In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Book Reviews | Regular Feature However, my concern with the anthology is based not on what has been selected for inclusion, but instead on certain omissions . The collection, for example, does not recall the ideas of Roger Manvell, whose early 1970s work clearly helped establish the line of criticism to which Jorgens belongs. One can only assume that space constraints prevented a briefinclusion ofManvell. Further restrictions also undoubtedly kept this volume from illustrating certain critical approaches (e.g., why are there no representative writings from the likes of Richard Burt?) or even including discussion of certain screenplays. To fully considerthe purpose ofShakespearean film, as well as to suggest the future of such adaptation, the collection is surprisingly conservative. The discussion of Shakespearean cinema has often been confined to a short-list canon of directors: Welles, Kurosawa, Olivier, Branagh, or Zeffirelli. Their work has prompted the majority of previous criticism, so they obviously are the subjects of the most representative essays. Fortunately, the chapters by Lanier on Peter Greenaway and MacCabe on Derek Jarman allow some discussion of radical transformations of Shakespeare to the screen plus Reinhardt's Midsummer Night's Dream and Barbara Hodgdon's discussion ofthe musical Kiss Me Kate. The tendency to ignore those titles that either drastically rewrite Shakespeare (such as Gus Van Sant's My Own Private Idaho) or offer the playwright for popular conception (such as Disney's The Lion King) reveals a sort of elitism that fails to reflect the full depth of criticism. However, this anthology clearly serves its purpose as an ideal starting point for the discussion of Shakespearean film. My concerns are all rooted in a desire that the collection be expanded to include more essays from even more diverse critical stances. This casebook should open up further examination of the century -old Shakespearean cinema. It may be used for individual film analysis or overall criticism. Hugh H. Davis University of Tennessee Hughhdavis@hotmail.com Robert Knopf. The Theater and Cinema of Buster Keaton. Princeton University Press, 1999. 217 pages; $39.50 cloth; $14.95 paper Contemporary Influence For some years now, the reputation of Buster Keaton as one ofcinema's outstanding director-comedians has been secure. Even though it rests on a relatively small body of work (nineteen short comedies and eleven feature films created within the space ofeight years), film scholars no longer hesitate to mention Keaton in the same breath as Charlie Chaplin; some critics even consider him the greater of the two. Robert Knopf is not concerned about asserting the superiority of Keaton, although his respect for him is obviously profound. Instead, he wishes to broaden our vision of Keaton's creativity so that it encompasses, on the one hand, his early stage work and, on the other, his contemporary influence. More specifically, The Theaterand Cinema ofBusterKeaton seeks to place Keaton simultaneously within the three critical contexts within which he has been viewed—classical cinema, vaudeville, and surrealism. That "fheatef should precede "cinema" in the title of this excellent book makes sense: theater is Knopf's academic specialty, and it is Keaton's vaudeville work—or, moreprecisely , its manifestation in his films—that anchors the volume. Keaton fans probably are aware ofhis knockaboutcareer as the youngest member of "The Three Keatons," a vaudeville act that included his parents, and less frequently, his brother and sister . Knopf establishes just how much Keaton transferred from stage to screen—mimicry, physicality, acrobatics, transformations, and gags based on incongruity and illogic, not to mentionthe sheer variety that characterized vaudeville. Keaton even replicated the structure ofa vaudeville show in his films, which followed a course of rising action and climaxed with a "topper," a spectacular final sequence, often a vast chase scene involving large numbers of multiple images, such as the pursuit ofBusterby countless wouldbe brides and out-of-control boulders in Seven Chances (1925). The film medium attracted Keaton partly because it eliminated physical boundaries, enabling him to set his stories within vast spaces; indeed, no otherfilmcomedian was so intent on making the environment as much a star of the film as the featured performer. Moreover, the gags grew out of the environment— whether it was enormous ship in The Navigator (1924...

pdf

Share