FILMING SHAKESPEARE

New Zealand Listener, Volume 32, Issue 805, 24 December 1954, Page 5

FILMING SHAKESPEARE

Sir-In his letter to The Listener of December 10, M. F. R. Shadbolt rather ungraciously takes you to task for your intelligent anticipation in publishing an article on this subject, occasioned by the new film version of Romeo and Juliet, by Philip Hope-Wallace, who is a dramatic-and musical-critic of some repute. He criticises Mr. Hope-Wallace’s views on Castellani’s film,- when, as he admits, Mr. Hope-Wallace has seen the film, and neither I, nor Mr. Shadbolt, nor yourself nor your film critics, have had this opportunity. Mr. Shadbolt prefers, he informs us, to rely on the judgment of Dilys Powell and other noted English film critics. I am afraid that in this case he is calling on Miss Powell in vain, Her views of the film appear a the Sunday Times of September 26 ast, Her review is too lengthy to quote in full, byt after admitting the "visual richness" of the film, she criticises the handling of the text: The text, as I say, has been shortened, greatly shortened . . . scene after scene telescoped into a few lines. And yet room has been found, not merely for explanatory action, but for new scenes and words which explain nothing. . . I must not pretend that I am always put off by the liberties taken in the cinema with Shakespeare’s text, or even that I should always notice them; in Olivier’s Hamlet and Henry V, for instance, cuts and transpositions did not offend me. But then in both those films, one was held by the playing and the speaking of the verse. With the new Romeo and Juliet the eye is held, but not the ear; the performance is thus scarcely ever moving. And Miss Powell’s final sentence is: No doubt Castellani has once again worked a wonder, But oe ay goes has his own wonders, and personally I prefer not to have them obscured by a director’s caprices. Amongst other noted English film critics, I am sure Mr. Shadbolt will include the name of Miss C. A. Lejeune, film critic of The Observer. Writing in that paper, also of September 26 last, Miss Lejeune says: For a film director to choose to emphasise the visual progress of a Shakespeare subject is not in itself reprehensible. Unfortunately, Castellani’s lovely pictures are progressive only in the sense that they follow one another. There is little dramatic development in their sequence. They do not gather force as they go along. They rarely build to any climax. . . Castellani’s film has little sense of impact. It lacks rhythm, either visual or aural. One slow, monotonous pace monopolises it, flatly setting down word after word, picture after picture. Let us be content with these opinions until we can judge for ourselves.

D. M.

WYLIE

(Lower Hutt).