  NO play, by anyone, is often staged without at least minor
>alterations and cuts.

The issue, I'll remind everyone is this: was Shakespeare a poet first or
dramatist first?  I content that he was a poet first, Jon takes the
opposite view.

Most importantly, I'd say that those "minor alterations and cuts",
rather like the Lacanian unconscious, form a language.  This is less an
attempt to mystify than an attempt to show that when directors wield the blue
pencil, they do not cut at random.  Their cuts instead display exactly
the same sort of intentionality as does a speaker of a language when
s'he makes a positive statement.  Language is as much constituted by
silence as by speech, and the most positive written language (runes
carved on a rock face) is at once the most negative ABSENCE of rock in a
certain pattern.

We need to focus on these "minor" alterations and cuts which Jon claims
are universally performed on plays.  Who makes them?  Who made them in
Shakespeare's day, and who makes them today?  What were the INTENTIONS
of these people?  

IF Shakespeare was as great a dramatist as you claim, Jon, and IF he
"never blotted a line" (as his friend Ben Jonson claimed), THEN it would
seem that he could be played uncut.  IF he must be cut, THEN he is not
as great a dramatist as you claim, and IF he is less a poet than a
dramatist, THEN his poetic stature also diminishes.  

You may wish to claim that Shakespeare must be cut more savagely for
film than for live theater.  But if the BBC Shakespeare series is any
indication, the fact that film can focus on a speaker whereas theater
cannot except through lighting makes cuts less excusable than in
theater.  The REAL reason why Shakespeare is ALWAYS cut more egregiously
for film is that film is much more powerful propaganda, and the larger
financial and commercial backers of films are much more anxious about
the effect of films on filmgoers.  They mask this anxiety with appeals
to the popular taste which (they claim) they are uniquely qualified to
discern.  The only reason why this claim has any truth is because those
making it are, like Henry in his claim to Katherine, "the makers of
fashion" and these interests are skilled at self-fulfilling propehices
concerning public taste.

To these interests, Shakespeare is just another bozo screen writer (like
Barton Fink).
>>The 18th
>>Century saw plot lines changed, whereas we now see plot lines preserved,
>>but text cut, and cut substantially....so much so it changes meaning and
>>even comprehensibility.  
>
>Sometimes.  By no means always.

Mr. D. K. C. Todd writes (in "Shakespeare's Agincourt", New Century
Press 1985, Durham UK):


     "The battle itself, however, is not actually shown in Shakespeare's
     play...few Shakespearean plays there are in which unequivocal
     battles are fought...on stage.  Whilst it it is soon evident that
     problems of classification make their obligatory appearance-
     editorial stage-directions, for instance, or alarums off, or
     some war party moving across the stage in one direction...granted
     such problems and difficulties there are perhaps only some eight 
     or ten plays...which show us military engagements in a
     straightforward way: and about half of these occur in very early
     plays."


So elision (in the Branagh Henry V of the Pistol/French Soldier in-
cident) is not only a language; it is also accompanied by nontextual
additions, such as exciting battle scenes, which were most assuredly NOT
intended by Shakespeare.  "How much" blue-penciling changes meaning is q
a quibble of the first order; the important point is that it occurs and
it means something.

>
>>For example, the viewer of the Olivier and
>>Branagh films is puzzled by Montjoy's "thou never shalt see herald any
>>more", for Montjoy seems to be a trustworthy diplomat and a stand up
>>guy.  Henry's immediate riposte, "I fear thou wilt come to me for
>>ransom" is cut.  The elision makes Montjoy's reappearance puzzling,
>>whereas Henry's line makes Henry's rageful "comest thou for ransom" at
>>Montjoy's reappearance after the battle completely comprehensible.
>
>What do these films have to do with how the plays are presented onstage,
>which is what you and I had been talking about?  

Oh come ON.  Films are the "stage" of the 20th century and there is
plenty of relevance of stage to cinema.  At any rate, this is
rec.arts.movies and this thread concerns filmic Henry Vs.
>
>>The READER sees these things.  The viewer is normally denied them.  This
>>means that Shakespeare is primarily a poet in the sense of talking to a
>>reader.
>
>Both the premise ("the viewer is normally denied them") and the
>conclusion ("this means that...") are on shaky ground.  One could
>equally well make the case that Shakespeare is such a supreme dramatist
>that his centuries-old plays need only the most minor of adjustments in
>the theater, while far more recent ones (check out the current revival
>of "Private Lives") need brutal abridgement.
>
Nobody can claim to any sort of understanding of Henry V if s'he's just
seen the Branagh film, whereas READING shows that (by making the
climactic battle scene a comic encounter between Pistol and the French
knight) Shakespeare is saying "look, all this glory is nothing more than
the miles gloriosus."
Xref: sparky rec.arts.movies:13643 alt.sex.movies:1297