Transnational Shakespeare on Film

这个项目源于对批评的不满，批评集中在过去20年来制作的少数以英语为母语的莎士比亚电影上。在关于莎士比亚在银幕上复兴的标准标题中，这个项目中涉及的材料因缺席而引人注目。理查德·伯特(Richard Burt)和琳达·E·布斯(Lynda E.Boose)的《莎士比亚，电影2》(Shakespeare，the Movie，II)在一个更大的章节中对亚洲电影进行了简要讨论，其中有一个更大的章节，介绍了流散后的电影；肯尼思·罗斯韦尔(Kenneth Rothwell)的《莎士比亚的银幕历史》(A History Of Shakespeare On Screen)用两页纸总结了几部非英语国家的莎士比亚电影；塞缪尔·克劳尔(Samuel Crowl)的《莎士比亚与电影：诺顿指南》(Shakespeare and Film：A Norton Guide)完全绕过了最近的非英语国家电影。也可以引用孤立的章节和文章来证明排除的逻辑。但令人压倒性的印象是，在BUFVC等机构正在进行一个为期三年的项目，以构建一个关于莎士比亚电影的国际数据库时，批评领域尚未承认同等的全球深度和多样性。批评人士忽视的是，在肯尼斯·布拉纳(Kenneth Branagh)等人主宰的时期，英国/美国轴心之外的莎士比亚电影也相应过多。莎士比亚的电影曾在巴西、法国、德国、印度、马来西亚、瑞典、西藏和委内瑞拉等国制作，在这些国家，莎士比亚越来越成为银幕迷恋的对象。在某种程度上，上面提到的严重失衡与发行和放映网络有关，在这些网络中，特定的电影被识别出来。但这反过来又要求我们，作为批评者和消费者，更多地考虑定义和决定接受的全球循环，并质疑总是从西方流向其他地区的单向文化流动。为了让这里调查的非英语国家的电影得到适当的欣赏，有必要重新思考莎士比亚最近在电影中的表现。引言讨论了一些莎士比亚电影，它们象征着非英语国家的电影似乎对任何单一的理论阅读的抵制。然后，该项目分为三个部分。《戏剧》探讨了特定的莎士比亚戏剧作为电影处理对象是如何以及为什么如此受欢迎的。《导演》根据导演理论，通过对莎士比亚电影的理解，考察了个别电影制作人的独特贡献。《国家配置》提供了两个案例研究，探索莎士比亚和地区之间的关系，试图梳理出不同电影解读之间的联系线索。结论表明，不再可能在现有的地理和政治范围内谈论莎士比亚；相反，必须开发承认交流和交换的替代范式，这些范式在帮助揭露当前空间和地点的不平等方面，证明了全球莎士比亚公民的伦理价值。目前的研究有许多应用：它第一次展示了大量未被注意到的莎士比亚电影。因此，它调停了其他民族国家、知识和巴迪克再创造的观点和观点，在此过程中引发了更广泛的全球对话。其效果是提供了对莎士比亚及其相关性的新理解，允许对我们获得莎士比亚作品的渠道进行审问，并坚持重新接触多元化。鉴于其报道范围，跨国莎士比亚电影将吸引莎士比亚的广泛受众，而且由于其主题，可能会吸引历史学家、理论家、电影评论家、电影制作人和创作实践者。

The project grows out of dissatisfaction with criticism that has concentrated upon a narrow sample of Anglophone Shakespeare films produced over the last twenty years. In the standard titles dealing with the revival of Shakespeare on screen, the materials addressed in this project are conspicuous by their absence. Richard Burt and Lynda E. Boose's Shakespeare, the Movie, II includes brief discussion of Asian films in a larger chapter on 'postdiasporic cinema'; Kenneth Rothwell's A History of Shakespeare on Screen features a two-page summary of a small number 'non-Anglophone Shakespeare' films; and Samuel Crowl's Shakespeare and Film: A Norton Guide bypasses the recent non-Anglophone film altogether. Isolated chapters and articles could also be cited that testify to the logic of exclusion. But the overwhelming impression, at a time when institutions such as the BUFVC are engaged in a three-year project to construct an international database of Shakespeare on film, is that the critical field has yet to acknowledge an equivalent world-wide depth and diversity. What criticism ignores is that, during the period that has been dominated by Kenneth Branagh and his ilk, there has been a corresponding plethora of Shakespeare films outside the UK/US axis. Shakespeare films have been produced in, among other countries, Brazil, France, Germany, India, Malaysia, Sweden, Tibet and Venezuela, where the Bard is increasingly an object of screen fascination. In part the critical imbalance alluded to above is tied to the networks of distribution and exhibition within which particular films are identified. But this, in turn, requires us, as critics and consumers, to take greater account of the global circuit that defines and determines reception and to question the unidirectional cultural flow that invariably travels from the west to the rest. For the non-Anglophone films investigated here to be properly appreciated necessitates a rethinking of Shakespeare in his recent filmic manifestations. The Introduction discusses a number of Shakespeare films which emblematize the seeming resistances of non-Anglophone cinema to any unitary theoretical reading. The project then divides into three parts. 'Plays' considers how and why particular Shakespearean dramas have proved resiliently popular as objects of filmic treatment. 'Auteurs' investigates the unique contribution of individual filmmakers by understanding Shakespearean films according to auteur theory. 'National Configurations' presents two case studies which explore the relations between Shakespeare and region in an effort to tease out threads of connection among distinctive filmic interpretations. A conclusion demonstrates that it is no longer possible to talk about Shakespeare within existing geographical and political parameters; instead, alternative paradigms that acknowledge interchange and exchange must be developed, paradigms which, in helping to expose current inequities of space and place, stand as testimony to the ethical valences of a global Shakespearean citizenship. The current study has a number of applications: it presents, for the first time, a wealth of filmic Shakespeares that have slipped beneath the radar. It thus mediates the views and perspectives of other nation-states, knowledges and Bardic reinventions, precipitating, in the process, broader global conversations. The effect is to offer a new understanding of Shakespeare and his relevance, one which allows for interrogation of the channels through which we have access to Shakespearean production and insists upon a re-engagement with plurality. In view of its coverage, Transnational Shakespeare on Film would appeal to a wide audience of Shakespeareans and, because of its subject, possibly to historians, theoreticians, film critics, filmmakers and creative practitioners.