This page collects commentary on Shakespeare in early film in general.
1908
“Shakespeare in Moving Pictures,” Moving Picture World 3, no. 23 (Dec. 5, 1908): 446-7. URL: http://archive.org/stream/movingor03chal#page/n453/mode/2up
In its issue of September 5th, the Moving Picture World, commenting on the adaptability of Shakespeare’s plays for the purpose of the film marker and praising the three subjects then existing, remarked, among other things, that there was no reason why the film makers should not go further, and suggested as specially suitable “Richard III,” “Julius Caesar,” “Cymbeline,” “King Lear,” and “Antony and Cleopatra.” All these plays except “Lear” and “Cymbeline” have since been done into moving pictures and every one of them is creditable.
I predict for all these plays, now six in number, a longer life and a greater and more continued demand than for ordinary subjects. I make this prediction not because of the approach of the coming Shakespeare celebrations to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the poet’s death, but because of the inherent virtues in his works. As long as the English language is spoken, just so long will Shakespeare be admired, loved and read. I have in various theaters in different portions of the country presented Shakespeare in moving pictures and am therefore in a position to speak from actual observation and knowledge of the deep hold his genius has on all kinds of people. Pick up any book or newspaper, listen to any conversation, and you will be astonished how often, consciously or unconsciously, the words of the great poet are quoted. They have indeed in the most literal sense become household words.
The notion that Shakespeare, as the half-educated put it, is “too deep” and cannot be approached except with the dictionary and the interpreting help of the commentators, is altogether wrong, and the moving picture has clearly demonstrated the fact. Even with the short explanatory titles the plays have been enjoyed by all who have ever had any acquaintance with Shakespeare at all, and many persons who had never read a line of Shakespeare have come away delighted after seeing the pictures and hearing them competently explained.
I believe that every year the film exchanges are supplying greater quantities of pictures for private entertainments of all kinds. This field is wide and its possibilities great. There is scarcely a town of 100,000 or over which has not its Shakespearean societies, and I know of no more suitable entertainment for them than the moving picture plays. It may be that the prejudice against the moving picture as a serious factor in the world of instruction and amusement may at first stand in the way, but let the committees once see any of the plays mentioned and they will be rapidly converted.
If lectures on Shakespearean plays without illustrations, or with the limping aid of the slide, attract thousands, why should not the moving pictures attract tens of thousands? Recently the chairman of the entertainment committee of a great institution told me of a conversation he overhead between two boys coming out of a lantern slide entertainment. “How did you like it?” asked one of the other. “All right,” was the reply, “but I would have liked them better of they had moved.
Lovers of Shakespeare are numerous everywhere, and of the existence of these moving picture films is brought home to them, Shakespearean circles will become popular, for there never was a cheaper Shakespeare evening before than the evening devoted to showing an studying the great plays in moving pictures.
To the school, where Shakespeare’s works are read and taught, the help of the Shakespeare moving picture is plain. When a class has read a certain play, what could aid it to a better and completer understanding than to see it in the moving pictures? I have no doubt whatever that in due time this will come and the pioneers of the Shakespearean moving picture will benefit by it, and they well deserve all the advantages that may come to them. Foresight and success are often convertible terms.
Bush, Stephen W., “Hints to Exhibitors,” Moving Picture World 3, no. 17 (October 24, 1908 ): 316-7. URL: http://archive.org/stream/movingor03chal#page/n343/mode/2up/
There are films, some of the very best, that should not be put on without a lecture. If for any reason you cannon secure a trained lecturer, take an encyclopedia, look the subject up, write out a short story of the thing, get a man who can read English, and whose voice can plainly be heard, and then before you start the picture give the people an inkling of what it is about. Mo matter how poor the effort, it is better than no effort at all, and your patrons will appreciate the explanation.
In the matter of effects too great care cannot be taken. A good effect will go well with any audience; a bad one is likely to create a demand for the “hook.” The imitation behind the screen of the murmur of a mob growing by degrees into a roar is a splendid effect, but it is a very difficult undertaking, and in the process of rehearsal a good stage manager would be too frequently tempted to do bodily violence to the “supers” composing the mob. I have seen productions of Julius Caesar, where the mob around the rostrum was as interesting as anything Mark Antony said or did. A touch of that great art would help such and similar scenes very much. Attempt no effects that have not been thoroughly rehearsed. In
the famous dagger scene in “Macbeth” (I am speaking of the Vitagraph film) a grand effect can be introduced at the end by having someone strike upon the bell three times at the signal by Lady Macbeth to her husband to go and murder Duncan. I lectured on the picture
one night in a theater not a thousand miles from Philadelphia. The young man who had charge of effects was enthusiastic and determined, but a fine perception of dramatic possibilities was not among his strong points. I gave him the cue. “Remember,” I said, “three strokes upon the bell.” The fatal moment came. The audience was spellbound and listened intently for the “stern alarum.” The bell rang and it rang loud and hard and
long: it might have called Macbeth to his supper, but never to midnight murder. All effects that work well and are skillfully prepared will delight, all others will distrust.
“The Morals of the Show,” Moving Picture World 3, no. 26 (Dec. 26, 1908 ): 523. URL: http://archive.org/stream/movingor03chal#page/n529/mode/2up/
Last Sunday afternoon and evening an important venture was indulged in by Mr. Walter Donders and J. W. Brownstein, who leased the Madison Square Theater for a performance of the “Passion Play” and other selected films, together with high-class instrumental and vocal music. Although the event was not well advertised, there was an encouraging attendance. This is the first time that this theater has been open for any Sunday performance, and therefore the regular patrons were not aware of the opportunity to see such a splendid show. O. I. Lamberger, Ph. D., announced the numbers and lectured during the “Passion Play” in an impressive manner. He handled the subject as few can and was warmly appreciated. “Julius Caesar” and “Antony and Cleopatra” and a French drama were also shown in pictures, and the show of two hours and a half was a success intrinsically if not financially.
Bush, W. Stephen, “The Film of the Future,” Moving Picture World 3, no. 10 (Sept. 5, 1908): 172-3. URL: http://archive.org/stream/movingor03chal#page/n179/mode/2up/
Shakespeare in Moving Pictures: It will scarcely be disputed, that next to the Bible the most widely ready book printed in the English tongue consists of the works of Shakespeare. I am glad to say that we now possess three films, “Romeo and Juliet,” “Macbeth” and “Othello.” Considering the great difficulties in condensation and arrangement, they are probably as good as any that could have been made. To condense or in any way alter Shakespeare is as delicate and dangerous a task as meddling with an overture by Mozart or a painting by Rembrandt. The subtle charm of the master may escape in the process. The three films named have fairly met all reasonable expectations. The great effects in “Macbeth” have been preserved with commendable accuracy and distinctness. What the pictures need to make them to the average audience but little less attractive than the play itself is what for want of a better term I may be permitted to call an “epilogue,” in part impersonation and in part explanation, carefully prepared to run with the pictures. The three films have all been successful and are still in demand by the moving picture theaters in good neighborhoods catering to a grade of patrons perhaps a little. above the average. I feel, however, bound to add as a matter of personal experience, that with the “epilogues” the films have proved very successful in poor sections, even where they had been shown before without any such added feature.
I see no reason whatever why the film makers should stop here. There is no play of Shakespeare that cannot be told in moving pictures. It strikes me that the plays especially adaptable would be “Hamlet” (since writing the above I understand that “Hamlet” has been done into moving pictures), “Richard III,” “Cymbeline,” “King Lear,” “Julius Caesar,” “Anthony and Cleopatra,” and surely every one of the comedies. Of course the effect would be heightened, indeed the whole entertainment would be given a novel aspect by the introduction of what I have described as an “epilogue,” impersonation and commentary combined. It is just the entertainment with a spice of novelty, something like a new creation, what the moving picture theater most decidedly needs to-day.
The field of the film maker is. however, by no means confined to the drama of Shakespeare. Rich in plot and incident is the whole Elizabethan drama and always worth the effort of the film maker. This is equally true of the comedies of the reign of Charles II. and here clever modernization will find rich materials. I mention in passing the great recent success of the “Country Mouse.” a comedy of that period. Much indeed is licentious and needs pruning and cleaning, but there is a wealth of ideas, plots and incidents well worth the rescue. […] The improvement of the “epilogue” would make possible the full speech of Marc Antony beside the bier of Caesar, the many monologues in Shakespearian plays, and such exquisite gems of humor as the address of Serjeant Buzfuz to the jury in the immortal case of “Bardell against Pickwick,” the reflections of Micawber, the stilted and pompous language of Turveydrop, the laughable hypocrisy of Pecksniff and the solemn silliness of the Rev. Mr. Chadband.
1915
Bush, Stephen W. “If Shakespeare Fell Among the Censors,” Moving Picture World 26, no. 10 (Nov. 27, 1915): 1633. URL: http://www.archive.org/stream/movinwor26chal#page/n599/mode/2up
“The “Rules and Regulations” of Breitinger and the “Standards” of [Maude Murray Miller Would Make the Immortal Plays Look Like a Belgian Cathedral After a German-Bombardment
“The censor boards of Pennsylvania and Ohio have established “Rules and Regulations” and “Standards” to which the producers of motion pictures are expected to conform under all kinds of pains and penalties. These rules are little known, except perhaps one or two that are particularly foolish, such as the Breitinger edict that “all comedies must have a serious purpose.” Even the censors themselves recoil from applying all their rules and regulations. I have, therefore, judged them by their performances rather than by their theories.
Tried by this fearful test, only six plays escape unscathed. These are: “King Henry V.” the first part of “King Henry VI,” “Timon of Athens,” “Coriolanus,” “The Comedy of Errors” and “Love’s Labor Lost.” I have omitted “Pericles, Prince of Tyre” and “The Two Noble Kinsmen” from my list. There is doubt as to the part Shakespeare had in these two plays and beside they have been acted very rarely.
None of the other plays stand the Pennsylvania-Ohio test. Some of them are ordered suppressed entirely; others are mutilated out of all recognition; the rest suffer more or less material damage. Comedies, historic dramas and tragedies all fall under the ban in varying degrees, with the sole exceptions above noted.
Here is the result in detail:
COMEDY OF ERRORS. Passed by Ohio censors. Pennsylvania censors deplore the lack of serious purpose in this play, but find no detailed objections and let it pass.
TWELFTH NIGHT. Not approved. The strange mixing of the sexes leads to immodest thoughts. A woman masquerading as a man and vice versa violate the state law and many city ordinances. Shakespeare does not claim that a license for this masquerading war, properly obtained.
LOVE’S LABOR LOST. Passed.
MIDSUMMERNIGHT’S DREAM. Eliminate Scene I in Act III. It ridicules respectable mechanics and serves no good purpose whatever. The use of a so-called love juice is strictly against the rules of the board. Cut out latter part of Scene II in Act III. Reduce all passionate love scenes to about six feet.
MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR. Scenes between Falstaff and Mistress Quickly in Act II must come out.
THE MERCHANT OF VENICE. The scenic views in this play may stand, but Shylock must be reduced to a flash, otherwise the tendency to ridicule the Jews will cause the entire suppression of the play.
AS YOU LIKE IT. Reduce all scenes of reckless love making to a flash and eliminate the Duke from the last act.
WINTER’S TALE. Cut out entirely Scene III in Act III. showing the abandonment of an infant, which is contrary to the statutes of our states in such case made and provided.
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. Not approved. Aside from the levity with which matrimonial questions are treated in this play, we cannot tolerate the ridicule thrown upon Dogberry and Verges, the representatives of lawfully constituted authority. These two estimable officers of the law are held up to ignominy and obloquy.
TAMING OF THE SHREW. Eliminate all scenes showing Petruchio in the act of offering physical violence to Kate.
THE TEMPEST. No objection to the scenic views and the spectacular parts, but we insist that Caliban be either eliminated entirely or reduced to a flash.
ALL’S WELL THAT ENDS WELL. Everything after Scene VII in Act III. must come out. Helena has recourse to a degrading artifice which is bound to shock orderly and respectable married couples and may stimulate false sentiments in the breasts of our young men and girls. All the prolonged and passionate love-scenes between Bertram and Diana are especially objectionable and must be removed in their entirety.
MEASURE FOR MEASURE. Not approved. Begets contempt for constituted authority. Shows murder and prostitution.
KING JOHN. All reference to burning out eyes of prince in Act IV. must come out. Scene I in Act III. is offensive to Catholics and must be removed.
RICHARD II. Remove Scene IV in Act I as likely to excite prejudice against the rich and thereby inciting class hatred. Cut Scene V in Act V, as it consists almost entirely of acts of criminal violence.
RICHARD III. Not approved. This play abounds in crimes and villainies.
HENRY IV. (Part I.) Suppress Scene II in Act II, as it plainly shows an act of highway robbery. Suppress all scenes in Eastcheap tavern, because vulgar and disgusting.
HENRY IV. (Part II.) Suppress Shallow and Silence. These caricatures of our lawful courts, and judges breed a disrespect for law among the young. Suppress Dolly Tearsheet and Falstaff. The latter character is scandalous in every respect. His actions with Dolly Tearsheet cannot be visualized without grievous moral harm resulting to our children. Suppress all scenes laid in Mrs. Quickly’s tavern. Such resorts will not be tolerated in this state.
HENRY V. Passed.
KING HENRY VI. (Part I.). Passed
KING HENRY VI. (Part II.). Passed.
KING HENRY VI. (Part III.). Omit Scene 1 Act I, showing bloody swords, all the fight between Warwick and York and all the gruesome sights in Scene IV of the same act. Omit greater part of Scene V in Act II. as too horrible for portrayal; in Scene VI of Act V. omit stabbing affray (King Henry and Gloucester).
KING HENRY VIII. The divorce proceedings of the King against Catherine of Aragon are pointed out in too much detail. They might have a bad effect on married couples and must be reduced to a flash. Scene IV in Act I must be radically changed. The sub-title, “He would kiss you twenty times with a breath,” must be omitted and the kiss following title must be reduced to normal
length ordained by board. Scene III in Act II must be omitted as tending to corrupt young of both sexes. Omit Scene V of Act V as it might give offense to a large division of Christians.
TITUS ANDRONICUS. Not approved. The play is altogether too horrible and gruesome. There are too many deeds of violence and crime and no soothing elements whatever. There is also torture and mutilation of which the board cannot approve.
TIMON OF ATHENS. Passed.
CYMBELINE. Not approved. The board cannot approve this play as the plot is based upon a scandalous and immoral wager. A man by trick and device gains entrance into a woman’s room where the woman reposes in bed, partly disrobed. The man steals a bracelet from the partly disrobed woman. Such sights must scandalize the young and very possibly incite them to theft and other crimes.
TROILUS AND CRESSIDA. Omit entirely Scene II in Act III, Scenes II, III, IV and V in Act IV. These scenes show a disgraceful understanding between Achilles and a daughter of Priam. Cressida’s conduct is positively immodest. Omit all passionate love scenes and reduce the frequent embraces and kisses of Troilus and Cressida to the length of one embrace and one kiss of
the regulation length fixed by the board.
ROMEO AND JULIET. Cut out Juliet. Here is a girl just in her teens conducting herself in a most unmaidenly fashion and opening her window in the night time or possibly in the early hours of the morning to a young man to whom she has never been properly introduced. This play abounds in the very kisses and embraces and passionate love scenes which the board has repeatedly
condemned. There are too many street brawls of extreme violence. Reduce these to a flash of about ten feet. The board has frequently announced its disapproval of the administration of secret sleeping potions and all such scenes in the play must come out. The ball which Romeo and his companions appear in may remain as it is educational in character.
OTHELLO. A colored man marrying a white woman may give offense. The play may, however, be shown with the following eliminations: Cut out Iago. His conduct and language cannot be tolerated in a respectable community. Omit entirely Act V. This act shows the smothering of Desdemona and the suicide of Othello. Two such terrible crimes in one short act will not be approved by this board.
JULIUS CAESAR. The assassination of Julius Caesar must be eliminated, as plainly offending against the rules of the board. As the plot however requires that the fact of the death be conveyed to the spectators, two courses may be pursued: Mark Antony may be shown receiving a letter announcing Caesar’s death or Caesar may be shown dying a natural death caused by rheumatism or old age. Reduce all riots to a flash. Omit Scene II in Act III. as plainly contrary to rules of the board.
ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA. Eliminate Cleopatra. Her professed contempt for marriage and her plainly adulterous passion for a married man and her habitual cruelty to her slaves stamp her as a woman from whose dreadful example the boys and girls of Ohio or Pennsylvania must be saved at all hazards. There is a snake in this play. It is true that the snake is small, but its
effect on the women and children cannot but be deleterious.
KING LEAR. Not approved. This play is a grave menace to the family life and the homes of Pennsylvania (or Ohio). There are at least four shameful and scandalous family discords and disruptions, involving criminal relations on the part of husbands, wives, illegitimate off-spring and faithless servants. Bloody and barbarous scenes abound (death of Cordelia, blinding of Gloster. almost habitual tearing out of eyes, inhumanities of Duke of Cornwall). Immoral scenes, too, are scattered through the play. Adulteries, poisonings and acts of degeneracy
are constantly met with. Never have the rules and regulations of our board been more recklessly violated than in this play.
HAMLET. Not approved. This play is too hideous to receive the approval of our board, which has repeatedly ruled out the very things in which this play abounds. “The drinking of hot blood,” for instance, and the doing of such “business as the bitter day would quake to look on” is highly unbecoming and might amount to disorderly conduct or even graver crime. Such things will
not be allowed in the state of Pennsylvania (or Ohio). Evidently the author never heard of our rules and regulations, else he would have omitted at least all the capital offences.
MACBETH. Not approved. This play visualizes several murders in the first degree and a shocking suicide committed by a woman. The conduct of Lady Macbeth if we permitted it to become generally known in Pennsylvania (or Ohio) would undoubtedly have a corrupting influence on our people and especially on the young of both sexes. What this woman says she would do to
her own suckling baby if it stood between her and her ambition is not fit to be known by the young matrons of this state. If the producer will cut down the play to the scenes showing pretty scenes in the Scottish highlands, we will be inclined to give it our approval.”
