Overview
Shakespeare's
output of forty surviving plays[i]
had a massive impact on the 20th Century. Starting with King John (1899) there have been over four
hundred attempts to film the works[ii].
Many plays have been the inspiration of operas. For instance operatic versions
of Othello have been made both by Verdi and Rossini[iii].
Operatic forms also exist of Macbeth, Julius Caesar and Romeo and Juliet; which
has also survived it's creator into ballet form. Ballets, symphonies, and
musicals have also been inspired by other plays. This essay explores this
phenomenon in the context of a single play: The Tempest. The Tempest was almost
certainly written 1610-1611[iv]
and has proved one of Shakespeare's most enduring plays.[v]
The
Tempest's afterlife is so large that it is not possible to do justice to it in
a single essay; consideration of just Robert Browning's 'Caliban upon Setebos'
alone would required an essay. The focus in this essay is to look at the broad
sweep of the afterlife of this play across a range of art forms. The particular
pieces investigated are principally those where a body of criticism (primarily
professional but occasionally augmented with the responses from amateurs on the
Internet) exists that can be used to contextualise my own response.
Poetry
Robert
Browning's poem Caliban upon Setebos[vi].
Caliban is the only character in the play
to refer to Setebos. He does so twice. Firstly in Act 1 Scene 2 at line 375 when Prospero threatens him:
Caliban: [ Aside ] : I
must obey: his Art is of such pow'r,
It would control my dam's god, Setebos,
And make a vassal of him.
Later
in the play, Act 5 Scene 1 line 261 where Caliban, Stephano and Trinculo have
been driven in by Ariel:
Caliban: O Setebos, these be brave spirits indeed!
Setebos
was a god of the Patagonians[vii].
(Kermode). The name occurs in
Opera
In
1695 Henry Purcell wrote[viii]
an opera (or perhaps more accurately as Britannica, and sources generally,
classifies it a semi-opera[ix])
Tempest - The Enchanted Island. A popular song from which is 'Full fathom
five'.
Music
Perhaps
the most famous piece[x]
of non-dramatic music directly related to The Tempest is Jean Sibelius'
Symphony No.2 in D major, op.43 'The Tempest': Suite No.1, op.109/2. He wrote
this work in 1925 (and along with the tone poem Tapiola (1925-6)) is the last of
his major works; though he lived another 32 years.[xi]
Musical
Return To The Forbidden
Planet[xii].
Bob Carlton's comedy musical event. 1989 and touring variously since.
This
is a modern musical where all the dialogue comes from Shakespeare, not just
from The Tempest. The story is a whimsical tangential outing starting from the
film Forbidden Planet (i.e. the film that starts with a framework borrowed from
The Tempest). The inevitable result is a tangent to a tangent so very little of
The Tempest survives (little of the film survives either). It is set in the
B movie world of the 1950s Indeed Gerry
Anderson, of Thunderbirds fame, was brought in to give the technology a 1950s B
movie look. The result is a novel, hopelessly low brow (though at the same time
there is the continual challenge of naming the play that line was from), with
overly loud, familiar 50s Rock 'n' Roll. A curiosity and in my opinion the
weakest work discussed here. The programme and in-flight magazine are littered
with weak humour that are a characteristic of the musical. Patrick Moore as
chorus provides a little balance to all this nonsense but only a little. It is
the sort of entertainment that invites the audience to simply turn off their
brain and enjoy themselves; rather different to Shakespeare's plays.
Ballet
In
1979 the American choreographer Glen Tetley collaborated with Norwegian
composer Arne Nordheim to make a two hour ballet[xiii]
based on The Tempest with Christopher Bruce performing the role of Prospero
(stagebill). Few reviews seem to be online. However, one site (Ballet Co
The Tempest On Stage
For
the purposes of this essay stage productions of 'The Tempest' are seen as part
of the play's natural continuance rather than it's afterlife. The only
intention here is to look at the source available to interpreter's of the play
in other media. In 1667 John Dryden with William Davenant rewrote the play,
changing the plot and adding characters. This version was performed until the
late eighteenth Century. Their period of dominance was briefly broken by
Charles Macklin and David Garrick who in 1746, and 1757 restored Shakespeare's
text at
Film
This section is a survey of
and a personal response to a selection of the many filmed versions of and
variations on 'The Tempest'.
There
are many challenges for presenting The Tempest. Firstly, the changing reaction
to Caliban[xiv].
The Ariel/Prospero relationship. The Prospero/Miranda relationship. Is there
forgiveness and reconciliation at the end? Is Prospero going to regret giving
us his power. Will Caliban enjoy life alone on the island at the end: this is
perhaps best addressed as Caliban is largely driven by his desire to achieve
this. Will Ariel remain? Is Shakespeare casting himself as Prospero? The
Tempest is generally agreed to be Shakespeare's last non-collaborative work so,
through Prospero, Shakespeare's may saying his farewell to the stage and his
power as nonpareil dramatist. As is shown later, some versions cut Prospero's
closing address to the audience. What should be cut? Since, a three hour film
is unlikely to be commercially successful. Should anything be added? Where
should it be located? When should it be located?
Differences between stage
and film
Currently,
movies tend to be gauged to a large degree by the realism and spectacle of
their special effects. This may suggest that they are not an obvious medium for
the work of William Shakespeare who wrote primarily for an audience[xv]
- a set of people who hear. Conversely, the storm and the masques in the text
are naturally suited to today's technology and sense of lavishness. (One film
has an almost "Hello, Dolly" masque scene.) Plays on the other hand,
are more emotionally intensive; exploring more people's journeys through life.
The potential is there for a happy marriage between the two but there is also a
danger of having too stagy a production so you put off the general audience, or
you changed Shakespeare so much that it's hardly identifiable and critical
opinion will bury the film.
The
films are run through in order of making.
1908 - Percy Snow - 12
minutes[xvi].
("Cast unknown"[xvii]
) This film starts before the play does with Prospero, his book[xviii]
and a child Miranda.[xix]
We then discover Caliban - a wild man of the woods that Prospero quickly subdues. Prospero then releases a
female Ariel from a tree - looking rather
- then we skip 10 years and see a teenage We are shown that Ariel can
disappear and re-appear at will. Miranda and non-aged (of course) Ariel argue
with a pleading Caliban (so he is quite romantic in contrast to the alleged
rape of Miranda ('seek to violate my child')). I have to say that I have a
fondness for old films; they particularly lend themselves to a creative arty
style. I also like the enthusiasm that they seem to impart. A wonderful feeling
of simply "let's make a film"; long before the soul-less, cynical age
of movie-making. The 'special effect' of the ship tossing on the sea in the tempest
that Prospero has just raised is laughable by today's standard but it is
adequate for my tastes. Moreover, however primitive films may seem by today's
audience they were, of course, only in competition with the even more limited
(from a special effect perspective) medium of the stage. So people would have
been used to non-realistic style of effects in story-telling
No
famous lines from the film are displayed on screen so we are not treated to 'Ye
elves' for instance. Only the briefest of captions are displayed, such as: Aerial
is sent to bring Ferdinand to Miranda.
Just as the story seems to be about to start proper we have the caption "Friends Once More" followed by "Ariel Released" so quite a lot has been lost hereJ! Then a boat (balsa wood??) is pushed on between the 'rocks' and suddenly there is a feeling of being in film pioneer Georges Méliès'[xx] Le Voyage dans la lune (1902; "A Trip to the Moon"),
Yellow Sky. 1948.
This
film is not normally associated with The Tempest but at least critic, Pauline
Kael, can see a link in this Western with Gregory Peck (Stretch/Prospero) and
Anne Baxter (Miranda/Mike(!)) in a ghost
town on the edge of a desert.[xxi]
Kael wrote: "The Tempest in the 40s had been set in a
ghost town at the edge of a desert in YELLOW SKY, and with a humour frequently
indulged in under cover of the Western genre".
Forbidden Planet. 1956. 99
minutes.
Miranda,
Ferdinand, Prospero and Ariel in Wilcox's tangential SF version of 'The
Tempest'
The
most surprising thing about this film perhaps is not that it is based on The
Tempest but that it was made by MGM. The studio that made 'The Wizard Of Oz'
was not noted for it's films in the science fiction genre and though the film
was moderately successful it did not make another SF film for some years.
This is a substantially different use of a Shakespeare play. Shakespeare is not
given an on-screen credit and the introduction that we have to the play is a
short piece of narration indicating that the ship has been sent to investigate
a remote colony[xxii].
In director Fred M Wilcox's film screenwriter Cyril Hume has taken a story by
Irving Block and Allen Adler with the Tempest at it's base. We have here the
essentials of the background and atmosphere of the play but the creative team
do something with them. There is a rough character mapping as follows. Dr
Morbius (played by Walter Pidgeon) is (Prospero) a scientist who together with
his daughter (Miranda) Altaira (played by Anne Francis) are the soul survivors
of a colony on a distant planet. All the other colonists were killed off
shortly after the settlement was establishment. Being a genius Dr Morbius has
furnished their luxurious home with a wealth of comforts and technology
including Robby the Robot[xxiii]
(Aerial) (Robby plays himself, of course, but due to a bad manager he
eventually ended up on the considerably inferior 'Lost In Space'.) The
commander of a spaceship that comes to check the planet (Ferdinand) (played by
Leslie Nielsen). Caliban has a very original equivalent out of the works of Sigmund
Freud; the
The
critics like it. Leonard Maltin summarises ' … remains one of the most
ambitious and intelligent films of its genre; only slow, deliberate pacing
works against it …. Great effects, eerie electronic score. ' Pauline Kael is also
enthusiastic 'The best[xxv] of
the science-fiction interstellar productions of the 50s lifted its plot and
atmosphere from Shakespeare'. Roger Ebert was similarly impressed: 'Contrast this film [The 1982
'Tempest'] with FORBIDDEN PLANET, a science fiction film that also begins with
the underlying materials of The Tempest, but transforms them into its own terms
so cleverly that most viewers remained unaware of its inspiration.'
Geoff
Andrew in The Timeout Film Guide: "Classic '50s sci-fi, surprisingly
but effectively based on The Tempest … An ingenious script, excellent special
effects and photography, and superior acting (with the exception of Francis),
make it an endearing winner."
Peter
Nichols, writing in his 'Encyclopaedia
of Science Fiction', wrote "Although Wilcox was new to SF cinema (his
best-known film was 'Lassie Come Home[xxvi]),
Forbidden Planet is one of the most attractive movies in the genre with
excellent special effects … The resonances of Forbidden Planet stem in part
from the fact that it is an updated version of Shakespeare's The Tempest.'"
In
Halliwell's guide: "Intriguing sci-fi with a plot derived from
The Tempest and a Prospero who unwittingly creates monsters from his own id.
High spirits and suspense sequences partially cancelled out by wooden playing
from the younger actors and some leaden dialogue." The guide also quotes New
Yorker 1977: "It's a pity they didn't lift some of
Shakespeare's language"
John
Clute wrote "Based on Shakespeare's Tempest, this is one
of the great SF films: a rich, strange, brave, new world; Robbie the Robot;
huge vistas; delights, and high talk are all there."
Phil
Hardy wrote "One of the most charming works in the
Science Fiction genre, Forbidden Planet is nothing less than an updated version
of Shakespeare's The Tempest … is clearly mounted as a juvenile offering …
presumably why Wilcox[xxvii]
was assigned to direct. However, Wilcox … had other ideas and delicately, step
by step, set about subverting the fairy story and transforming it into a
nightmare. … Although the film is charmingly mounted for the most part, some of
the details, notably the comic interludes, are intrusive and some of the acting
wooden, but .. Forbidden Planet .. has an adventurousness about it that is
wholly compelling."
Although
I like this science fiction film with its groundbreaking electronic score[xxviii]
it is spoilt by the amazingly boring interplay by the crewmen and the Miranda
figure. There is a piece of humour that is funnier post Star Trek as we have a
discussion between the chief engineer and the commander concluding with the
commander saying "All right it's impossible. So how long will it
take?" This interplay was oft repeated in Star Trek between Kirk and
Scottie. The science fiction aspects are handled better than the attempts to
inject a Ferdinand/Miranda romance. Though the humour afforded by the ship's
cook is a good transposition of Trinculo. It is also interesting that in this
film Prospero and Caliban are merged[xxix].
It is eventually revealed, in the character of Dr Morbius through his pursuit
of knowledge[xxx].
It seems clear that the film's posters were designed around an original brief
for the movie that Wilcox bravely struggled against. Wilcox has inoffensively
taken a Shakespearean collection of characters with their brooding atmosphere
and ingeniously transplanted them into our future on a remote planet. Having
taken a classical starting point he has put a unique stamp on his concept by
merging in ideas from Freud and plausible future science fact. The effects are
impressively realised and not at all with odds of the claims made about the
planets previous inhabitants, the Krell. This is an excellent variation on
Shakespeare into a different genre spoilt only by the mindlessness of most of
the crew and the Miranda figure. Moreover, this film works as it makes no difference
whether the viewer is familiar with Shakespeare. Wilcox does not simply stage
it (the way Mussorgsky (CHECK) appears to do, ridiculously condense it (as the
1908 Percy Snow film) and the 1992 Animated Tales do. He adds something very
new to it so the film stands up in its own right.
The Tempest - 1960[xxxi].
Georges Schaefer
This
entertaining version was made by a very strong cast. A very young indeed Lee
Remick[xxxii]
as Miranda. Maurice Evans[xxxiii]
as Prospero. Roddy McDowall[xxxiv]
as Aerial. Richard Burton as Caliban. It is perhaps a little surprising that
this production was made at all. It is clearly low-budget and the main players
were successful in their careers at this time[xxxv]
(I have not been able to find any interviews on the Internet as to why any of
the principal actors appeared in this; presumably it was out of love of
Shakespeare and mutual respect for the other actors and director.)
This
breaks the acts up differently. For instance, Miranda's I am Your wife which is
in the play's Act 3 is shown in the segment with on-screen title of Act 2. The
film has an ethereal quality which works well with the notion of Prospero's
remote and strange island and a particularly airy aerial.
At
first sight the set suggests that we are going to see the "Ice Queen"
as both Ariel and the island have a frosty, frozen aspect. I have only recently
become aware of this version when it appeared in the RST shop at
This
is perhaps a light production, presumably aimed at teenagers studying the play
at school (for instance, the effect of projector the King's head into a glass
bottle whilst Prospero tells Miranda her history, so the darkness of Caliban's
situation is lost, but this is a nonetheless a worthwhile production. This
production ends with "Our little life is ended with asleep".
The Tempest - Derek Jarman.
1980.
Derek
Jarman[xxxvi]
like Greenaway populates his film with some representations of grossness[xxxvii]
in a play that be put on the stage an almost homely; almost a dark
The
film opens with Prospero almost having a nightmare hearing the voices of his
victims and then waking; this opening put me in mind of a Frankenstein film. .
This film has a slight feel of the Orson Welles Macbeth and Othello as
economies have certainly been made. Shot on 16mm and with the barest of titles,
it has that same feel of a film made by an enthusiast. We see Caliban go for
Miranda whilst she is bathing in her room, but it is more of a brother and
sister scene; Miranda seems amused by it; she kicks him out of the room.
Elizabeth
Welch sings Stormy Weather in the masque (with the sailors) in an almost
"Hello, Dolly" scene. Clearly, an attempt to provide some light
relief. It looks strangely like a Morecambe and Wise star musical piece;
perhaps their South Pacific piece in which they had a number of newscasters.
Toyah
Wilcox has mentioned in interview[xli]
being taken out for a meal by Derek Jarman and having him discuss his concept
with her. She was surprised to be offered the part; and initially put off by
having any part in a film of a Shakespeare play. But she came to trust his
judgement. She was pleased that he had cut the "boring bits"! Miranda
and Ferdinand are both portrayed as intelligent; sometimes, at least on the
stage, they have been played as light and simple.
Cuts
and alterations. 'Ye elves' is re-arranged (as are other pieces[xlii]).
At first it seems that it has been cut. With any Shakespeare play committed to
film, significant cuts are expected[xliii]
(and were made) but it is placed after:
… I do forgive thee.
Unnatural though thou art.
It
is delivered by Prospero reading from a book. This was an interesting touch.
Possibly it suggests a pre-destined perspective, or that Prospero is looking
back on it all; that he has sent himself a message in a bottle. It could also
(but this is probably not the intention) suggest that it's happening in a loop,
that there is no escape.
Ariel's
departure is of interest. He sings "There suck I" whilst alone (not
while helping Prospero) and then disappears without a further word to Prospero.
The
film then ends with:
We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and
our little life
Is rounded with a sleep
This
is a safe, natural, 'rounded' way to end the film with lines that will be
familiar to even people who have only a slight knowledge of Shakespeare. Thus
the problem of how, if at all, Prospero's address should be updated for the new
media is side-stepped.
Tempest - Paul Mazursky 1982
- 140 minutes.
In
Paul Mazursky's Tempest, a comedy drama set on a
Prospero's Books. 1991.
Peter Greenaway. 126 minutes.
Peter
Greenaway has made a very original film accompanied by an excellent
pseudo-hypnotic soundtrack by Michael Nyman[xlvii].
John Gielgud plays Prospero with most of the expected cast silent until the end
of the film. Most of the cast are nude, mercifully Gielgud isn't. Greenaway's
film is part pop video, part technically sophisticated (for 1991) layering of
montages of Shakespeare's Tempest. Greenaway has an interest, perhaps an
obsession with Prospero's twenty-four books[xlviii].
Shakespeare, of course, indicates Prospero has just the one book. His book of
magic. Greenaway to derive Prospero presumably thinks that Shakespeare has
merely omitted his non-magic books. Or he could simply mean the books he left
behind. Prospero does mention his library which "was
dukedom large enough". Alternatively, he could be conceiving a desert island Prospero
allowed to choose two dozen books. This film is full of things to think about.
Why these books? Why are they all naked? Why does Gielgud say all the words?[xlix] (From Boatswain: You do assist the storm in Act 1 Scene 1 … - However
the part of Ceres is sung by a woman ) A possible explanation is that this
device (which most surely it is) is a way of accentuates the feeling of
Prospero driving everything. Perhaps it is to stress the Tempest as a storm, or
conflict, in Prospero's minds. Thereby allowing Greenaway to punctuate
Prospero's words with flashbacks to The Tempest (the play) that are intercut
with related books in his library. Perhaps Greenaway's thesis is that to break
up the text into the individual characters of the source would detract from his
main focus; to unequivocally bind Prosper with his prized books. After a little
thought I think it is easy to come around to Greenaway's way of thinking.
Gielgud has to speak the words. Otherwise
we would be drawn to much into The Tempest(the play). With Gielgud speaking all
we are drawn more into the books, the subject of the film, which are at
Prospero's (the man) core. To be totally uptodate we should consider the text
of the play as Prospero's genome that is only truly understandable through his
books. We go from Prospero to his books and then out the other side back to
Prospero. This is reaffirmed by book 23 which has 35 plays and room for one
more at the beginning after the Preface on nineteen blank pages. Book 24 is The
Tempest. Gielgud cries Boatswain and we are linked back to the beginning, the
recursion with the book is echoed by the recursion with the dialogue.
This
is certainly an interesting film that benefits from frequent playings. I played
it a second time, two days after the first and found it far more palatable the
second time. Having freed myself of the notion of expecting some variation on
staging the Tempest, to accept instead an audio-visual thesis (similar to the
coffee-table book mentioned elsewhere).
Gielgud's
Prospero speaks to viewers at the end; his head fills the screen and then
shrinks and it becomes like one of those superimposed images that have been
used throughout the film.
Roger
Ebert commented ' …(this) is not a movie in the sense that we
usually employ that word; it's an experiment in form and content. It is likely
to bore most audiences, but will entrap others--especially those able to free
themselves from the notion that movies must tell stories. This film should be
approached like a record album or an art book. Each "page" is there
to be studied in its complexity and richness …' Leonard Maltin was reserved, commenting 'Original,
daring but unsatisfactory adaptation of Shakespeare's The Tempest, with almost
all of the dialogue spoken by 87-year-old Gielgud (in the role of Prospero);
the other actors are little more than extras, and there's a mindboggling amount
of nudity. Crammed with stunning, layered imagery, beautiful production design
and cinematography—all of which tends to lessen the impact of the dialogue'. Personally, first time, I
did not enjoy hearing Gielgud's voice throughout the film. I immensely enjoyed
his Hamlet, the audio cassette of which I have played literally hundreds of
time. I was very dismayed when I heard something else with him in when he used
the same voice and again with the next play. I very much prefer the Olivier
style of acting; where a new look and
voice are created for each part; instead of the same voice being used again and
again. After hearing him in many parts the voice has eventually become a drone
and to have that voice dominate the film only detracts from enjoyment of the
whole. Peter Greenaway on an interview on Radio 4 commented about the
difference between films and music. Films are normally a once only experience
whereas music is played repeatedly. Not for financial reasons (he assures us)
he felt that films such as this should
be seen a number of times in order to open up the boundaries of film-making. I
think extending the public's concept of what is acceptable as a film is a noble
concept but the excessive use of nudity (mainly repulsive people) and the
droniness of the Gielgud voice make this a difficult film to enjoy first time
around. Alonso is allowed to speak 'Thy dukedom I resign' and we dovetail back into
the Tempest proper (i.e. the rest of the cast is allowed to speak their lines;
abandoning the long format of Prospero speaking alone). The film improves a lot
at this point as a conventional film it's like breaking into summer or Narnia
when the snow of winter starts to melt by the approach of Aslan. We suddenly
have a wealth of voices, now that the books have, possibly, been explored and
the wall of sound, needed to balance the lone of Prospero, subsides and we see
an imaginative production of 'The Tempest'. I have the soundtrack of the film
in my collection and I find that far more palatable than the film. It is
certainly an ambitious, masterly produced, highly technical and it was valiant
of Gielgud to take on the so very central role but I think I am unable to
completely shed my doubts that perhaps it was somewhat pretentious, crutchy
(for instance the child peeing over the people in the pool at the start), film
by a director who aspires beyond the zenith of Nicholas Roeg (who progressed
from doing 2nd unit photography on Lawrence Of Arabia through being
the cinematographer on Fahrenheit 451 (Trufffaut's only English film) to the
seminal Walkabout (with Jenny Agutter[l]),
Don't Look Now (with Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland) and 'The Man Who
Fell To Earth'[li]
(with David Bowie).
An
uncredited net user, from a Shakespeare site containing reviews of Shakespeare
related films (including Forbidden Planet) summarised the film: 'All
of the weird images and multiple Prospero's bury the actual play, The Tempest.
… I found this movie utterly unwatchable. The story, if there is one, confused
me and the nudity was awful. This artsy flick serves no purpose in helping the
viewer to understand The Tempest, but rather serves as a visual extravaganza.
My favourite part about it was that it was on video and I was able to fast
forward.'
Another
uncredited net user, from the same Shakespeare film site, was far more
positive: If any of Shakespeare’s plays fit Greenaway’s over the top film-making
style, it is The Tempest. The visuals bring the text to life, and the many
songs from the play stream eerily from the mouths of various and delightful
spirits and goddesses. … The movie works, but not everyone will like its cerebral
and hallucinatory air.
I
think to appreciate this film you have to embrace Greenaway's desire for
multiple viewings being de rigueur ; to try to see the film as a 129 minute pop
video to be watched many times. With this in mind the necessity of Nyman's soundtrack,
the visual feast (to those who find the nudity so) and Gielgud playing the lead
role become clear. Since having such a highly regarded actor (often thought
second after Olivier of English speaking actors of the 20th Century)
must make the film far more palatable and less easy to dismiss as pretentious
soft porn.
It
is interesting how we have The Tempest put into the Folio at the start on 19
pages reserved for it after the Preface. A somewhat incestuous concept perhaps
but appropriate for a film like this to at least try to be recursive.
An
uncredited TIME Magazine reviewer commented: 'Shakespeare illustrated by Peter
Greenaway (The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover). Not the British
director's best film but certainly his most: two chockablock hours of Sir John
Gielgud intoning The Tempest while surrounded by naked babes and boys. It's as
if God lived in the
The Animated Tales 1992.
Adapted by Leon Garfield
with
Voices of Timothy West and Alan Armstrong.
This
is a delightful rendition of the play. However, it suffers more than most of
the plays in being so severely cut in order to condense it into a 25 minute
slot. Whereas others in the series still work in this compressed format (such
as Hamlet, The Taming Of The Shrew, As You Like It and Macbeth) this production
seems to be left with no middle. It takes quite a few screen minutes to set it
up and we have only a moment of middle before it's being resolved. Rather like
the twelve minute 1908 film but even more charming. At least we have an
interesting scene at the end with a joyous Caliban running about the Isle and a
rather poignant image of the returning Prospero. This was something of a treat
in a production intended for the very young.
Art
The
following is a, necessarily incomplete[liii],
list of 'Tempest' inspired art;. It is principally from Harry Rusche's
excellent[liv] 'Shakespeare Illustrated' site
but is augmented from various art books in my own collection. In some cases I
have corrected the titles.
List
of Images (A J indicates that the image is available and is reproduced in the
addendum. )
J Dadd, Richard. Come
Unto These Yellow Sands (1842)
J Fuseli, Henry. Prospero, Miranda and Caliban (1789)[lv]
J Fuseli,
Henry. Ariel (c. 1800-10)
J
Goodall, Frederick. Miranda
(1888)
J
Hogarth, William. Scene from the
Tempest c 1735-40.[lvi]
L Hughes, Arthur. Ferdinand and Ariel (1923).[lvii]
J Huskisson, Robert. "Come unto These Yellow Sands"
L
Maclise, Daniel. Miss Priscilla
Horton as Ariel (1838).
J Madox Brown,
Lucy Ferdinand and Miranda (1871).[lviii]
J Millais, John
Everett. Ferdinand Lured by Ariel.
1848. Pen drawing.[lix]
J Millais, John
Everett. Ferdinand Lured by Ariel c.
1849 Study.[lx]
J
Millais, John Everett. Ferdinand
Lured by Ariel (1849-50)[lxi]
J
Miller, F. Ariel (1850)
J Mortimer, John. Caliban (no date)
J Nixon, James
Henry. The Tempest
L Paton, Joseph Noel. Caliban
(1868)
L Pickersgill, Frederick. Prospero
and Miranda (undated)
L Pine, Robert Edge. Miranda
(1784)
J
J Romney,
George. The Tempest (c. 1790)
L Scott, David. Ariel and Caliban (1838)
L Severn, Joseph. Ariel:
"Where the bee sucks"
(1832)
L Severn, Joseph. Ariel:
"On the bat's back I do fly"
L Stothard, Thomas. "The Tempest" (1798)
L Thomson, Henry. Prospero and Miranda (1803)
J Townsend,
Henry. Ariel
J Ward, James. Miranda and Caliban
L Waterhouse, John. Miranda (1881)[lxii]
J Waterhouse, John. Miranda - The Tempest (1916)
L Wheatley, Francis. "The Tempest," Act V, Scene i
L Wright, Joseph. Ferdinand and Miranda in Prospero's Cell
(c. 1789)
A quick tour of these
Tempest related Images
These
images will be considered for their aesthetic appeal, their choice of
character(s) from the play, whether the painting depicts a real, imagined or
described scene in the play. A major choice that the artist must make is
whether to illustrate a moment in a character's journey or a thematic image[lxiii].
It is perhaps worth noting that with one of the most popular of Shakespeare and
Pre-Raphaelite paintings Ophelia, the artist John Everett Millais chose not to
show a scene that happens in the play. Instead he chose Gertrude's reported
drowning of Ophelia. Taking this approach opens up the artist's possibilities
allowing them to visualise something that is not created on stage for them. So
we might see something that is reported; alternatively they may imagine a thematic
image combining several of the play's concepts.
Dadd, Richard. Come Unto
These Yellow Sands (1842)
A
Strange merging of the fairy-like and humans in a dark, slightly oppressive
rendering of the scene where Ariel singing the painting's title entices Ferdinand
and colleagues ashore.
Fuseli, Henry. Prospero, Miranda and Caliban (1789)[lxiv]
A
positively demonic Caliban being repelled by the forces of good. A haughty
unsympathetic Miranda (in contradistinction to Toyah Wilcox's Miranda in
Jarman's 1979 'The Tempest'). An Old Testament Prospero with a pointing figure[lxv].
This seems a simplification of Shakespeare's concept, but as always the
painting is a product of it's own time. Assorted fairy creatures seem more
evocative of A Midsummer Night's Dream.
Fuseli, Henry. Ariel (c.
1800-10)
A
strangely menacing Ariel curiously accompanied by a bat. Vaguely similar to the
later image 'Hope' painted by G F Watts (with assistants).[lxvi]
This is has a latent, dark gothic, brooding intensity that is slightly
attenuated by Ariel. The lower figures see associated with doom. While this is
fairly typical for Fuseli, it is one of the darkest images of the play so far
discovered.
Goodall, Frederick. Miranda
(1888)
Again
almost a National Portrait Gallery possibility (except for the lightning
strike). The lightning underlying the strength of the Tempest, while a Miranda
unconcerned for her own safety looks out to see; presumably to the ship tossing
on the sea; but the picture let's us make up our own mind. It is perhaps
assuming that we are familiar with the play. Without the shipwreck, or other
clues, the painting does not evoke 'The Tempest' the way, for instance, the
Romney does. We would need to be told that it was The Tempest to know that we
are looking at Miranda. It is a little surprising that Miranda has dark hair.
Perhaps because of her gentleness and youth and through exposure to the Madox
Brown and the Waterhouse we expect her to be blonde or red-headed. The dark
hair makes her seem, perhaps, a little more mature; less light.
Hogarth, William. Scene from
the Tempest c 1735-40.[lxvii]
Hogarth chooses a thematic image. Ferdinand stepping out of
the water, a jealous (?) Caliban, an angelic and musical Ariel, a watchful and
particularly paternal Prospero and a somewhat stonished Miranda (in keeping
with the text). The painting is further stylelised by the inclusion of an open
book at her feet and animals charmed by her presence. (An aspect of Miranda
picked up in Wilcox's film 'Forbidden Planet').
Huskisson, Robert.
"Come unto These Yellow Sands"
(Presumably from 1873-6)
This
image was painted about thirty years after Richard Dadd's image of the same
name. It is broadly similar to the earlier painting but crossed with the Henry
Townsend painting of Ariel. The danger of the shipwreck is passed and we enter
into a fairytale ballet.
Madox Brown, Lucy Ferdinand
and Miranda (1871).[lxviii]
William
Michael Rossetti in his book 'The Pre-Raphaelites and their Lives'
unfortunately lists very little information about this painting of a scene from
the play painted by his future wife (she married him three years after she
painted this[lxix];
whilst married to Ford Madox Brown.) He are told who the sitters were:
Ferdinand (Lucy's brother Oliver), Miranda (her sister Catherine, Prospero
(William Michael himself) and the King Of Naples (Ford Madox Brown). This
strongly pre-Raphaelite image[lxx]
has a Polonius behind the drapery look[lxxi]
to it but is enriched with symbolism and soulfulness.
Millais, John Everett.
Ferdinand Lured by Ariel. 1848. Pen drawing.[lxxii]
Millais, John Everett.
Ferdinand Lured by Ariel c. 1849 Study.[lxxiii]
Millais, John Everett.
Ferdinand Lured by Ariel (1849-50)[lxxiv]
These
three images of a scene in the play will be considered together. The first two
are included as they show the development of the concept. It is interesting how
different parts of the image changed over the three versions. The first image
is more suggestive of Peter Pan[lxxv]
which suggests Ariel is in fact Tinkerbell!
Ferdinand is aged a lot in the second image and then Millais settles on
an interim age in the final version. In the first image the boy Ferdinand seems
to have been asked if he wants to go play to which he will boyishly agree. In
the middle a cherubic Ariel leads a middle aged Ferdinand away. Finally an
almost siren-like Ariel leads a young Ferdinand through the Isle. The third
image is the only one of the three that looks pre-Raphaelite. The fairies
change to bats and in detail but are grotesque in all three versions. The third
is the best balanced. It balances sobriety with humour and playfulness. The
only striking colour in the final image is that of Ferdinand's costume/ The
fairies are tinged with green that makes them disappear into the vegetation.
One of the most significant differences between the images is the disappearing shipwreck.
Presumably he chose to remove this to avoid overloading the picture. Include
the shipwreck here and the picture looks unbalanced. It is however, perfectly
acceptable to have a passive Miranda set against the shipwreck, as created by
Waterhouse. But the extremes of the shipwreck and the lighter aspects of the
play do not find a happy equilibrium. The detail is extraordinary. Millais
claimed "I have done every blade of grass and leaf
distinct".
Miller, F. Ariel (1850)
This
non-specific painting of Ariel could almost have been painted by Arthur
Rackham. It is interesting to compare with the other Ariels here. The
comparatively small wings are interesting; they do not appear very practical.
Compare the scale of these wings to that of the butterflies. This is a slightly
surprising image as it doesn't show Ariel doing any of the things we most
associate with that character. For instance, enticing Ferdinand ashore (see two
images discussed here that are based on the line "Come
unto these yellow sands", or deceiving Ferdinand (Full fathom five), or orchestrating the
shipwreck, or being resentful of his imprisonment by Prospero. Here Ariel seems
at rest and almost contented.
Mortimer, John. Caliban (no
date. He lived 1740 to 1779)
A
non specific moment[lxxvi].
A rather forlorn, resigned, world wearied Caliban. Comparatively low bestial
resemblance. A sympathetic image of
Caliban as it invites our pity and is not the least bit threatening. Caliban is
in profile and so is passive to the viewer. A portrait at an introspective
moment.[lxxvii]
Nixon, James Henry. The
Tempest
This
painting is a little Turneresque because of the sheer shining, swirling light[lxxviii].
At the centre of the waves is Ariel. This Ariel is more of an angel than a
fairy. Presumably the sole seamen that we see is intended to be Ferdinand. If
someone interested in Shakespeare had been told that this image was based on
one of the plays, they would be able to guess the play.
This
is another image of characters at rest. Again if one were told that this image
depicted a scene from Shakespeare it would be difficult to guess which. It
could even be Hamlet.
Romney, George. The Tempest
(c. 1790)
This
is a dramatic thematic montage of the mariners suffering in the storm, Prospero
cognisant and using his hands almost like a conductors to indicate his control
of the situation. Miranda perhaps waving to the survivors. Presumably, that is
Ariel in the top left hand corner of the image. Similarly, on the ropes; perhaps
suggesting that Ariel is so fleet of foot he becomes multi-present. The white
light in that area presumably emanating from Ariel possible suggesting that
despite the sinking being deliberate, it is nonetheless benign (not a hair
perish'd). It may also mean to suggest
an almost Duncan-like holiness about Prospero. This image cleverly shows the
Tempest itself (a rapidly recognisable image) and contrasts the reaction of
Prospero (benign overseer) and Miranda (obedient and helpless daughter).
Townsend, Henry. Ariel
This
image suggests a rather playful Ariel. In fact the feel of the image is almost
a cross between a female Mickey Rooney as Puck in A Midsummer Night's Dream and
Arthur Hughes Ophelia (the one where a soulful Ophelia gathers reeds in her arms,
not the one where she is standing with flowers in one arm and touching a branch
with the other with long hair cascading down her back). It is also similar in
style to that Ophelia painting; not merely because they are both framed in a
semicircle but they both show the subject alone, amongst flowers. The lone
Ariel is reclining, naked and with quite large wings with the sun large behind
her; suggesting a magical twilight world echoed by the other worldliness of the
strangely curled foliage.
Ward, James. Miranda and
Caliban (Lived 1769 to 1859. )[lxxix]
A
loosed out of hell collection of gargoyles and Caliban. A somewhat stern, severe and unsympathetic
Miranda basking in the light of a rainbow. Presumably the rainbow indicates
that the storm is now over and the forces of good are on the move. The
monsters, as perhaps they are best termed, are dimly lit and adorned with
snakes. Miranda has a, presumably tamed, snake at her foot with a butterfly by
her toe. Next to that and near to Caliban's foot is a skull. There seem few
grey areas in the characterisation here. Miranda has an almost holy goodness
about her (with a dove above her head), whereas Caliban is just plain evil. It
would be interesting to be able to date this. Ward was just becoming active as
an artist when the adaptation of 'The Tempest' was still dominant on stage. By
late 20th Century standards this is an unsatisfying image. We lose
the debate that Shakespeare is all about; the grey areas that the playwright
gives us to grapple with. In this image Caliban is simply bad (and presumably
deserves everything that happens to him).
Waterhouse, John. Miranda -
The Tempest (1916)
"She stands swaying against the storm, the breakers crash upon the
beach, and under the looming cliffs in a welter of waves the doomed ship
plunges like a terrified stallion. The painting of the rocks, wild water and
the figure of the girl have been brought to perfection …" (Hobson). A film could be
made where Miranda does see the shipwreck occur. In the text she merely reports
the fact. 'I have suffered/With those that I saw suffer!' This is a striking,
dramatic and very late pre-Raphaelite rendering of a thematic image of the
play. The ending of the ship's journey contrasting with the commencement of
Miranda's. The wind that has helped devastate the ship blows wildly through
Miranda's hair possibly suggesting her imminent sexual awakening. This is a
very popular image. It is present in many pre-Raphaelite books, calendars and
posters.
Conclusion
In
a recent lecture to the annual January Shakespeare In Performance course Vivian
Thomas stated that Shakespeare wrote Troilus and Cressida for the 20th
Century[lxxx].
He might have said the same thing about the Tempest. Since with the growth of
technology Shakespeare's incredibly avant-garde play, written just as the
ancestors of our 'special effects' were introducing their devices in theatres,
can be given a new lease of life. Starting with the charming 1908 production
and moving through the 1980 Derek Jarman 'The Tempest', film has been used to
advantage in providing interesting adaptations of the play. Peter Greenaway has
produced a complex, yet ultimately understandable adaptation and exploration of
the play using contemporary special effects, arguably the acting voice of the
Century and hypnotic music to provide an cerebral audio-visual for the viewer
(or user). The animated version will delight all. Little art has been found for
the 20th Century but research seems to be in a fairly early stage.
Undoubtedly a lot has been produced, but there does not seem to be a
co-ordinated attempt to catalogue it. The Shakespeare Illustrated is fine as a
starting point but it barely scratches the surface. It is interesting to see
changes over the years. For instance, the way the Pre-Raphaelites found a natural
subject in that play and the increasing compassion for Caliban. The survival of
the play into other art forms underlines something very fundamental that
Shakespeare rather than merely being a stealer of other men's stories was a
first class weaver of threads of stories into a complex framework of believable
human beings. Shakespeare's work survives because it is so very well conceived;
the plays are populated by real people in understandable situations in their
journey through life. Moreover Shakespeare was able to merge the human issues
with the technology available to him when he wrote the play: storms and masques
had suddenly become do-able - part of his stagecraft. It is little wonder then
that four hundred years on The Tempest still entertains, puzzles and educates
with the filmcraft available to us now.
T H
E E N D