George Washington University

Shakescorp "Noir"
Author(s): Douglas M. Lanier
Source: Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 2, Screen Shakespeare (Summer, 2002), pp. 157-180
Published by: Folger Shakespeare Library in association with George Washington University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3844072
Accessed: 11/04/2010 01:16
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=folger.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

George Washington University and Folger Shakespeare Library are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Shakespeare Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

ShakescorpNoir
DOUGLAS M. LANIER

THE

FINALYEARSOF THE TWENTIETH CENTURYhaveseen a curiousand,to my

mind, telling phenomenon in the realm of Shakespeare and pop culture, one
that provides an illuminating context for certain elements of the much-ballyhooed
Shakespeare film boom of the '90s. It is the emergence of a distinct subgenre in business publishing, the Shakespeare corporate-management manual. With titles such as

these volumestake
PowerPlays,and Shakespeare
on Management,
in Charge,
Shakespeare
as their premise the notion that Shakespeare portrays the intricacies of a universally
shared human nature and direct that notion toward providing lessons in corporate
motivation, leadership, personnel management, and decision-making: "Business
involves people," we are told, "and people-fundamentally-don't
change. The
for
essence of business is thus remarkablyconstant"1 And so,
example, The Tamingof
1 Norman

in Charge:TheBard'sGuideto Leadingand
Augustine and Kenneth Adelman,Shakespeare
Talk
Miramax
on
the
Business
York:
(New
Books/Hyperion, 1999), xii. Four other
Succeeding
Stage
TimelessWisdomfor Daily
on Leadership:
works ought to be cited here: FrederickTalbott, Shakespeare
on Management:Wise
Challenges(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994); Jay M. Shafritz, Shakespeare
Lane
New
York:
BusinessCounsel
Birch
the
Bard
York:
Press,
1992;
(New
rpt.
HarperBusiness,
from
Lessonsin Leadershipand
1999); John 0. Whitney and Tina Packer, Power Plays:Shakespeare's
How
(New York:Simon and Schuster,2000); and Thomas Leech,SayIt LikeShakespeare:
Management
to Give a SpeechLike Hamlet,PersuadeLike Henry V, and Other SecretsFrom the World'sGreatest
Communicator
(New York:McGraw-Hill,2001). That this is not an exclusivelyAmericanphenomeon Management:
non is demonstratedby four additionalworks:Paul Corrigan,Shakespeare
Leadership
Lessonsfor Today'sManagers(London: Kogan Page, 1999); Charles Margerisonand Barry Smith,
andManagement
paraman(Bradford,UK: MCB UP, 1988); Rolf Breitenstein,Shakespeare
Shakespeare
and
and
Richard
Plaza
Olivier,
Janes,2000);
Leadership:
HenryV andthe
Inspirational
agers(Barcelona:
NH:
The Industrial
and
museoffire-Timelessinsights
leader
Dover,
(London
greatest
fromShakespeare's
Society, 2001). The last of these works,by LaurenceOlivier'sson, is linked to his Shakespeareand
business-managementseminars.Such workshops are also a '90s trend, evidencedby, among several
other examples,a cooperativeventurebetween the CranfieldUniversitySchool of Managementand
the Globe Theatre in London,which yielded a series of managementworkshopssince 1998. Indeed,
the close link betweenShakespeareantheatricalinstitutionsand managementtrainingsurfacesin several examples. Tina Packer, co-author of Power Plays, is the founder and artistic director of
Shakespeare& Companybased in Lenox,Massachusetts,one of the largestShakespearefestivalsin
the United States;and the DramaticLeadershipseminar,organizedbyJanusGlobal,a Toronto-based
management-consultingfirm,was closely linked to the Stratford,Ontario, Shakespearefestival(see
Peter Goddard,"GettingDown to Businesswith the Bard,'Toronto
Star,16 June 2001, p. J1). Finally,
it should be noted that althoughcoverageof this trend in the businesspresshas been generallyenthusiastic, there are a few dissenting voices;see, for example,Lucy Kellaway,"FromBard to Worse in
TheFinancialTimes,29 May 2000, p. 11.
Consultant-Speak,"

HAKESPE

QUARTE

Screen

Shakespeare

starring

BURT
RICHARD

PETERDONALDSON

DOUGLASLANIER

COURTNEY
LEHMANN

LAURIEE. OSBORNE

LISAS. STARKS

Directed
byBarbaraHodgdon ProducedbyThe Folger Shakespeare Library
in association with The George Washington University and
The Johns Hopkins University Press

Volume 53

Summer 2002

Number 2

158

SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

theShrewoffersus a portraitof a successfulmergerbetweentwo strong-willed,independentorganizations;Hamlet'sClaudiusbecomesa casestudy in flawedcrisismanagement;Portiaprovidesan ideal model for"theart and dangerof risk-taking... in
and RichardII, Lear,and
the only Shakespeareanplay named aftera businessman";
that
their
who
fail
because
powerand authority
they forget
Antony depict managers
Not surprisingly,
cannot be "personalizedand abstractedfrom the organization."2
the
of
of
these
a
hero
all
V
as
manuals, corporatemotiundisputed
Henry emerges
vatorwho,"newon the throneand forcedto provehimself,... uses time-testedleadPaulCorrigansets Henry'sriseto power
ershiptechniquesto succeedmost royally."3
alongsidethat of JackWelch, CEO of GeneralElectric,who moved from being a
brutalcorporateaxmanin the '80s to a paragonof dynamiccorporatemanagement
in the '90s, all becausehe beganto "listento his'subjects'and learn from the people
who reallyknew GE'svariousbusinessesat theirgrass-roots,"
allowinghim to"[harThe mesand dramaticallyboost productivity.4
vest] good ideasfromthe workforce"
listen.
when
like
F.
E.
Hutton,
Shakespearetalks,people
sage is clear:
The odd image of Shakespearethat emergesfrom these volumes is best represented by the cover art of John Whitney and Tina Packer'sPowerPlays(Fig. 1),
wherewe see Shakespeareseated in a corporateboardroom,a genericmetropolitan
skylinevisiblethroughthe plate-glasswindowsbehindhim.The conferencetableis,
appropriatelyenough, a globe, and Shakespeareis holding forth, calculatorat the
ready,his elbow plantedin North America,a sly smile and cockedeyebrowsignifying a mix of wisdom and ruthlessness,leaningin as he gives a juicy piece of inside
information. His management team, Queen Elizabeth and two generic male
courtiers,have looked up from their laptops and reports (one of which asks,"To
be / Or not to be?")to follow everywordintently.The coverillustrationof Thomas
is remarkablysimilar.Shakespeare,in this case standLeech'sSayIt LikeShakespeare
of
at a boardroomtable laden with the paraa
executives
ing, addresses gathering
phernaliaof corporatepower;the perspectiveof this image seats the viewerat the
table. This Shakespeareis dressed in a business suit and tie, combined,strangely
enough, with a ratherlarge Elizabethanruff.This bizarrehybrid may owe to the
subject of Leech'sbook. Unlike other manuals concerned with Shakespearean
insights into corporate management and strategy, Leech is concerned with
Shakespeare'scommunicationskills,which are bound up with the precisemanner
in which Shakespeareand his charactersspeak.The representationof Shakespeare
as a hybridof Renaissanceand twenty-first-centurystyles serves,then, to minimize
the obvious gap between Shakespeare'soutmoded Elizabethanidiom and modern
speech. In the book itself, Leech rarelyattends to the preciseverbaltextureof the
2

Augustine and Adelman,xvi;Corrigan,3.

3 Augustine and Adelman,xvi.
4 Corrigan,5.

JOHN

0.

WHITNEY

PROFESSOR OF MANAGEMENT, COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL

TINA

PACKER

FOUNDER, PRESIDENT, AND ARTISTIC DIRECTOR, SHAKESPEARE & COMPANY

Figure1:Dust-jacketillustrationfromJohnO. Whitney andTina Packer'sPowerPlays:Shakespeare'

andManagement
Lessonsin Leadership
(New York:Simon and Schuster,2000). Reproducedcourtesy of Simon and Schuster.

160

SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

Shakespeare passages he so liberally quotes; to "sayit like Shakespeare"doesn't mean

to appropriate the language Shakespeare used but to reconceive of Shakespeare's
speech as an authoritative compendium of generalized communication strategiespoetry as motivational tool. If the aesthetic dimensions of Shakespeare's language
have been seen as one last point of resistance to the instrumentalization typical of
corporate capitalism, Leechs book would seem to inaugurate a significant new
phase in Shakespeare's appropriation by big business.
In one respect this form of reinvention is nothing new. The Shakespeare corporate-management manual is merely one more variation on the proverbialization of
Shakespeare that has been at work for more than two centuries in popular culture
and that is manifest in such recent self-help titles as Will Power!Using Shakespeares

YourLifeand WhatWouldShakespeare
Do?Personal
the
Insightsto Transform
Advicefrom
Bard,and lampooned in such titles as ShakespeareInsultsfor the Officeand Shakespeare
On Golf.5In another respect, however, this form of appropriation by corporate culture suggests a more thoroughgoing reinvention, something far different from references or images in advertisements, or passing citations in speeches to shareholders or
annual reports.6 Shakespeare'sgenius, it turns out, is as an anatomist of managerial
technique in action. The fundamental concerns of corporate business, we learn,
suffuse every facet of his canon, not just the juicy quotes or most-familiar vignettes;
and Shakespeare'spreoccupation with such issues provides an implicit justification
for elevating management to a mode of wisdom and an art. The remaking of
Shakespeare in the image of corporate ideology would seem to confirm the worst
fears of those who, like Theodor Adorno, warned of a monolithic culture industry
that threatens to assimilate all forms of cultural expression to its own institutional
5

YourLife
George Weinbergand Dianne Rowe, WillPower!UsingShakespeare's
Insightsto Transform
Do?PersonalAdvicefrom
(New York:St. Martin'sPress, 1996);Jess Winfield, WhatWouldShakespeare
the Bard(Berkeley:Seastone, 2000); Wayne E Hill and Cynthia Ottchen, Shakespeare
Insultsfor the
On Golf:Wit
Office(New York:Clarkson Potter, 1996); and John Tullius and Joe Ortiz, Shakespeare
and Wisdomfrom the GreatElizabethanGolferand Poet,ill. Harry Trumbore (New York:Hyperion,
1997). As if in acknowledgmentof the talismanicqualityof Shakespeareanwisdom (and, no doubt,
to build a mailinglist), Winfield'sbook comes with an offerto receivea free"WWSD"bracelet.Hill
and Ottchen have made a cottage industryof Shakespeareaninsult books, compiling,in addition to
the book mentioned above, Shakespeare
Insults:EducatingYourWit, Shakespeare
Insultsfor Lawyers,
and
Doctors.
Teachers,
Shakespeare
Shakespeare
Insultsfor
Insultsfor
6
Examplesfrom Shakespeareanoratorywere a staple of public-speakingmanualsfor executives
throughoutthe nineteenthand twentiethcenturies.The use of Shakespearein advertisingdates from
the mid-nineteenthcentury,though it takes quite differentformsas advertisingevolvesas a discourse.
Advertiser
See, for example,EdwardJones and H. P. Boyce'sThe Shakespearean
(Providence,RI: H. P.
F.
S.
Wood's
A
Show-Book
Falkner
and Sons, 1884). See
andJ.
(Manchester:
Boyce,1871)
Shaksperean
as a SalesmanandAdvertising
also H. E. Roesch, Shakespeare
Man (Des Moines: Successful Farming,
n.d. [ca. 1930]), discussedby RichardHalpern in Shakespeare
AmongtheModerns(Ithaca,NY: Cornell
theSalesman(Chicago:The Dartnell Corporation,
UP, 1997), 76; and William B. Burruss,Shakespeare
1942). The isolatednatureof these last two examplessuggeststhat earliertwentieth-centurygenerations felt a certainincommensurabilitybetween Shakespeareand the ideology of capitalism.

SHAKESCORP NOIR

161

standards,
negatingart'scapacityfor critiqueandopposition,offeringits audience
anddiversitywhilein factcompelling
onlythe illusionof enlightenment
conformity
to a socialandaestheticstatusquo.7Shakespeare
manualsdemonstrate
management
fortheyuncannilymirrorthe centralobsessionsof
powerof assimilation,
industry's
newhistoricism:
of the exemplary
with
the privileging
anecdote;the preoccupation
the microdynamics
of interpersonal
strategy,tactic,andthe logicof socialinstituon
the
and
a
fixation
tions;
legitimationof statusandpower.If one aim of many
scholarsin thepasttwodecadeshasbeento de-idealize
Shakespeare
Shakespeare
by
his
situating writingin relationto politicalstrugglesfor powerin earlymodern
the imageof a
manualshavesimplyembraced
England,Shakespeare
management
with
in the formof
and
"politics"
Shakespeare
powerpolitics reconfigured
engaged
truthsof socialinteraction
thatcanbe put into the serviceof corporate
"universal"
manualappearsto offer
At
first
the
management.
glance Shakespeare
management
an extraordinarily
clearinstanceof whatculturalmaterialists
havebeenat painsto
in
the
in
recent
concerted
emphasize
analyses:despite
politicizingof Shakespeare
the'80sand'90s,Shakespeare
andtheaterthroughout
manyquartersof theacademy
remainsby andlargean emblemof culturallegitimation
forthe existingsocialand
economicorder,an orderdominatedat this momentin historynot by nation-states
butby a globalhegemonyof corporate
multinationals.
Beyondthe obviouspointthatthesemanualsseekto capitalizeon Shakespeare's
whatrelationdoesthe attemptto recastShakespeare
cinematiccelebrity,
as a corboomof the '90s?It is
porateconsultantavantla lettrehaveto the Shakespeare-film
see
I
will
to
boom
as
the
'90s
possible,
Shakespeare-film
partof a muchlarger
argue,
is theapotheosis,
a drivein thepast
culturalprojectof whichcorporate
Shakespeare
the
between
traditional
decadeto reconfigure
decisively relationship
literarycultural
of multinational
mediaindustries,
andtheshared
capital,theinstitutional
apparatus
of
economic
and
and
culture.
logic global
capital commodity celebrity
By andlarge
of new cinematic
havebeen so delightedwith the proliferation
Shakespeareans
which
to
so
on
exercise
our
critical
and
objects
sweptup withthe fantasy
ingenuity
of a newlypopularized
(oftenpurveyedby the filmsthemselves)that
Shakespeare
wehavebeenslowto acknowledge
or assesstheplaceof theShakespeare-film
boom
in thislargerculturalproject.It perhapsbearsemphasizing,
then,thattheexplosion
of Shakespeare
on screenin the'90shasnot beenmerelya matterof transposing
an
contentfromone mediaformto another,of transinfinitelymobileShakespearean
from
old
to
new bottles,or, more negatively,
of uncoupling
wine
skins
ferring
froman increasingly
association
withthe theater.Nor has
Shakespeare
debilitating
themovementof Shakespeare
filmsfromthe arthouseto the multiplexbeena simof this formulationis of course Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno,"The
7 The locusclassicus
trans. John
Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception" in Dialecticof Enlightenment,
Cumming (New York:Continuum, 1972), 120-67.

162

SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

of bridging,if not entirelyerasing,an

pie matterof postmoderndemocratization,
outmodeddividebetweenhighcultureandlow.Rather,the principalinstitutional
consolidation
and
filmshasbeenthe unprecedented
contextforrecentShakespeare
verticalintegration
of globalmultimediaconglomerates,
primarilythe"bigfour"News
Viacom, Disney,
Corporation(Twentieth-CenturyFox), and Time
Warner-and with it the consolidationof a culturaldominantfoundedon the
in the pastdecade-and,
mass-market
screenimage.8The filmingof Shakespeare
we mightadd,the filmingof Austen,Dickens,Stoker,James,Woolf,Wharton,
a matterof
Cooper,Hawthorne,and even Burroughs-hasbeen fundamentally
middlebrow
literarycanonin linewith whathas becomethe
bringinga particular
the
of
franca globalcapitalism: codes,practices,andideologiesof contempolingua
rary mass media.To put the matterbluntly,one overarchingaim of recent
establishthescreenimage-and thusthe
filmshasbeento definitively
Shakespeare
cultureindustriesthat makeand marketthat image-as the principalvehiclefor
culturalauthorityin a posttheatrical,
age.
postliterary
sustainingShakespeare's
has reliedon whatby the
To makethis financially
feasible,screenShakespeare
relianceon the cinemid-'90shadbecomea codifiedset of adaptational
techniques:
contoursof conmaticstarsystem,thereshaping
of playsto thegenericandaffective
of allusion,a
a
cinematic
the
embrace
of
film
horizon
specifically
temporary genres,
of anyavoidance
postmodernhistoricalsensibility(bywhichI meana scrupulous
of
the
cinto
historical
and
the
intensification
a
claim
that
make
fidelity),
thing might
ematicimagethroughhigh-glossproduction,
epicscope,speed,shock,andmoments
of virtuosiccamerawork.This is not to say that therearenot crucialdifferences
filmsof the '90s,or thattherearenot important
betweenthe variousShakespeare
liesan emergentset
to
behind
It
is
that
exceptions.
manyof the localdifferences
say
of formulaethat, among other things, suggests how the capitalizationof
hasshapedtheadaptational
one
process.Forconfirmation
Shakespearean
filmmaking
needlookno furtherthantherecentspateof teenandtwenty-something
adaptations
I
of Shakespeare,
filmssuchas NeverBeenKissed
(dir.KajaGosnell,1999),10 Things
HateAboutYou(dir.GilJunger,
1999),LettheDevilWearBlack(dir.StacyTitle,1999),
Midsummer
Kerwin,1999),Romeo
andJuliet
(dir.ColinCox,2000),GetOver
(dir.James
It (dir.TommyO'Haver,
(dir.
2001),0 (dir.Tim BlakeNelson,2001),RaveMacbeth
8 Fora
comprehensivesurveyof mediaownership,see BenjaminM. Compaineand DouglasGomery,
in theMassMediaIndustry,
andConcentration
3rded. (Mahwah,NJ, and
WhoOwnstheMedia?Competition
London: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, 2000). Concern about the consolidationof multinational
mediacorporationsin the '90s and its relationshipto the globalizationof capitalismhas becomea staple in the discourseof politicaleconomy.For a samplingof these discussions,see Herbert I. Schiller,
Takeover
Culture,Inc.:The Corporate
(New Yorkand Oxford: Oxford UP, 1989);
of PublicExpression
EdwardS. Herman and Robert W. McChesney,The GlobalMedia:The New Missionaries
of Corporate
6th ed.
(London and Washington:Cassell,1997); Ben H. Bagdikian,The MediaMonopoly,
Capitalism
Business
Media:
David
Croteau
and
William
The
Beacon
and
Press,
(Boston:
2000);
of
Corporate
Hoynes,
MediaandthePublicInterest
(Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine ForgePress,2001).

163

SHAKESCORP NOIR

PA.(dir.
KlausKnoesel,2001), TheGlassHouse(dir.DanielSackheim,2001), Scotland,
BillyMorrissette,2001), and the forthcomingKingRikki(dir.JamesGavin Bedford,
2002). The unlikelyassimilationof Shakespeareto the genericcontoursof the highschool comedyand angst-riddenteen dramaspeaksto the financiallogic of the film
(1995) and Baz
industry,eagerin the wakeof the successof Amy HeckerlingsClueless
Romeo+ Juliet(1996) to extend film adaptationof
Luhrmann'sWilliamShakespeares
the
to
lucrative
Shakespeare
youth marketand equallyeagerto use its putativeeducationalvalueto turn classroomsinto additionalmarketingvenues.
has been to countervailthe radical
Undoubtedlyone effectof this"mediatization"
rereadingof Shakespeareascendantin the academyfor the past twentyyears.A signal
exampleof this, one that has takenon symbolicstatusfor a numberof critics,was the
in Love(dir.John Madden,1999).
treatmentof Shakespeare's
sexualityin Shakespeare
critics
rather
academic
now
Whereas
routinely operate from the premise that
Shakespeare's
depictionof eroticism,indeedhis own sexuality,hardlyconformsto coneroticlife,
of gayand straight,the film'sdepictionof Shakespeare's
schemes
temporary
along with its relationshipto crossdressingand theatricalrepresentation,works
the playwrighthimself and what has
methodically,forcefullyto (re)heterosexualize
cometo be seen as his signaturedepictionof love,RomeoandJuliet.Screenwriter
John
Madden'srejectionof a romancebetween Shakespeareand Marloweas a potential
plotline for the film constitutes for Stephen Greenblatt an exemplarycase of
Hollywood'swillingnessto distort"oneof the few things that scholarsknow about
in pursuitof commercialsuccess.9Formanyin the academya queerconShakespeare"
structionof Shakespeare's
sexualityhas becomea key point of resistanceto the media
mainstreamingof the poet, a meansby which that mainstreamingcan be represented
as uniformlyunprogressive,
a matterof dumbingdown, straighteningup, sellingout.
This processof mediatizationhas also underminedone powerfulsymbolicposition
popularcultureitself,as a site of resisShakespearehas occupiedin twentieth-century
tance to mass cultureand its institutionalimperatives.The prestigeassociatedwith
Shakespeareon filmdependsat one levelon the factthatShakespearerepresentsa constellationof valuesthat putativelytranscendthe vulgartyrannyof commerceto which
masscultureandparticularly
the filmindustrymust otherwiseanswer.That potential
hasbeenan importantideologicalresourcethatthe filmindustryhas
fortranscendence
to preserveand on which it has drawnin ambivalentways.Louis
worked
historically
is box-officepoison"
B. Mayer'sinfamousand much-repeatedquip that"Shakespeare
underlineshow Shakespearehas become an icon for that which could not be fully
assimilatedto the dominantaesthetic,financiallogic,andideologicalnormsof the popcuts two ways.Shakespearemightprovide
culturalmarketplace.
That unassimilability
a veneerof artsinessand moral seriousnessfor the medium and its producers,but
9 See Stephen Greenblatt,"Aboutthat Romantic Sonnet ..
1999, p. A15.

"

The New YorkTimes,6 February

164

SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

Shakespearecouldalso serveas a readilyrecognizablehigh-culturalfoil againstwhich

mass-marketfilmcoulddefineitself as a"popular"
artform,as well as a voicefor ideals
and practicesfundamentallyincompatiblewith cinema'soverwhelminglybourgeois
mores.It is telling that outside of"proper"Shakespearefilms, Hollywood typically
placedShakespearean
languagein the mouthsof charactersrenderedsomehowproblematic-drunks, psychopaths,eccentrics,bohemians,foreigners,theater folk, or,
The cinema'spenchantfor portrayingattemptsto update
worst of all, intellectuals.10
Shakespeareas comicor hopelesslymisguided-recall,forexample,the Shakespearean
(dir.David Butler,1941),PanicButton(dir.George
updatesin such filmsas Playmates
Girl(dir.HerbertRoss,1977),LastActionHero(dir.John
Sherman,1964), TheGoodbye
Over
McTiernan,1993),and Get
It-points to a contradictoryimpulseto harmonize
Shakespearewith the protocolsof pop and,at the sametime,to situateShakespeareas
a figurewho cannotbe broughtin linewith those protocols.
Shakespearealso offeredmass mediaa potentialmechanismfor self-parodyand
self-criticism,an indisputableartisticstandardfromwhich mediatizedculturecould
be demonstratedto fall comicallyshort. The now-infamousparody of Laurence
Olivier'sHamletin LastActionHero,for example,in which Arnold Schwarzenegger
plays Hamlet as a gun-toting, quick-quipping,cigar-chompingaction hero who
shoots, stabs,bashes,and bombs everyoneand everythingin sight, is, like the movie
in which it appears,a deeplyambivalentcritiqueof the tropesof actionblockbusters.
The vignetteboth celebratesand ridiculesthe hyperviolent,anti-intellectualclichesof
this popularfilmgenreand singlesout Shakespeare,both in the form of his intellectualheroHamlet and of his moregeneralassociationwith a"classical"
decorum,as the
standardagainstwhich pop'sexcessescan be judged.Yetfor all its parodicglee,this
vignettealso articulatesin particularlyexplicit terms a centralideal of '90s screen
Shakespeare-the transcodingof Shakespeareinto a mainstreamcinematicvocabulary.The exampleof the actionfilm is of coursehardlyaccidental,for the actiongenre,
the most consistentlylucrativeand popularmediaproductin globalmarketsduring
the '80s and early'90s,is organizedaroundlong sequencesof postverbal,effects-driven spectacleand thus has been capableof traversingculturaland linguisticdivides
with extraordinaryease.11 It is perhaps symptomatic, then, that the screen
Shakespeareboom was inauguratedwith two films that tradedheavilyon tropesof
the action genre,Kenneth Branagh'sHenryV (1989) and FrancoZeffirelli'sHamlet
10Certainlythis motif accordswith the more generaltrend in Hollywood of treatingany interest
in the arts by a male characteras a sure sign of villainy,unless that interest is framedas an incidental and personalidiosyncrasy.For a fuller discussionof this motif, see Harriett Hawkins, Classicsand
Trash:Traditionsand Taboosin High Literatureand PopularModernGenres(New York: Harvester
Wheatsheaf, 1990), 3-27, esp. 13.
11In"Pow!Thwack!Bam!No Dubbing Needed"(The New YorkTimes,3 November 1996, sec. 4,
p. 6), Bill Carterdiscusses this point in relationshipto action shows on American television,noting
that violence trumps sex on the internationalmedia market.

SHAKESCORP NOIR

165

(1990). Paradoxically,
Shakespeare's
passageinto the realmof mainstreamfilm also
threatened to erode a certain inherited oppositional potential, the sense that
Shakespearerepresentsthe possibilityof a critiqueof, or at least an obliquerelation
to, mass mediaand the logic of the pop-culturemarketplace.
It is in this context that what has become an increasinglyinsistent element of
Shakespearefilmsoverthe past severalyearstakeson specialsignificance.One might
begin with the firstimageof the '90s Shakespearefilm boom, Branagh'shandlingof
the "museof fire"prologuein HenryV. In his opening lines DerekJacobi'sChorus
movesus froma crude,matchlit,"pre-technological"
performanceto, with the flickof
a switch,the full-blownapparatusof modernfilmproduction,laidout in a long tracking shot.The implicitcontrastis of coursewith Olivier'sHenryV (1944),whichfirmly
situatesits Shakespeare-first and last-within the practicesof Elizabethantheater
and, more generally,within a specificallyBritishculturalheritagethat Oliviersought
to make a patrioticrallyingpoint. By focusingour attentionon unmannedcamera
equipmentand emptyfilmsets (evenas the Chorusratherincongruouslylamentsthe
forces"),Branaghcan
inadequacyof the "wooden0" and the need for our"imaginary
presentfilm adaptationof Shakespeareas primarilya technologicaland formalissue,
a matterof camerasand klieglightsand not of the institutionalagencies-small- and
large-scale-that operatethroughtheir use.To put this anotherway,this initialbaring of the device bares only the devices,not their imbricationin largersystems of
mediarepresentation,
commerce,power,and culturalpolitics.Indeed,in his autobiogin
written
the
aftermath
of the film'ssuccess,Branaghportrayshis decisionto
raphy,
adaptthe playto film ratherthanperformit liveas a mattermerelyof transposinghis
hoped one
performancefromone mediumto anotherin pursuitof a largeraudience:"I
daywe mightfindthe rightbalance-studio Shakespeareis great,but only forthe 150
peoplewho manageto get in. How is intimateactingin Shakespearesharedby lots of
laterwork
people?By makinga filmof HenryV.'12To his credit,however,in Branagh's
this simplistic notion of formal transpositionis complicatedby his ambivalent
acknowledgmentthat filmas a massmediumis a pervasiveideologicalforce,one with
Tale(1995),Branaghconcedesthat mass-market
contradictoryeffects.In A Midwinters
media, particularlycommerce-drivenHollywood film with its addictionto special
effectsand vapidspinoffs,erodesthe utopianpotentialfor popularcommunityand
artistic integritywhich he so closely identifieswith Shakespeareand the theater
company.Indeed,that acknowledgment,as I have arguedelsewhere,structuresnot
Tale-which is afterall afilmabout the encroachmentof mediationly A Midwinters
culturalpoliticsof
theater-but alsothe often-contradictory
zationon Shakespearean
laterShakespearefilms,Hamlet(1996) and LovesLaboursLost(2000).13
Branagh's
12

Kenneth Branagh,Beginning(New Yorkand London:W. W. Norton, 1989), 205.

See Douglas Lanier,"Art thou base, common and popular?':The CulturalPolitics of Branagh's
Hamlet"in Spectacular
CriticalTheoryand PopularCinema,Lisa S. Starks and Courtney
Shakespeare:
13

166

SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

In manywaysBranagh's
movementfroma purelyformalandpopulistconception
of Shakespeareanfilm adaptationto a growingambivalenceaboutthe medium'sideologicaldimensionsis symptomaticof an undercurrentin majorShakespearefilms
producedin the past severalyears.If the Shakespearephenomenonof the '90s was
fueled by the culturalfantasyof a popularShakespeare,by mid-decadethat fantasy
was accompaniedby the emergence of a counterdiscourseat the margins of
Shakespeareanfilm,one addressedto the institutionalconditionsof popularization
and cognizantof how bringingShakespeareto the people throughfilm also potentially entails allyingShakespearewith the interestsof corporatemedia.Two of the
earliest and most obvious examples of this counterdiscoursecan be found in
A Midwinter's
Taleand Al Pacino'sLooking
Branagh's
for Richard(1996). Both aim at a
low-budget,small-marketstreet authenticitytied specificallyto the stage,paradoxically using film to praise the rehearsalprocess and the camaraderieof theatrical
ensemblein an age in which, both films ruefullyacknowledge,live performanceof
Shakespearehas become at best a marginaland at worst a dead art form. Equally
important,both productionsevincean emergingself-consciousnessand self-division
about film as a medium for Shakespeareand an ideologicalforce within culture,
treatingit as usefulfor reachingnew and wideraudiencesfor theateryet recognizing
it as rivenwith valuesand interestsincompatiblewith the counterhegemonicpotential they attachto Shakespeare.Of the two films,A Midwinter's
Taleis the moredirect
in confrontingthis issue. Branaghlinks the artisticstrugglesof a ragtagtheatrical
companyto producea villageHamletwith the economicimpoverishmentof livetheater in the shadow of home entertainmentand blockbusterfilm.The film'sclimax
buildstowardthe directorJoe's
choicebetweentwo starklydistinguishedalternatives:
either the artisticintegrityand spiritualsatisfactionof communityShakespearein
the villagechurch of Hope, or financialsecurityand aestheticdebasementin the
form of a vapidB-movieknockoffof StarWars.Joe'schoice of Shakespeareis never
choiceof filmas the meansthroughwhichto make
genuinelyin doubt,but Branagh's
his point complicatesthis Shakespeare's
capacityto offera critiqueof mediatization
and, perhapsunwittingly,illustratesthe verydominanceof the film medium.
Earlyon, Pacino'sfilm also lionizes Shakespearetheater,extollingthe laborand
discoveriesof the rehearsalprocess,returningperiodicallyto imagesof the stage,and
embracing pointedly homemade production values-handheld camera, found
urban locations, performances-in-progress,
modern dress, unrehearseddocumeneschew
tary passages-that
Hollywood'sglossy visual finish and cinematiccanons
of realism.By its finalscenes,however,Lookingfor
Richardhas shifted from an illustratedlectureon RichardIII to a full-blown,low-budgetShakespearefilm.
By the last
Lehmann,eds. (Madison,NJ: FairleighDickinson UP, 2002), 149-71. See also Courtney Lehmann,
"Shakespearethe Savioror Phantom Menace?:KennethBranagh'sA MidwintersTaleand the Critique
of CynicalReason;'ColbyQuarterly
37 (2001): 54-77.

SHAKESCORP NOIR

167

reel it leaves behind stage performance as its primary point of reference and relies on
specifically cinematic techniques-flashbacks, montages, voiceovers, special effects,
location shooting, grander production values-to tell the story of Richard's prebattle dream and the battle of Bosworth Field. Indeed, the protracted death of King
Richard is handled entirely through the cinematic image, wordlessly. In both cases
Shakespeare'scrucial differencefrom mediatized popular culture is foregrounded and
held up for praise, while the works themselves demonstrate the ineluctable allure,
power, and hegemony of the screen image.
Versions of this kind of counterdiscourse surface in several other films of the period, some far more clearlycoded to a critique of corporateor media culture. Luhrmann's
Romeo+ Julietoffers the best example, combining a self-consciously hip visual sensibility that requires a thorough familiaritywith contemporary mass culture with a caustic
assessment of the cultural legacy of'80s corporate success. The film locates the source
of the Montague and Capulet feud in rivalcorporate empires, a fact underlined by the
repeated establishing shot of two high-rise headquarters prominently marked with
family trademarks.Equally striking is the film'suse of Shakespearean taglines on billboards;putting the text in the service of gas, gun, and liquor ads sardonicallyillustrates
how corporate appropriation has implicated Shakespeare in violence and decadence
and robbed the text of its power for critique, particularlysince so many of those billboards stand in the shadow of the deteriorated theater at Verona Beach, the stage on
which the feud's most tragic consequences are played out. Even religious imagery,
potentially a symbol of spiritual transcendence,has become little more than mass-produced kitsch, all silk-screened muscle shirts, choral top-forty tunes, plastic saints, and
neon crosses, its central manifestation a giant abstract statue of Christ that resembles
the emblem of an HMO situated between the Montague and Capulet towers and that
serves as an impassive witness to the tragic deaths.
RenaissanceMan (dir. Penny Marshall, 1994), with its tale of Bill Rago'sjourney
from downwardly mobile adman to teacher of Hamlet for disadvantaged army
recruits, is simultaneously more adamant in its critique of corporate commerce and
less alert to the ironies of its presentation of Shakespeare'svalue. In the film'sclimactic scene, in which recruit Donnie Benitez recites Henry's"Crispin Crispian"speech
from memory with a thick Brooklyn accent on a rainy bivouac, Shakespeare offers an
articulation of working-class dignity and aspiration, an authentic alternative to the
absurd TV ad copy that Rago pitches to corporate executives in the film's opening
scene. As Peter Donaldson has brilliantly shown, Richard Loncraine's RichardIII
(1995) situates Gloucester's rise to power at a crucial early moment in the development of mass media.14 Pursuing an unmistakable parallel to Nazi propaganda and
14
See Peter S. Donaldson,"Cinemaand the Kingdom of Death: Loncraine'sRichardIII, firstpresented at the annualmeeting of the ShakespeareAssociation of America,Montreal,Canada,in April
2000, and published in this issue of SQ 241-59.

168

SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

the riseof radio,film,andrecordedmusic,the filmofferssomethingof a prehistory

of the media'spowerto manipulateand,in the caseof its references
to Richard's
in
use
of
its
to
of
pop music, power distractfromthe machinations
delight and
ThePostman
(dir.KevinCostner,1997),concernedwiththe issueof culRealpolitik.
in
a
turaltransmission postapocalyptic
America,pits an itinerantactornicknamed
of
terroristic
an
Shakespeare
against army
pillagerswhosemadleader,Bethlehem,
takeshisinspiration
of
a
manualentitled
from,irony ironies, corporate-management
linksthe (re)formation
of an imagtheWayToWin.The filmmetaphorically
Seizing
inednationalcommunitythroughthe restoredpostalsystemwiththe potentialfor
culturalcontinuityofferedby"Shakespeare"'s
of
openinghalf-parodic
performance
both
of
which
are
cast
as
acts
of
defiance
Macbeth,
parallel
crypagainstBethlehem's
fascism.
And
frames
her
film
with
a
Titus
JulieTaymor
(1999)
to-corporate
critique
of howcommercial
massmediahavesocializedherownaudience,
forwhomtheBoy
is a surrogate,
intoa cultureof casualviolence.The film'sarresting
thefirst
prologue,
shotof whichis a close-upof theBoy'seyespeeringthrougha paper-bag
helmetilluminatedby the flickerof an off-cameratelevisonset, centerson a kitchentable
writhingwithtoy soldiersandactionfiguresthatthe Boydecimatesto the accomAt the endof thissequence,
aftermedipanimentof a TV-cartoonsound-montage.
violence
becomes
real
the
is
a flightof
down
atized
violence, Boy spirited
quickly
to anempty-yet-cheering
anemblemof viostairs,wherehe is presented
Colosseum,
lenceaspopularentertainment
usedforhegemoniccontrol,at whichpointtheTitus
the Shakespearean
in otherwords,
narrative,
plotproperbegins.Taymorrepresents
as exposingwhatliesbeneathcontemporary
mediacultureratherthan,as mightbe
mostviolentplayin line with a hip and
arguedof the film,bringingShakespeare's
distant
visual
aesthetic.
postmodern
emotionally
Whatarewe to makeof thismotifin theseandotherexamples,
appearing
justas
film
mass-market
a
kind
of
definitive
in
culture?
momentum pop
Shakespeare gained
This counterdiscourse,
I want to argue,obliquelygivesvoice to anxietiesabout
newfoundcinematiccachet,anxietiesthat focus on the loss of
Shakespeare's
as a locusforcritiqueof corporate
mediaindustries.
Evenas thesefilms
Shakespeare
in
the
cultural
of
in
line
with
mediaculture,
participate
process bringing
Shakespeare
andoftencontradictorily,
to recuperate
someelement
theyalsoseek,albeittentatively
of Shakespeare's
resistanceto mediatization
and corporatecommerce.The issue
becamemoreacutebydecade's
inLoveis anyindication.
end,if Shakespeare
Imagining
the Elizabethan
theaterworldas a half-timbered
Hollywood,the filmoffersa revias a hack-for-hire
enervated
sionaryaccountof Shakespeare
by the demandthathe
conformto theprevailing
commercial
a
bit
and
witha dog:'At thefilm's
formula,"love
heartarefearsaboutthe tyrannical
thatthreatensto compowerof a marketplace
all
but
those
who
the
provide capital.These anxietiesare
modifyand castrate
addressedin the parallelplots of Viola'sstruggleagainstthe marriagemarketand

SHAKESCORP NOIR

169

mereconventionality
and
Will'sstruggleto writea lovestorythatcanbothtranscend
to
is
a
solution
hit.
the
film
offers
in
with
a
What
Henslowe
response fantasy
provide
on
the ideological
film,one thatoperates
problemof the mass-market
Shakespeare
thatmost
Romeo
and
take
andJuliet,
severallevelssimultaneously.
Norman
Stoppard
itselfthetemplatefora thousand
familiarof Shakespeare
playsto modernaudiences,
someof its oppositional
andfocuson re-energizing
themes,in parpopularimitators,
ticularresistanceto the waysin whichthe marketplace
governsthe conductof
as animmediWithinthefilmRomeo
andJulietis presented
romanceandplaywriting.
of
whosedefiance market-enforced
atepopularsuccessandas an artisticmasterpiece
its
can
be
in
conventionality appreciated dayonlybya selectfew-in thiscase,in a fanBywinbya criticwhois alsothemonarch.
Shakespeareans,
tasydearto professional
Willcanpursuea careerinthebusiness
betandElizabeths
commission,
ningWessex's
to conformto commercial
from
thepressure
of popularentertainment
andyetis freed
both
to Shakespeare's
formulae.
Thefilmitselfis bothfaithfulandunfaithful
language,
a talk-heavy
art-houseperiodpieceanda by-the-numbers
boy-meets-girl/boy-loses
a
inLove
doubt
romantic
Without
Shakespeare
comedy.
girl/boy-fantasizes-about-girl
of
a
notion
Romantic
aims at partially-but only partially-recuperating
as a loneartisticgeniussomehowtranscenShakespearean
authorship,
Shakespeare
thefilmno smallshareof
an
thathasgarnered
dentof commercial
culture, operation
wasfelt
academic
critique.Evenso,it shouldnotescapenoticethatsuchrecuperation
the
film
to be necessaryand timely,that
representsShakespeare's
'genius"as an
achieved,not given,state-a highlyqualifiedspaceof aestheticanderoticfreedom
It is importantto
wrestedfrom the ubiquityof the mass-cultural
marketplace.
to whichthefilmis addressed
thatis,thespecifichistorical
problematic
acknowledge,
inthe'90s
of Shakespeare
theconcerted
accommodation
(andto whichit contributes):
of whatoncewasa spaceof
to mainstream
mediaandthe resultingappropriation
across
into
of
the
resistance.
Thefinalshot, Violastriding
landscape
pristineAmerican
the filmconandtentatively
a white,screenlike
beach,epitomizeshow ambivalently
ceivesof thatresistance:
doesthis imagerecordViola'sescapeto a newworldwhere
fandoesnot hold,or merelyShakespeare's
market-driven
old-world,
conventionality
and
subtext?
one
he
can
fictional
of
voice
surrogates
tasy escape,
onlythrough
withdazzlingdirectInmanywaysMichaelAlmereyda's
Hamlet
(2000)crystallizes
in
world
His
set
I
have
nesstheproblematic
beensketching. adaptation, thecorporate
cinematichybrid,the genealogyof
of contemporary
New YorkCity,is a fascinating
whichis crucialto the film'smeaning.Certainlyit needsto be set in the longlineof
wake.Yetits most
filmsthathavefollowedin Luhrmann's
Shakespeare
youth-market
forebear
to
which
isfilmnoir,
payshomagewiththefilm's
important
generic
Almereyda
its imagesof an oppressive,
its use of the cityas a character;
broodingatmosphere;
urbannight-world
of blue-litneon,chrome,andasphalt;its emphasison systematic
and its
andviolencebehinda facadeof benignnormalcy;
surveillance,
corruption,

170

SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

of theprotagonist
as a falleninnocentwhostruggles
characterization
againsthis own
filmis
andcomplicity
withthe systemhe resists.Shakespeare
alienation,
impotence,
noir:
G.
no
to
Ulmer's
Illusion
and
(1945)
certainly stranger
Edgar
George
Strange
Cukor's
A Double
Hamlet
and
the
Othello
respectively
during first
Life(1947)adapted
noircycleof the'40s,andduringthesameperiodOlivier's
Hamlet
(1948)andWelles's
Othello
Indeed,noirhaslongbeen
(1952)adoptedmanyelementsof thenoiraesthetic.
a
for
vehicle
thought congenial
adaptingShakespearean
tragedyto film,if onejudges
MacBeth
(dir.KenHughes,
(dir.JosephL.Mankiewicz,
1949),Joe
byHouseofStrangers
Michelle
Blue
Men
(dir.WilliamReilly,
1955),
City(dir.
Manning,1986),
of Respect
to nameonlya few.However,
Hamlet
1991),andLettheDevilWearBlack,
Almereyda's
thecorporate
tracesits lineagefroma morespecificsubgenre,
noir,exemplified
bysuch
filmsas TheBigClock(dir.JohnFarrow,
1948)andI WalkAlone(dir.ByronHaskin,
of
where
the
forces
andcorruption
thatso oftenthreatenthe
dark
1948),
conspiracy
in the corporate
noirprotagonist
havebeenrelocated
realm.Corporate
noir,it should
benoted,neednotbenarrowly
confinedto plotswithcorporate
settings.Forexample,
filtersMacbeth
JoeMacBeth,
scriptedby PhilipYordan,15
througha seriesof gangster
and noirmotifsin orderto addressthe contradictory
loyaltiesandparanoiaof the
manof the'50s.Thoughtherehavealsobeencorporate
mobileorganization
upwardly
An
noirversionsof KingLear(HouseofStrangers)
Caesar
andJulius
(GodfreyGrayson's
Honourable
hasbeentheplaymostconsistently
Murder,
1960),Hamlet
pairedwiththe
so
it
is
the
fatalistic
of
because
concerned
with
relationship
genre,perhaps
thoroughly
a relativelypowerlessprotagonistto a falselylegitimatedsystemof corruption.16
suffusesHelmutKautner's
noircertainly
TheRestisSilence
(1959),anindictCorporate
mentof Germany's
in Naziindustrialization;
AkiraKurosawa's
underrated
complicity
Aki
sardonic
Goes
Well
and
Kaurismaki's
Hamlet
The
Bad
noir,
Sleep (1960);
salaryman
Business
the family
(1987),in whichHamletmustpreventhis unclefromconverting
businessfromtimberandoil to Swedishrubberducks.
Hamletpushesthis adaptational
traditionin two new directions.
Almereyda's
evocation
of
noir
Hamletandhis
sets
First,Almereyda's
postmodern
Shakespeare's
ownfilmwithina particular
institutional
history.No smallpartof the cachetoffilm
noiris thatit wasa genrenominally
situatedwithintheHollywoodstudiosystembut
openlyresistantto the dominantvisualstyles,genres,andideologiesof A-listfare.
Mostof the classicfilms
noirwereproducedbylow-budget
studiounitsor smallstudiosandwereintendedas theB-pictureon a doublebill,a picturethat,unlikeA-pictures,rentedfora flatfeeandthusdid not relyon audience-attendance
figuresas a
measureof its success.PaulKerrarguesthatnoiroriginallydeveloped
"notonlyby
15Yordanalso
a corporatenoirbased
scripted two films modeled on KingLear:Houseof Strangers,
on the disintegrationof an immigrantbankingfamily;and BrokenLance(1954), a remakeof Houseof
as a western,directedby the veterannoirdirectorEdwardDmytryk.
Strangers
16 See Linda Charnes,"DismemberMe: Shakespeare,Paranoia,and Mass Culture,"Shakespeare
48 (1997): 1-16.
Quarterly

SHAKESCORP NOIR

171

to restrictedexpenditure[evidencedin its spartansets, low-key

accommodation
to therealistaesplots,forexample]butalsoby resistance
lighting,andcomplicated
thetic"of A-listfilmsandtelevisionandthedominantideologiestheytendedto supnoirhascometo epitomizemass-market
Formanyfilmcriticsandfilmmakers,
port.17
for
it
for
film'scapacity socialcritique; has, example,becomea powerfulicon and
movement.By makingthe implicit
modelfor the contemporary
independent-film
is
of
or
casethatHamlet an antecedent
noir,Almereyda
puranalogueforcorporate
noirbecomesthemeansbywhichfilm
suesa complexstrategyof mutuallegitimation:
can recoversomethingof its traditionaloppositionaledge,whilethe
Shakespeare
confluenceof the two providesa literaryand cinematicgenealogyfor the kindof
filmthatis Almereyda's
forte.Of course,whetheror not Almereyda's
independent
evocationof filmnoiris anythingmorethana superficial
stylistichomageremains
in rather
nature
of
neo-noir
the
allusive
participates
opento debate.Arguably gestural,
of cinematicimages-what FredricJamesonhas
than critiquesthe recirculation
of latecapitalism.18
called"blank
parody"-thatis so characteristic
noirgenreto bearon
Second,andmoreimportant,
Almereyda
bringsthecorporate
massmediaandthuson the verymedium
the institutional
contextof contemporary
howfullymediatechnologyhasbecomethe
withinwhichhe is working,suggesting
If
instrumentof corporate
domination. in his HamletBranaghmakesthe mirrored
doeshimone better
state-rooma metaphorforMachiavellian
statecraft,
Almereyda
of corporate
mirror
surfaces
the
by emphasizing ubiquitous(andhighlyphotogenic)
the glistening
architecture,
capitalism,the reflectiveglass of International-Style
"thecity'shard
chromeandpolishedlimos-in thewordsof thepublishedscreenplay,
Like Hamlet'sbullet in the closet scene with
surfaces,mirrors,screensand signs."19
Gertrude, Almereyda'sfilm is aimed at the unseen corporate presence behind the mirror. A crucial counterpart to the pervasive mirror imagery is the media apparatus
through which so much of the drama'saction is conducted-fax, cell phones, laptops,
speaker phones, security cameras, photography, video, newspapers. The wire that
Ophelia wears during her breakup with Hamlet and the telephone reports offered by
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to Claudius are merely the most overt instances of a
general system of mediatized corporate power against which Hamlet finds himself
pitted. (It is a metacinematic masterstroke to have cast Sam Shepard as Hamlet's
father,since he is so closely identified with the modern American theater and with critique of the media myth of the happy American family.) Kyle MacLachlan'sClaudius,
all GQ looks and public smiles, is the human face of that system, and at first the media
apparatus allows him to create and manage his public image. The stockholders'meet17 PaulKerr,"Out
PaulKerr,
in TheHollywood
FilmIndustry,
of whatpast?:Notes on the Bfilmnoir"
ed. (LondonandNew York:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1986),220-44, esp.232.
18 See Fredric
Turn:
Selected
andConsumerSociety"in his TheCultural
"Postmodernism
Jameson,
onthePostmodern,
1983-1998(London:Verso,1998),1-20, esp.4-5.
Writings
19 William
Hamlet,
(London:FaberandFaber,
2000),xi.
Shakespeare's
adaptedby MichaelAlmereyda

172

SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

ing with which he entersthe film depicts Claudiusconsolidatinghis poweras CEO

by,ironicallyenough,defacingthe mediaimageof his rival,that is, by publicallytearattemptedcoring in half a copy of USA Todaywith a coverstoryabout Fortinbras's
"havefreely
The
of
bank
of
who
a
cameras-those
takeover.
presence
press
porate
gone / With this affairalong"(1.2.15-16)20-at Claudius'sannouncementmakes
clearthat photographyand film havenow becomeessentialto the conductof corporatepower,a point reinforcedlateron by Hamlet'sencounterwith Poloniusunderthe
eye of a surveillancecamera.
Almereydaoffers one particularlyresonant image of Hamlet's dilemma:after
time is out of
Hamlet'sencounterwith his father'sghost,he remarksin voiceover,"The
joint. O cursedspite / That everI was born to set it right!"(1.5.189-90), as we see a
videologo of the Denmarkcorporationsuperimposedovertwo shotsof urbancrowds.
The sound of a phone modeminitializingon the soundtracksignifiesthe globalreach
of Denmark'scorrupttechno-corporateapparatus.Here Almereydaunderlinesthat
Hamlet'snemesisis not so much a singleambitiousor unethicalfigurebut rathera
totalizingcorporatemediasysteminto which he has been thrust.The poster for the
film distillsthis conceptinto a singleimage-a close-upof Hamlet staringdirectlyat
the vieweragainsta nighttimepanoramaof out-of-focusskyscraperofficewindows
thatevokepixilatedlineson a videomonitor(Fig.2). The imageis subtlydeceptive,for
on the rightside Hamlet clearlyoccupiesthe foregroundand the windowscapeoccupies the background,whereason the left side Hamlet'sfacerecedesbehindthe linesof
light.Our senseis that the corporatemediascapeis both windowand screen,occupies
both foregroundandbackground;
that Hamlet'sidentityemergeswithinand againsta
vast,vague,wraparoundmedia environmentwith the look and paranoidfeel of film
noir.That sinisterambiguityis the structuringconceitof Almereyda's
adaptation.It is
almost certainlyjust a coincidencethat the imageis also reminiscentof the production-companycreditthat opens the movie,a New Yorknightscapeof lit skyscraper
windowsthat slowlytransformthemselvesinto the Miramaxstudiologo.
If corporatemediapower threatensto reducethe art of the photographicimage
what interestsAlmereydais the possibility
to a manipulative,sinistermirror-screen,
and difficultyof using film to createan art of resistance.In the processhe reflectson
his own position as an independentfilmmakerparticipatingin the Shakespeare-film
boom of the 1990s. His Hamlet is a Gen-X amateurvideographerand his Ophelia
a photographer,both artistsimmersedin visual-mediacultureyet strugglingto find
waysof resistingthe corporatesystemthe oldergenerationexemplifies.Of particular
interestis the film'sportrayalof video.If one objectof DenmarkCorporation's
media
empireis to craftand projectfalsepublicidentitiesand authority,Hamlet createsfor
himself a privatesecond self throughhis pixel-visioncamera.In this cinematicmir20

All quotations of Shakespearefollow The NortonShakespeare:

Basedon the Oxfordedition,ed.
Greenblatt
et
York:
W.
and
al.
W.
are
cited
Norton,
(New
1997)
Stephen
parentheticallyin the text.

Figure2: MiramaxFilms'advertisementfor MichaelAlmereyda'sHamlet(2000), starringEthan

Hawke in the title role,

174

SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

rorhe can recordhis otherwise-unspokensense of loss,alienation,and despair,which

he then replaysto himself (and us) in the form of video soliloquies.Almereyda's
Hamlet is certainlyintendedto mythologizethe independentfilmmakeras a figure
of counterestablishmentresistance,but the film leaves open to question whether
Hamlet can use the screenmedium to createa meaningfulor sufficientlypowerful
alternativeto the corporatemediaapparatusmanipulatedby Claudiusand Polonius.
Hamlet'spixel-visionsoliloquieshaveno publicaudiencewithin the fiction,and their
grainy,ghostlike,black-and-whitequalityalignsthem ratheruncomfortablywith the
surveillancecameras,wherethe ghost of Hamlet's
imageson DenmarkCorporation's
father is first spied. They become recordsof painful alienation,valuablefor their
evanescence,recordsthat Hamlet strugglesto put to use when,in his firstattemptto
murder Claudius, he replayshis soliloquy in order to spur himself into "taking
arms"-in this case, a handgun-"against a sea of troubles":Many of Hamlet's
filmmakingefforts are directedtoward using film to createa counterdiscourse,in
effectturningthe technologicalapparatusof mediaculturebackon itself in an effort
to exposeits complicitywith corporatecorruption.This is, for example,how Hamlet
confrontsClaudius'sopeningnews conference,traininghis independentlens on the
"official"
media and creatinghis own unfilteredrecordof the event. Certainlythis
also
hoversover Hamlet'suse of a laptop-yet anotherinstrumentof corstrategy
porate power-to rewrite his death warrant and doom the corporate toadies
Rosencrantzand Guildenstern.Such a strategy,we can'tfail to notice,also bearson
Almereyda'sattemptto makea Shakespearefilm that exposesthe corporateapparatus behindthe '90s mediatizationof Shakespeare.
One of Hamlet'sstrategiesis to harvestmedia imagesand reassemblethem in
counterdiscursive
montages,a techniquefirstsignaledby the massivecollageof photos and postcardswhich servesas the backdropfor his computerand videoworkstation. The quintessentialexampleof that effort,one with unmistakablemetacinematic resonance,is his video Mousetrap,
one of Almereyda'smoredaringdeparturesfrom
text.21
Hamlet's
video
Shakespeare's
targets not only the media myth of the ideal
bourgeoisfamilybut Claudius'scrimein particular,and the indictmentis conducted
througha gleefullysardonicbricolageof imageryculledfromthe mass media-television shows from the '50s, cartoons,campystock footage,pornography,and silent
film.22Almereyda intimates that the film'ssavagerysprings from Hamlet's adolescent

disillusionmentwith the media myth he once idolized.The films final affront,the

imagethat promptsClaudiusto call for light, is a clip from a silent film in which a
21

In a question-and-answersession after a showing of Hamletat HarvardUniversityin the spring

of 2000, Almereydarevealedthat the Mousetrap
film was the firstfootage to be shot for Hamlet.The
similaritybetween the distinctivered-title sequencesof Almereyda'sfilm and Hamlet'sfilm-withinthe-film only strengthensthe sense that Hamlet serves as the director'sadolescentalter-ego.
22 One
drawsthe historyof Shakespeare
clip,takenfroma silent adaptationof AntonyandCleopatra,
on film into Hamlet's(and by implicationAlmereyda's)critiqueof corporatemediatization.

SHAKESCORP NOIR

175

shadowyfigurestandsbeforea mirror,placesa crownon his own head,and then suddenlyin full light breaksinto a contortedgrin.It is a grotesqueparodyof Claudius's
self-anointmentbeforethe mirrorof the press earlyin the film, and its deconstruction of corporatepower'sself-image,morethan the revelationof Old Hamlet'smurder as in Shakespeare's
text, leavesClaudiusexposedand horrified.The video'sstyle
is also calculatedto offend:pointedlycrude,homemade,disjointed,campy,with its
overwroughtTchaikovskysoundtrack,it roundlyrejectsthe standardsof bourgeois
realismand high-glossproduction.Most important,it is producedby Hamlet alone,
created,we are to surmise,in solitude on his home media-workstationwithout the
aid of visitingplayersor anyoneelse.At the levelof production,then, TheMousetrap
rejectsthe corporatemedia system in which film and video elsewherein the movie
seem so inextricablyimplicated.If Hamlet'svideo is meantto frameour perceptions
of Almereyda'sown practice-and that is open to some question-the film-withinthe-film misrecognizesand idealizesthe state of '90s independentfilmmakingas a
matterof a solitarydirectoror small studio pitted againstcorporatemedia culture.
In reality,the farmoreambiguousstateof independentfilmmakingis exemplifiedby
Almereyda'sHamletitself, which uses many of the same cinematic techniques it
indicts;which requiredsubsidiesfrom its film stars,who were willing to work for
scale;which receivedfinancingand distributionfrom Miramax;and which engaged
in tie-in marketingschemes-the release of two soundtrackalbums, video and
DVD releases-that havebecomeindustrystaples.
If Hamlet'sMousetrap
points to the difficultyof fashioningand occupyinga space
outside what Geoffrey O'Brien has called "the phantom empire"of film,23that
difficultyis most memorablystaged in Hamlet's"To be or not to be"scene in the
Blockbustervideostore.As Hamlet laconicallystrollsdown the action-videoaisle,he
confrontsthe futilityof seekinga revengenot alwaysalreadyscriptedby the verycorporate media forces he opposes. In many ways this is a companionpiece to the
pumped-upHamlettrailerin LastActionHero,for this sequencemakesclearhow the
imperativeto instant,unconsideredviolencein the action-moviegenre,the imperative againstwhich Hamlet'shesitationis found wanting,is itself in the serviceof a
commercialsystem driven by the movie blockbuster,that most characteristicand
most lucrativeproductof post-Jawsglobalfilm commerce.24
As Hamlet strollsdown
the aisle, passingplacardafter placardreading'ACTION,"he recognizesthat "the
23
See Geoffrey O'Brien, The PhantomEmpire(New Yorkand London: W. W. Norton, 1993). I
thankJohn Archerfor directingmy attention to this book.
24
For a discussion of the "blockbuster"
phenomenon and its relationshipto the business of contemporaryfilm, see Thomas Schatz, "The New Hollywood"in Film TheoryGoesto the Movies,Jim
Collins, Hilary Radner,and Ava PreacherCollins, eds. (New Yorkand London: Routledge, 1993),
8-36. On the relatedphenomenon of the"independentstudio,"see Justin Wyatt,"The formationof
Hollywood
the'majorindependent':Miramax,New Line and the New Hollywood"in Contemporary
Cinema,Steve Neale and MurraySmith, eds. (London and New York:Routledge, 1998), 74-90.

176

SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

hasbeenlostindeed,reducedto a marketing
nameof action"
niche,thepotentialfor
resistance
as mass-market
spectaagainstinjusticeco-opted,repackaged
meaningful
Even
Hamlet's
inaction
hasbeenappropriated
cle,andmass-produced.
bytheaction
genre,for the sequencein whichHamletrepeatedlymimessuicidewith a pistol
beforehisvideomonitorrecallsthe sequencein LethalWeapon
(dir.RichardDonner,
in
which
Mel
Gibson
as
Martin
1987)
shootinghimselfas he
Riggscontemplates
watchestelevisionandlamentshislostlove.(Ininterviews
FrancoZeffirellihascommentedthatit wasthis scenethatpromptedhim to castMelGibsonas Hamletin
his 1990film.)As Hamletgazeswithweariness
aboutthestore,it becomesclearthat
of greatpithandmoment"
whichderails"enterprises
is notso mucha fear
the"regard"
of damnation
as an anguished
thatthe formsof actionhe hasbeenconrecognition
templating-gunplayandfilmmaking-aresituatedwithinthe corruptsystemhe
of action,
on themetaphysical
andethicaldouble-bind
opposes.Hamlet'smeditation
in short,is situatedwithinAlmereyda's
of the institutional
doublewryarticulation
bindfacedby the contemporary
who is confrontedby the
filmmaker,
Shakespeare
tailoredto theprotocolsof theglobalmediamardemandto producea Shakespeare
the
action
film.InAlmereyda's
ket,protocolsepitomizedby
originalscenarioforthis
to cinematic
"action"
withcitational
Hamletresiststheimperative
sequence,
irony,for
at mid-speechthe sceneswitchesto Hamlet'sroom,wherewe see him editinghis
own Hamletfromscenesthat offerverydifferentsortsof "action,"
a pornographic
The scene'sfinalversion,however,offersno such
Hamletand a silent-filmHamlet.
On a monitoraboveHamlet'sheadmockinglyplaysa seriesof
spaceof resistance.
like
almostcomicallyviolentscenesfromTheCrowII,the taleof a youthfulrevenger
himselfbut alsoan emptysequeldesignedto capitalizeon the cultfollowingof the
a filmproducedby Miramax,
the studiothatalso
originalfilmand,not incidentally,
the respect/ That
producedthe veryfilmwe arewatching.With the words"there's
makescalamityof so longlife"(3.1.70-71),Hamletroundsthe corner,andoverhis
videoboxes,a briefbutpotent
shoulderweseerowafterrowof identicalBlockbuster
madeallthe morechillingbythe
imageof a cinematicsystemof massreproduction,
If wearetojudgebyHamlet'sanguished
homehappy:'
glancesaroundthe
slogan"Go
he
andwants
mediasystem hererecognizes
storeatspeech's
end,it is anomnipresent
to resist.Yetif wejudgeby the stackof videoshe bringsto the counter
desperately
afterhis breakupwith Ophelia,videosthatprovidesolaceandmodelsforidentity
becomethematerialforhis Mousetrap,
(suchasJamesDean)andthatwilleventually
it is a systemhe findsdifficultto escape.
with
The Blockbuster
sequenceis oneof severaldeeplyironicproductplacements
into a PepsiOne
whichthe film is spiced,alongwith the Ghost'sdisappearance
encounterwiththeMoviefoneservice"sponsored
machineandOphelia's
byTheNew
to his publishedscreenplay,
YorkTimesand 102.7,WNEW"25In the introduction
25

Almereyda,35.

SHAKESCORP NOIR

177

Almereyda acknowledges that he was particularly stung by the bitter critical reaction
to such placements, noting that he paid for the privilege of using corporate logos in
the film, that they were intended to signify "the bars of the cage"of contemporary
consumer culture in which Hamlet finds himself trapped, and that "it'smeant as
something more than a casual irony"26But, casual or not, ironizing the issue of commercialism runs the risk of masking the contradictory position that Almereyda's own
film seeks to occupy, a position especially apparent if one attends to the extraordinarily long list of corporate acknowledgments in the credits.27Indeed, the problematic nature of postmodern irony came to the fore in the movies difficult passage from
film to video. When independent video-store owners first received screeners for the
film, many of them balked at stocking a video that offered so blatant and central a
product placement for their most powerful corporate competitor; reportedly the
numbers were sufficient to delay release of the tape and raise the possibility that the
sequence might have to be reshot in order to preserve the lucrative video market. It
would be a mistake to attribute these vendors' reaction to a lack of sophistication or
an insufficient appreciation of the irony. The ironizing of product placement has
become an increasingly prominent means by which filmmakers respond to public
irritation at ubiquitous commercial promotion in films while continuing to reap the
benefits of that promotion. The reaction of video-store owners is an informed,
justifiable recognition that the very appearance of the Blockbuster logo, however
ironized, ends up reinforcing their competitor's corporate power.
The difficulty of imagining a specifically filmic mode of resistance is perhaps best
indicated by the ending of the film. In the original shooting script the multiple
deaths were followed by the entrance of Fortinbras, described as "a scruffy young
man ... a bit like a young Bob Dylan," strongly resembling Almereyda himself.28
Like Hamlet, Fortinbras turns out to be a young filmmaker, and his final act is to
pull out his videocam and photograph the scene of carnage and the audience that
has witnessed it, in the final shot"aiming his camera straight into ours"and muttering, in a brilliant recoding of the play's final line,"Go, bid the soldiers shoot"(5.2.347,
emphasis added).29 This baring of the device is meant to bring into view what the
opening sequence of Branaghs Henry V never offers, a disclosure of Shakespeare
26

Almereyda, xi.
At the end of his discussionof productplacementin Hamlet,Almereydahimself grantsthat"the
film contains some dazzling contradictions"(xi).
28
Hamlet,adaptedby MichaelAlmereyda,unpublishedscreenplay,n.d., 106.The publishedscreenplay picturesFortinbrasmuch less specificallyas a counterculturalfilmmakerand makeshim instead
young
somethingof an incongruoushybridbetween Hamlet and Claudius.Now describedas"ascruffy
manwearinga sharpsuit,a hat withearflaps[Hamlet'ssartorialsignaturein the opening scenes], a bag
Fortinbrasenters by helicopter,accompaniedby a retinue of corporatebodyslungon oneshoulder;'
At
he pulls a digital videocamerafrom his bag and shoots the scene of carnage,
scenes
end,
guards.
on
chair
to get a full shot and symbolicallytrackingblood as he does so (127-29).
the
standing
kings
29
Almereyda,129.
27

178

SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

cinema'sposition within ratherthan outside the corporatesystemwhose workings

we havejust observed.It makesplain Hamlet'sand perhapsour own failureto recognize the almost inevitableinstitutionalcomplicityof the medium we have been
watchinguntil it is fully revealedat this finalmoment. By takingup the position of
Fortinbras,Almereydabecomes the last directorstanding,the one who can evade
the institutionalproblemof accommodatingShakespeareto film by self-consciously makingthat problemthe subjectof his own independentfilm.It also makeshim,
in a characteristically
wry and perhapshopefulgesture,the one who will inheritthe
vast resourcesof DenmarkCorporation.
In manywaysthe endingwe actuallyget is moreequivocal,farless sanguineabout
the ease with which the independent filmmakercan serve as the solution to
Shakespeare's
corporatemediatization.In what amounts to a metacommentaryon
the TV prologue and epilogue to Luhrmann'sRomeo+ Juliet,the film ends with
newsmanRobin MacNeil deliveringan eveningnewscast,in effect returningus to
the question, raised at the beginningby Claudius'snews conference,of television
journalism'splace in media culture.At issue here is the verypossibilityof a public
spherethat can providea critiqueof corporatemedia culture.In this the castingof
Robin MacNeil is clearlymeant to evoke his long associationwith The MacNeilLebrerNewshouron Americanpublic television,a putativelynoncommercial,independentjournalisticalternativeto networknewscasts.Ostensiblyhis reportconcerns
Fortinbras's
takeoverof DenmarkCorporation,but his woeful editorialcomes from
Fortinbras'sand the ambassador'slaments for the tableauof fallen princes as they
enterthe finalscene:
O prouddeath,
Whatfeastis towardin thineeternalcell
Thatthouso manyprincesat a shot
So bloodilyhaststruck!The sightis dismal.
(5.2.308-11)

Despite the factthat Almereydarefersto this newsmanas"anothercorporatemouththe broadcastbecomesa bracinglydirectcommentaryon the destructiveness
piece,"30
of corporateculture,opening up a spacefor institutionalself-critiquewithin public
media not apparentearlier.That commentaryis extendedwith these closing lines,
interpolatedfrom the speech of the Player King in Shakespeare'sversion of The
Mousetrap:
Ourwillsandfatesdo so contraryrun
Thatourdevicesstillareoverthrown;
Ourthoughtsareours,theirendsnoneof ourown.
(3.2.193-95)
30

Almereyda, 143.

SHAKESCORP NOIR

179

It'sdifficultnot to hearin the word"devices"

an allusionto the vastarrayof media
technologythatpervadesthe film.However,the finallineis the moreresonant,sugand
gestingat oncean ironizingof anyattemptsto controlfateor media"devices"
the privileging
of a privatesubjectivespace-"ourthoughts"-thatremainsinvio"ours"31
linksthis spaceto filmwiththe seriesof pixellably
Almereyda
tentatively
visionimagesthatflashbeforeHamlet'seyesas he dies,"thoughts"
fromhis private
videoarchivethatalsoreprisethefilmwehavejustseen.The endingof thefilm,that
is, returnsus to an idealof private,independentvideoas a wayof evadingthe systemthatturnsallartto commerceandsubjectsallidentitiesto control.
The shortcodathatfollowsbringsthe questionof filmandcorporatepowerto
bearon Shakespearean
directnessandeconomy.It conauthoritywith remarkable
sistsof two images:a titlecardreading"from
theplayby WilliamShakespeare"
and
a veryslowtracking
of
newscaster's
a
with
the
close-up teleprompter,
Shakespearean
text scrollingacrossits screen.Once againAlmereyda's
is
strategy to exposethe
in
this
the
becomes
the status of the film
scenario
issue
device,although
we havejust beenviewing.On the one hand,this finalmomentis a
Shakespeare
reminder
of andreturnto theextraordinary
text,a text
authorityof theShakespeare
which in this case self-reflexively
thoughts
arguesthat somehowShakespeare's
remainhis own,despitetheirmediaappropriation
to"endsnoneof his own."32
And
forcesus to recognizethe continuingpresenceof
yetthe imageof the teleprompter
an ominousapparatusof mediapoweroperatingbehindthe scenes.A deviceof
screensandmirrorshas nowcapturedShakespeare's
wordsandtransformed
them
intoyetanotherscreenimage.Buttheshotdoesnot specifywhois in controlof this
processeven thoughone can glimpsea figurebehindthe machine,the viewer's
uneasecompounded
the shot.All
by the risingindustrialmusicthataccompanies
the devices,it wouldseem,havenot quitebeenoverthrown.
In the finalcut,thatis,
theemphasisof Almereyda's
filmfallson the extraordinary
powerof the mediasystemat the verymomentthatsystemseemsto openup a spaceforself-critique,
one
foundedon whathaslongbeenregarded
as a symbolicpointof resistanceto commercialmedia-Shakespeare's
language.
In the film'smuch-truncated
funeralscene,the Gravedigger
merrilysingsBob
as he works:"'Theremustbe somewayout of
Dylan'sAll Alongthe Watchtower"
31In his discussion of the vexed
history of the film'sending, Almereydanotes that his attention
was drawn to these lines by the opening of Harold Bloom'sShakespeare:
The Inventionof theHuman
York:
where
become
emblematic
of
Riverhead
Books,
(New
1998),
they
"Shakespeare's
scepticallong
view of things"(143).
32 Indeed, this is the
reading that Almereyda himself emphasizes in his published screenplay:
"When Mr MacNeil suggestedwe feed him the text on a teleprompter,it made perfect sense to end
this image-saturatedmovie with a final shot of-words. Shakespeare'swords, ascending a glowing
screen.Safe to say they'llsurvivea deluge of furtheradaptations,imagesand ideas,until silence swallows us all"(143).

180

SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

allusionepitomizes
here,'saidthejokerto thethie'f33In manyways,thatthrowaway
to
find"some
out"
of
the
desire
media
wraparound
Almereyda's
way
systemto which
somecinematicmodeof
his HamletandShakespeare's
Hamlethavebeensubjected,
or
that
is
not
resistance
escape,evasion,
by thatsystem.
alwaysalreadyappropriated
JohnFiskehasarguedthatcontemporary
popularcultureis structured
by a fundamentalandultimatelynecessarycontradiction:
the worksof pop cultureinevitably
beartheinterestsof theforcesthatproducethem,andyet,preciselyasa conditionof
theirbeing"popular,'
linesof force
thoseworksalsocarryresistantor oppositional
that engageinchoateformsof populardiscontentandutopianism.34
In the set of
filmsI haveconsidered
line
hereShakespeare's
as
an
potential
oppositional of forceis
both heightenedandcompromised
by his passageinto the cinematicmainstream.
The valueof Almereyda's
Hamletis not thatit canthinkits wayout of this contraso self-consciously.
And it is its selfdictionbut thatit occupiesthe contradiction
abouttheveryenterprise
of a Shakespeare
filmthatoffersa riposteto
consciousness
the'90sShakespeare
filmas
embraced
those,on the onehand,whohaveuncritically
a populistphenomenon
andto those,on theotherhand,whohaverejected
themainfilmas ideologically
suspectfromthe start.In the past
streamingof Shakespeare
fifteenyearswe have watchedthe ascendancyof what one might call metacriticism,a criticalmode attentiveto the interplaybetweenperforperformative
mancesof Shakespeare,
to thewaysin whichperformances
on stageandfilmallude
to, commenton, extend,revise,andrebuteachother.It hasbeena remarkably
proin largepartenabledby the fuzzytermperformance,
ductiveapproach,
which,likeits
counterparttext, has promptedconsiderationof hermeneuticrelationsand
affiliations
acrossandbetweengenres,disciplines,
andmedia.Butthe riskis thatby
film into"performance,"
we obscurethe specificqualitiesof
meldingShakespeare
film
as
a
of
film
as
distinctive
mediumbut,moreimportant,
Shakespeare
film-of
filmas a distinctiveandpervasive
oneintimately
cultureindustry,
linkedto (though
not entirelyequivalent
the
of
of
modes
characteristic
with)
power
corporate
capitalism. It is for that reasonthat the counterdiscourse
in the marginsof many
filmsof the past fiveyearsoffersa crucialsupplementto whathas
Shakespeare
becomea dominantcriticalpractice.TheselatterShakespeare
filmsoffera formof
whatI wouldcallmeta-institutional
an
albeit
criticism, attempt,
haltingandincomplete,to theorizethe institutionalconditionsof theirown being.What they offer
whattheyoffertheacadmanyin theiraudiencesis a potentialforpoliticalcritique;
emyis thechallengeof engagingthepoliticaleconomyof screenShakespeare.

33 Bob

Dylan,"AllAlong the Watchtower,"John

Wesley
(Sony, 1967).
Harding

34 See John Fiske,ReadingthePopular(Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989), 2.