Shakespeare as fetish - Dissertation Example

?SHAKESPEARE AS FETISH I. INTRODUCTION As early as the 1500s, the concept of “abuse” of the theater has already been duly d. There are critics who pointed to the way plays are modified to accommodate prevailing tastes and the excessive emphasis on profit, which violates many literary masterpieces. For example, John Northbrooke in 1577 declared in his work, Treason: As farre as good exercises and honest pastimes & plays doe benefit the health of manne, and recreate his wittes, so farre I speake not against it, but the excessive and unmeasurable use thereof, taketh away the right institution thereof, and bringeth abuse and misuse… and therefore they are rather changed into faults and transgressions, than honest exercises for mans recreation.”1 Numerous other personalities in later years would echo the above sentiments including commentaries by Stephen Gosson, Thomas Heywood and John Taylor. All of their arguments highlighted how works like those of Shakespeare can be used as a commodity of free enterprise, used and tailored in order to suit what the audience wants. This circumstance is particularly prominent in the contemporary times when pop culture and extreme commercialism dominate the cultural market. The dominance of Hollywood best depicts this phenomenon. Movies and other literary adaptations of Shakespearean drama abound and they are produced within a consumer economy that sometimes dilutes, degrades and abuse Shakespeare’s masterpieces, undermining its aesthetic purity in favor of financial gain. An important element in the way Shakesperean works are interpreted today in movie and literary adaptations is fetishization. This is analogous to “idolatry”, which the cultural producers encourage in order to sell their movie stars and their films to the masses. Adaptations are no longer about stories because they involve a combination of variables and brands that typify a product that needs to be marketed in specific market populations. Research Objectives The objective of this paper is to describe the fetishization of William Shakespeare’s work. In order to achieve this goal, the following secondary objectives will be pursued: Explain the concept of fetishization; Determine how this is applied to Shakespeare’s work; Outline specific cases of fetishized pieces; Explore the positive and negative dimensions to the issue. II. LITERATURE REVIEW Unarguably, the scholarly work on William Shakespeare is quite extensive. The academic interest is quite diverse and the sheer expanse of the body of literature is helpful in pursuing the objectives of this research. In the context of the area by which this paper is interested in, there are several works that proved significant. Hawkes’(1999) descriptive study of the criticisms on the abuse of plays for business or profit purposes include a comprehensive documentation that start in the 1500s to the present. This work is particularly important because it demonstrated the development by which plays like those of Shakespeare’s are modified. The motivations are varied for the so-called “abuses” but they persistently highlight the commercial argument by which cultural producers have invoked throughout the years. This work highlighted the commonalities in the manner by which theater owners rationalize their “abuse” to original plays and the manner by which movie studios adapt them for their films. A more specific study, which contextualized the issue by specifically citing cases, is that by Frederick Aldama (2006), which chronicled the experiences of England’s Royal Shakespeare Company to cinematic adaptations. His work also touched on the manner by which adaptations are interpreted and criticized. This dimension is important for this research because it provided several important information on how a Shakespearean narrative is fetishized. An important work that directly linked commodity fetishism with Shakespeare is that by Marjorie Garber. She explored how Shakespeare has been fetishized in Western popular culture. She found that Shakespeare represents some sort of ideal and nostalgia for people today that recall a certain truth and beauty.2 As a concept “Shakespeare” becomes a discourse of power, whose agency becomes powerful tools for the perpetuation of ideas to the sale of the mundane and the trivial. Shakespeare – through the opinions and investigations of academics, the interpretations of his predecessors and the perceptions generated throughout – became the embodiment of a fantasy of cultural wholeness and someone that is all-knowing and immutable, almost close to what God is. The fantastic reverence that people have for the playwright has made this possible. Garber’s work on fetishism, however, focused on Shakespeare, the person and less about his works, which this research is mainly concerned about. Nonetheless the concept of fetishism has been explained and therein rests the significance for this study. McCombe’s (2008) discourse on the many approaches by which Cleopatra has been depicted in many plays and stories is a specific demonstration by which fetishization occurs. While Shakespeare’s text was used mainly as an example and not the primary source of adaptations, the investigation highlighted the motivations behind the differences in interpretation as Cleopatra has shifted from a political power, a peg for British social identity, to a sexual object, among other characterizations. They underscore the manner by which a text can be easily twisted in order to satisfy motivations and objectives that are not necessarily in congruence with what Shakespeare intended in his work. This study also found a wealth of insights in Marie Plasse’s work called Crossover Dreams (2004), which is peppered with numerous examples by of Shakespearean adaptations from the traditional theater and cinema, to novels and music. They were crucial in contextualizing popular culture within the confines of the research objectives. They specified for the author the general concepts of “pop culture”, “commodification” which are extensively covered by many scholarly works. More importantly, however, is Plasse’s defense of Shakespearean engagement with pop culture. Her insight’s in this area is extremely helpful in balancing the discussion of this research. These include Graham Holderness’ (2001) discourse on the subject and the distinctions he outlined between popular culture to high culture.3 Then there is also Diana Kendall’s (2011) sociological and psychological approaches to explaining the phenomenon and Andi Zeisler (2008) intelligent conceptual and contextual definitions that emphasize the relationship between pop culture to Western culture and capitalist economic system. Studies that focus on the depiction of Shakespearean work in contemporary popular culture include the comprehensive investigations done by Richard Burt in Shakespeare After Mass Media (2002) and Graham Holderness’ The Shakespeare Myth (1988). Carlos Rojas’ discourse of Chinese popular culture offered interesting explanations how popular culture is both a cultural fetish and commodity fetish – information that prove invaluable for this research. There are numerous other sources and they range from criticisms, descriptive investigations to studies and pieces designed to persuade, entertain and inform. All in all, this literature review revealed a comprehensive and overly studied theme, Shakespeare and his works and how they have been interpreted by his predecessors. The latter dimension, however, focuses more on literary fidelity rather than the transformations that occur in adaptations for financial gain, which is the fundamental basis of the fetishization concept used by this paper. The following key concepts are derived from this review and would inform and guide the framework of this study. III. KEY CONCEPTS In order to better understand the content of this research, it is important to define key terms and concepts: Adaptation: There are numerous definitions available for adaptation, which highlights the diversity in trend and interpretation. The extant literature on Shakespeare is replete with this concept as his plays are exhibited from theater to film to novels. In the most general sense, adaptation is referred to as a transition or conversion from one medium to another. Jones identified three categories: borrowing, intersecting and transforming.4 This research is concerned with the process that transpires within the concept. As a cultural artifact is translated or converted from one form to another, a transformation occurs in the process. Fidelity: Simply put, fidelity refers to the degree by which an adaptation interpret a source material in such a way that it is not abridged, extended or departed from the original. There are scholars who argue that adaptations should be evaluated and categorized according to its fidelity to the source. Some evaluation criteria include fidelity to original, good vs. bad accents, post colonial, multicultural, feminist, queer and popular media perspectives. 5 Abuse: In the context of this research “abuse” pertains to the manner by which theatrical performances and interpretations of plays are modified or adapted for financial gains, compromising the fidelity to the original text and its aesthetic characteristics. Here, characters assume new characterizations, and, messages were given new meaning, devastating its original form, leading to misunderstandings in the process. For example, later eighteenth century adaptors return again and again to Shakespeare’s women, reshaping them to conform to a new socio-political context.6 What happens was that the characters were exploited in order to further specific socio-political agenda. This does not only violate the traditional content but also pollute a specific play, integrating dimensions that are not artistic in intent, making characters and stories barely recognizable as Shakespearean. Abuses is perpetuated according to various motivations: political, economic, commercial, cultural and so forth. Fetishization: Fetishization is a device often employed in commercial enterprise within the capitalist system. Commodities are packaged as fetishes in order to be better sold to the market. The concept of fetishism is identified with the Marxist critique of the capitalist economic model wherein societies in which commodity fetishism reigns, all things produced are fetishized. In reference to this, Callaghan stated that the triumph of the commodity betokens the death of the object in that the commodity is not valued for itself but rather as an object of exchange.7 It is important to note that the fetishization as used by this paper is that concept that has commercial motivation as the reason behind an irrational or obsessive devotion or fixation on an object or material. The concept is closely tied to the economics of pop culture. Pop Culture: According to Zeisler, pop culture is any cultural product that is made for the mass audience or rather has a mass audience.8 This is the reason why pop culture is also referred to as mass culture. It is widely recognized that pop culture grew out of low culture, which engages the supposedly prurient interests and visceral urges of the masses. (p. 1) It is still accepted by a great deal of observers that pop culture is the antithesis of high culture, which represents the interests of the educated elite, the real art such as literature, museums, classical music, among others. To contextualize the concept, there is the position that the masses seek distraction whereas art demands concentration from the audience since it does not only entertain but also enrich and inspire.9 There are those who would argue that pop culture is no longer confined to this stereotype. The likes of Andy Warhol, for instance, have elevated pop culture into a form of high art as well. Nonetheless, pop culture is still true to its roots and this is particularly reinforced by economics. Pop culture is for sale and it relies on advertising in order to be sold. METHODOLOGY This study primarily used qualitative methodology. What this means is that all the data were gathered from the extensive body of literature available and analyzed accordingly in order to present a credible and authoritative picture that would satisfy the research objectives. For this purpose I have culled secondary sources: books, journals, among other documents and resources that are extensively available and could certainly be verified. To further explain qualitative methodology and give light to how this study would be approached, Denzin and Lincoln’s (1994) definition has been taken into account, that qualitative research is: Multi method in focus, involving an interpretative, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative research study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials.10 With the above definition in mind, case studies, personal experience, observational, and other texts would be used. What they will do for this paper, is provide an overall picture, guide and resources as well as define the general issue, pertinent theories as well as the gaps that might be able to be filled by this dissertation. Case studies, particularly, will specifically be cited in order to emphasize specific theories and models as actually experienced. This is particularly helpful in the Analysis section. It is must also be underscored that since this is a qualitative study, the overview and breadth of the available literature as has been reviewed in Part II of this dissertation plays an fundamental part in the entirety of this study. Besides clarifying the current state of research and providing the framework for this study, the review provides the background by which the arguments of this research are based. According to Lichtman (2009), the primary goal of qualitative research is to describe, understand and interpret and not to test hypotheses. 11 This function makes the approach more important than in studies conducted within the quantitative method of inquiry and its variations. Critics of the qualitative approach point to the fact that authors of secondary sources are, at times, guilty of errors in the transmission of information. And so, the corpus of literature may not be as reliable, at least, without serious and intense scrutiny. To address this, this study has taken pains in collating as much sources as possible on a particular fact, point or argument in order to corroborate or cross-check the validity of information and data presented. All in all, the methodologies to be employed by this research follows the linear progression of the academic research model – a problem of interest is identified, research is undertaken, formulate a thesis and proceed with the study and its analyses. IV. CASE STUDIES Shakespeare Festival An excellent way by which Shakespearean adaptation can be evaluated in the context of the claims of fetishism is the proliferation of the so-called Shakespeare Festivals across America. Each state in America must have at least one Shakespeare Festival. The most popular include Oregon Shakespeare Festival, and the New York Shakespeare Festival. Shakespeare Festival Signage n Oregon The American Shakespeare Festival in Stratford is considered the more significant because it supposedly aims to give Shakespeare a home in America to keep his plays alive. It assumed a sort of de facto leadership position among the numerous festivals in the country. To achieve its objectives, the festival set up an academy of acting that specialized in Shakespearean training; an acting company; in addition to building a Shakespearean theater that will stage performances during summer at Stratford. A Performance at the American Shakespeare Festival 2011. The festival is a 10-day affair that includes exhibits, shops, food expositions, among other activities in addition to theatrical performances. Now these non-theater related activities underscore how the objective is subordinated to the perceived economic benefits of staging the event for Stratford. This researcher was able to attend the festival last August 2011 and my itinerary was not dominated by theater attendance. Discovering the locale took a good deal of time, eating in restaurants and pubs, conversing with other tourists. It is not hard to see how the case is also the same for many visitors. A web entry published by a tourist who visited the Oregon festival reflects the same scenario. Out of the theatrical performances attended and the objective of exploring opportunities for transformational experience through theater, he ended up describing his experience with Ashland Chocolate Factory and its chocolate dipped cheesecake wedge.12 A news report for the same festival back in 2010 was peppered with allusions to attendance rate, box office receipts, and budgets and without any quotes about the quality of performances and other related themes.13 This is not really surprising because, as Alice Griffin has observed, many productions in these festivals are uninspired, old-fashioned and plodding presentations.14 This makes the festivals’ literary or artistic objectives suspect because it appears that the events are merely being staged as a marketing ploy so that tourists will have a reason to visit and, eventually, revitalize local economy. Romeo + Juliet Romeo+Juliet is one of the several cinematic adaptations of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. It had Leonardo Di Caprio and Clare Danes in the title roles. This film provides numerous examples of fetishization in different scenes. A case in point is the balcony scene wherein Romeo professes his love for Juliet. Baz Luhrman modified the scene by moving the medium from air into water. Instead of the balcony, the director shot the scene in a swimming pool and from nighttime into an underwater illuminated setting. The camera shot the lovers twisting and circling each other that commenced in a passionate embrace. The tableau was an enchanting depiction that also revealed the sheer beauty of cinematography. What the imagery emphasized was what is being imaged and not the composition of the image. The end result was a transformation of the scene from a mere sequence to a story into an aesthetic and erotic experience, entertaining and pleasing to the spectator. This is an example, wrote Ward, of an object “desired for its own sake, but desired because, in being rendered desirable (by the camera), it makes us desire it.” (p. 26) As the scene unfolds through our vision, we are lulled by the sounds of the water, the lovers’ intimate exchanges, then combined with the sound scoring, the audience is finally transported and invited to experience his or her own desiring. As Di Caprio and Danes cavorted, the audience finally forgot that the scene or the movie was a Shakespearean tragedy. As Ward (2003) aptly declared, the spectator no longer desire to see performed for them Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet because what was wanted was the continuation of the spectacular production and the prolongation of the allure of the image as image.15 V. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS The corpus of relevant literature provides a detailed background of the evolution and development of adaptations and interpretations of Shakespeare’s work. The debate on fidelity and the criticisms of abuse highlight the cases wherein Shakespearean pieces have been transformed into entirely different texts. For literary critics, especially traditionalists, these transformations are negative developments because they supposedly dilute, taint and destroy not just the aesthetic and artistic characteristics of the original but also the Shakespearean legacy. This argument is legitimate. In the case of Romeo+Juliet, for instance, the modifications, editing and enhancements to the original text followed the formula of Hollywood films, which is typified by the requirement to awe the audience with spectacle. The original has been fetishized in order for it to be acceptable within the mass culture. As has been explained, scenes were transformed into entirely different images that make audience forget that what they are watching is a Shakespearean narrative because they are immersed with the elements that distract, which, as has been explained, is a primary characteristic of popular culture. The concept of popular culture makes it possible to better understand the fetishization of Shakespeare’s works. Here, plays such as Romeo and Juliet become cultural commodities that are produced, sold and bought in the market. It is not uncommon to find superstars headlining theatrical exhibitions and film adaptations. Extravagant productions design and breathtaking cinematography are also staples of modern Shakespearean adaptations. These bring back the so-called Hollywood formula, which combines several mass-appealing elements together in order to produce a “product” that is marketable and profitable. The Shakespeare Festivals that are held in many parts of America is another form of fetishization. Here, Shakespeare and his work are treated as brand of culture, aesthetics and fantasy that is deemed worthy of fixation, obsession or reverence. It was inevitable in this age of capitalism for the brand to be used as a tool in marketing. In the case of the festivals, Shakespeare is marketing locations to tourists. What is important here is that the brand is not limited to tourism. Shakespeare may be surprised today to find himself as part of a logo for a pen company or some food stuff. The possibilities are close to endless. Finally, fetishization appears to be inevitable in adaptations. As a matter of fact, it is only one of the several elements of the “transformation” that happens in the process of adaptation that cannot be avoided. For example, in the case of film production, the director as an interpreter has his or her own preconceived notions that dictate the conception of entirety of the film. The choice rests on this individual to assemble the fragments of the film. Shakespeare provided the theme but, in the end, the director’s sense of himself and of others will eventually guide his work aesthetically, intellectually and technically. This is confirmed by Persson (2003), who stressed that: Meaning emerges out of the interaction between a disposition-equipped spectator and the film text. Just as in non-discursive realms, meaningful experience is preceded by active mental processing by the spectator. Dispositions and processes of understanding transform, abstract, and add to the text to such an extent that we may talk about creative and constructive processes.16 The impact of fetishization on Shakespeare’s work or for other literary figure may be varied. The claim that it can taint the Shakespearean legacy is foremost of these and is legitimate. But this is no longer a concern of this research, which fundamentally aims to describe the fetishization of Shakespeare’s works. However, it is important to note that the fetishization or the transformation of Shakespearean texts into mass commodities is not an exclusively negative phenomenon. It is helpful to remember that theater was the pop culture during Shakespeare’s time. According to De Grazia and Wells (2010), given a choice, Shakespeare would never have written so many dirty jokes, low comic routines, sword fights and other crow-pleasing spectacles but since he was shackled to his trade, the playwright was forced to prostitute his talent to gratify the tastes of the public.17 But these elements contribute to the reasons why Shakespeare’s plays are great and well loved. VI. CONCLUSION Shakespeare’s work has been adapted numerous times and in different periods resulting in highly diverse interpretations. Many scholars and literary experts protest this development because it is perceived as harmful to the Shakespearean legacy. The argument that fidelity must be observed in order to preserve the beauty, content and aims contained in each of Shakespeare’s works is valid and legitimate. This is highlighted in the economic dimension to the adaptations, which eventually led to the fetishization of the playwright’s works. Plays like Hamlet, characters like Cleopatra and scenes from plays such as those in Romeo and Juliet were all modified and tailored to suit the requirements of the masses. The theater became enmeshed to the principles that govern the liberal economic model and assumed the form of a commodity that must be marketed in a complex and sophisticated capitalist system. What happened was that Shakespeare is no longer recognizable in many adapted theater exhibitions and films. Again, this study does not to say that fetishization or the transformations of Shakespeare’s works into pop culture adaptations are entirely negative. In a way, it is also productive because it makes Shakespeare relevant to the contemporary time. Engagement with popular culture enables a Shakespearean play to integrate new ways and dimensions to its themes and elements, reflecting contemporary frustrations, opportunities and meanings. BIBLIOGRAPHY Don's Radio Museum. "A trip to the Shakespeare Festival in Ashland Oregon 2005" (web document) Accessed 21 Jan. 2012. Aldama, F. "Race, Cognition, and Emotion: Shakespeare on Film" Colege Literature 33/1 (2006) 197-213. Burt, R. Shakespeare after mass media (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002). Callaghan, D. A feminist companion to Shakespeare (Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2001). De Grazia, M. and Wells, S. The new Cambridge companion to Shakespeare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. Handbook of qualitative research (London: Sage Publications, 1994). Garber, M. Profiling Shakespeare (Oxon: Taylor and Francis, 2008) Griffin, A. "The American Shakespeare Festival" Shakespeare Quarterly 6/4 (1955) 441-446. Hawkes, D. "Idolatry and Commodity Fetishism in the Antitheatrical Controversy." Studies in English Literature, 39/2 (1999), 255-273. Holderness, G. The Shakespeare myth (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988). Holderness, G. Cultural Shakespeare: essays in the Shakespeare myth (Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2001). Hughley, M. "Oregon Shakespeare Festival renews record-setting box office pace." OregonLive. (2010). [web document] , Accessed 22 Jan. 2012. Jones, M. Found in translation: Structural and cognitive aspects of the adaptation of comic art to film (Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest, 2008). Kendall, D. Sociology in Our Times: The Essentials (New York: Cengage Learning, 2011). Lichtman, M. Qualitative Research in Education: A User's Guide (London: SAGE, 2009). McCombe, J. "Cleopatra and Her Problems: T.S. Eliot and the Fetishization of Shakespeare's Queen of the Nile." Journal of Modern Literature. 31/2, (2008) 23-38. Northbrooke, J. A Treatise Wherein Dicing, Dauncing, Vaine Plaies or Enterludes... are reproov'd (London: Shakespeare Society, 1577). Persson, P. Understanding Cinema: A Psychological Theory of Moving Imagery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). Plasse, M. "Crossover Dreams: Reflections on Shakespeareans and Popular Culture." College Literature, 31/4, (2004) 12-18. Ward, G. True religion (Malden, MA: John Wiley and Sons, 2003). Wells, S. Shakespeare Survey. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). Zeisler, A. Feminism and pop culture. (Berkeley, CA: Seal Press, 2008). Read More