Transnational Shakespeare on Film

该项目的发展是出于对批评的不满，批评集中在过去二十年中制作的英语莎士比亚电影的狭窄样本上。在处理莎士比亚在银幕上的复兴的标准标题中，这个项目所涉及的材料因其缺席而引人注目。作者：Richard Burt，Lynda E.博斯的《莎士比亚电影II》在一个关于“后散居电影”的较大章节中简要讨论了亚洲电影;肯尼斯·罗斯韦尔的《莎士比亚银幕史》以两页的篇幅总结了少数“非英语莎士比亚”电影;塞缪尔·克劳尔的《莎士比亚与电影：诺顿指南》完全绕过了最近的非英语电影。也可以引用一些孤立的章节和文章来证明排斥的逻辑。但是，当像BUFVC这样的机构正在从事一个为期三年的项目，以建立一个国际莎士比亚电影数据库时，压倒性的印象是，这个关键领域还没有承认一个同等的世界范围的深度和多样性。批评忽略的是，在肯尼斯·布拉纳（Kenneth Branagh）及其同类主导的时期，在英国/美国轴心之外出现了大量莎士比亚电影。莎士比亚的电影已经在巴西、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上的魅力对象。上文提到的严重不平衡部分与特定电影的发行和放映网络有关。但这反过来又要求我们，作为批评家和消费者，更多地考虑定义和决定接受的全球循环，并质疑总是从西方传播到其他地方的单向文化流动。对于非英语电影研究在这里要适当地欣赏需要重新思考莎士比亚在他最近的电影表现。引言部分讨论了一些莎士比亚的电影，这些电影象征着非英语电影对任何单一的理论阅读的抵制。该项目分为三个部分。“戏剧”考虑了特定的戏剧如何以及为什么作为电影处理的对象而被证明是弹性流行的。《八月》以作者理论为基础，通过对西方电影的理解，探讨了电影人的独特贡献。《国家戏剧》提出了两个案例研究，探讨莎士比亚和地区之间的关系，试图梳理出独特的电影诠释之间的联系。一个结论表明，它不再是可能谈论莎士比亚在现有的地理和政治参数;相反，承认交流和交换的替代范式必须开发，范式，在帮助揭露目前的空间和地点的不平等，作为一个全球公民的道德价值的见证。目前的研究有许多应用：它首次展示了大量已经被雷达忽视的电影场景。因此，它调解了其他民族国家的观点和观点，知识和Bardic重新发明，在这个过程中，引发了更广泛的全球对话。其效果是提供了一个新的理解莎士比亚和他的相关性，一个允许审问的渠道，通过它我们有机会获得莎士比亚的生产，并坚持重新参与多元化。鉴于其覆盖面，《跨国莎士比亚电影》将吸引广大的沙特阿拉伯观众，并因其主题而可能吸引历史学家、理论家、电影评论家、电影制片人和创作者。

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.