Reader-Response and Film Adaptation

Translating any work from text to a film production requires a great deal of decision-making on the director’s part. While a text allows for endless possibilities for interpretation on the reader’s end, a visual manifestation of that text must take certain measures to declare a more specific understanding, which is to be visually reproduced for the audience. Shakespeare’s Hamlet has been produced on stage and film throughout the centuries and is controversial in its various interpretations. The film adaptations by Frank Zeffirelli and Kenneth Branagh clearly depict very different “virtual” texts (Iser 1524) and thus a very different interaction between the work and each director. Using Iser’s principles of the reader-response theory, we can identify the “gaps”(Iser 1527) that each director has filled, as well as the journey described by Iser as each director’s “wandering viewpoint travels between all [the] segments” (1528) between the “explicit and the implicit” (1527) of the text.

Wolfgang Iser describes the process of interpreting a text, stating: “As the reader passes through the various perspectives offered by the text, and relates the different views and patterns to one another, he sets the work in motion, and so sets himself in motion, too” (1524). As Iser points out, this process is in fact an interaction, and one in which Iser focuses on the individual rather than the historical contexts for a particular conception. Iser also explains that this “interpretive activity” (1524) is similar to the act of in-person communication, except that the text cannot provide the reader with the necessary feedback to alter or direct the reader’s perception of the work. In describing communication, he explains that the interaction will result in “a view of others and, unavoidably, an image of ourselves” (1525). With the visual and audio advantages of film, the space allowed for interpretation between the audience and the original text is condensed, therefore increasing the amount of interaction permitted to take place. Film then is one step closer to one-on-one communication than a text, and therefore leaves the audience with a greater image of self, particularly the self of the director who is visually reproducing their own conception of the work.

Three, among various items of great debate with regard to Shakespeare’s Hamlet, include: Hamlet’s motivation, his sanity, and his relationship with his mother. In Shakespeare’s original text these topics are some of what Iser might refer to as a “the missing link[s],” (1528) and therefore according to Iser, the stimulation which invites the reader to interpret and react with the text. While Shakespeare has created a single “artistic pole,” both Zeffirelli and Branagh have visually produced their own “aesthetic text”. In Branagh’s version of Act I Scene V, the ghost of Hamlet’s father is pictured towering over him in heavy armor, staring right through him with cold and bright blue eyes. The ghost’s voice echoes loud and booming, amost suggestive that the audience could be hearing the voice from withing Hamlet’s head. This is suggestive of the position that Hamlet is in fact crazy and that the ghost is not real. In contrast Zeffirelli illustrates the ghost as approachable, seated wearing robes, and speaking in gentle tone. This portrayal of the ghost lends Hamlet’s sanity much more credibility in comparison to Branagh’s representation. To infer what is motivating Hamlet to kill his Uncle, Branagh’s version might imply fear of the ghost, while Zeffirelli’s suggests a love and adoration for his father. Each director’s choice in this instance clearly affects other perspectives of the text, as Iser qualifies as a journey of interaction. The perception of the father-son relation affects the understanding of the mother-son relationship: In Branagh’s film it is contemptuous and incestuous in Zeffirelli’s. The bridge between the two missing links indicates an entire network of considerations that took the reader (or in this case the director) from one perspective to another.

FATHER AND SON

MOTHER AND SON

Natura Morta

by Alexa Meade 2009

Live installation: Acrylic paint on found objects, walls, and flesh

(This is actually a photograph of a living person who, like the objects around her, has been painted ON in order to resemble a painting!!!)

Inspired Narrative:

The hotel room begins to devour her every muffled breath before she can even force it from the hollow in her chest. Uneven beats fill that vacant cavity with untiring angst, but her mind is disconnected. Thoughts rising like hot air loom along the musty ceiling where mold clings. She feels the flesh, which binds her in detached hatred, still moist from his body. She watches, as his imprint on the coarse sheets seems to dig deeper into the mattress, though the slammed door failed to carry even the softest breezes into the room with his exit. He was just another and yet she is still the same. It’s tiresome how time comes to reveal the same revelation over and over in new light. She wants to reach over to the lamp and illuminate her feet resting on the dingy carpet but her arms weigh in defiance. She wishes those feet could carry her out into the daylight and stirring air, where she might find something worth living for.

If Saussure were to examine this picture he might base his perception on his theory that, "language is a system of signs that express ideas" (Saussure 851). Similar to a literary work, a picture or piece of art is also a system of signs that express ideas. Saussure might also add that in order to understand what this picture represents, we must also identify what it does not represent, by recognizing the binary oppositions implied by the use of signifiers in the piece. The woman's body language is beyond relaxed and more suggestive of defeat. Sitting in her undergarments, it is clear based on societal standards that we are viewing her in a moment of privacy. The shadows of the furniture seem to indicate that she is sitting near a window, currently rendering the lamp as useless. Her body language and her gaze towards the floor seem to mirror this object. Similarly, the bottle on the table, which is shaped much like that of a wine bottle, is not in it's normal upright position. The signified usually associated with a woman in her bra and underwear is defied in this picture. Instead, she seems to be yielding to the signifiers around her, which are reflective of her current state. The relationship between the woman and the objects around her confirms the semiotic standpoint that the meaning of one sign can only exist in relation other signs. Although the woman is clearly the focus in the image, she means nothing without the daylight cast upon her, the empty wine bottle laying next to her, or her body language in relation to the room around her.

De Saussure, Ferdinand. "Course In General Linguistics" Ed. Vincent Leitch. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Second Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc, 2010. Print.

Applying Aristotelian Theory

In seeking to apply Aristotle’s theories of discourse, as articulated in his classic piece On Rhetoric, the upcoming election in California presented itself as a reliable means for testing the oldest fundamentals of deliberative rhetoric. Looking at Meg Whitman’s victory speech titled, “I Want Californians to Dream Big Again,” many of the elements that Aristotle examined are present. Whitman’s entechnic pisteis, or artistic means of persuasion, include appeal to ethos, logos, and pathos.

In order to establish ethos as a speaker, Whitman makes several statements that allude to the quality of person she wants the audience to see her as. She informs the audience that she received a phone call from her competitor who “gracious[ly]” (“I Want Californians to Dream Big Again.”) conceded the race and then thanks him and his supporters for “the energy they brought to this campaign”. This gives her an air of integrity, as she attempts to distance herself from the deceit often associated with politics. She then later goes on to thank her husband and sons saying, “You can’t take on a challenge like this without the love and support of family.” With this statement she not only identifies herself as formidable and determined, but a family-oriented and morally upright person. Whether or not her audience personally identifies with these qualities, these are the attributes and ethos they pursue in the authoritative figures they are chosen to elect to office, and Meg Whitman is clearly aware of this.

As Aristotle points out in Chapter 3 of Book 1 On Rhetoric, the deliberative rhetoric is either exhortation or dissuasion. By pointing out what the past administration has negatively done to the state of California, Meg positions herself as not only qualified but the only option for improvement. Aristotle states, “let the virtue of style be defined as ‘to be clear,’” and in utilizing this principle, Whitman strengthens her persuasion by giving direct and clear examples of what is wrong and must be fixed. For example, she states, “During Jerry’s last term as governor, California’s unemployment rate nearly doubled to a then record of 11 percent,” and then later declares, “while politics is Jerry Brown’s business, my business is creating good new jobs” (“I Want Californians to Dream Big Again.”). By stating the problems that accumulated in the previous administration, and then directly relating herself to the solution, Whitman appeals to the audience’s logos, while increasing her qualifications and persuasion.

In order to further appeal to her audience, Whitman keeps her diction intelligently informed and yet colloquial, in order to establish herself as qualified and yet relatable. An example of this is when she proclaims, “I’m putting my heart and soul into this campaign. This gal is on a mission. And I am all in.” This statement, as well as her earlier statement about family values, appeals to the pathos of her audience. Whitman also seeks to connect with her audience and to enhance her image as a down to earth woman by using rheotircal questions, making her speech almost interactive. Whitman states, “And I want Californians to dream big again, don’t you?” Due to the fact that the answer is clearly going to be positive, Whitman connects with her audience interactively on the basis of a common desire for improvement.

With her various uses of Aristotle’s principles set forth in On Rhetoric, Meg Whitman successfully delivers a speech that is persuasive because it creates an image of personal moral principle, while applying logic and appealing to the audience’s desires and emotions.

Works Cited

Leitch, Vincent B., Cross, George Lynn, Daube Sutton, Paul and Carol, eds.The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2010. Print.

“Meg Whitman Primary Victory Speech." YouTube. MOXnews.com. 12 July, 2010.