In this paper I discuss two film adaptations of Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream: Adrian Noble's TV production from 1996 and Michael Hoffman's Hollywood film from 1998. The two versions offer different contemporary readings of a text, so that it is not only Shakespeare we evaluate but also ourselves and what our occupation with his texts signifies.
The methodological key concepts employed are Roland Barthes's critical terms from S/Z, the writerly and the readerly (scriptibilité and lisibilité), as well his own cinematic terminology of 'the third meaning'. Used in the anaysis, these concepts support the critical differentiation of the Hollywood blockbuster and the art house production, their specific filmic properties and their social functions.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. (Re)Writing a Film with Roland Barthes
2.1. Scriptibilité/Lisibilité
2.2. Application on Film: The Third Meaning
2.3. Summary
3. Hoffman and/or Noble
3.1. Additions of Character(istic)s
3.2. The Mise-en-scène
3.3. The Cupid-Scene
3.4. Sex and Eroticism
3.5. Stage vs. Screen
4. Conclusion: It's still a Shakespeare Movie
Objectives & Core Themes
This paper examines Adrian Noble's (1996) and Michael Hoffman's (1998) film adaptations of Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream through the lens of Roland Barthes's poststructuralist literary theory, specifically the concepts of scriptibilité (writerly) and lisibilité (readerly) to evaluate how these films interact with their audiences.
- Application of Roland Barthes's concepts of scriptibilité and lisibilité to film analysis.
- Comparative analysis of narrative, visual, and character modifications in the two adaptations.
- Investigation of the relationship between theatricality and cinematic representation.
- Examination of the representation of sexuality and eroticism in the context of popular vs. high culture.
- Assessment of audience engagement and the potential for active interpretation (rewriting) in film.
Excerpt from the Book
3.3. The Cupid-Scene
There is one scene in the two variations of A Midsummer Night's Dream that puts the difference of the mise-en-scène on a specific level: Oberon's description of when he saw an arrow of the ancient Greek god Cupid miss its target in Act II.
In Noble's translation of that scene to film we see Oberon looking ad spectatores with Puck at his side. While he explains what he saw, "Cupid all arm'd" (MND II, i, 157), he bends an imaginary bow and points it towards the camera. Cupid's archetypal blindness is symbolised as Puck put his hands over Oberon's eyes, when he describes: "a certain aim he took" (ibid.). The discharging of the arrow, "[a]nd loosed his love-shaft smartly from his bow" (V, i, 159), is indicated by a gesture of releasing the bowstring rapidly. Finally, the part when the arrow hits the flower ("It fell upon a little Western flower" V, i, 166) is acted by Oberon as he mimes to pick up the bud carefully and presents it to Puck and the audience. The two actors, Alex Jennings as Oberon and Barry Lynch, depict the story by using nothing but their hands and their mimic expression; they portray the origin of the flower in a detailed way but leave it to the audience to imagine the story behind, that is rather unimportant for the dramatic development.
Rupert Everett and Stanley Tucci are less involved in that scene in the level of acting. While Oberon tells the story, it is illustrated by pictures that do not belong to the primary setting. We see an ancient painting of a naked, winged child, in the style of Raphael's angles, that signifies the aiming Cupid – a possible allusion to Helena's "therefore is wing'd Cupid painted blind" (I, i, 235) for which there is no further evidence, though. As Oberon's account of the story continues as voice-over, the camera moves downwards, anticipating the flying arrow, until, eventually, the king describes the piercing of the flower (ll. 165f). After a cut we see a field of white blossoms that gradually turn red starting from the centre where the arrow hit the ground.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The introduction outlines the resurgence of Shakespeare adaptations in the 1990s and introduces Roland Barthes's theoretical framework as a tool for evaluating audience interaction and text interpretation in film.
2. (Re)Writing a Film with Roland Barthes: This chapter defines the core theoretical concepts of scriptibilité (writerly) and lisibilité (readerly) and explores their applicability to cinema through Barthes's later work on the "third meaning" or obtuse meaning.
3. Hoffman and/or Noble: The chapter provides a detailed comparative analysis of the two film adaptations, examining their distinct approaches to character development, set design, depiction of sexuality, and the balance between theatrical conventions and cinematic techniques.
4. Conclusion: It's still a Shakespeare Movie: The conclusion synthesizes the findings, arguing that while Hoffman's film tends towards the lisible (readerly/obvious), Noble's production encourages a more active, scriptible (writerly) engagement from the audience by utilizing meta-theatrical devices and structural ambiguity.
Keywords
Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Roland Barthes, film adaptation, scriptibilité, lisibilité, poststructuralism, semiology, mise-en-scène, audience engagement, popular culture, theatricality, obtuse meaning, intertextuality, representation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this academic work?
The work focuses on analyzing and comparing two specific film adaptations of William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream: Adrian Noble's 1996 version and Michael Hoffman's 1998 production.
What theoretical framework is applied to these films?
The study applies poststructuralist literary theory, specifically the concepts of scriptibilité (writerly) and lisibilité (readerly) developed by Roland Barthes, to assess how these films communicate meaning to the audience.
What is the primary objective of this analysis?
The primary objective is to determine whether Barthes's literary concepts can effectively be used as an analytical tool for film studies to evaluate how open or predetermined a film is and how it influences audience passivity or engagement.
What specific methodology is employed?
The study employs a comparative analysis, testing Barthes's central terms on specific scenes from the two films, focusing on character presentation, mise-en-scène, acting styles, and the treatment of sexuality.
What is covered in the main section of the paper?
The main section evaluates specific differences between the two films, including how they introduce characters (e.g., the 'Boy' in Noble's film vs. Bottom's psychological depth in Hoffman's), their divergent use of visual design, and their contrasting representations of eroticism and stage conventions.
Which key terms define this work?
Key terms include scriptibilité, lisibilité, sens obtuse (obtuse meaning), poststructuralism, intertextuality, mise-en-scène, and film adaptation.
How does Michael Hoffman's adaptation compare to the readerly (lisible) concept?
The author argues that Hoffman's film is predominantly lisible, as it provides an explicit, polished interpretation that leaves little room for individual audience interpretation or the production of new meaning.
How does Adrian Noble's adaptation attempt to achieve scriptibilité (writerly quality)?
Noble's film achieves a higher degree of scriptibilité by using meta-theatrical devices and a more ambiguous mise-en-scène, which forces the audience to fill in gaps and actively engage in the process of meaning-making.
Does the author conclude that Barthes's theories are perfectly suited for film analysis?
The author concludes that while Barthes's concepts are helpful for structural assessment, they encounter limitations in film studies, particularly regarding the unique nature of the "obtuse meaning" for each individual, suggesting a need to refine these categories for effective film analysis.
- Quote paper
- M.A. Thorsten Leiendecker (Author), 2004, Barthes and the Bard - scriptibilité and two adaptations of "A Midsummer Night's Dream", Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/85753
