1
Filming and Performing Renaissance History Seminar: BSA Conference
King’s College and Shakespeare’s Globe, London
Report
Present: Pascale Aebischer, Mark Thornton Burnett (organizer), Lisa Hopkins, Toria Johnson, Stephen Purcell, Joanna Schmitz, Conor Smyth, Ramona Wray, and twenty-five auditors
Friday 11 September
Mark Burnett welcomed the seven speakers to the seminar and asked each of them briefly to introduce his / her paper. Three additional paper participants were unable to attend. He also encouraged auditors to contribute throughout. Papers had been written on the following subjects:
‘Shakespeare’s Popular Audience’, Stephen Purcell, SouthamptonSolentUniversity
‘The Bard Tweets: Performing the Renaissance on Social Networking Sites’, Toria Johnson, University of St Andrews
‘Architectural Reconstruction and Cultural Monumentalism’, Johanna Schmitz, Southern IllinoisUniversity
‘Consuming the Renaissance: Cannibalism in the Contemporary Jacobean Film’, Pascale Aebischer, University of Exeter
‘Martin and Modernity: Contemporizing Luther on the Screen’, Conor Smyth, Queen’s University, Belfast
‘The Earl of Essex and the Duke of Windsor: Elizabeth and Essex on Film’, Lisa Hopkins, SheffieldHallamUniversity
‘Henry’s Desperate Housewives: The Tudors, the Politics of Historiography and the Beautiful Body of Jonathan Rhys Meyers’,Ramona Wray, Queen’s University, Belfast
Prior to the seminar, the participants had been circulated with a list of questions to aid discussion:
1. How are reconstructions of the Renaissance different from popular imaginings of Shakespeare?
2. To what extent is Shakespeare associated with theatre in the popular mind and the Renaissance with other cultural forms?
3. What are the most obvious representational registers for the imagining of the Renaissance, and how do we interpret/theorize them?
4. To what extent is the Renaissance conceived of according to a binary of, on the one hand, debauchery, and, on the other, progress?
5. What are the roles of politics and religion within this binary?
6. How far are reinventions of the Renaissance postmodern - that is, they engage with memories of what has come before?
Addressing the first question, ‘How are reconstructions of the Renaissance different from popular imaginings of Shakespeare?’, Stephen Purcell commented on the similarity of representations of the Renaissance (from his paper’s point of view), pointing up the ways in which the period is imagined as a prequel or reboot. Well-known stories, he suggested, are given a back story or story of origin. Lisa Hopkins agreed, arguing that, in the films in which she was interested, a film was based on a play. Shakespeare was imagined as difficult, she suggested, while the Renaissance was seen as accessible. Borrowings were, inevitably, self-conscious.
Pascale Aebischer noted that even representations which denied Shakespeare were Shakespeare-oriented. A film such as Hannibal thinks back to Shakespeare, she suggested. Johanna Schmitz expressed discomfort at representations of Jacobean consumption and drew attention to blurred boundaries in reconstruction and reimagining. Reconstruction, she suggested, concerns material authenticity; re-imagining, she suggested, concerns emotional authenticity. Mark Burnett mentioned the concept of the reboot and modern cinema’s predilection for revisiting popular franchises. Stephen Purcell commented that all constructions are, in some sense, revisionist. Conor Smyth picked up the threads, maintaining that many of the representations under discussion, including his own, share an impetus to return and are ideologically motivated, demonstrating a privileging of local narratives that bring modern management culture to mind. Pascale Aebischer observed that discursive authenticity also takes performative forms.
Commenting on performance and ‘Twitter’, Toria Johnson noted that Milton is seen as inaccessible while Shakespeare is seen as accessible. Mark Burnett, referring to Stephen Purcell’s paper, wondered if this was related to the perceived connections between Shakespeare, theatre and the popular. Bringing in Toria Johnson’s paper, Stephen Purcell noted the interest in icons of mythology, citing ‘Twitter’ as an instance of this interest. Toria Johnson agreed, pushing further the point about ‘Twitter’, impersonation and performance. ‘Was it possible to talk to or as God on Twitter?’, Lisa Hopkins wondered. Ramona Wray and Conor Smyth both noted that talking to God was symptomatic of characters in Renaissance reconstructions.
Addressing the second question, ‘To what extent is Shakespeare associated with theatre in the popular mind and the Renaissance with other cultural forms?’, Pascale Aebischer suggested that, thanks to Shakespeare, the Renaissance is associated with theatre. The Renaissance, she observed, is seen as a performance through a filmic/televisual use of models. Lisa Hopkins added that music was an important element in this process of filtration/representation. Ramona Wray commented that, in The Tudors, talking to God forms part of a distinctively Renaissance aesthetic. She noted thematically loaded presence in this connection of characters/personalities such as Tallis and the use of choric figures. ‘Did this constitute nostalgia for the arts?’ wondered Stephen Purcell, arguing for a construction of the Renaissance as a point of beginning.
Addressing the third question, ‘What are the most obvious representational registers for the imagining of the Renaissance, and how do we interpret/theorize them?’, Mark Burnett suggested that these representations went backwards in order to look forwards. Conor Smyth instanced the Luther films in his paper as examples of works that shift the mindset, that visibly imagine origins, that embrace difference. Stephen Purcell referred to the iconic branding procedure associated with ‘Twitter’. Harking back to an earlier discussion, Toria Johnson noted that the ‘God’ account on ‘Twitter’ was not openly theological. Ramona Wray asked: ‘Why Tweet on Shakespeare? What desire does this enact? Or is this simply a version of historical re-enactment?’ Toria Johnson pointed to the role of self-consciousness in these impersonations, while Mark Burnett reflected on the different representational registers involved.
Joanna Schmitz suggested that impersonation of this kind signalled a desire for proximity, arguing for the ways in which popular culture – including ‘Twitter’ – demands participation. Olwen Terris (auditor) asked how we participated in cinema. Joanna Schmitz noted that cinema demands economic involvement, and Lisa Hopkins commented on the dimension of choice involved in cinema going. Mark Burnett agreed, noting that all of the films under discussion thematised involvement of some sort. ‘Is communion the master-stroke?’ that links all of the representations under discussion Lisa Hopkins wondered. Keeping with the theme of communion, and the associated idea of an illusion of presence, Stephen Purcell commented on, in his films, the amount of time spent showing the audience and concentrating on the nature of a live theatrical experience. An auditor drew attention to television, to the rise of on-line and ‘reality’ programming. ‘To what extent’, she wondered, ‘are reconstructions of the Renaissance interactive?’
In a subsequent discussion of television and celebrity, Joanna Schmitz drew attention to the significance of the casting of Joseph Fiennes and Jonathan Rhys Meyers in the films/series under discussion. Lisa Hopkins mentioned Eric Cantona. In response to Joanna Schmitz, Ramona Wray suggested that Jonathan Rhys Meyers, and the cult of celebrity with which he is surrounded, function as a short-cut to Henry the character: the fictional figure’s troubled childhood is the means of understanding the construction of his edgy sexuality. Mark Burnett asked about the extent to which Rhys Meyers was a Shakespearean figure. Ramona Wray noted, in reply, that Shakespeare films inflect The Tudors in various ways, creatively and ideologically. Pascale Aebischer noted that ‘Jacobean’ films have Shakespearean overtones at the level of casting, either non-Shakespearean or Shakespearean, and intertextuality.
Addressing the fourth question, ‘To what extent is the Renaissance conceived of according to a binary of, on the one hand, debauchery, and, on the other, progress?’, Mark Burnett wondered about the place of Titus in the ‘Jacobean’ system elaborated by Pascale Aebischer. Pascale Aebischer replied that Titus is more ‘Jacobean’ than it is ‘Shakespearean’ according to her logic: Jessica Lange/Tamora figures as the ‘other’ Shakespeare. Ramona Wray observed that the ‘Jacobean’ mode of classification represents a conceptual understanding of the Renaissance. Stephen Purcell wondered about the place of representations of James I/VI in this system. ‘Did he have the same following on Twitter?’ the auditors speculated. Pascale Aebischer urged participants to ponder the ‘Jacobean’ classification/categorization, noting that The Tudors could constitute a ‘Jacobean’ film in its investments and method. Mark Burnett noted that Shakespeare in the popular mind is rarely seen as ‘Jacobean’, invariably as ‘Elizabethan’. Pascale Aebischer, though, wondered if adaptations of The Tempest are seen as belonging to a ‘Jacobean’ category? Lisa Hopkins noted the significance of the cameo role of John Webster, as future Jacobean playwright, in Shakespeare in Love.
Stephen Purcell drew the seminar’s attention to the film, Hot Fuzz: whereas most of the films discussed in his paper, he remarked, are nostalgic for a mythologised ‘Elizabethan’ past, the gorily cynical presentation of community (and theatre) in Hot Fuzz is
more ‘Jacobean’ than ‘Elizabethan’ (to borrow Pascale Aebischer’s uses of the terms
in their aesthetic rather than historical senses). Mark Burnett suggested that, in films such as this, the ‘Jacobean’ functions as a counter to the ‘Elizabethan’. Lisa Hopkins commented on the significance of representing audiences according to different criteria, while Ramona Wray remarked that in The Tudors audience attention is constantly destabilized. Pascale Aebischer observed that many of the films under consideration sought purposefully to provoke, to which Mark Burnett mentioned the nature of different audiences as a constituent factor.
Addressing the fifth question, ‘What are the roles of politics and religion within this binary?’, Conor Smyth mentioned that religion and politics played a large part in the representation of audiences in the Luther films, films, he suggested, that were primarily concerned with individuality and empiricism. In scenes in which the individual talks to God, he suggested, an exaltation of the character is taking place. Mark Burnett wondered about the sacred overtones of these kinds of constructions. Stephen Purcell agreed, instancing the ways in which the community is envisaged as a sacred category in modern theatre and pointing to practitioners who write about the relationship between the theatre and the spiritual. Instancing the Globe Theatre, Pascale Aebischer noted other practitioners who speak of the spiritual and suggested that such a discourse has contaminated filmic representation. Mark Burnett asked if this was a specifically Shakespearean sacrality; by contrast, he suggested, the ‘Jacobean’ was seen as irreverent.
Addressing the sixth question, ‘How far are reinventions of the Renaissance postmodern - that is, they engage with memories of what has come before?’, Mark Burnett wondered about the extent of postmodernism in the works under discussion. Stephen Purcell instanced the place of ‘God’ on ‘Twitter’, pointing up a flawed project of authenticity which is premised on representations of representations. Pascale Aebischer suggested that Shakespeare is invariably the point of origin for such representations. Ramona Wray, pursuing the postmodern theme, spoke of The Tudors as expressing itself in relation to what had gone before, namely, The Private Life of Henry VIII and representations of Elizabeth I bathed in a golden light. Sarah Hatchuel (auditor) argued for the importance of series as postmodern statements. Ramona Wray agreed, arguing that the series format allowed for greater representational scope. Pascale Aebischer speculated if the method of The Tudors could be mapped onto Henry V and its epilogue? Ramona Wray suggested that another intertext is the biological daughter, Elizabeth, while Lisa Hopkins instanced the prologue to Star Wars. Pascale Aebischer suggested that The Tudors is such that the series now inflects thinking and representations of Elizabeth; Ramona Wray agreed, pointing up a mutually reinforcing circular process. Pascale Aebischer suggested that prequels inflect sequels; a similar point was made by Toria Johnson in her highlighting of parent and daughter connections in filmic/televisual representation. Conor Smyth suggested that The Tudors was typically postmodern in its representation, reacting to what has gone before. Ramona Wray noted that the series is syndicated world-wide, that it has a global visibility and that is globally imagined. Sarah Hatchuel (auditor) asked what representations of the Renaissance tell us about ourselves. David Carnegie (auditor) spoke of landmarks of representation, of their British orientation, of turning-points in British culture and the refashioning of history. Sarah Hatchuel wondered if the past was impossible because the present is unthinkable. Stephen Purcell answered that this formulation was dependent on the precise mode of presentation; certainly, he added, some retellings were explicitly revisionist. Pascale Aebischer suggested that the version of history promulgated in The Tudors is conservative: history is read as people, but this series associates history with one man or leader in a comforting narrative that goes against academic thinking. Sarah Hatchuel suggested, by contrast, that The Tudors is more subversive in that it reflects collaboration and the contemporary. In a post X-Files age, Stephen Purcell noted, there is a lack of faith in those who govern. John Joughin (auditor) agreed, noting the contemporary predilection for representations of sovereignty and rogue states. These representations, he suggested, are conditioned by the destructive tendencies which democracies should ostensibly protect; hence, democracy is in danger of eliminating itself. The move to individual figures makes sense inside this framework. Ramona Wray suggested that ‘Twitter’ also stages this situation, arguing for a version of history that is inherently circular. Mark Burnett concluded the session with thanks to all of those involved.