A Filmmaker's Guide to Shakespeare's Influence

We all know how accessible Shakespeare is on screen, from films such as Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing, Elizabeth Taylor in The Taming of the Shrew and even Mel Gibson in Hamlet. But what happens when we want to show that something is Shakespearean indirectly? Maybe this helps with how we're depicting our movie and how the audience recognise the story. Maybe this helps with the fact that the two stories are so closely linked it would be silly not to use the Shakespearean atmosphere and concepts to accentuate the plot line. Or, maybe you have these characters that are, in fact, incredibly Shakespearean in either the best, or worst, ways.

What we're going to look at today is how we show Shakespeare indirectly on screen and we'll look at three things in our study of that:

• Plot
• Characters
• Themes and Concepts

Within this, we're going to look at various examples of films and what exactly they do when they use the Shakespearean concepts, characters or plot-lines in their films. Some may be very obvious, but others maybe not so much and remember, you should always be looking out for these concepts when you're watching films. Whether the films are based on a true story or not does not matter, we will still cover them and see how they present something almost Shakespearean to us.

Let us get on with our study...

Section 1: Plot

Plots taken from Shakespearean plays are often recited in Hollywood films. They play out very well especially regarding thrillers, dramas or even biopics. The reason for this is because the stories of Shakespeare, even if you haven't physically read the play, are so very recognisable that even over a biopic - they will add elements of the bard's story that they have chosen appropriately for the film. The film we are going to look at is:

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)

This film is best described as a part-biopic because it doesn't base its entire premise on just the life of Jesse James or Robert Ford, instead its about both of them in a situation that is very specific. Be true as it may, this film uses various elements and emotions dealing with the plot-line of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar as well as the biographical storyline it upholds. The importance of this is to get the audience involved with the story, its something that is so inhumane but also something that is not just possible, but repeated throughout history. Some examples don't just include Brutus killing Caesar and Ford killing James, but the assassination of John Lennon is yet another one, the assassination of Malcolm X, The Kennedy Brothers, and the death of Gandhi is yet another. One man has a lot of power, someone within his circles respects him but then, for 'his own good', guns him down. Later, there is a repent, a regret and either an imprisonment or death of the killer themselves.

Julius Caesar is such an incredible play because of its ability to be entirely true as yes, it is based on an entirely true story. In the film Jesse James, the character of Caesar is obviously James himself, Robert Ford is Brutus, Cassius is relative to Charley Ford and Calphurnia is James' wife who weeps over his dead body loudly as Ford simply stands there in awe at what he has done. The plot line is nearly exactly the same as Julius Caesar, let's have a look at how that's done:

In the play, Caesar returns from a war and some scoff at him. Brutus and Cassius though, are impressed but worried about the power Caesar is amounting, they want to do something for the good of Rome and decide to murder Caesar. After the assassination, his body is paraded around as was custom and then Brutus and Cassius live their lives as they would. Cassius kills himself and sooner or later, Brutus is found by one of Caesar's right-hand men and about to be imprisoned. Whether he kills himself by his own hand or if he is forced to it is ambiguous.

In the film, James returns from a robbery we see, Robert and Charley become more and more worried about the power James is amounting and want to do something, talk about it and yet do nothing. They decide, after much suffering, to murder James and Robert shoots him in the back of the head. The dead body is paraded around from area to area because of James infamy. The two men then live their lives and then, Charley kills himself with a bullet to the skull. Sooner or later, Robert is found by one of James' men and shot dead, whether he dies instantly or after some time remains ambiguous at the end of the film.

We recognise the story, we recognise the characters and even if we haven't read the play we still know exactly what happens and why. It is something so strikingly similar that we cannot help but recognise it. It too, happens in other films with Julius Caesar. This is because the plot itself, if we take away character names, has been repeated so many times in history. It doesn't get old but it does, each time, get more and more complex.

Shakespearean plots on film are not uncommon, no matter how direct or indirect they are. Some other examples are:

• The Lion King
• 10 Things I Hate About You
• My Own Private Idaho
• West Side Story

Section 2: Characters

Shakespearean characters are everywhere, the main one we always look at or look to when we watch film is the 'anti-hero' or the 'Byronic hero'. Now, I know you're going to say 'well technically the Byronic hero isn't Shakespearean'; research unfortunately shows that Shakespeare was using the concepts of the Byronic hero in his plays long before Byron himself. So, we're going to have a look at how the Byronic hero and the anti-hero are shown on screen by various characters without the concept of the film itself being directly or indirectly Shakespearean. The film we are going to look at is:

Batman (1989)

The anti-hero is so often associated with Batman but instead, I would like to look at how Batman upholds both values, one of the anti-hero and one of the Byronic hero. One as Batman and the other as Bruce Wayne and exactly why he does this. I find it very interesting and pretty clever of the directors and writers to make it so obvious by hiding the meaning in plain sight.

First of all, we need to define 'anti-hero' - the dictionary defines this as:

"a central character in a story, film, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes."

And so, how does this become relative to the character of Batman? Well, first of all he lacks to take credit for what he does and so, dresses completely in black and goes out during the night. The whole purpose is to not be seen and so, this is not an attribute we normally associate with heroes. The next is the way Batman as the Batman is so cold to people he does actually save, he doesn't express any emotion - he just does what he has to do and then moves on to the next thing. Again, not a regular attribute of a hero. And so, we have Batman being relative to an anti-hero and closer to King Lear than he is to Superman from the original films starring Christopher Reeve.

The next thing we need to do is define "Byronic hero" - and it goes like this in the dictionary:

An anti-hero of the highest order, in which he (or she) is typically rebellious, arrogant, anti-social or in exile, and darkly, enticingly romantic.

This is something that we know Batman is not, but Bruce Wayne is indefinitely. The Byronic Hero is a very extreme form of an anti-hero and so, producing Bruce Wayne as the most extreme and more unlikeable version of Batman makes him possibly the most unlikely person to actually be the Batman at all in terms of who knows him. This is a clever ploy by the writers to give reason to this displacement between Bruce Wayne and Batman and why people in Gotham don't really know it is him. The writing of the character is the key thing to focus on and how the differentiation is written into the story as something that is so obvious to the audience but a piece of dramatic irony when it comes to everyone else in Gotham City.

Section 3: Themes and Concepts

Various Shakespearean themes, philosophies and concepts have been used in numerous films throughout the years, whether they be based on a true story or not - they are still in some amount of use. For example: the rift between the church and the state is prevalent in many films adapted from the books of Dan Brown. But, the theme that we are going to look at today is one of the most imposing themes in all of Shakespeare's plays: corruption.

Recently, I read Stephen Greenblatt's book on Shakespeare entitled Tyrant and it really opened my eyes as to what was possibly concerning Shakespeare: tyranny, power and corruption. The film we are going to look at concerning this state of corruption, especially within the church and state is:

Spotlight (2015)

Spotlight (2015) is not just a breakthrough film based on the electrifying true story of the corruption and child abuse rife in the Catholic churches across the world, but, it is also an excellent example of a Shakespearean theme that is so prevalent in his plays being translated to the screen for yet another time. This theme regards the church and, like in the characters of Thomas More etc. in plays like Henry VIII and the histories, we have religious characters who are often powerful but ignorant of what the world around them is finding out about their character. It is a concept so close to actual events that most of it is actually just pretty much the same thing in a different time.

From this, we get a modernised but very Shakespearean theme. The power that the church has in the state makes for a silencing of wrong-doings and so, people feel as if they cannot talk about the affairs that go on behind the closed doors. This ignorance is pierced by one person or small group of people who do not feel any pressure from the church and state, they break this silence and they spread the wrongs going on within with the world and tell everyone what has been happening. From this humiliation, it then becomes more and more pressurising on the church to respond and the response is often ignorant and inappropriate for the time and place, situation and age. It is often stuck in the dark ages and shows the church as particularly regressive.

Conclusion

I feel like we've done a good deal of stuff on Shakespeare's influence in cinema. Even if we're not adapting a Shakespeare play for film, we still need to make sure that where we can, we are using themes found in various plays of Shakespeare's. Why? Well, because they're recognisable even if the audience hasn't actually read the play in its entirety (or at all!) - the stories are ingrained in western culture and so, it is only appropriate that we use them to our own advantage to make the link between ours and his. It creates a timelessness that cannot be dismantled.