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

Reviews455 marital bed is exposed to 'a shockingly public gaze'" (164; the quote is from Michael Neill). By recovering what Appaduri calls the "social lives" of things, by recovering the social resonances ofthe bed in early modern culture, Roberts ably delivers a fresh take on Shakespeare's plays. Staged Properties in EarlyModern English is a truly excellent anthology, one that delivers on its promised aims, and I can guarantee that its readers will learn a great deal from the essays. Peter C. Herman San Diego State University NOTES 1 Curiously, the editors do not list Roland Barthes among their critical parents, even though Barthes was among the first to analyze everyday things for their ideological content. See Mythologies, trans. Annette Lavers (New York: Hill and Wang, 1972). 2 See, for example, David Cressy,"Foucault, Stone, Shakespeare and Social History," English LiteraryRenaissance 21.2 (1991): 121-33. ' In Kastan, ShakespeareAƱer Theory(New York: Routledge, 1999), 31. 4 For example, Leah S. Marcus, Unediting the Renaissance: Shakespeare, Marlowe, Milton (New York: Routledge, 1996) and Kastan, Shakespeare and the Book (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). 5 Stallybrass and Ann R. Jones, Renaissance Clothingand the Materials ofMemory(Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2000), 175-206. Kenneth S. Rothwell. A History ofShakespeare on Screen: A Century ofFilm and Television. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2004. Pp. xvii + 380 + illustrations. $28.99. Sarah Hatchuel. Shakespeare,from Stage to Screen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Pp. ix + 190. $70.00. Anyone interested in filmed Shakespeare will be pleased to know that a second edition of Kenneth Rothwell's 1999 survey of the subject is now in print. Rothwell'sbook,with itsvaluablebibliography,helpfulchronological listoffilms, and splendid filmography, is one of the best places to begin research into almost any cinematic treatment of the Bard. The earlier chapters of the book, which begin with silent movies and work their way forward, are perhaps more helpful than the chapters covering the 1980s, 1990s, and our new century,partly 456Comparative Drama because those earlier chapters cover material less well known to most readers, and partly because the materials available elsewhere on the most recent films are now so abundant (especially on the Internet) that Rothwell's discussions of them necessarily seem quite cursory. Anyone looking for detailed analyses of the most recent films will need to look elsewhere: providing such extended discussions is notwithin the scope ofthe present book. Instead, in his new final chapter Rothwell offers a fairlycomprehensive overview,quickplot summaries, and (in most cases) minimal commentary. Nevertheless, one strength of Rothwell's book in general, and of the new chapter in particular, is in calling attention to material one might have overlooked . Who would have predicted, for instance, that in the short span from 1997 to 2000 four different versions (!) of Titus Andronicus (!!) would be committed to film? Yet Rothwell, who seems to have watched and thought about nearly every moment ofShakespeare (or anything resembling Shakespeare) put on celluloid, is for that reason able to note this odd bit of synchronicity. Likewise , his immense knowledge ofboth Shakespearean and non-Shakespearean films allows him to make highly specific comparisons and contrasts, as when he says (concerning the Julie Taymor version of Titus): Quotations from other films pop up unexpectedly: Lavinia on a tree stump holding down her white skirt resembles Marilyn Monroe in Some Like It Hot, the cart bearing the heads ofTitus's sons and his own severed hand glances at Fellini's La Strada; a naked,grayish perspiring Titus in his bath tub summons up remembrance of Peter Brook's Jean-Paul Marat, and so forth. (271) As this quotation will suggest, Rothwell writes clearly and wears his learning lightly. If he is sometimes given to unfortunate whimsy (as when he suggests that Kenneth Branagh's version ofLove'sLabor'sLostcould have been subtitled The TamingoftheMachos),andifhe sometimes displays an English professor's overfondness for literary allusions (as when he says that The Tempest"is large and contains multitudes" [254]), he rarely if ever becomes bogged down in jargon, and indeed many of his passing comments show a refreshing skepticism about recent preoccupations ofboth phrasing and thought. More important , he displays a winningly open mind; he is not...

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
1936-1637
Print ISSN
0010-4078
Pages
pp. 455-459
Launched on MUSE
2011-10-05
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.