They also provide disturbing reminders of Henry's own seemingly irrepressible past. In doing so, they crystallize important political problems from the play's present (the late 1590s) that were constituents of the government's military policy. As the king's interlocutors (4.1) they articulate a probing skepticism that exposes the evasions required to dampen the class resentment war incites. The commoners in the play are pivotal in this regard. relieve the painfulness of the subject." However seductive, the invitation to modulate this play's history into delight may not be so easily accomplished, history comprising as it does, in Annabel Patterson's words, "both content and its context." The impulse, however, testifies to that history's fragility, the recurring need to recapture the matrix of sociopolitical dynamics, especially those of class, that are integral to the drama's significance. The pleasures Canterbury indicates rhetoric can induce by transforming gruesome historical events becomes in Hazlitt the balm for "the sense of pain" endured in grappling with the "actual truth" of history: "All the beauties of language and all the richness of the imagination. Hazlitt's polarizing of history and pleasure is echoed in Shakespeare's Henry V when the Archbishop extols Henry's rhetorical gifts: Premised on the antagonism between history's "real ground" and the imaginative pleasures of tragedy, Hazlitt's meditation reveals a tension that underlies much discussion of Shakespeare's history plays. Partiendo de la premisa de que el cine es, y debe ser, un vehículo de crítica social, intentaremos ofrecer una explicación para dichas divergencias. Para ello llamaremos la atención sobre las diversas estrategias, tanto formales como estructurales, que Olivier impone a su obra con la intención de adaptarla al contexto post-bélico de los años 40, y compararemos dichas estrategias con las empleadas por Branagh en su versión, claramente más cinemática. Resumen: Este trabajo pretende explorar las relaciones intertextuales que se establecen entre ambas películas con el fin de exponer la manipulación de sus directores, motivada por el contexto en el que las producen. Pointing out some of the various formal and structural alterations that Olivier imposed on his Henry V to make it a proper film for a post-war moment, and comparing them to Branagh’s openly cinematic interpretation, we will try to reflect upon the plausible reasons for such divergences, bearing in mind that cinema is, and must be, a vehicle of social critique. This paper intends to explore the intertextual relationships established between both films in an attempt to expose the context-specific manipulation done by Olivier and Branagh.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |