McIntyre 1
Meg McIntyre
Shakespeare and Film
Professor Scott Howard
November 15, 2013
Adapting the Bard: Shakespeare for the Modern World
“In the theatre we accept theatricality; in the cinema we demand actuality” (Manvell
266). Manvell’s assessment of the disparity between audience perceptions of theatre and film
accurately portrays the struggle that many filmmakers have faced in transforming dramatic
works for the cinema. The process of adaptation from stage to screen has always been a delicate
one, as the artist must attempt to maintain the integrity of the original work while also creating
an entity which is new and separate. Adaptation of the work of William Shakespeare is surely
no exception. Since Shakespeare’s literary reign in the early 1600s, his plays have been
performed, adapted, reframed, and essentially recreated countless times, creating a vast expanse
of interpretations from which to understand and analyze his works. Some adaptations attempt to
merely translate Shakespeare’s masterpieces to the screen, while others offer commentary and
themes that allow the plays to be viewed from an entirely new perspective. One interesting
trend within the cinematic world of Shakespeare is the juxtaposition of the original text with
modern settings and concepts. Many of these films attempt to utilize modern elements to make
Shakespeare’s plays more accessible or relatable to a contemporary audience, but in some cases
they also diminish aspects and themes of the original plays. This paper will attempt to analyze
the ability of several modern film adaptations of Shakespearean works to amplify, detract from,
or simply transfer the themes of the original texts represented therein.
Some of the most notable modernized versions of the bard’s plays come from director
Baz Luhrmann, who is known for the 1996 adaptation Romeo + Juliet. Within this version of
McIntyre 2
Shakespeare’s classic tragedy, Verona, Italy is traded for Verona Beach and the houses of
Montague and Capulet become two Californian gangs. Guns are used instead of swords,
characters are remolded and modified, and Shakespeare’s play is transformed into an entirely
new entity. Romeo + Juliet also complicates and even omits some intensely important aspects
of Shakespeare’s original work.
One significant disparity between the play and Luhrmann’s film adaptation is the
representation of Juliet’s character. Within the article "Closed in a Dead Man’s Tomb: Juliet,
Space, and the Body in Franco Zeffirelli’s and Baz Luhrmann’s Films of Romeo and Juliet,”
author Lindsey Scott argues that Luhrmann’s adaptation removes Juliet’s autonomous agency as
a character, thereby creating a much narrower version of the original story. According to Scott,
“Luhrmann's camera transforms [Claire] Danes's Juliet into a still, objectified body, and at
moments where Shakespeare's play demands passion and energy, she is virtually erased from
the spectator's gaze” (Scott 142). This change in representation is largely due to the
modernization of the film. Visually, she is always depicted with a quality of innocence,
especially during the Capulets’ costume party where she dons angel wings and a halo, yet
within Shakespeare’s original play Juliet shares the same sexual desires and motivations that
Romeo displays. Rather than the dynamic, autonomous character depicted within the play, Juliet
becomes a static object that is meant to be admired. Additionally, many of Juliet’s key lines
have been omitted from the film, including her emotional declaration of impending suicide that
originally followed Romeo’s death: “Yea, noise? Then I’ll be brief. O happy dagger, / This is
thy sheath; there rust, and let me die” (Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet 203). The exclusion of
these lines frames her suicide as “an act [of] defeat rather than triumph, helplessness rather than
McIntyre 3
control,” thereby further removing Juliet’s agency as a character and transforming her into a
victim of the action that goes on around her (Scott 144).
In essence, the focus of the film is drawn away from Juliet and is placed instead on
Leonardo DiCaprio’s Romeo – his character receives countless lingering close-up shots and
retains almost all of his original lines, while Juliet is often distanced from the audience, even
during her suicide, which is heard but not seen. This occurs because of Luhrmann’s intent to
appeal to “youth audiences . . . whose grasp of their own music, fashion and visually oriented
pop culture was so sophisticated that . . . appealing to them would require more edge and irony
than a film about young idealistic lovers caught in a painful ‘generation gap’” (Hindle 57). In
other words, Luhrmann’s concern in the creation of Romeo + Juliet does not lie in maintaining
the integrity of the play, but in incorporating elements of modern popular culture that attract and
hold the attention of younger audiences. Because the romance of the play is not the focal point
of the film, the importance of Juliet’s role is diminished, therefore leading to the lack of
representation her character experiences. It can only be assumed that Romeo does not suffer the
same fate simply because he is present for the bulk of the action that occurs. The film then takes
on a completely different essence than the original play, as it is truly the story of Romeo rather
than of Romeo and Juliet. In all, this change occurs because of the intention to modernize and
popularize the story of Romeo and Juliet with a contemporary audience. Had the story been
framed in its traditional time period, there would have been no need to alter Juliet’s place within
it. As such, the original characterization of Romeo and Juliet is clearly affected by the modern
setting used within Baz Luhrmann’s film.
In contrast, the theme of violence is much more prevalent within Romeo + Juliet.
Though there is a plethora of violence present within the original play, the violence within this
McIntyre 4
film has been updated to reflect the violence of modern society. In this context, Luhrmann
presents the two houses as powerful gangs. Based upon the rise of gang warfare in American
society leading up to and following the release of this film, Luhrmann’s directorial choice to
include gang-based violence seems fitting. According to a study conducted by the National
Center for Education Statistics, thirty five percent of students surveyed reported that “‘fighting’
gangs were present in their schools” in 1993, which was three years before Romeo + Juliet was
released in theatres (“Gangs and Victimization at School”). This statistic shows an increase
from a similar study in 1989 in which fifteen percent of students reported street gangs in their
schools (“Gangs and Victimization at School”). With this knowledge, it becomes apparent that
this modernization of violence can be considered an attempt to make the feuds of the story more
affecting and relatable to an audience that may have seen or experienced violence of the same
sort. This also serves to amplify the tensions between the two families, especially as the
characters are often depicted to be more intensely violent than they are within the play. In fact,
some scholars have argued that “Luhrmann does much to demonize the majority of the Capulet
family,” especially during the costume party in which most are dressed as devils and skeletons
(Martin 44). These characters also take some violent actions that are not present within the play;
Tybalt “draws his gun on a young boy and says ‘bang’” during the first scene of the film,
whereas within the play he limits himself to antagonizing only the Montagues: “What, drawn
and talk of peace? I hate the word, / As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee. / Have at thee,
coward” (Martin 44; Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet 71).
This addition is significant because it indicates Tybalt’s disregard for those who are
uninvolved in the feud but may still be caught up in its violence. Also noteworthy is the fact that
the sparring Montagues and Capulets cause an explosion at the gas station during the same
McIntyre 5
scene, possibly injuring innocent bystanders and causing an astronomical amount of damage.
This behavior implies that Tybalt and the rest of the Capulets and Montagues involved in the
scuffle care only about destroying the rival gang and have little to no concern for the wellbeing
of the innocent people around them. These events signal a heightened, almost instinctive form
of violence as compared to the original text, especially since no bystanders or extras are
explicitly mentioned during this scene within the play itself. Consequently, the combination of
modern gang violence and subsequent intensified strains between the characters results in the
increased pervasiveness of the theme of violence within the film. This is emphasized throught
the modernization of the violence itself, which can be considered a device intended to make the
film more relatable to a contemporary audience.
In all, Baz Luhrmann’s aim in modernizing the classic Romeo and Juliet was to create a
version of the story that could be enjoyed by younger present-day viewers. This process has
amplified some aspects of the original play and fragmented others. While the representation of
Juliet has been diminished drastically, the recurring theme of violence has been intensified
almost in the extreme. The result is a film that uses elements of modernity to create something
separate from Shakespeare altogether: a film that should be considered not as an adaptation of
the original text, but as an interpretation of it.
Another noteworthy modernized edition of Shakespeare is the 1996 film Hamlet,
starring and written by Kenneth Branagh. This version is set in the 19th century and is famously
unabridged, meaning that the entire text of the play is included within the film. However,
though the plot of the film makes no changes to the original play, it is framed within the context
of an extravagant 19th century court, in essence altering the character of the story itself. Much of
the film takes place in a lavishly furnished palace (called “The Winter Palace” in Branagh’s
McIntyre 6
original screenplay), and dozens of adoring courtiers and noblemen and women are added to the
cast in order to increase the sentiments of glamour and excess. The film has also been likened to
classic historical epics such as Dr. Zhivago and Lawrence of Arabia, and in fact displays many
attributes of the genre (Maerz 139). By placing the film within this genre and context, Branagh
has allowed for several significant changes to take place considering the themes and
representations found within Shakespeare’s original play.
According to scholar Jessica Maerz, Branagh’s choice of setting is “motivated by a
reliance on genre styles derived from the Classical Hollywood cinema” (Maerz 128). She notes
that the film attempts to take on a matter of historical significance despite the fact that the actual
historical accuracy of the original play is unknown, asserting that “Branagh frames his story in
such a way as to make it seem historical: Old King Hamlet and Fortinbras tell a story that is not
found in Shakespeare, the story of the death of a repressive regime and the fall of an empire”
(Maerz 129). This fusion of the epic genre with a pseudo-historical context has several effects
on the original story of Hamlet. By placing the film within a militaristic and political milieu,
Branagh takes the liberty to alter his representation of Hamlet himself. While within the play
Hamlet is a deeply troubled character who seems to grapple with his own psyche constantly,
Branagh’s performance often portrays him as “an explosive ‘man of action’ in the later scenes,
a knowing impersonator of madness and a theatrically dynamic presence” (Burnett 78).
Contrastingly, within the original play, the genuineness of Hamlet’s madness is never explicitly
revealed, and is left up to the interpretation of the reader. This change is largely due to the
foreign world in which Hamlet lives, one which emphasizes militaristic strategy and cunning. In
this context, Hamlet’s ability to use his so-called madness to fulfill his own purposes seems
fitting, as he has been raised in a society based upon the principles of war which demand that he
McIntyre 7
kill or be killed. This altered portrayal of Hamlet as a character is incredibly significant, because
it leaves no room for further interpretation of the believability of Hamlet’s madness as the play
does. It is also a change that occurs largely due to the differences in setting between the film
and the original text. In essence, the modern, militaristic setting of the film Hamlet allows for
the disparity in representation of Hamlet’s madness as compared to the play.
Kenneth Branagh’s version of Shakespeare’s original work also revises the
representation of King Hamlet’s ghost. The supernatural aspects of his character are intensely
emphasized, especially with his “icy blue eyes and a raspy, highly processed voice” (Maerz
133). The ghost’s first scene is also characterized by strange, unexplainable events, such as the
smoldering of the earth beneath his feet and the fierce trembling of the trees around him. The
combination of these elements results in a “replication of the decenteredness, indeterminacy,
and confusion that characterizes the visual style of the horror film” (Maerz 134). In other words,
Branagh draws from styles and themes used within the classic horror genre in order to frame the
ghost’s appearance within Hamlet. This is most evident when the ghost first tells Hamlet of his
murder: “Murder most foul, as in the best it is, / But this most foul, strange, and unnatural”
(Shakespeare, Hamlet 43). Within the play, no specific stage directions are included to denote
the appearance of the ghost or his movements during this scene. In the film, however,
traditional horror techniques are used to emphasize the scene and make it more affecting. As
King Hamlet’s ghost speaks the word “murder” to his son, “Branagh cuts to an extreme closeup of the ghost's mouth. This shot is followed by a brief, startling shock cut to a bubbling,
bleeding ear—presumably Old Hamlet's after having received the poison” (Maerz 134). These
film techniques pay homage to a classic genre of film and literature which did not exist during
the creation and performance of Shakespeare’s plays, but the first horror novel, Mary Shelley’s
McIntyre 8
Frankenstein, was published in 1818 during the same time period in which the film is set. In
this manner, the modern setting of the film provides context for editing and performance
techniques such as these which would not have been possible during Shakespeare’s time period.
In utilizing elements of the classic horror genre, Branagh is then able to emphasize the
importance of the King’s Ghost as a catalyst for the story’s action, as well as to accentuate the
theme of supernatural intervention that is present within the play. Had the film been set in its
original time period, these techniques would have been considered anachronistic, and would
have made little sense in the context of the Renaissance era.
Hamlet utilizes the modern setting of a 19th century militaristic society to modify and
emphasize various character representations and themes from the original play. This
contemporary mise-en-scène allows for Hamlet’s character to take on new characteristics, in
turn altering the role of the audience in interpreting Hamlet’s psychological turmoil. The
presence and characterization of King Hamlet’s ghost is also affected, as his character is utilized
to highlight the supernatural themes that are found within the play. In all, the modernization of
Shakespeare’s Hamlet allows for various themes and characters to be viewed more prominently.
A final and lesser-known modern adaptation of Shakespeare is the 2010 “Great
Masterpieces” production of Macbeth, directed by Rupert Goold and starring Patrick Stewart.
This rendition of the Scottish Play is set in a 20th century Stalinist war-torn society, and most of
the film takes place in an underground war bunker. King Duncan is no longer a King but a
fascist dictator, and Macbeth acts as one of his subordinates who thirsts for the power of his
position. Much like other modern adaptation of Shakespeare’s work, the contemporary setting
of Goold’s Macbeth affects the depiction of characters and themes throughout.
McIntyre 9
One of the most notable changes lies in the representation of the three witches of
Macbeth. Within this version of the Scottish Play, the witches are portrayed as trauma nurses in
the bunker. The first and second scenes of the original play are also switched so that the witches
appear only after Duncan has spoken with his thanes and learned of the betrayal of the Thane of
Cawdor. At first they are not noticeable, as they blend in with the flurry of trauma doctors and
wounded soldiers that lie on the edge of the action. They are then revealed as the bunker shakes
from the warfare above and they step out from the darkness to pull the heart from a corpse for
use in one of their spells, “[using] the body of a dead soldier as their cauldron” (“Macbeth”). At
once, it becomes apparent that this edition of Macbeth is far more macabre than the original,
especially considering that the witches are never actually seen physically harming anyone or
using human body parts throughout the text. The increased carnage that the witches display
juxtaposed with their image as nurses and caregivers serves to make them more terrifying, as
they would normally be figures one could easily trust. As a result, this depiction helps to “make
[the story] even more horrific, freely mixing bone-chilling supernatural shivers with vicious
war-mongering, Machiavellian politics, psychological unease and technological intrusion”
(Rooney). The portrayal of the witches as trauma nurses comes from the prominence of such
figures during the time period in which the film is set. By means of this modernization, the
witches are made even more disturbing, especially since their role as nurses implies caregiving
and healing rather than death, destruction, and the supernatural. Consequently, this modern
image of the witches as nurses serves to accentuate these elements within the play and to make
them more affecting overall.
The use of a contemporary Stalinist setting in Goold’s Macbeth acts as a device to create
an even more terrifying and violent version of the Scottish Play. Placing the story within a
McIntyre 10
fascist war zone gives context to the decision to frame the witches as nurses, thereby facilitating
their descent into the macabre. As such, the modernity of the film serves to emphasize the
themes of violence and the supernatural that are found within the original play, and to make the
effects of these themes on the audience more profound.
In the world of adaptation, elements of the original text are undoubtedly modified,
emphasized, and even lost. When modern themes and settings are introduced, this process is
exaggerated, and the original work is often incredibly affected. This paper has attempted to
demonstrate how various modern adaptations of William Shakespeare’s works in particular
affect the themes and overall character of the source texts. Through research and analysis, it
becomes apparent that the original text will always be affected in some way regardless of the
adaptation. In the case of Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet, the theme of violence is emphasized
significantly while Juliet’s character is more poorly represented than in the original tragedy.
Kenneth Branagh’s modern adaptation of Hamlet alters the way that Hamlet’s madness is
presented, and uses an updated representation of his father’s ghost to accentuate the presence of
the supernatural. Finally, within Rupert Goold’s Macbeth, the depiction of the witches as nurses
serves to exacerbate the gruesome, macabre nature of the story. In each of these adaptations, the
process of modernizing Shakespeare’s work is also a process of interpreting it. Each film
emphasizes or prioritizes some aspects of the original play over others, in turn creating an
entirely new perspective of the classic work.
McIntyre 11
Works Cited
Burnett, Mark Thornton. "The ‘Very Cunning Of The Scene’: Kenneth Branagh's ‘Hamlet.’"
Literature Film Quarterly 25.2 (1997): 78. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Nov.
2013.
“Gangs and Victimization at School.” National Center for Education Statistics. Web. 15 Nov.
2013.
"Macbeth." Sight & Sound 21.11 (2011): 90. Film & Television Literature Index with Full Text.
Web. 15 Nov. 2013.
Maerz, Jessica M. "Beyond Epic: Kenneth Branagh's ‘Hamlet’ And The Meta-Narrative
Functions Of Classical Hollywood Genre." Literature Film Quarterly 39.2 (2011): 128
140. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.
Manvell, Roger. Shakespeare and the Film. New York and Washington: Praeger, 1971. Print.
Martin, Jennifer L. “Tights vs. Tattoos: Filmic Interpretations of ‘Romeo and Juliet.’” The
English Journal 92.1 (2002): 41-46. JSTOR. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.
Rooney, David. "Macbeth." Variety 410.2 (2008): 32-33. Film & Television Literature Index
with Full Text. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.
Scott, Lindsey. "Closed In A Dead Man's Tomb": Juliet, Space, And The Body In Franco
Zeffirelli's And Baz Luhrmann's Films Of Romeo And Juliet." Literature Film
Quarterly 36.2 (2008): 137-146. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Print.
Shakespeare, William. Macbeth. New York: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1992. Print.
Shakespeare, William. Romeo and Juliet. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Print.