Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet : Italian Translations for Page, Stage and Screen [1 ed.] 9789401209861, 9789042037342

Citation preview

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

APPROACHES TO TRANSLATION STUDIES Founded by James S. Holmes Edited by Volume 38

Henri Bloemen Cees Koster Ton Naaijkens

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet Italian Translations for Page, Stage and Screen

Vincenza Minutella

Amsterdam - New York, NY 2013

Cover image: with special thanks to Fabio Falvo Cover design: Studio Pollmann The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO 9706:1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents Requirements for permanence”. ISBN: 978-90-420-3734-2 E-Book ISBN: 978-94-012-0986-1 © Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam – New York, NY 2013 Printed in The Netherlands



To Emanuele and Marianna



Table of Contents Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................9 A Note on the Texts .......................................................................................10 Foreword ........................................................................................................11 Introduction ....................................................................................................15 Chapter 1: Transposing Drama to Page, Stage and Screen ............................31 1. Media Differences and the Issue of Faithfulness ....................................31 2. Adaptation ...............................................................................................36 3. The Dual Nature of the Play ....................................................................42 4. The Function of the Target Text .............................................................44 5. A Target-Oriented, Functional Approach for the Study of Films ...........47 Chapter 2: The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet ...........................................53 1. The Native Italian Tradition of Romeo and Juliet ...................................53 2. The Origins of Shakespeare Translation in Italy .....................................63 3. The Start of Romeo and Juliet Translation in Italy .................................74 Chapter 3: Patterns in Translation and Production of Romeo and Juliet in the Twentieth and Early Twenty-First Centuries .................................................95 1. Trends in Translation since the 1940s ...................................................100 2. Trends in Production since the 1940s....................................................109 Chapter 4: Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage ...................123 1. Paola Ojetti’s Translation for Guido Salvini, 1937 ...............................125 2. Gabriele Vacis’ La Storia di Romeo e Giulietta, 1990 ..........................133 3. Masolino D’Amico’s Translation for Maurizio Scaparro, 2000 ...........142 4. D’Amico’s Translation Used by Jean-Christophe Saïs, 2003 ...............154 Chapter 5: Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen.......................................163 1. Renato Castellani’s Giulietta e Romeo, 1954 ........................................163 2. Riccardo Freda’s Romeo e Giulietta, 1964 ...........................................175 3. Franco Zeffirelli’s Romeo e Giulietta, 1968..........................................181 4. Roberta Torre’s Sud Side Stori, 2000 ....................................................194 Conclusion ...................................................................................................211

 Appendix 1: Italian Translations of Romeo and Juliet .................................219 Appendix 2: Italian Productions of Romeo and Juliet (1900-2012).............221 References ....................................................................................................227 Primary Sources ........................................................................................227 Secondary Sources ....................................................................................231 Filmography ..............................................................................................255 a) Films from Romeo and Juliet ................................................................255 b) Other Films ...........................................................................................256 Index ............................................................................................................259





Acknowledgements Many people have contributed to this book with their help and advice. First of all I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Susan Bassnett for her invaluable criticism and guidance. Thank you to Charlotte Ross, Stefania Taviano and Loredana Polezzi for always being there for me and for reading parts of the book, offering helpful comments: their support and friendship have been precious to me. I am very grateful to Lynne Long for believing in my work, for her encouragement and advice, and to Piotr Kuhiwczak and John Drakakis for their constructive remarks. I would also like to thank Andrew Martin Garvey for his linguistic revision of the manuscript, and Masja Horn and Cees Koster at Rodopi for guiding me through the publishing process. I owe particular debts of gratitude to all the people who have made a difference in the development of my research: Masolino D’Amico for making his unpublished translation available to me and for answering all my queries; Maurizio Scaparro for allowing me to use his script; Maria Bellini from the Théatre des Italiens, Anna Peyron, Loredana Gallarato and Ave Fontana from the Centro Studi Teatro Stabile di Torino, Alessandro Tinterri and Gian Domenico Ricaldone from the Biblioteca Museo dell’Attore, Mariangela Tempera and Vanni Borghi from the Centro Shakespeariano, for allowing me access to research material; Laura Curino, Gabriele Vacis, Alexander Zeldin and Stefano Della Casa, for offering insights into theatre productions and films; Pietro Deandrea for discussing his translation with me and for his encouragement; Mark Thornton Burnett, Katja Krebs, Màrta Minier and Cristina Marinetti for their kind help. Thank you to the friends and colleagues who have sustained me in various ways: Debora Voges, Thomas Persson, Daniela Treveri Gennari, Barbara Giordano, Marco Saglietti, Chiara Magliano, Elisabetta Spaducci, Francesca Fontana, Cinzia Verga, Virginia Pulcini, Aurelia Martelli, Esterino Adami, Gerardo Mazzaferro, Chiara Simonigh, Matteo Milani, Paolo Bertinetti, Joy Sisley and Constanza Burucua. More personal thanks go to my parents and my brother, for many years of precious love and encouragement. Last but not least, my thanks go to my twin children and my husband. Thank you to Emanuele and Marianna for putting up with their Mum always having to work, for making me discover Gnomeo and Juliet and for sharing my love for “Sheppi”. Thank you to Fabio, for his faith in me, for his support and patience, and for being a wonderful father. Without him, this book would never have been published. Sections of Chapter Five originally appeared in ‘Sud Side Stori. Romeo and Juliet emigrate to Sicily’ in Burns, Jennifer, and Loredana Polezzi (eds)

 Borderlines. Migrazioni e identità nel Novecento. Isernia: Cosmo Iannone Editore, 2003, pp. 363-371, and in ‘Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen: A Multilateral Model for the Analysis of Three Italian Films’, Journal of Adaptation in Film and Performance 5(1), 2012, pp. 25-39. I am grateful to Cosmo Iannone Editore and Intellect Books for permission to reproduce that material.

A Note on the Texts Unless otherwise stated, all references to Romeo and Juliet are to The Oxford Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet, edited by Jill Levenson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). Unless otherwise credited, translations from English are my own.



Foreword One of the major developments of the last three decades has been the emergence of a new interdisciplinary field, known now as Translation Studies. Whereas once translations tended to be viewed as marginal textual activity, it is now recognised that we can learn a very great deal from the systematic study of translations. If we look closely at a translated text, we can discern the strategies employed by the translator, which in turn will shed light on the dominant stylistic norms operating in that translator’s time, for sometimes translators conform to the norms of their age, producing texts that reflect contemporary taste, though occasionally a radical translator breaks free and uses the task of translating to bring new forms or new ideas into the target literary system. This, of course, is how the sonnet, originally a medieval Italian poetic form became a privileged form in so many other literatures, undergoing subtle changes in other languages over time. For translation, it must be noted, can be an important force for literary renewal and a means of literary and stylistic innovation, as Translation Studies research so clearly demonstrates. Following the fortunes of a text over time means engaging with all three aspects of translation as defined by Roman Jakobson: the intralingual, that is, what changes a text undergoes in a single language, the interlingual, that is, what changes take place when the text moves into another language and the intersemiotic, that is, what happens when a text is reconfigured in a new medium. This book, which follows the story of one of Shakespeare’s plays in terms of its relationship to Italian culture and tradition, provides a useful case-study of how a well-known work can be endlessly reconfigured in a new context. When a text becomes canonical, as has happened with the works of William Shakespeare in English literature, it poses a particular challenge to translators. One of the intriguing aspects of the history of Shakespeare’s work, of course, is that he was by no means canonised for a considerable time after his death, being seen until well into the eighteenth century as inferior to his contemporary, Ben Johnson. What brought about the re-evaluation of Shakespeare was a combination of several factors, probably most importantly the reopening of theatres in England following the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660 after years of republican rule by Oliver Cromwell during the Commonwealth period, when puritanical religious fervour had decreed the closure of playhouses. Once theatre once again became a place of public entertainment, demand for plays soared, hence the rise in translations, in particular from French, where theatre was flourishing in the age of Racine and Corneille and the impulse to return to the body of plays in existence in English.

 Not that Shakespeare’s plays found at home a sympathetic audience very readily; contemporary taste demurred at what was perceived as his excessive brutality, vulgar language and deployment of the supernatural. The history of eighteenth century English stagings of some of the plays shows what today we consider extraordinary revisions, such as the often-cited production by Nahum Tate that gave King Lear a happy ending with the recovery of Cordelia. But the revival of Shakespeare’s plays was also having an impact outside England, through the activity of translators. Indeed, the great Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy suggested that Shakespeare’s fame originated not in England, but in Germany, a point also made by Heinrich Heine in 1839, for Shakespeare was extremely successful in German translation. The German Shakespeare, translated by August Wilhelm Schlegel and Ludwig Tieck entered so completely into the German canon that subsequent German Shakespeare translators have had to keep it in mind alongside the English original, for there is now, alongside the English Shakespeare, an authoritative German Shakespeare also. The complex history of Shakespeare translation is a vast field, but we can note that certain plays in particular found ready audiences in different sociopolitical contexts. Hamlet and Macbeth, for example, appealed to audiences across Europe in the age of revolutions, when works exposing the corruption of absolute power acquired new significance. However, as Vincenza Minutella shows, Shakespeare arrived relatively late in Italy, and then mainly through French. In the nineteenth century, however, with the spread of Romantic ideas, Shakespeare came to appeal far more to Italian audiences, and significantly many of the plays provided plots for lyric opera. This book charts the story of Romeo and Juliet, a work that came to be seen as one of Shakespeare’s most powerful dramas, with its plot built upon the tragedy of young love blighted by warring families. Here too, recognition in England was not immediate; Samuel Pepys records in his Diary that he disliked the play, though Goethe was sufficiently impressed to attempt a translation himself. Minutella has examined the Romeo and Juliet plot, showing how the story derived from an Italian source, first appearing in print in the fifteenth century and recurring in poetry, prose and theatre, undergoing significant shifts of emphasis in each retelling. The focus of this book, however, is an investigation of the history of Italian versions of the play, and it makes fascinating reading. Minutella points out that unlike the Germans, Italians have never had a single high-water-mark translation of Shakespeare, and she shows how this one play of his has been continually remade for different purposes and different generations. The great virtuoso actors of the nineteenth century such as Ernesto Rossi and Adelaide Ristori used a verse translation by Giulio Carcano to great acclaim; later in the century Arrigo Boito began (though never finished) 12

translating the play for Eleonora Duse, who first played Juliet as a young girl in Verona, long before she acquired international fame. But what interests Minutella in particular is the way in which the story of Romeo and Juliet has come to acquire new life and new significance in the twentieth century. She shows how in the early part of the century the play underwent a process of idealisation, when Shakespeare’s bawdy language was toned down or removed, but then suggests that in the postwar period the reception of Shakespeare in Italy changed, with serious Italian textual scholarship being undertaken, alongside projects to translate the complete works and a desire to translate plays in their entirety, without cuts, and collaboration between directors and scholar/translators and critics. Romeo and Juliet, with its Italian setting and Italian origins, offered Italian directors and translators the opportunity to ‘reclaim’ their own. Inscribing ‘Italianness’ and giving the play a contemporary message can be seen in the work of such directors as Franco Zeffirelli, who staged the play several times and then directed the internationally successful film version in 1968. Minutella points out also the importance of the musical version of the play, West Side Story (1961) for Italian theatre-goers and directors, showing how the musical not only came to influence such directors as Zeffirelli, but how it also underpins another musical, Sud Side Stori (2000) set in contemporary Palermo where the Romeo/Tony character is an inadequate rock musician and the Juliet/Maria is a Nigerian immigrant working as a prostitute. Minutella’s analysis of this production, in a chapter that looks at a range of Italian cinematic versions of the Romeo and Juliet story reveals a complex web of intertextual references that take us backwards and forwards across times and cultures. Fundamental to Minutella’s examination of the Italian reception of Shakespeare’s play is the belief that all translation is inevitably a form of rewriting, that there can be no such thing as a definitive or ‘faithful’ translation, since every translator reconstructs a work with the needs of their target audience in mind. She asserts that acculturation always takes place when a play is transferred into another context, for translation is necessarily a form of appropriation, influenced by the values of the target culture. What makes this book so useful to any reader with an interest in understanding how texts move across cultural boundaries, is that the evidence provided demonstrates clearly that we cannot think about translation as the straightforward linear transfer of a text, for the transfer process and the strategies employed by any translator are conditioned by his or her context. This book shows not only how stylistic norms vary, but also how economic, social and political factors all need to be taken into account when tracing the fortunes of a work such as Romeo and Juliet in another literary and linguistic system. This is a fascinating account of stages of a textual journey, that began 13

 in late medieval Italy, moving on to Renaissance England and criss-crossing Europe in the ensuing centuries, a journey that began in print and has since moved into three dimensional forms, a journey that is by no means over yet, so long as there are translators, directors and readers. Susan Bassnett University of Warwick

14

Introduction This book analyses the birth, life and afterlife of the story of Romeo and Juliet. It examines the way in which Italy has (re)appropriated the tale of the “star-crossed lovers”, by looking at translations for page, stage and screen. Selected Italian translations, theatre performances and films are analysed in order to shed light on the translation processes through which the source text is manipulated and on the forces that influence them. The study investigates the processes at work when a canonical text is appropriated by another culture and for different media, exploring how the concept of translation changes and is rendered more complex by the different modes of presentation involved. A principle aim of the book is to investigate what happens during the translation process as Shakespeare’s play is transferred into Italian. The volume also seeks to explore the ways in which, through translation, Italian culture has taken possession of Shakespeare’s play and refashioned it according to its own needs, investing it with different meanings. By describing the journey of the lovers from the Italian novelle to Shakespeare and back to Italy, this book provides a comprehensive account of the transformations of the tale through time, cultures, languages and media, enabling a deeper understanding of the ongoing fortune of the play. Translation is considered in its various forms: from the more restricted, traditional interlingual text produced for a reading public, to the translation made for the stage, which implies a performance – and therefore involves the insertion of the verbal text into a more complex semiotic system – to the transposition of the written text into a cinematic one, a process which has been called “intersemiotic translation” and will be called here “translation from page to screen”. The book therefore takes into account the constraints not only of source and target languages and contexts, but also those which can be ascribed to media differences. The case studies which form the main body of the volume investigate the complex relationship between source and target texts and aim to show how the notion of translation as a linear passage from a fixed source text to a target text is complicated by actual translation strategies. The history of Romeo and Juliet provides ideal material for this kind of analysis for a number of reasons. Firstly, as will be shown in Chapter Two, the story of the lovers was originally an Italian tale which reached Shakespeare through translations and rewritings. Shakespeare’s play is, therefore, itself a form of appropriation, as the playwright used pre-existing material and adapted it according to the needs and tastes of his audience. This aspect of the Shakespearean text raises interesting issues concerning 

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

translation, as it raises questions about the relationship between original and derivation, and about the notion of originality itself. It also shows how new texts contain within themselves previous ones, and how texts cross boundaries and travel across cultures and languages through forms of translation and rewriting, being adapted to new contexts through various manipulatory processes. The fact that Romeo and Juliet is a rewriting of an Italian story is even more interesting in this specific case, as Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet aims to trace the journey of the story back to its place of origin, through a process of translation and rewriting, which can therefore be seen as a form of (re)appropriation. Secondly, Romeo and Juliet is one of Shakespeare’s most popular works with an almost mythical status, and is one of the most frequently performed plays in theatres the world over. Romeo and Juliet is a story of tragic love, opposed by the society in which the protagonists live, and it is still relevant today. Each new generation reinterprets the tale, adapting it to their own culture and social context. In this rewriting ad infinitum of the story, the Shakespearean play is made to wear different clothes each time, and critics and scholars continue to analyse it and comment on its altered meanings and significance. A well-known example of reinterpretation is provided by the 1957 American musical West Side Story (dir. Jerome Robbins and Robert Wise, 1961), based on the 1957 stage version, which transposes the story to New York and shows the conflict as a fight between white American and Puerto Rican city gangs, introducing racial tension. Another example of the tale’s enduring relevance in contemporary culture is the renowned film version directed by Baz Luhrmann, William Shakespeare’s Romeo+Juliet (1996), which updates the story and resets it in contemporary America, in Verona Beach, but keeps the original Shakespearean language. Several other Romeo and Juliet film versions have been produced, the most important of which were directed by George Cukor (1936), Renato Castellani (1954), and Franco Zeffirelli (1968). Shakespeare in Love (dir. John Madden, 1998) also draws on the romance of the “star-crossed lovers”, while in the recent animated film Gnomeo and Juliet (dir. Kelly Asbury, 2011) the feuding families are portrayed as garden gnomes (the Reds and the Blues) who, after racing and fighting on lawnmowers, stealing orchids and chatting with the Bard’s statue, live happily ever after, all accompanied by Elton John’s songs. These films also raise challenging questions regarding intersemiotic translation and the relationship between verbal text, Shakespearean language and cinematic language, and give us an insight into how the play’s themes might be considered relevant to different generations. Of particular interest is the conflict in the play, which tends to be transformed and modernized in order to express the contradictions and problems inherent in different societies. Several examples of this kind of transformation can be found in 16

Introduction

both international theatre productions and in films (see Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002; Levenson 1987, 2007, Levenson/Shakespeare 2000; Holding 1992; Rothwell 1999a: 170-171; Howard 2000: 297-298; Lanier 2007; Lehmann 2010; Burnett 2013: 195-231). For instance, in 1994 Israeli and Palestinian theatre companies portrayed the Capulets as Jews and the Montagues as Arabs, and made allusions to their conflict. In 1991 in India the lovers became a Pakistani Muslim woman and an Indian Hindu man in the film Henna (dir. Randhir Kapoor, India, 1991). Indeed, as Mark Thornton Burnett has remarked, “world cinema offers multiple contexts for families or groups at war” (2013: 197). Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet has generated a wealth of reincarnations and reinventions over the centuries, spanning across different media (opera, ballet, music, painting, sculpture, cinema, television, etc.) and enabling the story of the “star-crossed lovers” to live on. Peter Tchaikovsky’s Romeo and Juliet fantasy Overture (1869), Hector Berlioz’s dramatic symphony (1839), Vincenzo Bellini’s opera I Capuleti e i Montecchi (1830), Charles Gounod’s opera Roméo et Juliette (1867), Sergej Prokofiev’s ballet score Romeo i Djoulietta (1936), Auguste Rodin’s sculpture Roméo et Juliette (1905), Heinrich Füssli’s painting Romeo at Juliet’s deathbed (1809), and Dire Straits’ song Romeo and Juliet (1980) are just some of the most famous examples of the metamorphosis of the story in other arts. In this process, Romeo and Juliet has undergone radical transformations and, as observed by James Loehlin, also in its many performances it has rarely – if ever – been there as Shakespeare wrote it. […] In spite, or perhaps because, of its enduring appeal as the definitive love story, Romeo and Juliet has been a dynamic and unstable performance text, endlessly reinvented to suit differing cultural needs (Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002: 1).

The view of Romeo and Juliet as a text that always requires reinterpretation raises issues about the relationship between original and translation, and about the meaning of ‘faithfulness’ in translation. This study rejects the idea of one fixed interpretation, and the notion of faithfulness to an original, as all translation involves interpretation and manipulation and is influenced by the context in which it takes place. As Theo Hermans (1993: 185) clearly puts it, “a word like ‘faithful’ […] is probably the most fateful word in translation studies”. Translation in fact does not happen in a vacuum and it is the result of the translator’s personal response to a text, his or her interpretation as a reader, combined with the constraints of the target culture. The idea of faithfulness to the source text, to an original meaning of a text implies that a text has one single fixed meaning. As Susan Bassnett has noted, “faithfulness is an impossible concept and can only exist if the 17

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

interpretative processes are not undertaken at all”, whereas whenever we read a text “creative interpretation is always at work” (1985: 93). Also, in Shakespeare studies scholars have come to agree that the Bard’s texts are not fixed and stable entities, and are interpreted by each generation through their own lens. As Dirk Delabastita and Lieven D’hulst have suggested, “there is no such thing as an ‘essential’ Shakespeare who can then be ‘approached’ in different ways that do, or fail to do, ‘justice’ to the Genius. Every later generation of editors, translators, critics, etc. rewrites or reinvents their own Shakespeare” (1993: 10). Commenting on the challenges of editing Shakespeare for the twenty-first century, Jonathan Bate and Héloïse Sénéchal have pointed out that generations of editors have adopted a ‘pick and mix’ approach, moving between quarto and folio readings, making choices on either aesthetic or bibliographic grounds, and creating a composite text that Shakespeare never actually wrote (2007: 25).

Along similar lines, several scholars have discussed Shakespeare in terms of appropriation ‫ ޤ‬a process through which a receiving culture or individual takes possession of the text for its own’s use ‫ ޤ‬rejecting the Shakespeare ‘myth’, the idea of the fixity of the text and “the notion that reading is itself an exclusive effect of the text” (Drakakis 1985: 23).1 According to John Drakakis, in concrete historical terms Shakespeare can never be ‘our contemporary’ except by the strategy of appropriation, yet the protean values which subsequent generations of critics have discovered in the texts themselves can be demonstrated to be in large part the projections of their own externally applied values (1985: 24).

Although Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is itself a rewriting of previous sources, and despite its being a complex, unstable, “mobile” text that exists in multiple versions (Levenson/Shakespeare 2000: 103-125; Lehmann 2010: 44),2 a text created for performance and thus bound to be changed and manipulated on stage and by various editors, it has undergone a process of canonization through which, as André Lefevere explains, works of literature are taken out of their historical context and the whole genealogy of influences and rewritings of which they are a part is silently obliterated. As a result, what has survived this process appears to be timeless, and what is timeless should, obviously, not be questioned (1992: 22).

For translators who feel the need to be ‘faithful’ to the highly esteemed and respected original, Shakespeare’s plays are often regarded with reverence, as ‘sacred’ literary texts. The view of Romeo and Juliet as a canonical text is 18

Introduction

relevant to this study, as the approach of some Italian translators to the play seems to have been influenced by this ‘reverential’ attitude (Aaltonen 2000: 64). Moreover, Shakespeare translations have often been judged on the basis of criteria of faithfulness. As Delabastita and D’hulst (1993: 15) have observed, “the canonized status of Shakespeare in our Western cultures has all too often precluded a detached and purely descriptive attitude”, so that the reception and translation of his works has often been assessed according to a ‘veneration’ of the source text. The high status of Shakespeare in our contemporary European culture has tended to prevent the study of different types of translation practices. In fact, less attention has been devoted to ‘irreverent’ or less respectful translations, which have been either criticised or ignored in critical studies for their unfaithfulness (Delabastita and D’hulst 1993: 15). However, the history of European Shakespeare translation shows how the approach to his works has not always been reverential. Translating Shakespeare has meant different things through time, as translation strategies are governed by different poetics and different goals. Ton Hoenselaars describes the changes in translation strategies and their meaning as follows: Before Shakespeare became a canonical author, the translator’s creativity was allowed free play. As Shakespeare became a literary saint whose work was sacrosanct like the bible, however, the translator became one of the apostles, too easily charged with treason in a Judas-like fashion. In recent years, as the traditional, literary canon has been coming under fire, and as Shakespeare is appropriated and rewritten more boldly than ever before, the translator has found a new rival in the adaptor, or tradaptor, who, like himself, appropriates the master text, though in a seemingly more radical and hence more accessible fashion (2003: 656).

What Hoenselaars highlights is that the appropriations of Shakespeare’s texts vary considerably through time, as they are affected by the target cultures, by interpretations of the source text, by changing poetics and ideologies, by notions of translation and by the function of the translation in the receiving cultures. He also stresses the fact that contemporary translations made for performance take more liberties with the Shakespearean text and may transform it quite radically. Hoenselaars also seems to suggest that translation is a form of appropriation determined by the target culture. This book seeks to show that the approach of Italian translators to Romeo and Juliet has also changed through time, it has not always been reverential, since it has been affected by different factors belonging to the receiving culture, and it is a form of (re)appropriation of the story. For instance, as will be shown, early translations of Shakespeare were imitations that adjusted the plots of the plays to neoclassical conventions, and did not acknowledge Shakespeare’s name, or were combinations of several source texts. In recent times in the 19

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

theatre and in the cinema, examples of ‘irreverent’, ‘unfaithful’ translations of Romeo and Juliet have also emerged. These exploit the canonical status of Shakespeare’s play, as they assume that their audience knows the story, and the text is used only partially, or it is only referred to. By exploring the reception of the play in Italy across time, Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet takes account of different types of translation, without making distinctions between faithful and unfaithful ones, and seeks to understand how they relate to Shakespeare’s text and how they reflect the poetics and norms of the culture which engenders them. The validity of an approach to the translation of Shakespeare’s plays that takes into consideration how social and cultural factors affect the translation process, and inserts the translated text in performance, is demonstrated by Romy Heylen’s study of six translations of Hamlet for the French stage (Heylen 1993). Her research demonstrates that translation practices shifted through time according to changing poetics and literary norms, and the needs of the French theatrical system. Similarly, this book looks at the different translation strategies employed when Romeo and Juliet is transferred to Italy, and aims to bring to the fore how the relationship between original and target text functions in a specific context and time. In line with contemporary approaches in translation studies, this book views translation as a manipulatory process which appropriates, rewrites and adapts texts according to the target culture, ideology, poetics and the specific function of the target text within them. As Susan Bassnett has noted, a translation always takes place in a continuum, never in a void, and there are all kinds of textual and extra-textual constraints upon the translator. These constraints, or manipulatory processes involved in the transfer of texts have become the primary focus of work in translation studies (1998c: 123-4).

The importance of analysis of the constraints imposed by the target culture on the translation process has been stressed by scholars such as Itamar EvenZohar and Gideon Toury. Even-Zohar developed the idea of culture as a polysystem – a network of literary and extra-literary systems that constrain the translation process – and applied the concept of the polysystem to translated texts. According to Even-Zohar, translation does not have fixed borders or limits, but is an activity which depends on the relations within a specific cultural system (Even-Zohar 1978; 1990). Toury sees translation as an activity governed by “translational norms” which are socio-historical, cultural, not absolute (Toury 1978; 1980; 1995. See also Even-Zohar and Toury 1981). Bassnett, Lefevere and Hermans have investigated the manipulatory processes through which source texts are translated and the ways in which different elements of the target culture, such as ideology, 20

Introduction

poetics, and patronage influence the translation processes (Bassnett 1981; Lefevere 1975, 1992; Hermans 1985; Bassnett and Lefevere 1990). Sirkku Aaltonen has called translation an egotistical activity, initiated by the target culture for specific purposes, which therefore “always rewrites its source text because the starting point for the entire process lies in the Self” (2000: 47). According to the skopos theory developed by Katharina Reiß and Hans Vermeer (1984), translation is a form of human action and as such it has a specific purpose which determines the way translators approach the source text and the translation choices they make. In their theory there are five rules, the first and most important one of which says that the target text is determined by its skopos, i.e., the function of the translated text within the target culture, whereas the old ‘fidelity’ rule is placed in the fifth place (see Reiß and Vermeer 1984; Vermeer 2000; see also Munday 2001: 72-88; and Schaffner 1998). As Bassnett observes, in this theory “translation is the creation of a target text that is functional and appropriate to the target audience, and it is the translator’s responsibility to determine what the role of the source text should be” (2004: 61). Heylen also stresses the importance of the historical and socio-cultural context, suggesting that “translation should not be considered a matter of equivalence or synonymy, but one of differences and shifts, since it entails a goal-oriented decision-making process of negotiation between various cultural codes and systems” (1993: 20). Another useful way of looking at the different types of translations and appropriations of the source text is to consider them as rewritings, or refractions of the source text. Lefevere (1992: 9) defines rewriting as a genre that includes interpretation, criticism, anthologising, translation and adaptation for different media, and consists in manipulating a text according to the norms of the society and context in which the rewriter is working. Seen in these terms, applying the term ‘rewriting’ to all translations enables us to surpass the limitations and fuzziness of the term ‘translation’, as commonly and restrictively understood. Lefevere also introduces the concept of refraction, which is defined as “the adaptation of a work of literature to a different audience, with the intention of influencing the way in which that audience reads the work” (2000: 234-235), and “in function of different linguistic, cultural, ideological and poetological constraints” (1984: 191). In his comparison of Wole Soyinka’s Opera Wonyosi and Bertolt Brecht’s Dreigroschenoper (2000), Lefevere explores the notion of refraction, as practiced in the translation of texts and the production of plays. He stresses the importance of the receiving socio-cultural context of the refraction, which affects the changes in the original. In a refraction we witness manipulation in terms of language, ideology, poetics, style of acting, and plot. This view of the relationship 21

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

between original and translation as refraction is useful for this study, especially when talking about film adaptations and theatre performances, where the different target texts show varying degrees of manipulation and are aimed at distinct audiences. These concepts prove helpful in talking about all types of translation – for page, stage and screen, including those target texts which take more liberties with the source text – and to describe the way translators work within their contexts. By perceiving translation in these terms, one is able to look at different kinds of translation and explore the broader context of production and reception, adding extra-textual analysis, without value-judgements, avoiding faithfulness criteria, with a descriptive, target-oriented approach and a focus on acual translation practice. As Lefevere comments: “the original is not in any way better (or worse) than the refraction. It is just a text, produced under certain circumstances, in a certain literary system, following a certain poetics and usually moving in the orbit of a certain ideology” (1984: 197). The term acculturation has also been used to describe the translation process, and will be adopted in this study. American sociologists John Gillin and Victor Raimy (1940: 371) define acculturation as “referring to those processes whereby the culture of a society is modified as the result of contact with the culture of one or more other societies” and stress that such contacts “may be of different types and of all degrees of intensity”. The Collins English Dictionary defines the verb ‘to acculturate’ as “to assimilate the cultural traits of another group” (2011). If one applies the above definitions to translation, acculturation refers to an approach whereby the source text is assimilated to the target culture and modified according to its own needs and conventions. Translators may attempt to bend the source text towards its target readers/audience/conventions, trying to create a target text that does not show signs of its foreignness. This book argues that since every translation rewrites and adapts, adjusting the source text to the receiving culture and system it is going to be part of, the process which plays undergo in the transfer to another language and culture is indeed a process of acculturation. Translation is viewed as a form of acculturation and cultural negotiation, whereby translators appropriate, rewrite and adapt the source text with a particular objective in mind. Scholars such as Heylen, Aaltonen and Stefania Taviano think that acculturation is inherent in all translation, especially in the translation of plays. Heylen (1993: 23), for instance, views translation as “a creatively controlled process of acculturation” (1993: 22), because translators inevitably try to adapt the foreign text to the poetics and/or ideology of the target culture. According to Heylen, translations can thus be of three different types, according to their degree of acculturation (Heylen 1993: 23-24). Her “historical-relative, socio-cultural model” of translation – which considers 22

Introduction

translation as negotiation and acculturation, as a process of appropriation in which the translator plays an active role, with a specific objective in mind, determined by the socio-cultural context – is especially useful when dealing with plays. Aaltonen (2000: 55) also talks about acculturation, defined as “the process which is employed to tone down the Foreign by appropriating the unfamiliar ‘reality’ and making the integration possible by blurring the borderline between the familiar and the unfamiliar.” According to Aaltonen, some degree of acculturation and naturalisation is unavoidable in the translation of a play, especially when the target text is meant to function in the target theatre. In fact, given that all translation always rewrites the source text, this process is even more evident in theatre translation, which “by its very nature [..] needs to adjust written texts to the varying conditions of its productions” (Aaltonen 2000: 72). In her research on the reception of Italian plays in Anglo-American theatres, Taviano highlights the role of acculturation in translation, arguing that “appropriation and acculturation are inevitable and necessary aspects of translation and stage representation. Texts need to be assimilated into a culture to become part of that culture’s life” (2001: 77) (see also Taviano 2005; Coelsch-Foisner and Klein 2004). Lawrence Venuti (1995; 1998) sees the process of acculturation, which is involved in each translation, as a negative “domesticating” act. A similar view is held by Eugenio Barba and those working in Multicultural Theatre, who “deliberately reject acculturation into the target system” since it naturalises and “Europeanises” languages and cultures (Bassnett 1998: 106) (see also Barba 1985). Lefevere (1998) has also shown the process of acculturation which created the image of Brecht as a ‘classic’ through manipulation of his works by his British translators, who toned down the Marxist ideology present in his works in order to fit the target culture’s criteria and ideology. To take another example, Shakespeare’s plays were rewritten according to the norms and conventions of neoclassical theatre when they were translated into French in the eighteenth century. As highlighted by Heylen (1993), the translations of Hamlet (1770) and Romeo and Juliet (1772) by Jean-François Ducis are typical cases of acculturation and complete naturalisation, as the target texts were created so that they would follow the rules of a neoclassical tragedy. As acculturation involves a readjustment of the source text to the norms, conventions and taste of the target culture and its literary and theatrical systems, this book argues that acculturation seems inevitable – at least to a certain extent or in different degrees – when a play is transferred to another culture. Our analysis of the translation and reception of Romeo and Juliet in Italy will highlight the role of acculturation and the influence of the target culture, its conventions and needs. As will be shown, acculturation, understood as appropriation by the receiving culture, which tries to erase or 23

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

downplay difference and foreignness, and naturalise the source text, can be seen to be at work in different degrees in all Italian translations. By taking into account translations for stage and screen, this book explores two less researched areas of translation studies: the translation of drama for the theatre, and the study of so-called intersemiotic translation. In discussing the problems involved in translating theatre texts, Bassnett (1985; 1998) used the image of the labyrinth and pointed to the lack of theory in the area of translation of drama as acted and performed. Delabastita and D’hulst similarly complained about the lack of studies on the “theatrical side of Shakespeare’s reception” and observed that “most available descriptive models are designed uniquely for the text and let the researcher down as performance aspects come into play” (1993: 14). However, the field of theatre translation is rapidly expanding, as testified by the several publications on translation for the theatre that have appeared in recent years (Heylen 1993; Johnston 1996, 2000, 2004, 2011; Brisset 1996; Hale and Upton 2000; Aaltonen 2000; Taviano 2001 and 2005; Coelsch-Foisner and Klein 2004; Anderman 2005; Zatlin 2005; Perteghella 2008; Krebs and Minier 2009; Baines, Marinetti and Perteghella 2011; Laera 2011; Taroff 2011; Bigliazzi, Kofler and Ambrosi 2013; Krebs 2012, 2013; articles in the Journal of Adaptation in Film and Performance, in the Theatre Journal (2007) and a forthcoming Special issue of Target on ‘Translation in the Theatre’). As a result, as pointed out by Cristina Marinetti, Manuela Perteghella and Roger Baines (2011: 1), “within the last decade, translation for the stage has increasingly been shaping up as a significant area of research in the English-speaking world.” Recent studies have adopted approaches that look at the processes of theatre translation and focus on the way target cultures and theatrical practitioners appropriate and manipulate the source play. Such studies pay particular attention to actual theatre practice, to the role of the text in performance and its links to theatrical systems, and show how the context of production influences the translation process, highlighting the collaborative and creative nature of translation for the stage. As pointed out by Katja Krebs and Màrta Minier, “translation for the theatre […] is shaped by a creative process that is not reliant upon one person’s contribution but upon groups of people working together” (2009: 66). The volume edited by Marinetti, Perteghella and Baines highlights the fact that translation for the stage is a “complex, multifaceted, diverse, cultural and often personal” creative practice (2011: 2). Similarly, this book seeks to investigate how theatrical constraints, conventions and practices, the needs of the theatre, of specific directors and productions, exert their influence on the way Shakespeare’s play is translated for the Italian stage. By considering the text in performance, the approach adopted here also reflects a shift of focus in theatre studies, where more attention is devoted to the performance or mise 24

Introduction

en scène, which is made up of multiple codes or sign systems. Since the 1970s, studies in theatre semiotics have highlighted the importance of performance, and the fact that the verbal, written text is part of a mise en scène, which has come to be considered as a “text” in itself. According to Tadeusz Kowzan the verbal text is only one among the many components of a performance text, which is made up of thirteen sign systems (Kowzan 1975). Marco De Marinis and Franco Ruffini talk about “testo spettacolare” (performance text) (Ruffini 1974, 1978; De Marinis 1982, 1988), Keir Elam stresses the difference between “performance text” as the text “produced in the theatre” and the “dramatic text” as the one “composed for the theatre” (1980: 3), Erica Fischer-Lichte argues that a performance is a “theatrical text” (1984), while Patrice Pavis defines the dramatic text as “the verbal script which is read or heard in performance” (1992: 24). By analysing translations for page, stage and screen, this book aims to investigate ways in which Romeo and Juliet is handled not only by translators, but also by theatre and cinema practitioners, identifying the influences of the literary, theatrical and cinematic systems on the translation process. The approach adopted in this study also relates to another young area of research in translation studies, i.e., the study of film adaptations. The transfer from literary text to film has been termed “intersemiotic translation”. This oft-quoted notion was coined by Roman Jakobson in 1959 in his seminal article ‘On Linguistic Aspects of Translation’.3 However, while, theoretically, the existence of intersemiotic translation seems widely accepted in translation studies, following Jakobson’s tripartite division into intralingual, interlingual and intersemiotic translation, in practice very few studies are devoted to this subject. One explanation for this lack of attention may be that, although many scholars agree on the need to have a broader definition of translation, a narrow conceptualization of it still prevails. This book maintains that the transfer from literary text to film can and should be considered translation proper, if we agree that translation is interpretation, transformation, manipulation, appropriation, rewriting or refraction of the source text, for a target context, language and culture. Moreover, the application of research in translation studies to the analysis of transfers from text to screen might prove useful. The proposal to consider film adaptations as translations is in line with recent research in translation studies and semiotics. Scholars such as Patrick Cattrysse (1992; 1997; 2000), Joy Sisley (2000) and a group of researchers in Italy have addressed the relationship between literature and cinema as translation, exploring the mechanisms of the transfer from word to image (see Bussi and Salmon Kovarski 1996; Dusi and Nergaard 2000; Vanoye 2000; Fabbri 2000 in particular). According to Nicola Dusi, transposing a text from page to screen highlights what happens

25

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

in every act of translation: the meaning of the source text is expanded through interpretation. As he puts it: il processo di trasposizione mette semplicemente in evidenza ciò che ogni traduzione compie rispetto al testo di partenza, proprio se la consideriamo come un processo interpretativo posto su livelli testuali differenti, processo in cui vi è un continuo accrescimento del senso rispetto al primo testo (2000: 30-31). (The process of transposition simply highlights what every translation does to the source text, if translation is seen as an interpretive process which takes place at different textual levels and in which each interpretation adds meaning to the original text.)

Some scholars in film studies have also suggested that we think of film adaptations in terms of translation. For example, Robert Stam (2000: 62), argues that “the trope of adaptation as translation suggests a principled effort of intersemiotic transposition, with the inevitable losses and gains typical of any translation.” In Shakespeare studies, Jack Jorgens (1977: 24) has talked about film adaptation as translation, observing that “we study a translation (and in a sense all Shakespeare films are translations) as a creative attempt to recast and reimage a work conceived in a different language and for a different culture.” It might also be argued that the modifier “intersemiotic” is unnecessary, because all translation implies choices which may be based on codes which are not linguistic. As Cattrysse points out: saying that translation represents a merely interlingual-intrasemiotic activity ignores the fact that translations generally (always?) involve meanings expressed in supplementary or surrounding codes such as paralinguistic, narrative, social, culture [sic], literary, filmic and other levels of codes. Translations may have to replace one word by another word for other than linguistic reasons (2000: 255).

This book seeks to demonstrate that what happens in a translation from literary text to film is not only a matter of what can be transferred to the new medium, but it is the result of choices dictated by the adapter’s interpretation of the play, and his/her ideology. Filmmakers in fact might want to change or delete elements of the source text for specific ideological purposes. Looking at similarities and differences between text and film on various levels, adopting a target-oriented approach, inserting the analysis in the broader context of the target culture, provides a more exhaustive and enlightening analysis. The play Romeo and Juliet and its translations into film are analysed by examining which passages are cut, changed, what additions made, trying to understand why this happens (whether for ideological, cultural, or media reasons). The book will study the relationship between source text and target culture, the meaning of the Shakespearean text in contemporary Italy, and examine the relationships that films have with other films. By exploring the transfer of the play to stage and screen, the book also 26

Introduction

intersects with another young and thriving area of research, the discipline of adaptation studies, which is concerned with the conversion of texts into film, theatre or other media (see Stam 2005, Stam and Raengo 2005; Hutcheon 2006; Hutcheon with O’Flynn 2013; Sanders 2006; the journals Adaptation and Journal of Adaptation in Film and Performance; Albrecht-Crane and Cutchins 2010; Krebs 2012, 2013; Raw 2012 among others). Chapter One explores controversial issues involved in the transposition of plays from page to page, stage, and screen. Discussion focuses on differences between the media and on the similarity of critical discourses on the translation of plays and on film adaptations, highlighting how they share a common problematic relationship with the literary source text. Debates on ‘faithfulness’ and on the term ‘adaptation’, problems of defining the difference between ‘translation’ proper and ‘adaptation’, or between ‘film adaptation’ proper and ‘offshoot’, the dual nature of the play, notions of ‘speakability’ and ‘performability’ will be investigated in order to show how the terminology adopted is often vague, and cannot account for what actually takes place in the translation process. The chapter argues that the context of production, the different conventions and requirements of literature, theatre and cinema, and the function of the target text within the target culture require different translation strategies. A target-oriented, functional approach to the study of translations of plays is suggested. Furthermore, the chapter puts forward an analytical framework proposed by Cattrysse for the analysis of films, and proposes its adoption in the case studies. The translation and reception of Romeo and Juliet needs to be analysed in the context of Shakespeare studies in Italy, as translation strategies are influenced by the target culture and by the norms governing the literary, theatrical and cinematic systems. Therefore chapters Two and Three will provide a historical overview of the appropriation and reception of Shakespeare in general and of this particular play in Italy. The influence of literary and theatrical practices, Shakespeare studies and perceptions of Shakespeare will be highlighted, as well as changing attitudes to translation and performance. The chapters look at a range of materials such as introductions to collected works and to translations, research in Shakespeare studies, translations as well as performances, playscripts, reviews, photos and comments made by directors since they help to understand the target cultural context and they throw light on Italy’s approach to Shakespeare and to translation. In particular, Chapter Two explores the origins of the story of the lovers, and the beginnings of Shakespeare in Italy. The chapter traces the journey of the story from its Italian beginnings to Shakespeare and back to its place of origin, through a process of translation/rewriting, across linguistic and cultural boundaries, from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century. The first part 27

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

of the chapter explores the native Italian tradition of the story, describing and analysing the Italian novelle, and highlighting the process through which these reached Shakespeare via intermediate rewritings. The second part of the chapter seeks to understand when and how Shakespeare’s works entered Italian culture and how they were appropriated by the literary and theatrical systems. Italy’s approach to Shakespeare from the eighteenth to the nineteenth century is explored. The chapter seeks to demonstrate that translation played a central role in the process of canonization of Shakespeare and his works, and to show how translation was never ‘neutral’. The last part of the chapter examines the reception of Romeo and Juliet in Italy in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, investigating how the play was translated for the page and the stage. By so doing, the analysis explores the possible factors influencing the rewriting process. Chapter Three takes as its subject the reception of Romeo and Juliet in twentieth-century Italy, and seeks to identify trends in how the play was translated for the page and interpreted in production. Through an analysis of critical studies, translations for the page and theatre productions, the chapter explores the emergence of new approaches to the play and investigates whether and how these influenced translation choices. In particular, the analysis of a number of translations for the page will identify extra-linguistic factors that might have affected translation. Chapter Four investigates what happens when the English play is translated into Italian and transposed on stage, becoming part of the mise en scène. The chapter analyses four productions that interpret and treat Shakespeare’s text differently, aiming to throw light on the process of (re)appropriation and rewriting involved in transposing Romeo and Juliet to the Italian stage. The source text in these cases undergoes a multiple manipulation, as the rewriters in the theatre are the translator, the director as well as actors. The chapter analyses the influence of the medium and of the target culture, exploring in particular how the directors’ interpretations of the play and their aims in staging it have affected translation strategies and the rewriting process. Analysis will show how translation for the stage involves cuts, additions and alterations that are due at least partly to the needs of the theatre but also, and especially, to directorial view. The chapter investigates, through the case studies, the link between directorial view and translation, and reveals how the transfer from the English page to the contemporary Italian stage complicates the relation between source and target text, which might pass through other texts as well, and through tradition. Chapter Five explores the process of translation when the Shakespearean play is rewritten for the screen, considering how media differences and the cinematic context affect the transposition and how Italian directors have adapted the source text. Discussion focuses on four films: Renato Castellani’s 28

Introduction

Giulietta e Romeo/Romeo and Juliet (1954), Riccardo Freda’s Romeo e Giulietta/Los amantes de Verona (1964), Franco Zeffirelli’s Romeo e Giulietta/Romeo and Juliet (1968) and Roberta Torre’s Sud Side Stori (2000). As the film medium requires less dialogue, the translation from page to screen inevitably involves cuts and alterations. However, the chapter highlights how manipulation of the source text is not only due to media differences and the conventions of the cinema, shedding light on other forces that come into play. Adopting an analytical framework proposed by Cattrysse (1992; 1997; 2000), the chapter investigates how the trends in production identified in Chapter Three may affect the rewriting for the cinema, and how the directors’ interpretations influence their translation choices and their editing of the text. Moreover, analysis will identify other models that may have influenced the making of the films. In light of these case studies, the book argues that translation is a means through which Italian culture (re)appropriates the story of the lovers and refashions it according to its own poetics, ideology and needs, investing it with new meanings, creating new images of it. Rather than being a simple linear transition from source to target text, the translation of Romeo and Juliet is a complex process of rewriting by the receiving culture, which is conditioned by several extralinguistic and extratextual factors and might make reference to more than one source model. Actual translation practices for the stage and the screen amplify this manipulatory process and blur the boundaries of translation. At the same time, the study of translations of Romeo and Juliet for page, stage and screen illuminates the ways in which our culture interprets Shakespeare’s play and creates new images of it.  

1 See also Eagleton 1986; Dollimore and Sinfield 1986; Taylor 1989; Marsden 1991; Hawkes 1996; Hodgdon 1998; Bate and Sénéchal 2007. On the Shakespeare myth see Holderness 1988; 2001. 2 In discussing the quartos as different versions of Romeo and Juliet, Levenson highlights the play’s instability and “mobility” (Levenson/Shakespeare 2000: 103-125), while according to Lehmann the play is “arguably, the most textually complex play in the Shakespeare canon” (2010: 3), also due to its “incorregible multiplicities” (2010: 44). 3 Jakobson identified three types of translation: intralingual translation, which interprets a text through rewording, using words from the same language; interlingual translation, which consists of an interpretation of verbal signs of one language by means of signs of another language; and intersemiotic translation, whereby a verbal text is interpreted and expressed through a nonverbal sign system (Jakobson 2000: 114).

29

Chapter 1: Transposing Drama to Page, Stage and Screen Romeo and Juliet is a play, i.e., a text written with a performance in mind and aimed at becoming part of a mise en scène. This specific nature of drama, as opposed to other types of texts, poses a series of complexities for translation. Indeed, a play can be viewed either as a text on the page, and thus treated as literature, following certain rules belonging to the literary system, or as a script for performance, so that different needs may arise since the theatrical system is governed by distinct rules. Translating a dramatic text for the stage and transferring it to the screen renders the relationship between source and target text more complex, because a change of medium is involved, and the process of rewriting which is inherent in all translation becomes amplified. This is also due to the fact that in theatre and cinema the source written text may be manipulated by a number of rewriters. This chapter discusses the main issues regarding the transposition of a play from page to page, stage and screen, highlighting how critical studies on drama translation and on film adaptation adopt a similar terminology, which is often vague. The recurrence of the issue of fidelity in criticism on film adaptations and in translation studies, as well as the attempts to define borders between translation and adaptation, or film adaptation proper and offshoot, point out that the two fields share a common problem: the relationship with the source literary text. The chapter suggests that translations for page, stage and screen follow different strategies which are determined by the role that the target text has within the target culture, as the context of production strongly affects the treatment of the source text. 1. Media Differences and the Issue of Faithfulness Any analysis of the relationship between literature, theatre and cinema requires the consideration of differences between the media, of the distinct ways in which they create meaning, and of the codes they use. Central to any discussion of the transfer from literary text to stage or screen is the recognition that in a theatre performance and in a film various codes are merged. The medium of cinema has several means of signification available, some of which it shares with literature or with theatre, whereas others are cinema-specific. A novel or a play draw on the verbal sign system only, whereas a performance and a film convey meaning through a multiplicity of intertwined codes, such as the verbal, the visual, and the aural. In a film the images usually prevail over the words, and the verbal sign is only one among



Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

the various signifying systems, and not necessarily the fundamental one. As Stam puts it: each medium has its own specificity deriving from its respective materials of expression. The novel [or the play have] a single material of expression, the written word, whereas the film has at least five tracks: moving photographic image, phonetic sound, music, noises, and written materials (2000: 59).

In both theatre and cinema aural signs (words spoken by actors, their voices, music and other sounds) and visual signs such as costumes, setting, lighting, make-up combine in order to provide meaning. As a result, due to the peculiarities of each medium, in the transfer from literary text to theatre and to film there may be a need to make adjustments, to cut parts of the text and to adapt the source text for the new audience. Because of the inherent divergences between literature and cinema, as pointed out by Ginette Vincendeau (2001: xi), “some have argued that the very comparison of a film with its literary source is meaningless.” However, despite a general acknowledgement that the two media are intrinsically dissimilar, that cinematic codes should be taken into account when a text is transposed to the screen, and despite the immense variety of film adaptations, much critical discourse on film adaptation up to the first decade of the twenty-first century tended to compare the film with its literary source in terms of faithfulness. Appraisal of film adaptations often consisted of comments that the film was not as good as the book, or did not manage to express the spirit of the original, or that the words of the author were too drastically cut, or misinterpreted. James Naremore noted that: unfortunately, most discussions of adaptation in film can be summarized by a New Yorker cartoon that Alfred Hitchcock once described to François Truffaut: two goats are eating a pile of film cans, and one goat says to the other, ‘Personally, I liked the book better’ (2000: 2).

A film was often judged in terms of how faithful it was to its source. Several critics in film studies have pointed out this negative recurrence of the fidelity issue (see McFarlane 1996; 2000, 2007; Cartmell and Whelehan 1999, 2007; Whelehan 1999; Cartmell 2010; Naremore 2000; Stam 2000, 2005: Stam and Raengo 2004, 2005 among others). For instance, Vincendeau has argued that: despite the immense variety of possible relationships between a source book and its film adaptation, fidelity stubbornly remains the critical criterion, as can be found both in general literature on the subject and among articles and reviews in this book. Even Sight and Sound authors are not immune to the occasional ‘film is not as good as the book’ attitude (2001: XIII).

32

Transposing Drama to Page, Stage and Screen

In 2000, Stam pointed out that the language of criticism dealing with the film adaptation of novels has often been profoundly moralistic, awash in terms such as infidelity, betrayal, deformation, violation, vulgarization, and desecration, each accusation carrying its specific charge of outraged negativity (2000: 54).

This type of criticism about film adaptations is very similar to traditional normative and linguistic-based debates on translation, which are source-text oriented and judge translations on the basis of criteria of equivalence and faithfulness. However, as highlighted in the introduction, translation studies scholars have taken issue with the notion of faithfulness, and consider translations as creative interpretations of the source text. Scholars such as Octavio Paz (1992) and Jacques Derrida (1985) have described translation as a creative process and one which involves difference more than sameness, hence rejecting the criterion of ‘faithfulness’ and the view of translation as a derivative and inferior practice. For instance, according to Paz each text is already a translation of other texts, as “language itself, in its very essence, is already a translation.” At the same time “all texts are originals because each translation has its own distinctive character. Up to a point, each translation is a creation and thus constitutes a unique text” (Paz 1992: 154). Deconstructionists have taught us to look at translation in terms of difference and creativity, rather than in terms of faithful reproduction. As Edwin Gentzler puts it, “instead of translations fixing the same meaning, translations can also allow further room for play, extend boundaries, and open up new avenues for further difference” (2001: 160-161). Derrida sees translation as a process constructing difference, modifying and supplementing the original. He also suggests the use of the word ‘transformation’ instead of translation, as [d]ifference is never pure, no more so is translation, and for the notion of translation we would have to substitute a notion of transformation: a regulated transformation of one language by another, of one text by another. We will never have, and in fact have never had, to do with some “transport” of pure signifieds from one language to another, or within one and the same language, that the signifying instrument would leave virgin and untouched (1981: 20).

Derrida’s view suggests that translation cannot be judged in terms of faithfulness, but instead should be considered a transformative process through which languages and cultures communicate and relate to one another. Since there is no fixed meaning of a text, and no such thing as

33

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

faithfulness, all translation is interpretation and therefore manipulation, transformation, transmutation. In film studies a similar criticism of faithfulness has emerged. For instance, in 1996 Brian McFarlane argued that “the fidelity approach seems a doomed enterprise and fidelity criticism unilluminating” (1996: 9) because critics who judge a film adaptation as faithful or unfaithful to a literary text are actually comparing the film with the reading and the image they had created in their own minds. He concluded that “fidelity […] cannot profitably be used as an evaluative criterion; it can be no more than a descriptive term to designate loosely a certain kind of adaptation” (1996: 166). Recent research on film adaptation, especially in the field of adaptation studies, is also attempting to avoid insistence on the fidelity issue and to compare literature and films with a more positive view of films (see McFarlane 2000, 2007; Cartmell and Whelehan 1999, 2007; Whelehan 1999; Cartmell 2010; Naremore 2000; Stam 2000, 2005: Stam and Raengo 2004, 2005; Sanders 2006; Hutcheon 2006, Hutcheon with O’Flynn 2013; Raw 2012; the journals Adaptation and Journal of Adaptation in Film and Performance, and articles in the Literature/Film Quarterly Journal among others). As Vincendeau (2001: xii) has remarked, critics of film adaptations “show themselves specially attuned to the filmic elements of the adaptations: décor, camerawork, costume, performance.” They focus on the film itself, on cinematic language, its codes and ways of creating meaning, on the role of intertextuality and of directors, trying to appraise the films rather than criticise their lack of faithfulness. Deborah Cartmell and Imelda Whelehan have noted that: most recent studies of adaptation have thrown water on the reflected light or ‘not as good as the book’ approach, an approach that has, for far too long, […], dogged the field of literature on screen studies by a narrow one-sidedness that assumes adaptations are merely cheap imitations of a platonic ideal that is, by its very nature, inimitable (2007: 3).

For Stam (2000: 55) the notion of fidelity is “questionable”, it is an impossible concept as no literary text has a closed structure and a core meaning, and therefore can generate infinite readings: a single novelistic text comprises a series of verbal signals that can generate a plethora of possible readings, including even readings of the narrative itself. The literary text is not a closed, but an open structure (or, better, structuration, as the later Barthes would have it) to be reworked by a boundless context. The text feeds on and is fed into an infinitely permutating intertext, which is seen through ever-shifting grids of interpretation (2000: 57).

Stam refers to the way deconstructionists and post-structuralists have taught us to look at texts. He opposes “a narrow, judgemental approach” based on 34

Transposing Drama to Page, Stage and Screen

fidelity and regards film adaptations as “readings”, “interpretations” and “rewritings” that “get caught up in the ongoing whirl of intertextual reference and transformation” (2005: 5). Fidelity is an unstable, loose category that cannot be used as a criterion to analyse the relationship between literary text and film, just as it cannot be used as a yardstick for interlingual translations. The film is the director’s reading of the novel, an interpretation, a translation that as such implies interpretation, manipulation and transformation. As Morris Beja suggested, as far back as 1979, a film adaptation can bring new elements, a new life to a book, because it opens it up to new interpretations: the resulting film is then not a betrayal and not a copy, not an illustration and not a departure. It is a work of art that relates to the book from which it derives and yet is also independent, an artistic achievement that is in some mysterious way the ‘same’ as the book but also something other: perhaps something less but perhaps something more as well (1979: 88).

Recent research carried out in Shakespeare studies also seems to be more interested in the value of Shakespeare films as films, as works of art worthy of being investigated for their cinematic qualities, in their own specificities, avoiding criteria of fidelity. Richard Burt and Linda Boose (1997; 2003), for example, have highlighted the need to avoid an analysis of texts and films in terms of faithfulness of the film to the original play: since recent textual work has compelled Shakespearean scholarship to divest itself of the belief that ‘the text’ has any knowable original or is itself a stable entity, to judge a film based on a Shakespeare play according to how closely or how well it adheres to the (presumed) Shakespeare text is to invoke a criterion implicitly dependent on a referent no longer there (1997: 1).

Instead, they propose “a more cinematic model in which a Shakespeare film is examined as an object worthy of critical attention in its own right” (2003: 1). The collection The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film (Jackson 2000) also tends to look at the films as artistic achievements in themselves; in terms of the economics of the entertainment industry; in relation to film and dramatic genre; in the context of studies of the director as auteur; and with regard to broader issues of cultural politics (2000: xiii).

This testifies to a recent tendency to investigate films based on Shakespeare’s plays in their own context of production, as works of art and as interpretations of Shakespeare, rather than in terms of degrees of faithfulness to the original. The spread and success of film adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays is testified by several studies devoted exclusively to this subject, and 35

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

the emerging of a “Shakespeare on film studies” discipline (see, for instance, Manvell 1971; Jorgens 1977; Davies 1988; Donaldson 1990; Davies and Wells 1994; Boose and Burt 1997, 2003; Rothwell 1999a; Jackson 2000, 2007; Brode 2000; Cartmell 2000; Burnett and Wray 2000, 2006; Burt 2007; Burnett 2013; Holderness 2002; Hatchuel 2004; Jackson 2007; Lehmann and Starks 2001; Cartelli and Rowe 2007; journal issues on Shakespearean films in Literature/Film Quarterly and Shakespeare Quarterly, articles in the journals Shakespeare and Shakespeare Survey; the online Shakespeare Journal Borrowers and Lenders: www.borrowers.uga.edu; among others). The above comments show how translation studies, film studies, adaptation studies, Shakespeare studies and Shakespeare on film studies are linked by similar discourses on the relationship with the source literary text and an analogous tendency to oppose to the narrow and judgemental notion of fidelity. Critical discourses in these fields also share the use of the term adaptation, which deserves attention before further discussion. 2. Adaptation The term adaptation is often adopted when talking about translation, the transposition of plays to the theatre, or of literary texts to the screen. However, it is a much debated term, and a vague concept, which lacks a definition accepted by most practitioners. There are different uses and understandings of the term, as the meaning of the word changes depending on the context in which it is used, and by whom. In translation studies, the term adaptation is related to the concept of faithfulness and to notions of “speakability” or “performability”. It is usually adopted to describe free translations, or translations that make adjustments to or deviate from the source text, or from an ideal model of faithfulness – especially when talking about a theatre performance or a translation for the stage – or as a completely different product from translation, which uses the source text only partially, and renders it a new work. However, it is difficult to define clear borders between translation and adaptation, and there is no agreement on where a translation stops, and an adaptation begins, nor do we have clear definitions of the two entities. Bassnett (1998a), for instance, has highlighted the lack of clarity of the notion of translation itself by looking at extreme cases of target texts which are “problematic types of ‘translation’”, such as pseudotranslations, self-translations, “texts that claim to be translated from a non-existent source”, and travel writing (1998a: 38). The cases of the Italian translation of James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake, as well as of the English and French versions of Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot show how, if it is the author himself who translates, rewriting the source text, 36

Transposing Drama to Page, Stage and Screen

expanding meanings and possibilities, then translation becomes and is accepted as an act of freedom and creativity. The category of translation is still too vague, and it is one of the causes for the endless and unhelpful discussions about faithfulness, and the difference between translation, adaptation and version (Bassnett 1998a). Moreover, if translation is perceived as a creative interpretative act which appropriates the source text, and an act of rewriting, surely every translation adapts the source text. Georges L. Bastin (1998: 6) stresses the general view of historians and scholars of translation, who “take a negative view of adaptation, dismissing the phenomenon as distortion, falsification or censorship”. Debates on adaptation and translation abound, although there is still a lack of clear, unambiguous definitions of the concepts and the boundaries between the two are blurred (see Johnston 1996: 8; Bastin 1998; Tornqvist 1991; Bolt 1996: 258; Bassnett 1985, 2011a; Farrell 1996, Brisset 1996; Aaltonen 2000; Taviano 2005; Zatlin 2005; Snell-Hornby 2007; Perteghella 2008; Krebs and Minier 2009; Krebs 2012, 2013). Bassnett (2011a: 40) summarises the translation/ adaptation debate as follows: The basis of the distinction seems to be the degree to which a text that has been rendered in another language diverges from the source: if it seems so close as to be recognisable, then it can be classified as a translation, but if it starts to move away from that source, then it has to be deemed an adaptation. The problem is, though, how close do you have to be, and how far away do you have to move before the labels change?

A positive definition of the practice of adaptation in theatre translation comes from Patrice Pavis, who states that “adapting means setting up meaning that is not self-evident, by facilitating its reception and comprehension, by intervening in the mediation between cultures and connections between cultures” (1992: 192). In this interpretation, adapting is a practice that can be applied by a translator in order to bridge the gap between two cultures, to make the source text get closer to the target audience. Adaptation is thus always necessary when translating a play for a new socio-cultural context and audience. Pavis argues that: the adapter can be the linguistic translator of the text as well as the director, designer, actor, or all those who have a mediating function, adapting, transforming, modifying, borrowing, appropriating source text and culture for a target culture audience. All these artists necessarily adapt the source culture to the target culture, i.e. mediate or act as a bridge between two poles (1992: 192).

Ranjit Bolt (1996: 258) also critiques the distinction between translation and adaptation by stressing the vagueness of the notion of faithfulness. He opts for the use of terms such as ‘rendering’, ‘version’, ‘adaptation’, ‘transformation’ and ‘transposition’ as synonyms, because translation is 37

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

necessarily a transformation. Krebs (2012) analyses recent definitions of adaptation proposed by Julie Sanders (2006) and Manuela Perteghella (2008), highlighting how similar they are to current notions of translation as interpretation and rewriting. Krebs thus argues that it is impossible and not even desirable to draw an unambiguous distinction between translation and adaptation processes as well as products in a theatrical context (see also Krebs and Minier 2009: 66-67; Krebs 2013). Because the boundaries between translation and adaptation are thin, some scholars prefer to avoid using the term adaptation and opt for calling translation all types of manipulative and transformative processes in the transfer from source to target text, in the belief that the notion of translation can be stretched to cover all of them. In her analysis of published translations and theatre productions of foreign plays in Québec, Annie Brisset explains that “translation, in our corpus, does not necessarily imply translation of a whole work” but also “translation of only certain parts; [while] other parts will vanish or undergo various types of alteration” (1996: 12). In the latter case we can have “re-actualisation”, which transposes the spatial and temporal elements of the play, while keeping the structure, content, and sequence of dialogue of the source text; and “imitation”, which adapts the source text to the target context, rearranging material, adding new parts, and therefore creating a completely new work, where the source text “survives only as an intertext” (1996: 12). Brisset calls upon Julia Kristeva’s notion of intertextuality (1969, 1970), according to which all texts are linked to previous ones so that in each text we can find and read references to earlier ones. In a similar vein, Aaltonen points out that “theatre translation […] also comprises imitations which, while openly admitting that they are creating a new play around some idea or concept from the foreign work, still rely on the recognised intertextuality between the two” (2000: 4). She regards adaptation as a type of translation, as the strategies employed in theatre translation do not always follow the source text carefully, but involve omissions, additions and divergences. As theatre translation “as a genre traditionally employs adaptation”, the exclusion of such target texts “would have left a large and important part of translation work in the theatre outside analysis” (Aaltonen 2000: 4). Similarly, as will be shown in this book, most Italian translations made for the stage imply cuts, and both early Italian translations of Shakespeare and more recent ones for the stage considerably rewrite the source text, significantly cut it, or make omissions and additions. Moreover, there are cases in which Shakespeare’s play is used only as an intertext to be combined with other texts. For instance, if we look at all the performances of Shakespeare’s plays in Italy in the season 1999/2000, we find that, according to a survey by SIAE (Italian Society of Authors and Publishers), 40 38

Transposing Drama to Page, Stage and Screen

productions were staged by different theatre companies. Of these, 21 mention “translated by”, whereas for 19 the director is considered the author of the play, “from Shakespeare”. These productions are called “adaptations”, and do not acknowledge which sources (i.e., translations), other than Shakespeare’s text, were used. Of the 21 that admit using a translation, 14 have the director as author and translator whereas only 7 state the name of the translator. The above example gives us an idea of the variety of practices in contemporary Italian theatre, and it confirms that when a play is transferred to the target stage multiple manipulation takes place. The interlingual translation of the play is the first of a series of interpretative layers that constitute a theatre performance. If the translation is commissioned specifically to a translator, or a certain amount of a published translation is used, the translator’s name is acknowledged, otherwise the degree of adjusting, cutting and pasting by the director and company allows for more freedom, and the target text(s) used might not even be mentioned. The transfer of Shakespeare’s plays to the Italian stage thus seems to imply a series of different approaches to the source text, a variety of practices and a complex process of rewriting and manipulation. Since we see translation as a process of negotiation, manipulation and rewriting, which always implies a transformation of the original, a clear-cut distinction between translation and adaptation seems impossible and unnecessary to make, as all translation involves adaptation. Following this view, we suggest that the term translation, seen as rewriting and creative interpretation, should be used to refer to a variety of diverse relationships between source and target text(s), and cultures, so that it can “encompass all forms of crosscultural and intracultural negotiation” (Hermans 2002: 1). Rather than labelling and categorizing products, this book aims to understand what actually takes place in the transposition of plays from culture to culture. We suggest that all types of translations/rewritings, also so-called adaptations, need to be analysed and are worthy of attention, in order to explore the fortune of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet in Italy and to understand how it is perceived, appropriated and received in Italian culture. By examining the various strategies and types of manipulative processes that are at work in a series of specific case studies, this book will highlight how different factors in the target context influence translation and practices. The term adaptation is also used in film and Shakespeare studies, where a similar terminological debate arises. For instance, Graham Holderness considers West Side Story an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet, and explains that: by ‘adaptation’ we would normally understand a version of the story which did not simply reproduce Shakespeare’s text and Shakespeare’s words, but developed the basic story into a 39

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet more or less different treatment: transferring the action to a different time and place; substituting a modern script or screenplay for the Elizabethan text; translating the play into a new form, such as the popular musical. An adaptation, we might say, is formed by composing variations on a theme (2002: 156).

Courtney Lehmann similarly regards West Side Story as “the first truly phenomenal adaptation of Romeo and Juliet” (2010: 103), even if it does not use Shakespeare’s words. However, not everybody would agree in calling the musical an adaptation of the play. Indeed, she admits that “of course, there is some argument as to whether or not a Shakespeare film that retains none of Shakespeare’s language still ‘counts’ as an adaptation” (2010: 103). Nevertheless, according to Lehmann, even when a film modelled on Romeo and Juliet resists the retention of Shakespeare’s language, this should not necessarily be grounds for discounting it as an adaptation – provided the film establishes an equivalent means of rendering the imminent and implacable force of tragic inevitability (2010: 104-105).

Other critics would argue that a film adaptation is a more “faithful” or “straight” film version of a literary text, whereas West Side Story is a free rendering of Romeo and Juliet, and therefore not adaptation proper, but an offshoot (also called spin-off or appropriation). For instance, Tony Howard (2000) considers the musical an “offshoot” of the play, as it does refer to the literary text, but loosely, only as raw material on which to base a new work, and it does not use Shakespeare’s words. Howard defines “Shakespeare’s cinematic offshoots” as “a vast terrain of cinematic appropriation”, of “‘free’ Shakespearean film”, in which Shakespeare’s plays function “as myths and sources” and their plots are raw material for creating films which are different from “orthodox Shakespearean film” (2000: 295-296). Although what “orthodox Shakespearean film” means might be subject to debate, it seems to refer here to films whose aim is to follow the plays closely. Offshoots would thus be films which clearly do not claim to represent the plays in their entirety but are inspired by them, and exploit the plays’ status as classic texts and “mythic resonance”.1 This approach recalls the practice in the theatre described above, in which the source play is used as an intertext from which to quote or refer to. Russell Jackson suggests that “offshoots” are “films, like Shakespeare in Love, that draw on Shakespearean material without claiming to perform any one of the plays” (2000: 2). This definition stresses the creative aspect of such films, and the fact that they do not present themselves as faithful reproductions of any of the plays but are inspired by them. However, there seems to be no general agreement on what is a “faithful”, “straight” adaptation and what a “loose” one, what is an adaptation proper, and what a freer appropriation or offshoot, and where the boundaries 40

Transposing Drama to Page, Stage and Screen

lie. The vagueness of this concept resembles discourses in theatre translation on translation and adaptation. Similarly to what happens in translation studies with the notion of translation, some scholars have proposed an extension of the concept of film adaptation. For example, Dudley Andrew has argued for a broadening of the notion of adaptation so that it would include all representational films, since they all adapt a previous conception (1984: 87). In Andrew’s view, the process of film adaptation is an interpretive process and “adaptation is the appropriation of a meaning from a prior text” (1984: 97). Linda Hutcheon (2006: xvi) has suggested that adaptations are “deliberate, announced, and extended revisitations of prior works” in different media, thereby broadening the boundaries of adaptation. Ramona Wray has pointed out that in recent Shakespeare-on-film studies […] a filmic text, however tangential its relation to the Bard, merits critical treatment. It is less the question ‘Is it Shakespeare?’ that matters as the proposition: ‘How, and with what ideological effects, is the ‘Shakespearean’ reconfigured?’ (2007: 273).

Drawing on Julie Sanders’ definitions of adaptation and appropriation (2006: 26), Burnett further suggests that it is largely irrelevant if a film is labelled an ‘adaptation’ (which ‘signals a relationship with an informing source text’) or an ‘appropriation’ (which ‘affects a more decisive journey away from the informing source’) [Sanders 2006: 26] […] what is needed, instead, is comprehension of how the category of the Shakespearean is mobilized. Or, to put the point in another way, discussion might more profitably centre on the ways in which Shakespeare, multiply understood and generously conceived, functions in terms of cultural (and economic) capital (2010: 58).

Such opinions show a striking similarity with the debates about translation versus adaptation in theatre translation studies discussed above, and with suggestions put forward in translation studies. As with interlingual translation, and adaptation, the distinction between a ‘proper’ film adaptation and an offshoot is not clear-cut, and labelling products does not help us to understand the ways in which the literary text is refashioned. Moreover, scholars agree that all types or rewritings for the screen, all the multifarious cinematic manifestations of literary texts, are worthy of attention. As highlighted by the above discussion, theatre translation studies, film studies, adaptation studies and Shakespeare on film studies adopt a similar terminology and have faced similar problems in defining their object of study. This might be due to the fact that they share a problematic relationship with the source literary text and because a change of medium is involved. Although the terminology is used differently, these fields share a common attempt to free themselves from the straitjacket of a narrow binary 41

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

relationship between source and target text and attempt to broaden their scope, analysing “texts” in their contexts, and several types of intertextual relations. Specific aspects of the play need to be taken into account in order to understand real translation practices and the vagueness of the terminology used. 3. The Dual Nature of the Play As a play Romeo and Juliet has a double life, in its written form and as part of a performance on stage. The dual nature of the play as a written literary text and as a script for performance, a pre-text for staging, puts the translator in front of what has been defined as an “impossible task”, since he/she is faced with different and contrasting needs. The translation of drama is thus particularly problematic, and approaches to the source text may vary considerably. There seem to be several ways of dealing with the duality of the play and its intersemiotic nature. According to Giorgio Melchiori a play is a script aimed at being integrated into a performance, and therefore it cannot be treated simply as literature. Translating a play is “translating of a ‘pre-text’, a pre-communication, which becomes communication when a whole series of other conditions are fulfilled, when other systems of signs, gestures, visual and otherwise, come into play” (1978: 20). Joseph Farrell has described the translator of plays as a “servant of many masters” (1996), because of the need to take into account different elements and needs belonging to source and target cultures, languages and societies (see also Lombardo 1987). An interesting view is that of Alessandro Serpieri, according to whom if we conceive drama as intended for a performance, as a linguistic text which needs to be able to “act” on stage, then it is necessary for a translator to take into consideration the three types of translation defined by Jakobson. Translating drama should thus involve an intralingual, an interlingual as well as an intersemiotic translation process (1989: 29; see also Serpieri 2004). Bassnett summarises the complex nature of a play and the challenge for translators as follows: a play is written as a kind of blueprint, a sort of precursor to its eventual performance, rather than as an end in itself. The task of the translator is therefore to render in another language something that is both a finished product – it is a play, after all – and a text that is a waystation on the journey to its eventual realisation on a stage. This means that the translated play is a rather extraordinary object, a double-blueprint as it were, existing as a translation both of a play written for performance in one context and of a text on the road to being performed in another (2011c: 108).

The above scholars and translators stress the dual nature of the dramatic text, which accounts for the greater part of the difficulty of translation, and the 42

Transposing Drama to Page, Stage and Screen

need for translators to try and mediate between page and stage, written text and performance, literature and theatre, reconciling their contrasting needs (see also Johnston 2004, 2011; Anderman 2005; Bigliazzi, Kofler and Ambrosi 2013). The vague notions of speakability and performability are also recurrent in discourses on the translation of plays. Several translators talk about these criteria as aims of their translation, especially when their target text is to be performed. Contemporary translators who work for publication also state that, as Shakespeare’s texts were aimed at the theatre, they need to take into consideration the requirements of performance, and therefore their texts need to be “speakable”. Speakability and performability are seen as qualities that a translation made for the theatre should possess. For instance, Ortrun Zuber argues that: the translator of a play should not merely translate words and their meanings but produce speakable and performable translations. In the process of translating a play, it is necessary for him to mentally direct, act and see the play at the same time (1980: 93).

Farrell also places speakability as the first requirement for a translation for the stage. According to him, a theatrical translator first of all needs to be able “to write dialogue which is speakable and has stage quality” (1996: 50). The language of a translation for the stage should be “intelligent and natural, be vivid and colourful, and be written with a rhythm which allows it to be spoken with ease and grace by an actor” (1996: 50). However, the criteria to judge what is “spoken with ease and grace” are subjective, since what is easy for one actor might not be so for another, and “stage quality” is also a vague notion. Scholar, translator and theatre critic Masolino D’Amico (2003: 19) also talks about performability and speakability as qualities a translation should have, while Phyllis Zatlin (2005: 1) argues that “to achieve speakable dialogue, theatrical translators can and do adapt.” Ideally, then, a translator should try to act out or read aloud the translation in order to verify whether the text “flows”, whether the lines can be delivered easily (on speakability and performability see also Espasa 2000 and Johnston 2004, 2011). However, the difference between a performable or speakable and a less performable or speakable text is difficult to assess. Moreover, as argued by Bassnett (1991; 1998b; 2011b), even if the notion were defined through a set of criteria, these would vary according to cultures and times, and therefore could not be definite. Mary Snell-Hornby has observed that “precise and at the same time generally accepted definitions will remain utopian” (2007: 110), while in their introduction to the book Theatre Translation in Performance Silvia Bigliazzi, Peter Kofler and Paola Ambrosi argue that “the concept of performability […] seems nowadays to have largely fallen into disgrace” 43

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

(2013: 8). Norms such as performability and speakability appear to have been introduced and be used by translators in order to justify strategies in translating for the stage that would otherwise be considered unacceptable, as being too deviant from the source text and from a perceived norm of faithfulness which prevails in criticism on translation (Bassnett 1998b: 96). As Aaltonen puts it: the persistence of concepts such as speakability, playability and performability can be read as generalised descriptions of translation strategies in the theatre which are seen to set them apart from the dominant view in the literary system of how translations should relate to their source texts. If a norm is the ‘faithful’ translation, […] a deviant approach to the source text, a ‘free’ translation, must be justified in some way, and the ‘requirements of the stage’ defined in terms of ‘playability’ and ‘speakability’ have provided this justification (2000: 43).

Although translators tend to adopt such terms, it goes without saying that translations cannot be judged by critics in terms of speakability and performability, as these notions are vague and subjective and tend to shift. The case studies discussed in this book show that the reasons why translations for the stage differ from translations for the page are often due to extralinguistic factors, and are linked to the role of the translated text within the target culture, to the specific needs and rules of literature and theatre, and requirements of editors or directors. Therefore, an understanding of the specific context of production, of the different medium, and of the function of the target text within the target culture, is of fundamental importance. 4. The Function of the Target Text Due to the duality of the play, we can distinguish between drama translation, or translation for the page ‫ ޤ‬which treats the play as literature ‫ ޤ‬and theatre translation, or translation for the stage ‫ ޤ‬which considers it as a pre-text for a performance, that needs to be delivered in the new mise en scéne. As Taviano points out, theatre translation refers to the translation of playtexts considered in the overall context of the theatrical and cultural system in which they are inserted. […] The term theatre translation indicates the emphasis put on the influence of diverse theatrical constraints, traditions and practices (2001: 24).

The role of the target text as an element of a specific mise en scène affects translation strategies, as the source text is treated differently if the target text is destined to become part of the target theatrical system. One helpful way of conceiving the translation of plays is to opt for a function-oriented view of translation. Delabastita and D’hulst (1993: 16-17) suggest that the way plays 44

Transposing Drama to Page, Stage and Screen

are translated is dependent on the function of the target text in the receiving culture, which may vary according to which part of the system the text is going to become part of. Different versions, which have different functions within the subsystems of the target culture, may coexist, and “they may enter into competition, but also co-exist peacefully in a situation of relative noncontact” (1993: 16). Similarly, this book shows that different translation strategies are adopted on the basis of the function of the text in the receiving culture and highlights such differences and their causes. As the following chapters show, in Italy there has always been a gap between translations made for the literary and the theatrical systems. The fact that theatre and literature have different norms and conventions, which require translators to follow dissimilar or divergent strategies and practices in order to insert their target texts in one or the other system, is also stressed by Aaltonen: the duality of dramatic texts as elements of both the literary and theatrical systems affects the ways in which foreign drama becomes integrated into the domestic systems, as both the theatrical and literary systems have their own norms and conventions which regulate textgeneration in them (2000: 38).

Brisset similarly suggests that the norms that govern translation strategies are “largely determined by the function that the texts to be translated must play in the target-literature polysystem, that is to say, by the place assigned to them by the institution” (1996: 6). The function of the target text within the target culture can thus account for divergences between translations for the page and the stage. For instance, the fact that the translated play needs to be transferred to the domestic stage and communicate to a contemporary audience can justify and guide translation strategies that take more liberties with the source text, thus deviating from a tendency towards faithfulness to the source text. Translations for the stage might accept a higher degree of cutting of the text compared to translations for the page. Analysis of the Italian productions of Romeo and Juliet considered in chapters Three and Four confirms that the full text has rarely, if ever, been fully performed, and that omission of lines or scenes is a common practice in theatre translation in Italy. Some contemporary translations for the stage also adopt a colloquial, sometimes vulgar, register, which would not be accepted in translations for the page. Colloquialisms are more likely to be tolerated or justified in translations for the theatre by the fact that the play needs to speak to contemporary people, or to communicate with a young audience, or because of a specific directorial view. For example, for his 2005 production of Romeo & Juliet for the Teatro Stabile di Torino, director Gabriele Vacis commissioned a new translation to the film director Marco Ponti, because Vacis wanted his actors to speak like contemporary Italians, and in particular 45

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

like the characters in Ponti’s films. As a result, in Vacis’ production Romeo, Mercutio, Benvolio as well as Juliet use contemporary colloquial expressions and swearwords. This confirms Carole-Anne Upton’s view that “the director’s treatment of the source text” and its “translation” are “complementary apects of the treatment preparatory to performance” (2011: 41). When the theatre translator collaborates with the director, translation can be seen “as something generated from a source text as part of a specific mise en scène” (Upton 2011: 43). In the theatre, the written text is thus likely to be cut, rewritten and adapted according to the needs of the stage and of a specific audience, to different conventions, but also and especially to the director’s interpretation. A functional approach is useful in discussing translations of plays. Reiß’ and Vermeer’s skopos theory (Vermeer 2000; Reiß and Vermeer 1984; see also Schaffner 1998 and Munday 2001) can help us understand why certain strategies are adopted. A positive element in this theory is that it explains differences in translations according to the function and the aim of the translator, and that it does not give fidelity a primary importance. Faithfulness to the source text is in fact explained as a matter of intertextual coherence with the source text, and it is seen as one among the various possible purposes of a translation. As highlighted by Christina Schaffner, the main point of this functional approach is that it is not the source text as such, or its effects on the source text recipient, or the function assigned to it by the author, that determines the translation process, as it is postulated by equivalence-based translation theories, but the prospective function or skopos of the target text as determined by the initiator’s, i.e. client’s, needs (1998: 236).

In this approach the status of source and target text changes, since the relation between the two is determined by the function of the latter. The skopos may be adaptation to the target culture, or fidelity to the source text, in order to make the target readers acquainted with the source text and culture. As observed by Schaffner: as a text, a translation is not primarily determined by a source text, but by its own skopos. This axiom provides a theoretical argument for describing translations in terms of original text production and against describing them in the more traditional terms of equivalence with another text in another language. […] Translation is a decision-making process. The criteria for the decisions are provided by the skopos, i.e. the concrete purpose and aims in a concrete translation commission (1998: 238).

The function which the translated text is supposed to perform in the target culture and the body that commissions the translation (i.e., the theatre director/company, or publisher) are fundamental in determining the 46

Transposing Drama to Page, Stage and Screen

translation strategies adopted. Hence an investigation of the target literary, theatrical and cinematic contexts and the function of the translated texts facilitates an understanding of the translation of plays, and of the way in which Italy appropriates and manipulates Shakespeare’s tragedy. I have adopted a target-oriented, functional approach to translation in the following chapters in order to analyse translations of Romeo and Juliet for page, stage, and screen. In particular, the case studies of contemporary translations for the stage in Chapter Four focus on how the director’s interpretation ‫ ޤ‬i.e., the interpretation of the person who commissions or uses the translation ‫ ޤ‬influences the way the source text is treated. Technical constraints and media differences obviously imply cuts, but the decisions about which parts to cut and alter, and which translation strategies to adopt, are ultimately due to the intentions of the director and the translator. 5. A Target-Oriented, Functional Approach for the Study of Films As regards the transposition from page to screen in particular, in Chapter Five we adopt a target-oriented, functional model developed by Cattrysse (1992; 1997; 2000). According to this scholar, a film adaptation is any film that presents itself, or is considered by critics or by the audience, as a film adaptation, and therefore functions as such (Cattrysse 1992: 59). If a director does not specify a relationship with a literary text, but such a relationship is identified by critics or reviewers, then the film is an adaptation. Such a definition, according to Cattrysse, “can help do away with the traditional, normative definition of film adaptation, based on postulated relations of adequacy between the adaptation and its so-called ‘original’” (1992: 59-60). This approach provides a way of including various types of films within the notion of film adaptation, avoiding the restrictive and normative criterion of faithfulness, and avoiding categorisations. It rejects a priori distinctions between what is and what is not adaptation, considering different types of films referring in some way to the literary text as film adaptations or translations from page to screen. The ways of referring to a source text, the ways of transferring a book to the screen, may be very varied, and influenced by a number of factors. If a film has the same title as a book, for example, it is inviting comparison with the literary text. If the title of the book is in the credits, or the filmmakers talk about it in interviews, they are soliciting a comparison. If a director considers his/her film an adaptation, it means that he/she believes there is a translational relation with the literary text, and it is important to understand the role of the literary text as a source for the film. Cattrysse’s framework for the analysis of film adaptations (1992; 1997; 2000) stems from the premise that since “a film adaptation functions firstly as 47

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

a film within a specific filmic context” (1997: 223), it does not limit itself to referring back only to its literary source. For a full investigation and understanding of the film adaptation, one should thus also look at other factors that may have influenced the production process: The story of such a book may have guided the film adaptation on the narratological level, but other aspects such as directing, staging, acting, setting, costume, lighting, photography, pictorial representation, music, etc. may well have been governed by other models and conventions which did not originate in the literary text and did not serve as a translation of any of its elements (1992: 61).

He therefore suggests that film adaptation should “be studied as a set of discursive (or communicational, or semiotic) practices, the production of which has been determined by various previous discursive practices and by its general historical context” (Cattrysse 1992: 61-62). A traditional, binary relationship between source literary text and film is hence discarded in favour of a “multilateral”, “star-like model” (Cattrysse 2000: 258) in which the target text, i.e., the film, is placed at the centre, and is surrounded by a series of source texts or “semiotic devices” that have affected its production and thus point towards it. As Cattrysse observes: by opening up the study of the film adaptation to all possible semiotic devices that may have functioned as models, the film adaptation is analysed in a larger context, and many new and interesting aspects of the adaptation come into focus. It is only when the literary source text is considered next to other possible models that its relative importance can be grasped, described, and explained. By studying the film adaptation in its larger context, it achieves a worthier status as an object of study, and it can be studied in a more complete way (1997: 229).

This method avoids judgemental comments and the issue of fidelity, and rather attempts to reveal the reasons for the differences between literary text and film. Such divergences from the main source text are regarded just as meaningful as the analogies. The role of the researcher is to identify the translational relationships of the film with the literary text and with other “semiotic modelling devices”, filmic and non-filmic, that may be explicit or hidden. As the literary text is one among various models for the target text, differences between the literary text and the film (modifications such as cuts, additions, substitutions, for instance) and an analysis of film codes may point towards other extra-literary factors that impinge on the film. Elements such as the director’s interpretation, the target audience, production practices in the cinema, norms and conventions in the cinema or in society, economic factors, all play a part in the process of transposition from a literary text into a film. 48

Transposing Drama to Page, Stage and Screen

One norm which plays an important role in the production of a film adaptation and competes with the literary text is the cinematic convention according to which a film should last approximately two hours. This constraint determines translation strategies, implying cuts to the dialogue, and maybe an omission of characters, scenes or actions. The norm of the average expected length of a film is generally followed in Shakespeare films. Jackson (2000: 17) observes that as the conventions of the cinema require that “the ‘ideal’ running time” of a film is “of less than two hours”, aiming at this ideal length, “most Shakespeare films have used no more than 25-30 per cent of the original text.” Another norm which is at work in the translation from literary text to film is that of “frequency”: “events which are narrated more than once in the novel are told only once in the movie” (Cattrysse 1997: 227). According to Cattrysse scholars should look “for markers which may give some clue of intertextual or intersystemic relations” (1992: 64). Other texts, films, previous works by the same director, or previous versions of the same story might function as sources for film adaptations. Scholars need to unravel these intertextual relations with previous works (on the role of intertextuality in films see Cartmell 1999: 27; Cartmell 2000a; Loehlin 2000: 124; Stam 2000: 64; Stam 2005; Boose and Burt 1997: 11; McFarlane 1996: 21; Sanders 2006 among others). Cartmell has noted that intertextuality “is inherent to all texts but perhaps the defining principle of any adaptation” (1999: 27). The role of intertextuality is especially evident in the case of various films referring to the same literary text, where all the previous adaptations constitute a large hypotext to which the filmmaker can refer (Stam 2000: 66). Examples of the validity of applying an approach that pays attention to intertextuality can be found in Baz Luhrmann’s film, where there is a variety of references to Zeffirelli’s version. For example, in Luhrmann’s version we see a female singer singing live during the Capulets’ ball, when Romeo and Juliet meet for the first time and fall in love. From a superficial analysis we could simply say that Luhrmann added the singer to make the moment more romantic, but if we consider the context of production, and other models that may have influenced the film, we identify the direct source for this scene: Zeffirelli’s film. Luhrmann borrows straight from Zeffirelli, in whose film a male singer sings the love theme, while Romeo and Juliet fall in love. However, Luhrmann chooses a black female singer for this role. This choice seems meaningful, since also the newsreader, who replaces the chorus, is a black woman and not a white man. Luhrmann uses Zeffirelli’s film to invert/subvert the roles and give more prominence to females, as well as to black people. Indeed, two other important characters, Mercutio and the Prince, are played by black actors. It might be added that Luhrmann also develops other themes which are hinted at in the Zeffirelli version, such as 49

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

homosexuality and incest and deceit. In fact Zeffirelli’s film contains homosexual overtones, which are rendered explicit in Luhrmann, as Mercutio dresses as a drag queen, and the friendship between Romeo and Mercutio is very close. Incest and cheating are also suggested by Zeffirelli, whereas Luhrmann shows Lady Capulet and Tybalt kissing during the ball. Chapter Five shows how the Italian film versions of Romeo and Juliet contain intertextual references to various sources. Another fundamental factor that affects the transposition from literary text to screen is obviously the director’s interpretation. Each film, like each performance and each translation, is a reading of the text, a re-interpretative act that is affected by its context of production. As observed by Lisa S. Starks: when transcribed from play script to screenplay, Shakespeare’s plays are transformed into filmic texts, as they are necessarily refashioned through conventions of film rather than those of stage performance. […] As significant artistic and cultural texts, these films literally transform, refashion, and proliferate novel ‘Shakespeares’ for a new generation. Each individual performance constitutes a re-interpretation, just as each critical reading becomes an enactment, a new performance (1997: 3).

The case studies in Chapter Five illustrate that how the director approaches the source text, what interpretation is given, strongly influences the treatment of the source text: cuts, additions and changes might be due to ideological reasons. An analysis on the level of language and narrative structures can show which parts are added or deleted, or changed, but the reasons for such changes may lie in the director’s reading and the audience the film is aimed at (for instance, the happy ending in Gnomeo and Juliet is justified by the fact that the animated film is for a young audience). Cattrysse’s “multilateral approach” thus offers a useful and comprehensive framework for the analysis of film adaptations of Romeo and Juliet, as it looks for the different factors that might have conditioned the translation process. Although it is by no means easy or straightforward to identify all the modelling source materials of a film, as not all models are explicit and some may remain hidden, this approach is adopted in Chapter Five to investigate how four Italian directors have translated Romeo and Juliet from page to screen. This chapter has explored differences between literature, theatre and cinema, the issue of faithfulness, the notion of adaptation, the problematic duality of the play and the importance of the function of the target text. In doing so, the use of similar discourses in translation studies, in film and adaptation studies and in Shakespeare on film studies has been highlighted. The chapter has also shown that the terminology often used is unhelpful in 50

Transposing Drama to Page, Stage and Screen

explaining how plays are translated and transferred from one culture and one medium into another. Since the aim of this book is not to determine degrees of faithfulness, nor to provide classifications, but to investigate the production and reception of Romeo and Juliet in Italy, different types of translations need to be taken into account, and a functional, target-oriented approach to translation is useful. The type of intertextuality between Shakespeare’s play and its different Italian translations is affected by the target context, by the function of the target text, the interpretation of the translator/director, the target system with its conventions and poetics, the medium, and the number of rewriters that are involved in the transfer of the text across cultures. Translations, stage representations and films are socially and historically constructed, and therefore an analysis of their production and reception cannot be separated from the cultural context which engenders them. The next chapter explores the Italian origins of the story of Romeo and Juliet, and follows its return to Italy through an investigation of Shakespeare’s reception in Italy, and rewritings for the page and stage up to the nineteenth century.  

1 In the case of Romeo and Juliet, a variety of versions have been generated. Some examples are: The Lovers of Verona/Les Amants de Vérone (dir. André Cayatte, 1949); Romanoff and Juliet (dir. Peter Ustinov, 1961); Tromeo and Juliet (dir. Lloyd Kaufman, 1996); Sud Side Stori (dir. Roberta Torre, 2000). For studies on film versions of the play see Howard (2000: 297-298); Rothwell (1999a:170-171); Brode (2000: 58-59); Lehmann 2010; Burnett (2013: 195-231); Kidnie 2000; Burt 1997, 1998, 2007. A useful resource on Romeo and Juliet films is the online database ‘International Database of Shakespeare on Film, TV and Radio’, hosted by the British Universities Film and Video Council (available at http://bufvc.ac.uk/Shakespeare).

51

Chapter 2: The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet This chapter explores the beginnings of the tale of Romeo and Juliet, by focussing on its two journeys across Europe (from Italy to England and back to Italy), from its origins up to the mid-nineteenth century. The first section analyses the Italian sources of the story and describes the way through which it reached Shakespeare. The second part of the chapter investigates the early reception of Shakespeare in Italy, while the third section concentrates on how Romeo and Juliet initially reached Italy, and how the play was approached by critics and translators. 1. The Native Italian Tradition of Romeo and Juliet The tale of Romeo and Juliet was originally an Italian story which had appeared in many forms, such as prose narratives, novelle, poems, plays, and circulated throughout the continent before it reached Shakespeare through translations and rewritings. The story first appeared in Italian in print in the fifteenth century and it underwent a process of rewriting, generated imitations and references in literature, also becoming popular in England during Shakespeare’s time. As Brian Gibbons (1998: 32) points out, “the story was well established in the 1580s and Shakespeare may have known it for a number of years before 1591, in more than one version, before he decided to dramatize it.” (see also Levenson/Shakespeare 2000: 15). Two English versions were particularly popular at the time: Arthur Brooke’s poem of 3020 lines entitled The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet written first in Italian by Bandell, and nowe in Englishe by Ar. Br. (1562) and William Painter’s prose story The goodly Hystory of the true, and constant Love between Rhomeo and Julietta, contained in his collection The Palace of Pleasure (1567). In order to construct his plays Shakespeare often used stories from diverse literary traditions along with familiar motifs that were known by his contemporaries.1 He then reinterpreted and rewrote such tales, shaping them to his own ends, taste and public. As Leah Scragg points out, it was contemporary practice in Shakespeare’s time to adapt the works of other writers, as “the creative process during the Renaissance was rooted in the concept of imitation” (2003: 373). Michele Marrapodi also stresses that the theatrical practices of the early modern stage were marked by the recycling of established narratives, genres and dramatic forms. Each Shakespearean text can be sited within a matrix of intertexts, revealing traces of authorial selection, transformation and transcodification of previous material (2000: 16).



Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

Romeo and Juliet was thus a form of rewriting and appropriation. As Levenson points out, “the novella changed as it crossed national borders, […] and modifications to the narrative’s content or style locate the Romeo and Juliet story at different cultural sites” (Levenson/Shakespeare 2000: 7). According to various studies (see, for instance, Bullough 1957; Prunster 2000; the English and Italian editions of the play, Mullini 1986) the first extant written version of the story appeared in 1476 by Masuccio Salernitano in his Novellino, a series of short stories or novella (Salernitano 1993, 2000). The main source is Novella XXXIII, which is set in Siena and has Mariotto and Ganozza as protagonists. Despite minor differences, the outline of the plot as we know it is already there. The two lovers are secretly married by a Friar, Mariotto is exiled for killing another man and is sent to Alexandria in Egypt. In the meantime, Ganozza’s father wants to marry her to another man. The girl goes to the Friar, who gives her a potion which will make her seem dead. Ganozza writes to Mariotto, telling him about her plan, then she drinks the potion and is found dead. After her burial, the Friar helps her out of the tomb and they go together to Alexandria, to meet her husband. Unfortunately, because of an attack by pirates the letter never reaches Mariotto, who believes she is dead and decides to go back to Siena, despite the danger of being caught and killed. Once in Siena, he tries to enter Ganozza’s tomb, but he is captured and executed. When Ganozza arrives in Siena and finds out about her husband’s death, she enters a convent and soon dies of grief. Furthermore, it seems that Masuccio Salernitano had already elaborated most of the motifs that are present in Romeo and Juliet. As demonstrated by Roberta Mullini (1986: 54-55), other novelle in the Novellino (especially XXXI, XXXV, XXXVII) contain elements that are fundamental in the story of the lovers as we know it. In particular, novella XXXI about Martina and Loisi includes themes such as the hatred between the families of two lovers; the presence of a servant helping them; the suicide of a girl beside her lover’s dead body, using the sword that killed him; the reconciliation of the families who bury the lovers in the same tomb. In novella XXXVII we find the element of two young men in love with the same woman, who are all buried together. Mullini (1986) argues that these novelle should also be considered as possible intertexts and sources of the various versions of the story of Romeo and Juliet, as this is created through the assembling of topoi and motifs that were popular in Italian Renaissance literature. The tale was later rewritten by Luigi Da Porto in 1530, in his Istoria novellamente ritrovata di due nobili amanti con la loro pietosa morte, intervenuta già nella città di Verona nel tempo del Signor Bartolomeo della Scala (Da Porto 1993, 2000).2 According to Mullini (1986: 54) Da Porto had read Masuccio Salernitano’s novella and inserted their elements into his new version. Levenson points out that Da Porto used Masuccio’s works and 54

The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet

intertwined them with some legendary material from Ovid’s account of Pyramus and Thisbe in the Metamorphoses, as well as from Giovanni Boccaccio’s Decameron, showing “originality […] through conflation of the various models” (Levenson/Shakespeare 2000: 4). In this version the names of the lovers, as well as those of their families (Montecchi and Cappelletti, after an interpretation of Dante, Purgatorio VI, 106-108) appear for the first time, and the story takes place in Verona. Da Porto presents the legend as historically true through the reference to Bartolomeo della Scala (Signore of Verona from 1301 and 1304) and the writer claims that the events happened in Verona. We also find the characters of “Frate Lorenzo” (Friar Laurence), “Marcuccio Guercio” (Mercutio), “Tebaldo Cappeletti” (Tybalt), and the “Conte di Lodrone” (Count Paris). Some elements of this novella deserve attention. The feud between the two rich noble families is mentioned at the beginning, although when the story starts they are going through a period of peace, which is interrupted only by Romeo’s killing of Tebaldo (Giulietta’s cousin). The characters of Marcuccio and Tebaldo are only briefly mentioned: the former appears at the ball, and Giulietta comments on his cold hands, whereas the latter, who is described as one of the most aggressive of the Capulets, appears during the fight in which he dies. The Count of Lodrone is mentioned as Giulietta’s future husband only after the lovers’ wedding, and does not go to the tomb at the end. Giulietta’s age is of particular interest, as it is stated that she is eighteen (much older than Shakespeare’s fourteen-year old Juliet), therefore of a good age to find a husband (see Da Porto 1993: 62). Her parents arrange her marriage after the lovers’ secret wedding (and Romeo’s banishment) because they think Giulietta cries because she wants a husband, since many of her friends are already married. When she refuses to get married and obey her father, he threatens to hit her. However, he does not appear as violent as he is in Shakespeare’s play. Moreover, once Giulietta seems happy again (because she has found a solution to her desperation through the sleeping potion) her parents wish they could cancel the wedding, but it is too late to change their minds, as they would lose face. Another interesting element in this version is that Romeo, after drinking the poison, still has time to see Giulietta awake and the two lovers talk to each other before Romeo dies. Then Giulietta commits suicide by holding her breath. As Romano (1993: 20) points out, this type of death is in line with literary tradition. The story ends with the reconciliation of the two families, an element we also find in Shakespeare’s play. Da Porto adds a comment on the faithfulness and strength of Giulietta, and accuses contemporary women of being fickle and unfaithful. The line of connection between Da Porto and Shakespeare passes through another Italian rewriting: the novella Giulietta e Romeo by Matteo Bandello, published in a collection of short stories in 1554 (Bandello 1993, 2000).3 55

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

Bandello adds Romeo’s first infatuation with another girl, Marcuccio’s role as entertainer among the group of friends, the ball where Romeo takes off his mask and is recognised by his enemies – who do not argue with him because he is a “handsome”, “well-mannered and courteous young man” (Bandello 2000: 53) –, and the balcony scene. All these motifs will recur in Shakespeare’s play. Bandello also introduces for the first time the name of Paris (called “Il Conte Paris di Lodrone”) and Giulietta’s fear of waking up in the tomb among dead bodies and ghosts. Other modifications are that pestilence prevents Friar John from delivering the letter to Romeo (as in Shakespeare’s play, while in the previous versions Friar John could not find Romeo), and that Romeo talks to Tebaldo’s dead body in the tomb. The lovers still exchange some words before Romeo’s death, and Giulietta dies holding her breath, while the Friar and Pietro – Romeo’s faithful servant – attempt to comfort her. A few observations should be made about the story in the Italian versions described above. First, the Italian tradition presents the story as historical fact. Both Da Porto and Bandello introduce it through a narrator who reports an incident that happened in the city, and which has become part of the collective memory of the community. The reference to Bartolomeo della Scala and his reign (1301-1304), the detailed descriptions of the city, of the funeral, of the Capulets’ sepulchre as well as the choice of two historical families contributed to making the story of the lovers seem real, although it has been proven that it was a legend (see Brognoligo 1904: 185-199; Gibbons/Shakespeare 1998: 34; Romano 1993: 11-12). This supposed historicity has helped the tourist industry in Verona, with the presence of Giulietta’s balcony and the lovers’ tomb, which have become sites of pilgrimage (Prunster 2000: 11). Secondly, the dominant Italian tradition appears to read the story as a domestic tragedy, as a tragedy of individuals where the focus is on the young lovers and their conflict with their families. What emerges is the tale of two unhappy young lovers, their emotions and actions, and the incidents that lead them towards death. As Levenson points out: Renaissance audiences took from the novellas a straightforward, melancholy tale of young love. Apparently readers perceived what the authors explicitly directed them to see: ‘The unfortunate death of two unhappy lovers one of whom died of poison, the other of grief, with a number of unforeseen events’4 (Levenson/Shakespeare 2000: 14-15).

The lovers are left alone, since secondary characters are given less importance, except for the Friar and Pietro – Romeo’s faithful servant in Bandello. Marcuccio appears briefly at the ball, Tebaldo enters the scene only when he is killed, and Paris is only mentioned after the lovers’ wedding. 56

The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet

Moreover, the political, public aspect of the tragedy is not stressed: the feud is mentioned at the beginning as a framework, but not described in detail. For instance, in Da Porto the conflict is almost over and there is a period of peace which is broken when Romeo kills Tybalt, while in Bandello the hostility is ongoing when the story starts, but it is not described. In both versions the families are reconciled in the end, although Bandello warns that peace will not last long (see Da Porto 1993: 79; Bandello 1993: 158). Another important element in the Italian tradition of the story is Giulietta’s age. In both Da Porto and Bandello she is eighteen (four years older than in Shakespeare), an age that is considered appropriate for marriage. She is also portrayed as determined and self-conscious: she takes the initiative at the ball and speaks to Romeo first, and she thinks of a marriage as a means of stopping the feud. As regards family relationships, we have the image of a patriarchal family where women are the chattels of men, who exchange them (from father to husband), and marriages are arranged for convenience. For example, in Da Porto and Bandello Giulietta is taken to a place outside Verona where she is “shown” to the Count, who decides whether to marry her or not. However, it is worth noting that marriage to the Count of Lodrone is arranged only because her mother thinks she is sad because her friends are married and she is not. This shows an attempt at communication by her mother and a positive attitude of Giulietta’s parents towards their daughter. The fact that the Capulets cannot change their minds because the marriage has already been arranged shows how social conventions and honour were stronger than personal feelings at the time. Daughters were considered as commodities, as goods to exchange to enhance one’s status and wealth. The story also provides an image of a patriarchal family which is challenged by the lovers’ behaviour. Lord Capulet arranges the marriage and expects total obedience from his daughter. Of particular interest is the depiction of the Friar in the Italian versions. He is generally seen as an ambiguous character, a learned man who is an expert in religion, philosophy, nature and magic, a public figure who is close to all the noble families of Verona also out of convenience, as he tries to obtain advantages and enhance his own position within the community. Masuccio Salernitano’s Friar is corrupt and helps the lovers because he hopes to get a reward, while Da Porto and Bandello highlight his ambiguity and hypocrisy in various instances. For example, in aiding the lovers he aims to end the feud between the families but he also thinks he might benefit from this good action, whereas when he gives Giulietta the sleeping potion he is scared of a scandal if discovered, but agrees to do it because he fears Romeo’s anger. However, he solicits Giulietta to lie, to promise not to reveal his involvement to anybody, and urges her to write a letter to Romeo (Da 57

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

Porto 1993: 65-66). The Friar appears more negative in Da Porto, since in the final scene, when questioned by Bartolomeo della Scala about why he was in the tomb, he initially lies, saying that he went to the sepulchre to pray for Giulietta, but then when he is discovered he tells the truth (Da Porto 1993: 78-79). On the other hand, Bandello’s Friar does not lie, but simply because it is Pietro, not him, who is questioned by della Scala. Another relevant difference from Shakespeare’s story is in the final scene. In the novelle the Friar cannot prevent Giulietta’s suicide because he does not realise what is happening: he is crying and trying to comfort her when she holds her breath and dies. However, on the whole, the Friar’s cowardice and hypocrisy are stressed on various occasions in all the Italian versions, much more than in Shakespeare. Another major difference from Shakespeare’s play and from Brooke’s poem is that in all the Italian sources the Friar’s long recapitulation of the events is absent (Mullini 1986: 58). Bandello’s version was translated and rewritten into French by Pierre Boaistuau in 1559, in the collection Histoires tragiques extraictes des oeuvres Italiens de Bandel, et mise en nostre langue francaise, par Pierre Boaistuau. His collection of short stories was extremely popular in France, as testified by its “twenty one editions in the space of some fifty years” (Prunster 2000: 6). In rewriting the tale, the French writer stressed different elements according to his own ideology and culture (Charlton 1939: 43-59). Thus, for example, as argued by Levenson, Boaistuau has a more negative view of contemporary values, his Verona is “darker” and the fights are described in more detail. According to her, “in this novella a dysfunctional society upsets domestic structure, the last unit of stability in a turbulent world” (Levenson/Shakespeare 2000: 8). A gloomy impression of society is enhanced by the introduction of a new character, the apothecary, who gets executed in the end. Moreover, the lovers are idealised, their death appears as a sacrifice to social disorder and the events are presented as determined by arbitrary fortune. As has been noted by some critics, Boaistuau introduced various changes to the Italian story (see Bullough 1957: 273-274; Gibbons/Shakespeare 1998: 36; Levenson/Shakespeare 2000: 7-8; Prunster 2000). It is Romeo who makes the first move approaching Juliet at the ball, Juliet’s father is more verbally aggressive and violent than in the previous versions when Juliet refuses to get married, and in the end the Friar explains at length the events in order to prove his innocence. Moreover, as noted by Gibbons, Boaistuau’s version contains various additions “of moralizing and sentiment, and the characters indulge in rhetorical outbursts” (Gibbons/Shakespeare 1998: 36). However, the most important change in the plot is in the final scene in which, for the first time, Romeo dies before Juliet awakes, and Juliet kills herself with Romeo’s dagger (Boaistuau 2000: 117118). 58

The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet

This text was in turn translated and adapted into English in 1562 by Brooke, in a poem of 3020 lines entitled The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet. Bullough (1957: 274) points out that Brooke’s poem “was based on Boaistuau, whose bedroom-scene, love conflict, and apothecary it took over”. Another English translation of the French version that circulated at the time was the prose story written by Painter in 1567 in his collection Palace of Pleasure. In Painter, the title of the story is The Goodly History of the True and Constant Love Between Rhomeo and Julietta, a title that reveals the writer’s interpretation of the lovers’ passion as “not immoral”. According to various studies, Shakespeare’s direct source was Brooke’s poem, although it is likely that he had also read Painter’s version, as it was very popular during his time, and he might have used more than one source (see Bullough 1957: 274-283; Evans/Shakespeare 1998: 7; Gibbons/Shakespeare 1998: 32-37; Marrapodi 2000: 16). Brooke probably based his poem on the French version, rewrote it into another literary form, and also added a moralistic tone which was absent in the previous versions. Indeed, in the Preface to the Reader Brooke openly criticizes and condemns Romeo and Juliet’s behaviour, and gives a negative view of Friar Lawrence and the Nurse. He accuses the young lovers of being sinners for their lust, disobedience to their parents and for accepting the advice of untrustworthy people (Brooke 1998: 215-216). However, Brooke’s attitude seems somewhat ambiguous, as this negative and moralistic opinion disappears in the poem, where he shows more sympathy towards the lovers and admires them for their love and integrity (see Gibbons/Shakespeare 1998: 36; Bullough 1957: 276-277; Evans/Shakespeare 1998: 7-8; Levenson/Shakespeare 2000: 9-10). An interesting change to the sources introduced by Brooke is Juliet’s age, as she becomes sixteen. The character of the Nurse, which was absent in the Italian versions, is also expanded. The Friar, as in the Italian sources, is a public figure, close to both families and counsellor to the Prince of Verona, and in the Preface he is defined as “superstitious”. He is in the vault when Juliet kills herself, and tries to escape the watch. After the arrival of the Prince he makes a long explanatory speech, as he also does in Shakespeare but which was not present in the Italian versions. Various critics have devoted attention to Shakespeare’s use of his sources, especially of Brooke’s poem, also investigating the reasons for some alterations (see Bullough 1957: 274-283; Muir 1977: 40-42; Zacchi 1986: 6970; Evans/Shakespeare 1998: 8-11; Gibbons/Shakespeare 1998: 37-42; Lehmann 2010). As regards language and style, the literariness of the play – with the presence of the sonnet form (borrowed from Brooke) and the extensive use of rhymed verse, the language of courtly love and Petrarchan rhetoric – distinguishes Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet from its sources and 59

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

confers an Italian atmosphere upon the tragedy. Levenson points out that in Romeo and Juliet “all of the dramatis personae express themselves in some variation of the Petrarchan idiom; they speak the standard topoi and rhetoric” (Levenson/Shakespeare 2000: 53). Petrarchism refers to the use of a style which imitates the Italian poet Petrarch through the use of the sonnet form and the elements typical of its rhetoric (oxymora, hyperboles, conceits, paradoxes, typical metaphors, conventional language, the “blazon” to describe the idealized physical features of the beloved woman) (see Levenson 1982; Levenson/Shakespeare 2000; Pasternak Slater 1988; Whittier 1989; Roberts 1998: 81-92; among others).5 Shakespeare also added comedy to the story by inserting scenes with comic figures like the servants and by making use of bawdy talk, which counteracts the poetry in the play. As Sasha Roberts (1998: 88) points out, “Shakespeare entirely altered the grave, tragic tone of his principal source, Brooke’s Romeus, by adding a bawdy register to his play.”6 As a result, as observed by Stanley Wells (2010: 148), “[r]omantic though it is, it is also one of the bawdiest of Shakespeare’s plays, riddled with sexual puns, double meanings, and bawdy innuendo”. As far as the plot is concerned, while in all the sources the violence erupts only after the lovers’ marriage, Shakespeare introduces the brawl at the beginning. In so doing, he highlights the public and political dimension of the rivalry between the families and he sets up the conflict “between the public and private worlds of the play” by dramatizing the feud (Evans/Shakespeare 1998: 8). Moreover, Shakespeare inserts more characters who enact specific functions. By Act I, scene 4 “all the major characters, except Friar Lawrence, have been introduced and the lines of possible tension and future conflict suggested” (Evans/Shakespeare 1998: 9). Zacchi (1986: 75) argues that Brooke, in line with the Italian tradition of the story, inserts the secondary characters only when needed for action, and does not describe their character in detail. Tybalt appears only when he is killed, Count Paris only when Juliet’s parents decide to placate her sorrow through a marriage and Benvolio does not exist. There is emptiness around Romeo and Juliet, who are lonely, only accompanied by the narrator’s comments. In Shakespeare, on the other hand, Mercutio becomes a very important character, he is extremely close to Romeo and it is his death that makes Romeo kill Tybalt. The Nurse is another fundamental character added by Shakespeare and his lovers are not alone anymore, the tragedy is linked to people, not only to ill fortune. On the other hand, opposers like Tybalt and Paris appear much earlier than in the sources. By anticipating their presence, Shakespeare determines them from the beginning as rivals to Romeo: Tybalt as a rival in hate, Paris as a rival in love, and the potential conflicts are set out from the start. Shakespeare also added the deaths of Mercutio first and of Paris and Lady Montague in the

60

The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet

final scene, which conformed to the conventions of the theatre of his time, which required several deaths in a tragedy. Rutelli (1986: 17) argues that the main differences between Shakespeare and his sources regard the period of time in which the events take place, and the innocence and youth of the lovers. For instance, while in Brooke and the Italian versions the story evolves during nine months, in Shakespeare it lasts only five days, therefore introducing the theme of “hastiness” and of the precipitation of events which are linked with the youth of the lovers. Brooke considers the protagonists as sinners, while Shakespeare – in line with the Italian and French sources, and with Painter – stresses their innocence, youth, impulsiveness, and passion. A particularly important alteration made by Shakespeare regards Juliet’s age, as the dramatist makes her “not yet fourteen” and stresses her youth by repeatedly mentioning her age. It might be argued that Shakespeare’s reduction of Juliet’s age corresponds to a common English stereotype of Italians, who were considered passionate, hot-blooded and lusty and therefore also more likely to have sex at a very young age. As Roberts points out, “for an Elizabethan audience, Juliet’s ‘fondness’ may well have signalled the sexual proclivities of a hot-blooded Italian” (1998: 52). However, it must be noted that “in Shakespeare’s society twelve was the minimum age at which girls could legally be married” (Wells 2010: 153). Angela Locatelli (1993: 69-84) has stressed Shakespeare’s use of Elizabethan stereotypes of Italy and Italians in rewriting his sources. In the play Italians are seen as hot-blooded, passionate, always ready to fight, indulgent in romance and lusty. Thus the brawls and duels, together with passion, romantic feelings, poetic language and hatred are components which confer upon the story of the lovers an Italian flavour, which is mediated by an interpretation of the Italian world as Shakespeare and his contemporaries perceived it. Locatelli argues that Shakespeare’s attitude towards Verona is ambivalent, and it mirrors the English perception of Italian culture, which is “a fairly constant mixed attitude of alternating praise and execration” (1993: 74-75). The attributes foregrounded to define Italians are ‘hot-blooded’, ‘choler’, ‘rage’, ‘passion’, and the recurrence of the adjective ‘hot’ is a sign of its importance to create the Italian atmosphere and character. As argued by Locatelli (1993: 76), “Italians need no reason to enter a quarrel since almost any flimsy motive more than suffices for their choleric temperament.” Both Tybalt and Romeo might be viewed as representing stereotypes of Italian young men who are impulsive and ruled by passion. Tybalt is mocked by Mercutio for his excessive refinement and his fondness for duels, and he is portrayed as the “raging ‘latin-hater’” (Locatelli 1993: 78). The predisposition to duelling is also discussed by Sergio Rossi (1993), who argues that in Tybalt Shakespeare criticises the Italian school of fencing 61

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

which was popular in England during his time. Tybalt embodies “the negative view of a bombastic, rhetorical Italian world and so readily vulnerable to attack, especially as representing a distorted and superficial vision of Italy” (Rossi 1993: 117). On the other hand, Romeo’s constant use of Petrarchan language, of oxymora, makes him also a stereotype of the Italian man in love with love and with the power of words. As Locatelli (1993: 78) observes, “Romeo is the emphatic and shallow ‘Latin-lover’.” It might be argued that the presence of Petrarchan language with its typical topoi throughout the play might be related to an Elizabethan stereotypical view of “Italianness”. Roberts (1998: 58) also regards Romeo’s effeminacy and Juliet’s determined character as Italian stereotypes. Capulet’s aggressive and choleric reaction to Juliet’s refusal to marry Paris in III.5. could be another example of how Shakespeare rewrites his sources, and how stereotypical images of Italians affect this process. The previous versions had hinted at a violent reaction, but none of them had depicted the man as so threatening: in the play he insults Juliet, humiliates her and is extremely aggressive. This choleric and violent temperament is in line with stereotypical images of Italian men. Moreover, Shakespeare adds a scene where Capulet and Paris discuss a possible marriage before the ball, therefore making Capulet’s behaviour contradictory as in his first encounter with Paris he was hesitating about the wedding. As Coppélia Kahn (1983: 181-182) has argued, “by introducing the arranged marriage at the beginning, and making Capulet change his mind about it, [Shakespeare] shows us how capricious patriarchal rule can be” and, perhaps, also how capricious Italian men can be.7 However, it can be suggested that Shakespeare’s Italy and Italians were also a mirror of his own society. Locatelli (1993) and Rossi (1993) argue that Verona both represents the exotic ‘other’ and implies London as a referent, as the duels on stage mirrored the violence in the streets of London. A similar view is endorsed by Murray Levith (1987: 11), who argues that “Italy serves in part as metaphor for Shakespeare’s England.” Roberts similarly contends that by showing Italy Shakespeare was using stereotypes of Italians but actually also referring to concerns of his own society: Romeo and Juliet fuses Italian and English culture by projecting Elizabethan preoccupations onto a catholic, European ‘Other’ – concerns such as the imposition of patriarchal authority, clandestine marriage, the control of female sexuality, the assertion of manhood, government control of aristocratic feuding and street violence (1998: 58).

Shakespeare’s play is thus a rewriting of the Italian story mediated through his time’s culture, conventions, stereotypes and taste, a tragedy he wrote for the Elizabethan stage and a specific theatre audience. The following part of 62

The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet

the chapter traces the next stage of the journey of the story, back to its place of origin, investigating first the early reception of Shakespeare’s works in Italy and then how the story of the star-crossed lovers was initially rewritten and interwoven with the Italian native tradition. 2. The Origins of Shakespeare Translation in Italy Until the eighteenth century Shakespeare’s name was almost unheard of in Italy. The Bard entered Italian culture in the second half of the eighteenth century indirectly, through the mediation of French, since up to the beginning of the nineteenth century there was an overwhelming influence of French culture in Italy. Italy admired and imitated France, and the phenomenon of gallomania was widespread in literary circles. Gallomania affected the literary and theatrical systems: French plays, novels, and works by JeanJacques Rousseau and Voltaire were translated into Italian, or read in the original language, as many Italians knew French (see Graf 1911; Petrone Fresco 1991; 1993). As Gaby Petrone Fresco (1991: 2) points out, because of the “dictatorship of French classicism” in Italy in the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth, France was the cultural mediator between the English and the Italian literary and theatrical systems. As a result, the reception of Shakespeare in Italy was conditioned by the French reception of the Bard. Appreciation of Shakespeare in Italy was slow as it was hindered by the dominance of French criticism (especially Voltaire) and of French neoclassical theatre (especially Jean Racine, Molière, Pierre Corneille). As Agostino Lombardo puts it, “Voltaire […] had discovered the greatness and at the same time the ‘monstrousness’ of Shakespeare not only for the French, but also for the Italians, who followed in his footsteps and, in the wake of his judgements, began to form their own” (2000: 212). Shakespeare’s plays entered Italy through intermediate translations – which Hoenselaars calls “indirect or second-hand translations” (2003: 648) – that is the translations made at the end of the eighteenth century by Louis Sébastien Mercier, Pierre Antoine de La Place, Jean-François Ducis and later on Pierre Le Tourneur. The versions by La Place, Ducis and Mercier, which were imitations or free renderings of Shakespeare’s texts, prevailed on the French and the Italian stage for a long time. These authors selected a number of Shakespeare’s plays, took them as a point of departure and developed new stories, which were in line with the neoclassical conventions of the theatre of the time and often had only a few elements in common with Shakespeare. The favourite plays were Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, Othello and King Lear. According to Laura Vazzoler, the French versions by Ducis and Mercier were arbitrary imitations of Shakespeare, in which “a horrified 63

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

Shakespeare” was completely transformed into French classic drama, thus full of catastrophes, moral purposes and a sentimental tone (Vazzoler 1984: 12). The only attempt to be closer to the originals (although the English originals were still adapted to a great extent) was made in this period by Le Tourneur, who produced the first French translation of the complete theatre (1776-1783). His translations were read by those Italians who wanted to acquaint themselves with Shakespeare. However, as Petrone Fresco points out: before Le Tourneur’s translations appeared (1776-1783), the only route by which cultured Italians (who usually had no knowledge of English whatever) could possibly get access to Shakespeare was via La Place’s translations in the Théatre Anglois (1746-1749) and Ducis’ adaptations (from 1769 onwards). As is well-known, these versions were very free renderings of the already ‘improved’ Shakespeare of English Restoration culture (1993: 111).

In the eighteenth century few Italians knew Shakespeare in English and few direct translations existed. The first Italian full version of a Shakespeare play directly translated from English did not appear until 1756. This was Giulio Cesare by Domenico Valentini, Professor of Ecclesiastical History at the University of Siena (Valentini 1756; Collison-Morley 1916: 39-40; Crinò 1950: 41-56). However, Valentini admitted in his Preface that he did not know any English, and was helped by some English friends who lived in Italy and spoke Italian. Using an English 1733 edition by Lewis Theobald, his friends explained the play to him, and he then rendered the meaning in Italian prose. As Anna Maria Crinò (1950: 44) observes, Valentini’s merit was to introduce Shakespeare for the first time in Italy in a period dominated by neoclassicism, defending him, in the Preface to his translation, against contemporary attacks for his lack of respect for the Aristotelian unities (Valentini 1756: 54). The few people who knew Shakespeare directly and not solely through French versions were mostly Italians who had travelled to England and lived in London for some time, such as Paolo Rolli, Antonio Conti, Giuseppe Baretti and Alessandro Verri. According to Lacy CollisonMorley (1916: 9) Rolli was “the first of his countrymen to understand and appreciate Shakespeare.” Rolli was also responsible for the first published translation of a fragment of a Shakespeare play, Hamlet’s ‘to be or not to be’ soliloquy, in 1739 (see Petrone Fresco 1991, 1993; Lombardo 2000: 212). Another Italian in England was Conti, who was “responsible for the first opinion on Shakespeare ever to be printed outside England” (Petrone Fresco 1991: 52). In the Preface to his play Il Cesare, published in 1726, Conti maintained that Shakespeare was the Corneille of the English, though he was more irregular than the French playwright (1726: 54). Baretti, who lived in England between 1751 and 1789, was another great admirer of Shakespeare. 64

The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet

In 1777 he published in French his Discours sur Shakespeare et sur Monsieur de Voltaire (Baretti 1777), in which he challenged Voltaire’s criticism of Shakespeare defending the Bard’s “irregularities”. Lombardo considered this work “the first serious and extensive critical study of Shakespeare in Italy” (2000: 212). Verri also spent some months in London in 1766, and translated Hamlet and Othello from English into Italian between 1769 and 1777, although his versions were never published (see Petrone Fresco 1991, 1993; Crinò 1950: 64-83). Although their appreciation of Shakespeare was not sufficient to make the Bard successful in Italy, since French culture was still predominant, it was partly thanks to these men that English works and Shakespeare in particular started to be known in the eighteenth century. They also contributed to the spread of a phenomenon called anglomania, which consisted in an admiration for England, its culture and especially its social and political systems, which developed in Italy in the second half of the eighteenth century because of a desire for renovation and reaction against the French cultural hegemony, and against political submission (Graf 1911; Aquarone 1958; Petrone Fresco 1991). Anglomania was also instrumental in the wider spread of Shakespeare’s works in Italy. During the eighteenth century the most popular versions of Shakespeare’s plays both in France and in Italy were those by La Place and Ducis. La Place’s translations of ten Shakespeare plays in 1745 were not complete versions of the English texts. Indeed, as Heylen (1993: 26) points out, “La Place had translated only what he considered the most striking passages and linked them together by means of plot synopses”, and his versions were not meant for the stage, but as closet drama, to stimulate discussions in literary circles. On the other hand, Ducis did not know any English, and initially used La Place’s translations as a basis for his versions (which he called ‘imitations’) for the stage (Heylen 1993: 26-44). Starting from La Place’s synopsis of the plays, Ducis altered and rearranged the plots, added scenes, cut elements, and created new tragedies in the neoclassical style. As Delabastita (1993: 222) notes, “Ducis’ renderings rewrite Shakespeare in the fashion of Voltairean tragedy.” Heylen’s investigation of Ducis’ work on Hamlet has shown how “the basic choice he made as a translator was to subject himself completely to the conventions operative in the French theatre, those expected of a playwright by both institution and audience” (1993: 29). Shakespeare’s plays were thus heavily altered in order to meet the expectations and taste of the target audience, and the result was texts in which only echoes of the original plays remained. However, it must be acknowledged that although Ducis’ versions and the French eighteenthcentury translations heavily manipulated Shakespeare’s texts to the extent that they almost created different plays, they also contributed to making Shakespeare popular in France and in Italy. This was in all likelihood the 65

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

only way in which Shakespeare could be accepted in France and Italy at a time when neoclassical poetics was predominant and the Bard was still perceived as a “barbarian”. It should also be noted that this approach to Shakespeare was not typical of foreign cultures, but was also taking place in England, where London theatre audiences saw altered versions of Shakespeare’s plays. As pointed out by Delabastita, English theatregoers in the eighteenth century had no access either to the ‘unadulterated’ or ‘Elizabethan’ Shakespeare. Shakespearean productions in the Age of Reason usually involved a thorough sanitising of language, plot and character in a way which closely resembled the rewriting procedures current on the Continent (2004: 107).

For instance, in the case of Romeo and Juliet, David Garrick in 1748 excised elements such as vulgar puns and extreme lyricism, added a funeral procession for Juliet, and made her awake before Romeo’s death, adding a dramatic seventy-five-line dialogue between the lovers (see Levenson/Shakespeare 2007: 4-5; Bevington 2007; Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002). The French versions of Shakespeare’s plays, translated into Italian, were often extremely successful on stage. Gerardo Guerrieri points out that Shakespeare was “smuggled” into Italy through France thanks to Ducis’ and Mercier’s rewritings which disguised him as a neoclassical author (1954: 71). Ducis’ Hamlet (1769) was translated into Italian in 1774, whereas his Roméo et Juliette (1772) appeared in Italian in 1778, in a translation by Antonio Bonucci. Mercier’s 1782 version of Romeo and Juliet, Les Tombeaux de Vérone, was translated into Italian by Giuseppe Ramirez in 1789, as Le tombe di Verona. The first Italian staging of Hamlet in 1774 was the translation by Francesco Gritti of Ducis’s version. However, as Petrone Fresco (1991: 42) points out, the French play was further “modified by Gritti in accordance with his personal taste”, producing a double manipulation of the Shakespearean text. As the plays were transferred to another culture, in order to be accepted by the Italian theatre audience they needed to be in line with the expectations and taste of the new receivers. The notion of translation in the above cases thus meant a version which adapted the foreign work to the taste and aesthetics of the target culture, a rewriting in which alterations, cuts and additions to the source text were required. Shakespeare’s plays did not fit the Aristotelian rules of unity of time, place and action, they contained explicit deaths, violence, bloodshed, vulgar expressions and wordplay, and mixed comedy with tragedy and prose with verse. Therefore, in order to be accepted by the receiving literary and theatrical systems, they had to undergo a process of “improvement” in conformity with neoclassical rules and taste. Through strongly target-oriented 66

The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet

translations, Shakespeare’s plays were thus domesticated, i.e., made more familiar and submitted to the norms of the target culture.8 As noted by Delabastita, each rewriting was made in the interest of the receiving culture, “the critics’ and translators’ versions of Shakespeare were selective and biased in accordance with prevailing personal or more collective convictions” (1998: 225). Shakespeare’s plots also attracted Italian operatic composers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, although in most cases the texts adopted by the librettists were not Shakespeare’s plays themselves, but either the same sources used by the Bard, or the French and Italian rewritings (on Shakespeare in opera see Gelli 2001). For example, in 1705 the librettist Apostolo Zeno wrote a musical drama called Ambleto with music composed by Domenico Scarlatti, which had nothing to do with Shakespeare, as the story had been derived from Saxo Grammaticus. Nor were various opera versions of the Romeo and Juliet story in the late eighteenth and nineteenth century based on Shakespeare’s play. For example, Giulietta e Romeo by Nicola Zingarelli, with the libretto by Giuseppe Maria Foppa (performed for the first time at the Teatro alla Scala, Milan, in 1796) was probably based on Mercier’s version and on other works. Gioacchino Rossini’s 1816 Otello, with the libretto by Francesco Berio di Salsa, did not follow Shakespeare’s story, but was based on Ducis’ version and had a happy ending. By the beginning of the nineteenth century, as Romantic ideas developed, the opposition to neoclassical rules became stronger and the French cultural hegemony started to decrease, while Italian literature and culture were more influenced by German and English works. Romanticism was one of the factors contributing to Shakespeare becoming a central figure in European and Italian culture, and to the rise of so-called “bardolatry”. Italian interest in Shakespeare increased, and “the Romantic battle was fought largely in the name of Shakespeare” (Lombardo 2000: 213), also because of the identification of Romantic poetics with Shakespearean drama. Shakespeare’s plays were used by Romantics across Europe in reactions against classicism. According to Delabastita, “what was being challenged in Shakespeare’s name was not just a particular concept of the tragedy, but the entire genre-system, indeed the whole cultural and political paradigm of neoclassicism which the tragedy epitomized as its most respectable genre” (1998: 225). Moreover, admiration for Shakespeare’s genius by poets like Vittorio Alfieri, Vincenzo Monti, Ugo Foscolo and especially Alessandro Manzoni contributed to the success Shakespeare met with in Italy during this period. Manzoni was among the main admirers of the Bard. According to Lombardo,

67

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet Manzoni’s constant admiration for and understanding of Shakespeare and his assumption of the dramatist as a model and ideal of art are certainly among the causes of the extraordinary success Shakespeare finally met in Italy (2000: 214).

The rise of interest in Shakespeare’s tragedies in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century is also linked with the incipient revolutionary movements across Europe. The great tragedies were studied, translated and performed also because of their political implications. In discussing Shakespeare’s role in Germany at the end of the eighteenth century, Dennis Kennedy points out that the roughness and relatively sprawling nature of the plays, as well as their political stories, made them felicitous cultural material for an embryonic nationalist movement. […] Because Shakespeare was not French, and because his work violated neoclassic (i.e., aristocratic) principles, he became a rallying point for the new spirit of romantic democracy (1993: 3).

Shakespeare’s works thus played an important role in the formation of cultural identities and in the liberation from foreign rule, inspiring nationalist pride and revolutionary movements. The same political readings and a use of Shakespeare’s plays in opposition to foreign rule can be seen at work in Italy in the nineteenth century, during the Risorgimento, the period leading to the birth of Italy as a nation in 1861. The interest in Shakespeare in Italy in this period can be partly seen as a reaction against foreign hegemony, a political rebellion, and a tool of nationalist pride. As Guerrieri (1954: 87) points out, the men of the Italian Risorgimento (Giuseppe Garibaldi, Camillo Benso di Cavour and Giuseppe Mazzini) were admirers of Shakespeare and had chosen him as their poet. Mazzini had also spent part of his life in exile in England, where he became acquainted with the Bard’s works. In an essay in 1836 Mazzini wrote about Shakespeare and the freedom of his characters, who were responsible for their own actions (Lombardo 1964: 10). The men of the Risorgimento attended and acclaimed Italian performances of Shakespeare’s plays in Turin in the mid-nineteenth century (Guerrieri 1954: 72). Another important contribution to the success of the Bard in Italy was provided by the scholar Francesco De Sanctis, with his lectures at Naples University in 1846-47 (see Lombardo 1956, 2000). Through a combination of factors Shakespeare thus gradually acquired an important place in Italian culture so that by the end of the nineteenth century he could be considered, as Locatelli (1999: 18) puts it, as a “symbol of poetic genius and national pride.” As a consequence of Shakespeare’s popularity in the nineteenth century, Shakespeare almost became a national playwright (Gatti 1968: 177). Through the eighteenth and especially nineteenth centuries Italy gradually managed to have access to Shakespeare’s works in English, so that a more direct reception of Shakespeare took place. Shakespeare’s triumph in Italy in 68

The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet

the Romantic period culminated in the appearance of several translations from the original works. Together with anglomania and a widespread admiration for Shakespeare, the nineteenth century witnessed an unprecedented increase in the number of translations from English works and from Shakespeare in particular, very often not mediated through French (Duranti 1998: 480). However, the phenomenon of indirect translation still existed, as various Italians read Shakespeare in the translations made by Le Tourneur and François-Victor Hugo which attempted to follow the originals more closely, though still adapting the texts to the conventions and taste of their time. Apart from various translations of single plays, the first Italian translations of the collected theatre were published. Between 1819 and 1821 the Tragedie di Shakespeare tradotte da Michele Leoni, in fifteen volumes, appeared (Leoni/Shakespeare 1819-1821). Although Michele Leoni worked from the English texts, he appears to have used the French translations by Le Tourneur as a reference. The most important development in Shakespeare translation in Italy took place in the mid-nineteenth century, when Carlo Rusconi and Giulio Carcano translated for the first time the complete theatrical works of Shakespeare from English, the former in prose, the latter in verse. Rusconi’s prose translation was published in 1838 (Rusconi/Shakespeare 1838), while the first complete verse translation by Carcano appeared between 1775 and 1882 (Carcano/Shakespeare 1914). These translators played a central role in the history of Shakespeare’s reception in Italy for various reasons. Rusconi and Carcano translated Shakespeare’s complete theatre using English editions as sources, and they attempted to render the original texts as closely as possible. Moreover, by collaborating with famous Italian actors (Tommaso Salvini, Ernesto Rossi and Adelaide Ristori) they introduced the Shakespeare originals to the Italian stage, and made the Bard famous in the theatre. Riccardo Duranti (1998: 480) considers Carcano as “the first and perhaps greatest translator of Shakespeare in his century”, since he acted as mediator between Shakespeare’s texts and the great actors of the century. Carcano provided them with performance texts, adapting the translations he had made for the page. As Duranti (1979: 82-84) points out, beginning his work in the 1840s, Carcano tried to introduce Shakespeare’s plays to Italian readers and audiences who were accustomed to a different type of theatre and taste, and who had never seen or read the plays in their entirety, but always in altered versions, mostly through foreign translations. Carcano’s and Rusconi’s were translations from English editions of the plays and the translators’ intention was to follow the source text as closely as possible. The translators made references to English editors and critics, and German and French criticism and translations. This approach to the Shakespeare texts and to translation was different from the creative and more target-oriented approach of 69

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

neoclassicism. Romanticism also brought a new idea of translation, that of reproducing the original with a higher degree of faithfulness. As Hoenselaars (2003: 649) points out, “it was only slowly that […] target-oriented translation […] began to make way for source-oriented translation and greater respect for the original playwright.” In Italy, the notion of translation changed from the neoclassical belles infidèles of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century towards a more source-oriented concept, also thanks to the influence of German ideas. However, although Carcano and Rusconi respected Shakespeare’s texts and attempted to follow them more closely, as in every case of translation, the taste, conventions and morality of the time affected their approach to the plays and their translation strategies. An example of the influence of contemporary conventions and taste on the translators is the choice of “unity of style”. Since the aesthetic of the time required homogeneous style and regularity, a mixture of prose and verse – which was often used by Shakespeare – was not acceptable. Therefore, in order to keep unity of style, Carcano translated the plays entirely in verse, in hendecasyllables, while Rusconi opted for prose. Having to compromise between the “faithfulness” to the source text and the requirements of their audience and their taste, the translators opted for “unity of style”, the last type of unity that had survived Romanticism and its battle against “unities”. According to Duranti (1979: 86) Carcano’s choice of prose and his translation strategies were due to the literary climate in which he worked, and to the influence of his contemporaries. Carcano often commented on his struggle to find a compromise between rendering Shakespeare faithfully while at the same time making his works accepted by his contemporaries (see Carcano/Shakespeare 1893: 293). According to Mario Praz (1969: 161-162) Rusconi encountered similar obstacles: he “followed the text closely and rendered it in a language comparatively free from affectations”, although he simplified and paraphrased a lot, eliminating wordplay and those elements that were unacceptable to the poetics and morality of his time. Rusconi also admitted that he “polished” the text, cutting parts that he judged had not been written by Shakespeare (Rusconi/Shakespeare 1852: 9). An analysis of Rusconi’s translations reveals his approach to the plays: wordplay and vulgar allusions are omitted, either without any explanation, or sometimes with a footnote explaining that the translator decided to cut parts because they would “disturb” contemporary Italian taste. The same is true for Carcano who, in order not to offend his readers, avoided obscene words or interpreted them through Italian popular idioms. As Carcano explained in his introduction to Romeo and Juliet, he tried to render less explicit

70

The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet molte espressioni equivoche, talvolta licenziose e basse, tal’altra indicifrabili agli stessi commentatori, [che] accrescono la difficoltà, e fanno necessario qualche studio per meno offendere il nostro gusto più schizzinoso e sottile (Carcano/Shakespeare 1914: 153). (a number of ambiguous and dubious expressions which we deemed either licentious, coarse or incomprehensible, and which required effort and care in order to make them less offensive to our more finicky and subtle tastes)

Both translators thus tended to censor obscene words, puns and obscure lexis, as well as the comedy or the excessive poetry that disturbed nineteenthcentury Italian aesthetic sense. Carcano’s and Rusconi’s translations are clear examples of acculturation: they mould the source texts to the target culture in order to make Shakespeare’s plays accepted by their readers and theatre audiences, giving them literary dignity. Their justification for rewriting the plays was that, had Shakespeare lived in their own time and country, he would have avoided that type of language (Bragaglia 1973: 40). Vazzoler (1984: 14) argues that the Rusconi and Carcano translations conveyed a distorted, conventional, melodramatic Shakespeare. According to Duranti, Carcano’s translations exemplify the approach of nineteenth-century Italian culture to Shakespeare’s theatre: to provide a more dignified and regular literary form to an author who was admired but at the same time feared for his great poetic and dramatic power, and for the ethical and political implications of his works (1979: 96). This opinion might be extended to Rusconi’s work as well. This attitude of praise and fear, which results in a toning down of certain ‘extreme’ elements of the plays, can also be observed in the theatre and in the interpretations given to Shakespeare’s plays on stage. Between the 1850s and 1880s Shakespeare’s originals were introduced in the theatre and brought to a wide audience thanks to the mattatori, those great Italian actors of the day, such as Alamanno Morelli, Salvini, Ristori and Rossi, who played Shakespeare’s tragic characters using the translations of Carcano and Rusconi. Shakespeare’s texts in direct Italian translations appeared for the first time in Italian theatres in the 1840s. Morelli was the first one to perform Shakespeare’s Macbeth, in 1849, at the Teatro Re di Milano, probably in the translation made by Carcano in 1848 (see Vazzoler 1984: 13). In 1850 Morelli performed Amleto for the first time in Turin, using both Carcano’s and Rusconi’s translations. The year 1856 was, according to Bragaglia (1973: 27), an important year for Shakespeare in Italy, as Rossi staged Otello in a translation made specifically for him by Carcano, and Amleto adapting a translation by Rusconi. Rossi performed King Lear for the first time on the Italian stage in 1858, in Turin, followed by Romeo and Juliet, The Tempest, Richard III and Julius Caesar. The most popular plays were the great tragedies: both Rossi and Salvini toured Italy and Europe with their interpretations of Amleto, Otello, Romeo e Giulietta, Macbeth, Re Lear, La Tempesta, Riccardo III and Giulio Cesare. Ristori was famous both in 71

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

Italy and abroad for her performances, especially of Lady Macbeth. Another actor who is linked to the success of Shakespeare in Italy in the nineteenth century is Giovanni Emanuel, who used translations by Carcano and Rusconi and English editions as the basis for his interpretations, but translated the plays himself. Emanuel judged Carcano’s translations as sentimental, Rusconi’s ones as clear, but preferred his own translations since they were “more faithful” to Shakespeare (Bragaglia 1973: 44). Eleonora Duse performed in Antonio e Cleopatra (translated for her by Arrigo Boito) in 1888 as well as in Romeo and Juliet in 1891 (in a version by Jarro). In the second half of the nineteenth century Shakespeare dominated the Italian and European scenes thanks to these actors (Gatti 1968: 179). However, it should be noted that the mattatori did not perform the plays using the full texts provided by the translators, but made alterations to them. They interpreted and adapted the plays to their own sensibility and to suit their skills, and Shakespeare’s texts were used as scripts they could transform by cutting parts, rearranging scenes and adding others. The actors’ interpretation of the stories and their needs determined their treatment and appropriation of the texts. As Laura Caretti (1979: 11) points out, for Salvini and Ristori the Shakespearean text, in Carcano’s translation, was a starting point from which to create their characters. The great actors’ interpretations of the tragedies revolved around the protagonists: the main characters became central while everybody and everything else in the performance was subordinated to them. They manipulated the texts cutting parts that were considered irrelevant for the focus on the protagonist, or adding scenes and speeches that enhanced their performance (Duranti 1979: 107; Vazzoler 1984: 16; Carcano/Shakespeare 1893: 215). As a consequence, as Caretti notes, “i personaggi di Shakespeare parlano un linguaggio mutilato, censurato, addomesticato secondo l’interpretazione” (Shakespeare’s characters speak a language which is mutilated, censored and tamed according to the actors’ interpretations) (1979: 15-16). In the mattatori’s reading and performance the main focus was on passions, as the actors simplified the plays and the characters’ complex psychologies by making them more human and more passionate, more physical. This simplification and focus on extreme passions was probably due to a feeling that Shakespeare’s texts needed to be rendered more familiar, closer to an Italian character, in order to be understood and accepted. Guerrieri points out that this reduction and rewriting took place because the actors felt that Shakespeare’s northern characters and their psychology were nebulous and thus had to be clarified and Latinized (Guerrieri 1954: 75). The most frequently performed and popular plays were those which contained recognisable feelings, familiar passions that could be recognised and accepted by the Italian audience and that allowed the great actors to perform 72

The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet

at their best: Romeo and Juliet (love), Othello (jealousy), Macbeth (ambition), King Lear (fatherly love) (Caretti 1979: 15). A particular aspect of the mattatori’s interpretation deserves attention. Shakespeare’s theatre had political elements that could be and indeed had been used as an inspiration for the revolutionary movements across Europe, that were appreciated by Italian Romantics and by the translators themselves. However, by providing interpretations that highlighted the tragic heroes and their passions, the mattatori reduced the political implications of the plays (Duranti 1979: 97). Through a process of domestication and censorship that started with the translations by Carcano and Rusconi, Shakespeare’s texts were made suitable and ready to be presented on the Italian stage. Shakespeare’s tragedies were successful because they were gradually tamed, “domesticated”, altered in conformity with the aesthetic and theatre conventions of the day. Opera was another important cultural area through which Shakespeare slowly “penetrated” and conquered the Italian “popular consciousness” in the second half of the nineteenth century, especially through Giuseppe Verdi (Lombardo 2000: 215).9 While up to the mid-nineteenth century Italian opera had only used Shakespeare’s stories indirectly, through their French rewritings, Verdi was the first Italian opera composer who developed a real connection with the Bard’s plays and used them as a reference point. Verdi was an admirer of Shakespeare and his interest in the Bard was mediated through the Italian translations of Rusconi and Boito. However, in opera too the plays had to undergo a process of adaptation to the conventions of the time: the plots were often changed, they were shortened, characters deleted, dialogues cut in order to meet the taste of contemporary audiences. What seemed to be important in opera were not Shakespeare’s tragedies per se, but their themes, which were developed in accordance with contemporary rules and conventions of the genre. Thus, in nineteenth century Italy, Shakespeare became a national poet, and underwent a process of canonisation through critical studies, direct translations, the performances of the mattatori and opera. As has been highlighted, the history of Shakespeare’s reception in Italy is closely connected to the history of changing aesthetics and conventions in the target culture, and to the function of the translated text within the target system. The translations made in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were a form of cultural negotiation, a form of appropriation. Shakespeare’s plays underwent a process of adaptation in accordance with the changing expectations and requirements of the receiving theatrical or literary systems. Translation strategies were influenced by the interpretation of the source text by the translator, by the function of the texts in the target culture and by the conventions and poetics of the receiving culture. As observed by Delabastita and D’hulst (1993: 13), translated texts are to be regarded “as the result of 73

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

complex decision processes, as selections made from a whole range of possibilities, which derive their historical significance from underlying poetic and cultural systems.” Moreover, it is worth noting that the popularity of Shakespeare remained restricted to some tragedies, while the comedies, the histories and his poetry were ignored for a long time. The great tragedies Othello, Hamlet, Macbeth, King Lear, Julius Caesar, Richard III, and Romeo and Juliet were “among the most influential plays in promoting Shakespeare’s canonisation in the Italian Ottocento” (Locatelli 1999: 23). This was probably due to the translators’ and actors’ preference for tragedies in which great individual heroes, strong passions and love and death could emerge, but also to the fact that some plays were more suitable for the Italian taste of the time. 3. The Start of Romeo and Juliet Translation in Italy As highlighted in the previous section, Romeo and Juliet was one of the most popular Shakespeare plays translated and performed on the Italian stage in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. According to Collison-Morley (1916: 80) “Romeo and Juliet was the play of plays for Italy [because] the quick, hot blood of Italian passion is here seen at its purest and best.” However, up to the mid-nineteenth century the plot underwent adaptations, cuts, changes, rewritings, and was made into opera librettos and ballets which had very few elements in common with Shakespeare’s play.10 It was only in the 1820s that the first translations referring directly to Shakespeare’s play were published, and not until the 1860s that it was introduced on the Italian stage. Until that time the various versions that were popular in Italy and coexisted in literature and in the theatre bore but slight resemblances to the Bard’s play, and many of them had no relationship with it at all. They were also different from the versions by Bandello and Da Porto, since the material from the novelle had been further altered according to the taste and conventions of contemporary theatre or literature. These nineteenth century versions were either translations of Ducis’ and Mercier’s French imitations of Shakespeare, or were derived from the Italian tradition of the novelle, or from successive Italian rewritings of the story. Shakespeare’s play thus entered Italy very slowly, since other rewritings prevailed on the Italian stage and Shakespeare’s text was interwoven with them. The popularity of the Romeo and Juliet story in Italy may be due to various reasons. Firstly, the story expressed an Italian passion and was set in Verona, and could thus be recognised and appreciated by an Italian audience. As Collison-Morley (1916: 164) points out, the most popular plays in Italy were Othello and Romeo and Juliet, perhaps because they communicated 74

The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet

directly with Italian people: “not only do these plays appeal to the national feeling, since they have Verona and Venice for their setting, but the genuinely Italian character of the jealousy and love they depict is at once recognised and appreciated.” Moreover, the Italian novelle had presented the story as real, through the reference to the historical period of Bartolomeo Della Scala’s rule in Verona, and the feud between the Capulets and Montagues, belonging to the factions of Guelfs and Ghibellines. These elements provided the story with a historical context which was exploited during the eighteenth and nineteenth century, when rewriters stressed the war between the factions. Another powerful factor contributing to the extreme fortune of the play is that the story of the lovers had become part of Italian people’s cultural background, as it was a well-known tale that had been rewritten by various writers over the centuries. Parallel to the journey of the story to England and back again to its native place of origin, in Italy another branch or line of derivation developed. Other writers adapted the material of the novelle by Da Porto and Bandello to different genres and tastes. Gherardo Boldieri, alias Clizia, wrote a poem about the unhappy love of the faithful lovers Giulia and Romeo (1553), while in Luigi Groto’s popular tragedy Adriana (1578) the protagonists are called Adriana and Latino (see Romano 1993). Girolamo Dalla Corte’s two-volume chronicle L’Istoria di Verona (1596) also contained a version of the story. Although this work is not mentioned in any of the studies on Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet (probably because it could not be a source of the play), it marks the Italian line of derivation of the story, and a different genre in which the tale was rewritten. Indeed, the text was a written chronicle, i.e., a history of Verona made up of a collection of stories detailing what happened in the city. This probably also contributed to the Italian emphasis on the historicity of the tale, which continued to be seen as a real event right up to very recent times. Moreover, it seems that the Istoria was well-known in Italy in the nineteenth century, since various translators refer to it (Carcano/Shakespeare 1847: 179; Chiarini/Shakespeare 1906: 6). Perhaps the main reason for the popularity of the story of the lovers is that it contained themes that appealed to people across time and space, and which could be exploited and rewritten, adapting them to different situations or genres. The themes of a contrasted love, the love triangle, the feud between families and political factions, the contrast between passion and filial duty, the presence of a sleeping potion or a poison, and apparent death, were attractive to eighteenth and nineteenth-century Italians. Translators and playwrights could thus use various sources and make up their own version of the romance, combining motifs which were successful among the audiences of their time. As previously noted, one of the most popular theatre versions of the time was Ducis’ rewriting of Shakespeare’s play, Roméo et Juliette (1772).11 75

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

Ducis presented his work as a new tragedy for which he was indebted for inspiration to both Shakespeare and Dante (Ducis 1859: 41). One new element introduced by Ducis is an episode from Dante’s Inferno (Canto XXXIII, 1-78): the horrific story of the Conte Ugolino, who was betrayed by the Arcivescovo Ruggieri and locked with two sons and two grandsons in a tower in Pisa. After days of starvation, the children offered their bodies to him, so that he could survive. After their death, Ugolino ate them. Ducis borrowed this episode and mixed it with elements from Shakespeare’s play and other versions of the tale as well as with themes typical of the theatre of his time. By manipulating several sources he created a very successful tragedy which conformed to the then prevailing conventions, aesthetics and morality. In his “Avertissement” Ducis justified the choice of the Romeo and Juliet story: he was aware that it was “dangerous” to give an example of suicide in the theatre; however, his main aim was not to focus on the lovers’ suicide, but rather to use their story as an exemplum which showed the tragic effects of hereditary hatred between families, which inevitably leads to death (Ducis 1859: 41). As the following synopsis and analysis highlight, the predominant feelings in this version are those of hatred and vengeance. Ducis’ Roméo et Juliette thus differs from both Shakespeare and the Italian tradition of the story, from which it borrows some elements. In Verona the Capulets and Montagues hate one another and many people have been killed. Montague and his four sons disappeared twenty years ago, and everybody thinks they are dead, probably killed by Lord Capulet’s brother. Roméo and Juliette have grown up together, since Romeo was abandoned by his family when he was a child, and raised by Capulet together with his children Thebaldo and Juliette. Nobody, except for Juliette, her confidante Flavie, and Alberic (Roméo’s friend) knows that Roméo is Montague’s son. He has become a great soldier, admired by everybody, and he has just won a battle for Ferdinand, Duke of Verona. Juliette is betrothed to Count Paris of the house of Montague, as a means to stop the war between the families. Old Montague returns to Verona, meets Capulet and Duke Ferdinand, but refuses to make peace. He is taken to a tower, accompanied by Roméo who tries to make him change his mind, but Montague wants vengeance. In the next scene Flavie tells Juliette that Montague escaped and fought with Capulet, her brother Thebaldo intervened to defend his father, but was killed by a mysterious man (Roméo) who ran away. Roméo confesses the murder to Juliette and to Capulet, saying he killed Thebaldo in order to save his own father. Capulet is enraged but he is convinced by Ferdinand to forgive Roméo and to make peace with Montague. Ferdinand arranges an official reconciliation between the families, which will take place in front of the families’ sepulchres. All seems to go well for the lovers. However, when Roméo remains alone with his father, Montague tells him that he wants to 76

The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet

exterminate the whole Capulet family, because they are responsible for his sorrows and the death of his four sons. Indeed, when he escaped from Verona with them, they hid in Pisa in a tower, but the person he trusted betrayed them and locked them inside the tower for weeks. Since they were all starving to death, his sons asked him to eat them and survive in order to avenge them. After the children’s death, Montague managed to escape and wandered for twenty years waiting for his revenge. As the person responsible for that horror was Capulet’s brother, Montague now wants to exterminate his whole family, and asks Roméo to kill Juliette. Roméo tries to persuade his father to forgive the Capulets and let them live in peace, and explains how Capulet raised him as if he were his own son. In the last act Juliette tells Roméo that she has discovered Montague’s plan. As only Juliette’s death could stop the hatred between the families, she has taken action herself: she has taken poison and will soon die. Her death will extinguish the enmity between the families, and her people will be saved. A dramatic dialogue between the lovers follows, in which Roméo decides to die, as he cannot live without her. Juliette wants to die as Roméo’s wife, so they exchange vows in front of their families’ tombs. Then she expires and he kills himself. The Capulets and Montagues arrive with Ferdinand, Montague starts to fight but they see the bodies of the lovers and stop, in despair. The tragedy ends with a final speech by Ferdinand, which is very similar to the last words uttered by Shakespeare’s Prince (Ducis 1859: 61). In this version Juliette is thus a heroine, Roméo a great soldier, and they both sacrifice their own happiness out of loyalty to their parents. The contrast between love and filial duty is stressed on various occasions, since it was a typical element of neoclassical tragedy. This version was extremely popular in Italy, and was translated in 1778 by Abbé Antonio Bonucci (Collison-Morley 1916: 76-77; Crinò 1950: 91-98). Mercier instead gave the story a happy ending and brought Shakespeare’s tragedy into conformity with the rules of contemporary theatre in his 1782 Les Tombeaux de Vérone (Mercier 2005).12 According to Pierluigi Ligas, Mercier’s play contained some echoes from Shakespeare, but its main source texts were a German version, Romeo und Julie, published in 1768 by Christian Felix Weisse, and another French theatre version by Ozincourt, Roméo et Juliette, which was staged for the first time in Paris in 1771 (Ligas 2005a: 7; 2005b: 101-124). In Mercier the play opens at night, with Juliette waiting for her husband Roméo. The lovers have secretly married, helped by Benvoglio (a doctor who is esteemed by both families), but Roméo has killed Juliette’s cousin Théobald in a duel and has been banished from Verona. The reader learns about these events through Juliette’s monologue and a dialogue with her servant and confidante Laure. After a brief and sad encounter with Roméo, the lovers have to part and they make reference to the nightingale 77

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

and the lark, as in Shakespeare’s tragedy. Capulet arranges Juliette’s marriage with Comte Lodrano (the name is borrowed from the Italian novelle) and does not accept his daughter and wife’s attempts to postpone the wedding. The man is very determined and quite harsh, expects total submission from Juliette and calls her rebellious and stubborn, although he never insults her. Mercier interestingly adds two speeches in which Madame Capulet and Juliette complain about Capulet’s tyrannical and authoritarian behaviour and men’s tendency to subjugate women, who are subjected to passive and silent obedience and will never be able to express their own feelings and will (Mercier 2005: 245, 259). Benvoglio is called and asked to convince Juliette to marry Comte Lodrano, he comforts Juliette and gives her the sleeping potion. She takes it, accepts marriage to the Count, then expires while talking to her mother and bidding her farewell. She is placed in the Capulets’ vault, while Benvoglio sends a letter to Roméo, urging him to be at the Capulet’s mausoleum at midnight. When Roméo arrives, he sees Théobaldo’s tomb, then Juliette’s body, and wants to commit suicide, but Benvoglio arrives and tells him about the plan. Montaigu and Capulet arrive and want to fight, but Benvoglio intervenes, tells them about their children’s love and marriage and accuses them of having caused this tragedy with their hatred. Then Juliette wakes up, Benvoglio explains his stratagem and the families reconcile. As can be noted, the events in this version are quite similar to Shakespeare’s plot, although very few parts are directly translated from the English text, and the story is given a happy ending. However, Mercier seems to add some features which are absent from all the previous rewritings: an emphasis on moral principles (especially friendship and love) and a criticism of men’s tyrannical behaviour and of women’s submission. Moving away from the novelle, Shakespeare and Ducis alike, Mercier gives Benvoglio an extremely positive role: he often utters moralistic comments and he is the hero who makes love and friendship triumph over hatred. The play contains long passages, dialogues and monologues in which he explains his ideas and motives, or Juliette and her parents praise him for his moral values. Les Tombeaux de Vérone is an example of a neoclassical play where the unities of action, style and time are respected, emphasis is placed on the characters’ feelings, on moral values, and exempla are provided to “teach” and move the audience (Ligas 2005b: 116). Mercier’s work was translated for the first time into Italian in 1789 by an anonymous translator, then in 1794 by Elisabetta Caminer Turra and in 1797 by Giuseppe Ramirez, as Le tombe di Verona (Mercier 1797; Mercier 2005; Ligas 2005b). This version was extremely popular and was performed several times on the Italian stage. Collison-Morley (1916: 81) points out that “for many years this moving and interesting play, taken from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, has been acted

78

The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet

in the theatres of Italy with a success which should have satisfied any author.” The first opera libretto which refers to the story of the lovers was Giulietta e Romeo composed by Nicola Zingarelli, with a libretto by Giuseppe Foppa, performed at the Teatro La Scala in Milan in 1796.13 It is unlikely that the librettist had read Shakespeare’s play, since at the time Shakespeare was only known through Ducis and Mercier. However, as this version was also very different from the French texts, it was probably partly derived from the Italian tradition of the story. The plot shows more resemblances to Da Porto and Bandello than to Shakespeare, although several alterations to the Italian texts were introduced. The Friar is replaced by Gilberto, a friend of both families; Tybalt and Paris are conflated into one person, Teobaldo, whose marriage with Giulietta is arranged at the very outset, prior to the lovers’ first meeting. The story opens with a party at Cappelio’s house, to celebrate Giulietta’s engagement with Teobaldo, in which Romeo and Giulietta fall in love. Giulietta postpones the marriage and the lovers meet thanks to the help of Gilberto, who hopes to stop the hatred between the families through the lovers’ wedding. Teobaldo defies Romeo and is killed by him in a duel. Romeo is banished, but marries Giulietta before leaving Verona. Gilberto gives Giulietta a sleeping potion, and she appears dead. Romeo commits suicide with poison on Giulietta’s tomb. The girl, as in the Italian tradition of the story, wakes up to see him die and dies of grief. A dialogue (a duet) was necessary before their death, not only in order to follow the sources, but also because a dramatic duet by the lovers was required by contemporary opera conventions. As can be noted, this story is very similar to the Italian native tradition. This opera version was popular on the Italian stage until the 1820s, when other derivatives of the story appeared. However, as the Dizionario dell’opera (Gelli 2001) points out, Zingarelli’s work had been rewritten and adjusted to such an extent that it became a “pastiche.”14 The libretto by Foppa might have been altered following the circulation of other versions of the story (especially of the French imitations and of other Italian rewritings). This opinion might be corroborated by the title given to the opera in the nineteenth century: library records show that it was called Giulietta e Romeo o sia le tombe di Verona, which recalls Mercier’s title.15 It is possible that Foppa’s libretto (itself a rewriting of the native Italian tradition of the story) was combined with Mercier’s Le tombe di Verona, or perhaps with a tragedy by Luigi Scevola entitled Giulietta e Romeo, which appeared in 1818. The story of the lovers was also popular in ballet, probably again in rewritings that mixed the native Italian tradition with Mercier’s version. A ballet entitled Le tombe di Verona, ossia Giulietta e Romeo, composed by Salvatore Viganò and produced by Antonio Cherubini, appeared in 1823.16 79

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

This tragic dance was probably directly derived from the Italian play by Scevola (1818), although Michael Collins (1982: 534-535) has pointed out that Cherubini’s ballet also bears resemblances to the 1796 libretto by Foppa and cited Dalla Corte’s 1596 chronicle L’Istoria di Verona. The above overview shows the popularity of the Romeo and Juliet story on the Italian stage up to the 1820s: many different versions coexisted and were intertwined in performances for ballet, theatre and opera. However, Shakespeare was still absent from all these rewritings. Of particular importance among the Italian theatre versions appears to be Scevola’s tragedy Giulietta e Romeo (Scevola 1818). This work was apparently well known and influential at the time since ballet and opera versions were based on it. The plot seems to have very few elements in common with Shakespeare, or with the Italian novelle. Whether Scevola had read Shakespeare’s play is unknown. He might have been aware of it (perhaps through the French translation by Le Tourneur), but he claimed originality and wrote a very different story in which the action takes place in a single day as prescribed by neoclassical conventions. The play was probably a mixture of different elements taken from the Italian novelle, their Italian rewritings and the French versions, which were manipulated and made into a new tragedy. According to Collins (1982: 534), Scevola’s tragedy provided the basis for a libretto by Felice Romani which was very influential in opera after 1825: “Romani’s libretto of 1825 is virtually identical in plot, aside from inevitable operatic adaptations, to the Scevola tragedy; and the names of the characters in both are identical too”. The very few differences between the two works are highlighted by Collins (1982: 534). While Scevola retains from the Italian sources Fra Lorenzo, who marries Romeo and Giulietta just before the play begins, in Romani, Lorenzo is a doctor and friend to both families. In Scevola in the first scene Romeo announces that he will appear to Juliet’s father disguised as a peace envoy of the Montagues, and will ask him for Giulietta’s hand, as a means to stop the war between the families. This first scene is eliminated in Romani’s libretto, so that the audience cannot tell whether the lovers are already married or not. Another difference is that in Scevola, Tebaldo is (as in the sources) Giulietta’s kinsman, while Giulietta is betrothed to Ruggiero da Mantova, whereas in Romani (as in Foppa), Tebaldo is to marry Giulietta. The second scene in Scevola opens with Romeo arriving as a peace envoy. This is where Romani’s libretto begins. Romani’s Giulietta e Romeo was produced with music by Nicola Vaccaj in 1825.17 When it appeared, critics were shocked by the disrespect showed for Shakespeare’s play. However, there is no evidence of a relationship with the Bard’s play. As clearly stated in the title, the libretto was derived from Scevola’s tragedy, although Romani himself stated that his source was 80

The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet

Foppa’s libretto (Collins 1982: 535). Collins also identified Ducis as a possible influence on Romani for the similar importance given to the contrast between filial duty and love, which is absent in the Italian novelle, in Shakespeare or in Scevola (Collins 1982: 536-537). Indeed, while in Scevola, Giulietta would like to run away with Romeo, in Romani (as in Ducis), Giulietta, whose filial duty prevails, refuses to flee with him. Ducis’ influence might also be found in the fact that it is only in these two versions that Romeo kills Giulietta’s brother. Romani also highlights the feud between the two families belonging to the factions of the Ghibellines and Guelfs, therefore stressing the historical value and the political aspect of the story, which was also present in the Italian rewritings and in Ducis. The plot in Romani’s libretto is as follows: Romeo and Juliet love each other, but Giulietta is betrothed to Tebaldo. The play opens with the Capuleti (Guelfs) who are getting ready for a battle against the Montecchi (Ghibellines), to avenge the death of Capellio’s son by Romeo Montecchi (who has been banished from Verona). A peace envoy from the house of Montecchi appears: it is Romeo (disguised), who proposes marriage between Romeo and Giulietta in order to stop the war between the families. Capellio refuses the offer, and preparations for Giulietta and Tebaldo’s wedding begin. Lorenzo, the Capellio’s family doctor, helps his friend Romeo to meet Giulietta in her room, and Giulietta refuses to flee with him because of her duty to her father. Romeo has to run away because Capellio discovers them. Giulietta confesses her love for Romeo to her father, who decides she will marry Tebaldo that same night. A group of Montecchi enter the palace and during a fight Romeo kills Tebaldo. Capellio decides to send Giulietta to a convent as she is the cause of all the bloodshed. Giulietta thus asks Lorenzo for help, and is given a sleeping potion. Found “dead”, Giulietta is taken to the family sepulchre. Unaware of the stratagem, Romeo arrives and poisons himself. Giulietta wakes up and the lovers share a final dramatic moment together, in which Romeo asks Giulietta to live and remember him. Romeo dies in her arms, and Giulietta faints. Lorenzo arrives, speaks to Giulietta, who accuses him of having caused Romeo’s death. Capellio also arrives, and orders his attendants to drag Giulietta away from Romeo’s body. Giulietta accuses him of the tragedy and then dies, possibly of grief, as in the Italian tradition of the story. The same story, disguised with a new title and slightly changed, was given five years later to Vincenzo Bellini, who composed the opera I Capuleti e i Montecchi (tragedia lirica in due atti e quattro parti), with the libretto by Felice Romani, which premiered at the Fenice theatre in Venice on 11th March 1830. The plot is obviously very similar to Vaccaj’s version, although there are several changes. In Bellini’s opera the contrast between filial duty and love is highlighted, as Romeo repeatedly asks Giulietta to flee with him but she refuses out of duty to her father. Another difference consists 81

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

in the fact that Romeo does not kill Tebaldo, as their duel is interrupted by Giulietta’s funeral procession. In the tomb the lovers talk to each other, as in all the previous versions, and they both die before anybody else arrives. Giulietta’s accusation of her father is cut, and Capellio realises that the hatred between the families has caused this tragedy. This opera was extremely successful on the Italian and European stage during the nineteenth century, as it combined well-known, familiar themes, passions and fights with the archetypal romantic triangle. As Collins (1982: 538) points out, Romani “transformed Giulietta and Romeo into nineteenth-century ideal types, the languishing heroine and the ardent hero”. Romeo’s slow death agonizing on stage was also typical of the Romantic period, while having onstage death was taboo in the neoclassical period. While in opera the Romeo and Juliet story was successful in Romani’s rewriting, in the theatre the neoclassical versions by Ducis and Mercier prevailed, together with Italian refashionings of the novelle. It was only in the 1830s that an Italian version, which according to Gatti (1968: 33) was more “faithful” to the Shakespearean play, started to be performed on the Italian stage and became extremely successful. The Italian version was by Cesare Della Valle, Duca di Ventignano, a playwright who in 1826 published a play entitled Giulietta e Romeo and signed it as if it were his own original play, not a translation (Della Valle 1830).18 Although Della Valle did not acknowledge any indebtedness to the Italian novelle or to Shakespeare and claimed originality, the play appears to be based on Shakespeare’s drama, which was combined with the Italian tradition of the story. Della Valle’s tragedy bears more resemblances to Shakespeare than the French imitations and the other versions that were popular on the Italian stage. When the play begins Romeo and Juliet are already in love, Lorenzo is their common friend (but not a friar) who helps them meet secretly in Giulietta’s garden. Giustina, the nurse, also helps them. Romeo needs to hide because he has been banished from Verona, having killed Capuleto’s three sons. Giulietta is going to get married to either Paride or Tebaldo (both her cousins), and Capuleto tells his wife Isabella to choose among the two men. Romeo kills Tebaldo in a fight and is exiled (once again). Lorenzo gives Giulietta a sleeping potion and sends a friend to inform Romeo of the stratagem, but he cannot find him. Giulietta drinks the potion and is taken to the Capuleti’s tomb, where Romeo arrives, apologises to Tebaldo’s corpse and poisons himself. Giulietta awakes and there is a dramatic dialogue between the lovers (as in the Italian native tradition and the French rewritings), then Romeo dies and Giulietta kills herself with a sword. The tragedy ends with Giulietta’s death, and a desperate, “universal” cry by Capuleto, Lorenzo, Paride, and the servants. Although there are a number of differences with Shakespeare’s story, this version is definitely closer to it than to the French neoclassical imitations. 82

The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet

Della Valle’s tragedy seems to be a mixture of Shakespeare and the Italian tradition, and it appears to be very similar to Scevola’s play as well. This version was extremely successful in the theatre until the end of the 1860s, and was performed by actors Salvini and Ristori in the 1950s (Guerrieri 1954; Gatti 1968: 34; Bragaglia 1973: 17, 105-106; Vazzoler 1984). Bragaglia (1973: 106) considers Della Valle’s version as a scandalous rewriting. However, Della Valle’s merit lies in the fact that he introduced a version which was closer to the Shakespeare play than the French imitations. Although its relationship with Shakespeare is uncertain, it might be possible that Della Valle had read the French translation by Le Tourneur, or the first Italian translation by Michele Leoni in 1814 (Leoni/Shakespeare 1814).19 Leoni’s translation constitutes an important step in the introduction of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet in Italy. Although it is likely that Leoni translated from French,20 his work is important because it is the first Italian translation of Shakespeare’s play, and it is an example of the new, more source-oriented approach to translation that developed through the nineteenth century. Indeed, Leoni’s aim was not to rewrite a famous story pretending it was his, but rather to render Shakespeare’s text for an Italian public. Shakespeare’s name is highlighted in the title. Moreover, unlike in the previous French and Italian versions, the plot of the English play is followed, and for the first time Romeo dies before Juliet wakes up (despite the strong Italian tradition). However, an analysis of the translation reveals that Leoni’s approach, despite being more source-oriented, was strongly affected by contemporary taste. One of the main problems posed by the play both for a translator and especially in performance is its literariness, including, for example, the use of the sonnet form, oxymora, metaphors and poetic language. As pointed out by Wells, the play’s “self-conscious literariness has repeatedly been implicitly or explicitly criticized as detrimental to its theatrical effectiveness” (1996: 4). Levenson (2007: 2) similarly emphasises the fact that “the stylization of Romeo and Juliet – its use of verse and other formal conventions to retell the familiar love story – has posed a serious challenge to performers in the eras which followed its introduction to the stage.” The extensive use of “complex wordplay” (puns, bawdy jokes and sexual allusions) has also always caused problems both in performance and in translation. Complex wordplay “has often been censured […] by literary critics as well as being subjected to the more practical criticism of being excised from acting texts” (Wells 1996: 7).21 For example, in England in 1748 Garrick altered the text excising from it the “jingle” (rhymed verse) and “quibble” (puns and bawdy jokes), which were not suitable for the taste and theatrical conventions of the time, and offended the audience’s sensibility (Wells 1996; Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002; Levenson 2007; Bevington 2007). As observed by Levenson (2007: 4): .

83

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet Garrick was an entrepreneur who bowed to his audience’s wishes in making adjustments to Shakespeare’s text: he shortened the tragedy, cut out its bawdiness and other puns, and turned it into the equivalent of pathetic drama, the popular form of drama in his period.

The bawdiness of the text had also posed problems to English editors. Indeed, as noted by Jonathan Bate and Héloïse Sénéchal, since “Shakespeare’s energetic engagement with the vagaries and vulgarities of everyday speech was incompatible with his emerging status as a national icon”, colloquial expressions were “purged and pruned” by eighteenth century editors (2007: 30). A similar approach was adopted by eighteenth century French translators who excised the comedy, bawdy jokes and vulgar allusions because they judged them indecorous. As is shown in the following pages, the same happened in Italian stage versions and in printed translations. Leoni’s translation (Leoni/Shakespeare 1821) exemplifies the attitude of his time to Shakespeare’s play. Comedy, wordplay and bawdry are either toned down in, or removed from, the Italian target text because they were considered inappropriate in a tragedy and symptomatic of bad taste. As a result, the vulgar allusions by Gregory and Samson at the beginning of I.1 were cut, many of the Nurse’s comments were toned down or eliminated, the scene with the serving-men clearing up the table and preparing for the ball in I.4 was deleted altogether. In the latter case, Leoni justified his choice by explaining that since the characters say “pochissime e frivole cose” (very few and frivolous things), their omission could actually improve the text and render the action less boring and faster (Leoni/Shakespeare 1821: 45). At times the translator cut lines, explaining in a footnote that he omitted some parts which made the dialogue boring, strange or grotesque (Leoni/ Shakespeare 1821: 154), but on various occasions the censorship was not declared and words were excised without any justification. Mercutio’s bawdy talk and wordplay is also very often omitted because deemed obscene and since the translator did not like an overuse of puns. For example, Mercutio’s sexual allusions in II.1 were cut, and a footnote explains that “e qui e nella susseguente risposta di Marcuccio, tralascio alcune espressioni, che la decenza non saprebbe forse tollerare neppure misteriosamente esposte” (and here and in Marcuccio’s subsequent reply I have left out some expressions which decency would not stand for, not even if veiled in innuendo) (Leoni/ Shakespeare 1821: 56). However, not only were the comedy and wordplay cut, but also the highly poetic language of the play: the Petrarchan images, the sonnets and rhymes that make up much of Shakespeare’s text were eliminated. The Prologue and the Chorus of Act II (which are in sonnet form) were omitted, Lady Capulet’s comments on Paris (II.3.83-96), in sonnet form and containing Petrarchan conceits, were shortened, and her comparison of 84

The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet

Paris’ face with a book was eliminated. Lady Capulet’s sonnet reads as follows: Read o’er the volume of young Paris’ face, And find delight writ there with beauty’s pen; Examine every married lineament, And see how one another lends content; And what obscured in this fair volume lies, Find written in the margent of his eyes. This precious book of love, this unbound lover, To beautify him only lacks a cover. The fish lives in the sea, and ‘tis much pride For fair without the fair within to hide. That book in many’s eyes doth share the glory That in gold clasps locks in the golden story So shall you share all that he doth possess, By having him, making yourself no less.

Various commentators, editors and translators have criticised this speech. G. Blakemore Evans argues that the precious and nonsensical praise of Paris (omitted in Q1) is an extended conceit describing him in terms of a book – unbound (unmarried) and bound (married); Shakespeare found a hint of this in Brooke (1893-6) and improved on it with unhappy results (Evans/Shakespeare 1998: 73).

Levenson explains that “Pope omits the passage, which is not in Q1, calling it ‘a ridiculous speech’. A number of later poets and editors concur; many productions have cut the lines in whole or in part” (Levenson/Shakespeare 2000: 176-177). Contemporary English editors and critics might have influenced Leoni’s choice to eliminate the passage. The shared sonnet uttered by Romeo and Juliet during their first meeting (I.4.206-219) was also trimmed. In this scene the lovers do not kiss, and hence Juliet’s comment “You kiss by the book” (I.4.223) was eliminated. This confirms that Petrarchism and the sonnet form were considered unacceptable in the Italian literary system of the nineteenth century, as they were judged exaggerated and too artificial. Leoni’s negative attitude to Petrarchism is exemplified in a footnote in which the translator comments on Capulet’s description of Juliet’s sorrow using conventional conceits such as images of tears, rivers, the sun: CAPULET When the sun sets, the earth doth drizzle dew; | But for the sunset of my brother’s son | It rains downright. How now, a conduit, girl? What, still in tears? | Evermore show’ring? In one little body | Thou counterfeits a bark, a sea, a wind: | For still thy eyes, which I may call the sea, | Do ebb and flow with tears; the bark thy body is, | 85

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet Sailing in this salt flood; the winds, thy sighs, | Who, raging with thy tears, and they with them, | Without a sudden calm will overset | Thy tempest-tossèd body (III.5.130136).

In the footnote Leoni explained that Shakespeare introduced a large number of conventional images because he wanted to recreate and counterfeit Italian poetry, but the result was an exaggeratedly artificial, overtly conventional and highly ornate language which no Italian poet, not even seventeenth century Italian poets, would use (Leoni/Shakespeare 1821: 134). This comment clarifies the negative attitude of the time towards such conventional language, and therefore Leoni’s own tendency to avoid it in some cases, in order to meet the aesthetics then prevailing. Besides the cuts to the source text, Leoni’s translation contains one fundamental difference from Shakespeare’s play: the addition of a scene with Juliet’s funeral procession and a two-page long funeral hymn sung by a choir (Leoni/Shakespeare 1821: 162-164). Leoni’s inserted scene might have been his own invention, but it might also have been due to the influence of English performances of the play (in 1748 Garrick had added a funeral procession), a reference to contemporary theatrical practice, or the influence of the Italian novelle. The final scene was kept as in Shakespeare, with Romeo dying before Juliet awakes, the Friar going to the tomb and talking to Juliet, his explanatory speech and the reconciliation of the families. Leoni’s translation is important because it was the first real Italian attempt to follow Shakespeare’s text fully, without completely rewriting and transforming it. The final success that Shakespeare’s version of the story encountered in Italy is amply testified by the number of translations made after 1821. For example Giunio Bazzoni and Giacomo Sormani translated the tragedy in 1830, while in 1831 a translation by Gaetano Barbieri appeared (Crinò 1950: 160; Lombardo 1964: 10). Leoni’s new Romantic attitude towards Shakespeare continued with the two main translators of the nineteenth century: Rusconi and Carcano. They were the first Italians to translate Romeo and Juliet directly from English, and they attempted to render the Shakespeare text fully without altering the plot or the language. The play was included in the first prose translation of the Teatro Completo by Rusconi in 1838,22 whereas Carcano translated Romeo and Juliet from Shakespeare in verse in 1847.23 Both Carcano and Rusconi translated from an English edition and made comments on English, French and German Shakespeare criticism. However, despite their admiration for Shakespeare, their use of English editions and their claim to be as close to the source text as possible, both Carcano and Rusconi showed an attitude to the source text and its language which is similar to that adopted by Leoni. As is demonstrated in the analysis below, the target culture strongly influenced Carcano’s and Rusconi’s 86

The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet

translation strategies: the translations contain cuts and alterations to the source text which are dictated by nineteenth-century Italian aesthetics, taste and conventions. Although Rusconi follows Shakespeare’s text closely, some major, significant alterations deserve attention. Comedy and wordplay were usually cut or altered, and footnotes tend to explain the reasons for such omissions. For instance, in the opening scene the servants’ vulgar allusions were excised, and some words were eliminated, with a footnote to inform the readers that the original text contained puns which were omitted because “pallidissimi” (very pale) (Rusconi/Shakespeare 1852: 157). However, exactly what Rusconi meant by “very pale” is not clear. The Nurse’s frequent sexual allusions and Mercutio’s bawdy talk were also cut, with footnotes explaining that Rusconi decided to avoid specific words and jokes because they were too vulgar. In other cases the translator censored the text without making any comments and simply used different expressions that would not have disturbed his audience’s taste. Complex wordplay was also avoided, with the translator often justifying his choice by saying that it was useless or untranslatable (Rusconi/Shakespeare 1852: 183). Capulet’s insults to Juliet when she refuses to obey him and marry Paris were also cut, as they were judged too strong and violent (Rusconi/Shakespeare 1852: 204). Another element that was altered was the literariness of Shakespeare’s language, especially the Petrarchan conventions and the sonnet form. As regards the sonnet form, the Prologue was omitted, Lady Capulet’s comments on Paris were turned into prose and did not contain the image of the book with its cover; the first dialogue between the lovers was also in prose and was cut before they kissed. Capulet’s description of Juliet’s despair by using Petrarchan language (III.5.130-136), on the other hand, was kept, although in a long footnote the translator explained that he did not like this artificial language used by Shakespeare, but had retained it because his main aim in translating Shakespeare was to render his works as faithfully as possible. However, he felt obliged to apologise to his contemporary readers for this lack of taste (Rusconi/Shakespeare 1852: 203). Rusconi’s comments suggest that in the mid-nineteenth century Shakespeare was perceived and praised as a genius, but his works were still judged too irregular or extreme, too “foreign” and “different” to be received as they were. It is worth noting that Rusconi rejected the literariness of the play as artificial and in bad taste, without acknowledging that it actually originally derived from Petrarch, had been fashionable during Shakespeare’s time, and that the playwright might have used it here for a specific reason, also perhaps with a satirical intention (Pasternak Slater 1988).24 The final scene, which was usually altered in performance (in conformity with the Italian native tradition and with contemporary taste, following Garrick’s version), was kept as in 87

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

Shakespeare, without modifications. Romeo dies before Juliet awakes, Friar Laurence appears in the tomb and deserts Juliet, and there is a final reconciliation between the families. However, in a footnote Rusconi showed he was aware that contemporary and past theatrical practice (both in Italy and in England), as well as the Italian tradition of the story preferred adding a dialogue between the lovers before they died, as suggested by Garrick and by Bandello (Rusconi/Shakespeare 1852: 226).There are no records of this translation being used in the theatre, although it is likely that performers read it, as Rusconi’s work became very popular and a point of reference for many Italians.25 Carcano’s 1847 translation, in hendecasyllabic verse, was, instead, used by Ernesto Rossi in his performances across Europe. Carcano quoted Bandello, Da Porto and Groto and referred to English editors and commentators, as well as French and German criticism. Carcano’s attitude to Shakespeare’s text is similar to Rusconi’s, and the problems he encountered in the translation were similar. As Rusconi explained in a footnote, the complex wordplay and vulgar expressions contained in the play, which were sometimes difficult to interpret, posed problems to him, since he was aware that they might disturb Italians’ more fastidious and subtle taste. Despite this difficulty, he attempted to be true to Shakespeare by retaining ambiguities (Carcano/Shakespeare 1883: 180). This comment exemplifies the translator’s aim and the constraints that the target literary system and culture imposed upon him. But let us see how he dealt with the challenges posed by the play. As regards poetic language, Petrarchism and the sonnet form, Carcano translated the Prologue, retaining the sonnet form and the rhyme scheme abab/cdcd/efef/gg. However, Lady Capulet’s comments on Paris are not in sonnet form, and the translator criticised the use of conventional metaphors and allusions in this speech, which were however retained as they were witty (Carcano/Shakespeare 1883: 188). Although the first meeting between Romeo and Juliet is not in sonnet form, all its lines were kept. Juliet’s comment “you kiss by the book” is also retained and was rendered with “Voi baciate, alla lettera” (You kiss, to the letter/very well), with a footnote that explains the meaning of the English expression (Carcano/Shakespeare 1883: 192). The chorus to Act two is omitted. On the whole the sonnet form was not retained (except in the Prologue) and was not commented upon as an important feature of the play. With regard to vulgar allusions and comedy, Carcano attempted to keep them, though at times he simply avoided some lines, or slightly changed the meaning so as not to offend his readers, and without adding any explanatory footnote. The final scene was kept as in Shakespeare, and after the Prince’s last words a footnote quotes the final comment in Da Porto’s novella, to show the similarity between the two.

88

The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet

Leoni, Rusconi and Carcano represent the first Italian attempts at a more source-oriented translation of Shakespeare’s play. However, although the translators’ aims may have been to follow the source text closely, and to make Italians acquainted with the English genius, in all three translations similar interventions were made in the text. Cuts, changes and alterations exemplify the attitude of the time to Shakespeare and his language, and the influence of contemporary aesthetics, conventions and morality on translation strategies. The three translators shared a tendency to cut or change obscene words or vulgar allusions; to omit the comedy of the Nurse, Mercutio and the servants; to avoid complex wordplay; to cut or tone down Petrarchan language and conventions, also avoiding the sonnet form. Petrarchism and the sonnet were felt inappropriate, too conventional and artificial, symptoms of bad taste and therefore had to be left out. Carcano’s translation of Romeo and Juliet is of great importance for the history of the reception of Shakespeare’s play in Italy, as this was the text through which the tragedy finally entered Italian theatres in the 1860s. The success of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet on the Italian stage is linked to the name of the great actor Rossi (1827-1896), who performed the Shakespearean original in 1869, using Carcano’s translation. Rossi added to the title of the play the explanation “tragedia in 5 atti non mai rappresentata in Milano” (tragedy in five acts never previously staged in Milan before), to point out that previous versions were far removed from the original. Rossi played the role of Romeo until he was in his fifties, in both Italy and in other countries, with great success (Gatti 1968: 34; Bragaglia 1973). However, like all the mattatori, he interpreted and adapted the play to his own sensibility and to suit his own skills, and used Carcano’s translation as a script for performance, thus interpreting and rearranging it, altering it to his own liking. He cut parts, rearranged scenes and added others, and (obviously) modified the final scene to heighten the dramatic moment and allow him a last virtuoso display. Juliet awakened before Romeo’s death and the lovers saw each other, although there was no dialogue, but a focus on Romeo’s agony. The political aspect of Shakespeare’s play was probably also toned down, as the emphasis was on the tragic hero. As a consequence, it is also likely that Rossi diminished the importance of secondary characters, and cut the comedy and wordplay. The play was interpreted as a domestic tragedy in which Romeo’s character and his passions were given prominence. In the nineteenth century other great actors performed in Romeo and Juliet versions: Salvini and Ristori up to the 1860s adopted Della Valle’s play, stressing the protagonists’ passions, and Duse played Giulietta. She is reported to have played Juliet when she was fifteen, in 1873 in a performance by the Teatro Viaggiante della famiglia Duse in Verona (Bragaglia 1973: 94), of which there is no extant script. In 1891 Duse played Giulietta in 89

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

Russia, using a version made specifically for her by Jarro (alias Giulio Piccini), of which no script has remained. Boito also started to translate Romeo and Juliet for Duse in 1889, but the translation was never finished, published or performed (Vazzoler 1984), probably because Jarro’s version for the stage arrived first. Boito’s version, of which only the first and part of the fifth acts have remained (Vazzoler 1984), provides an interesting example of translation practices for the stage at the end of the nineteenth century. Firstly, Boito translated the play from the French translation by Hugo (Vazzoler 1984: 60). This fact shows how at the end of the nineteenth century, despite the availability of two Italian translations of the complete theatre, the phenomenon of indirect translation from French was still common, at least for stage versions of the plays. New German and French translations had also appeared, and Italians who could not read English and did not want to use Carcano and Rusconi’s translations could resort to those foreign translations. Vazzoler’s analysis of Boito’s translation shows his approach to Shakespeare’s play. Boito’s text contains no comedy and no vulgar allusions, and wordplay is cut: the text is censored according to contemporary aesthetics and ethics (Vazzoler 1984: 19). For example, all the vulgar allusions of the servants at the beginning of the play were cut. Mercutio’s “Queen Mab speech” was shortened. Petrarchan images and language were avoided, Lady Capulet’s comments on Paris, in sonnet form, using Petrarchan topoi, was cut. As argued by Vazzoler (1984: 20), the play’s mixture of tragedy and comedy, of poetic and vulgar was completely erased. Although Boito cut more parts than Carcano and Rusconi did, his alterations to the source text were in line with previous translations. This shows how up to the late nineteenth century certain features of the play were still not accepted and were censored. The already shortened translations were further altered and cut when preparing the plays for performance. As has been illustrated, Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet underwent adaptation and cuts in performance and in translation because of some problematic elements in the text as well as because of changing conventions and tastes in the theatre and in literature. Up to the mid-nineteenth century Italian readers, as well as theatre and opera audiences had been used to the French and Italian imitations, i.e., rewritings in which the contrast between filial duty and passion was stressed, and which highlighted the historical, political conflict of the war between the Guelfs and Ghibellines. These versions also contained more battles and bloodshed, although these were not enacted on stage, because of the conventions of the time. When finally, by the mid-nineteenth century, Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet managed to enter the Italian literary and theatrical systems, it was intertwined with previous versions and was altered according to conventions and tastes. Both in translations for the page and in performance, a process of acculturation and 90

The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet

naturalisation took place, since translators as well as actors tended to censor or tone down the elements they considered unsuitable to their taste and aims. Romeo and Juliet was read by the mattatori as a domestic tragedy in which passion prevailed, while comedy, poetry and vulgarity were taken out. The political aspect was also toned down, since the passions of the main characters were seen as being more important. Moreover, while the translators kept the final scene as it was in Shakespeare, this was usually altered in performance, in conformity with the native Italian tradition of the story and Garrick’s famous version. Through the first direct translations by Rusconi and Carcano, and with Rossi in the theatre, Shakespeare’s play became known in Italy with its passion, tragedy, and romance. The next chapter moves on to investigate how Romeo and Juliet has been received in Italy in more recent years by analysing trends in translation and performance in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.   1

For a discussion of Shakespeare’s sources for Romeo and Juliet see the introductions to various editions of the play: Spencer/Shakespeare 1996; Gibbons/Shakespeare 1998; Evans/Shakespeare 1998; Levenson/Shakespeare 2000. See also Prunster 2000; Romano 1993; Lehmann 2010; Charlton 1948; Moore 1950; Bullough 1957; Muir 1977; Levenson 1984; Mullini 1986; Zacchi 1986; Zaniboni 1988; Serpieri et al. 1988; Scragg 1992, 2003; Clough 1993; Melchiori 1994; Miola 2000; Marrapodi 2000; Chiarini 1906. 2 The story was published in 1530/31 in Venice by Bendoni, reprinted in 1535, and the second edition appeared in 1539 with the title La Giulietta, which was a shorter version of the previous one (for example, the final comment of the writer about the unfaithfulness of modern women is cut). See also Brognoligo (1904). 3 Other adaptations of Da Porto’s novella were the French tale Halquadrich and Burglipha by Adrien Sevin (1542); Gherardo Boldieri (alias Clizia)’s poem in ottava rima Giulia e Romeo (1553), Luigi Groto’s tragedy in blank verse Adriana (1578). This tragedy was extremely popular, and was reprinted nine times between 1582 and 1626. See Prunster (2000: 7); Romano (1993: 31-35); Bullough (1957: 271). See also Moore (1950: 103-110) for a discussion of Groto’s sources and possible influence on Shakespeare. Indeed it has been suggested that Shakespeare knew Groto’s tragedy, especially because of the presence of a nightingale singing in the morning when the lovers part. 4 The title of Bandello’s novella. 5 Roberts (1998: 82-83) defines English Petrarchism as follows: “English Petrarchism largely focused on the feelings of the male lover for his female beloved, often by celebrating an unrequited love for an idealized and unattainable woman, and typically used the sonnet form first developed by Petrarch […] and characteristic tropes – such as witty conceits (ingenious comparisons), wordplay, hyperbole (exaggeration), repetition, oxymoron (an apparent contradiction), and the ‘blazon’, in which the beloved’s physical features were itemized and idealized.” For discussions on the presence and role of Petrarchism in Romeo and Juliet see also Clemen (1951); Mahood (1957); Levin (1960: 3-11); Brooke (1968: 81-105); Calderwood (1971); Berry (1978); Rutelli (1978); Kennan (1986); Morley (1986); Wells (1996: 1-14). For a further discussion on the role of Petrarchism in the play see also Chapter Three. 6 For a discussion on wordplay and bawdy talk in the play see Wells (1996: 1-14), Wells 2010; Mahood (1957); Holding (1992); Roberts (1998: 88-92); Laroque (1995); Sutherland (1970: 7684); the introductions to recent English editions and Italian translations of the tragedy. For further discussion on bawdy language in the play see also Chapter Three. 91

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

    7

On the play’s treatment of patriarchal rule see also Bassnett (1993: 53-71) and Roberts (1998: 21-22). 8 On Shakespeare translation in Italy and in Europe see Crinò 1950; Petrone Fresco 1991, 1993; Delabastita and D’hulst 1993; Heylen 1993; Delabastita 1998; Del Sapio Garbero 2002; Carvalho Homem and Hoenselaars 2004. 9 Verdi’s famous works inspired by Shakespeare’s plays were Macbeth (1847), Otello (1887) and Falstaff (1893) (from Shakespeare’s The Merry Wives of Windsor and Henry IV). 10 The first performance of the story was a ballet in Milan, in 1787, with music composed by Filippo Beretti. In 1796 the first opera version, composed by Giuseppe Zingarelli with a libretto by Giuseppe Foppa, was staged (see Gatti 1968: 12; Gelli 2001). 11 I consulted two French editions published in 1832 and 1859. 12 I consulted a 2005 edition and translation into Italian by Pierluigi Ligas, as well as a 1797 translation by Giuseppe Ramirez. 13 See the synopsis and comments in the Dizionario dell’opera (Gelli 2001), on line at: http://www.myword.it/opera/dictionary/518 (consulted 19.01.2013). 14 On line at: http://www.myword.it/opera/dictionary/518 (consulted 19.01.2013). 15 The Opac sbn online lists two scripts for the opera by Zingarelli: Giulietta e Romeo o sia le tombe di Verona: Tragedia per musica, Nicola Zingarelli (Firenze: Fantosini Gius, Stamp, 1808), and Giulietta e Romeo o sia le tombe di Verona; dramma tragico per musica, Zingarelli (Perugia: Calvieri Filippo, Stamp., 1816). 16 Le tombe di Verona/ossia/Giulietta e Romeo/ballo tragico in sei atti/d’invenzione e composizione di Antonio Cherubini (Cremona, n.d.; Teatro Eretenio, Vicenza, 1823; Teatro alla Canobbiana, Milano, 1830). 17 Giulietta e Romeo di Nicola Vaccaj, libretto di Felice Romani, dalla tragedia Giulietta e Romeo di Luigi Scevola. Tragedia per musica in due atti. Prima: Milano, Teatro alla Canobbiana, 31 ottobre 1825. See the synopsis and comments in the Dizionario dell’opera (Gelli 2001), on line at: http://www.myword.it/opera/dictionary/516 (consulted 18.01.2013). 18 I consulted an 1830 edition, held in the Biblioteca Museo dell’Attore in Genova. 19 I consulted an 1814 and an 1821 edition, both held in the Biblioteca Museo dell’Attore in Genova. 20 Leoni refers to Le Tourneur’s translation, and appears to follow the French translator’s cuts. Analysis of the text reveals that Leoni had read both some English editions of the play and Le Tourneur’s translation, and that he knew the Italian novelle, from which he sometimes quotes in footnotes. 21 The whole play was often altered in England. For example, during the Restoration, Thomas Otway wrote the play Caius Marius (1679), which rewrote Shakespeare’s play transferring it to ancient Rome and included a scene between the lovers in the tomb, which “became standard practice for nearly 165 years” (Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002: 10). The play’s ending has often been changed, and a dialogue between Romeo and Juliet before their death was also added by Garrick in 1748 and used in performance for almost a century (see Levenson 2007; Bevington 2007 among others). 22 The translation analysed here is that in the third edition of the Teatro Completo di Shakespeare (Rusconi/Shakespeare 1852). 23 The translation analysed here is that in the fourth edition of the Teatro Completo di Shakespeare (Carcano/Shakespeare 1883). 24 Anne Pasternak Slater (1988), for instance, has suggested that the conceits used by Capulet for intense sorrow and tearfulness are derived from Wyatt’s sonnet ‘My galley charged with forgetfulness’, which was a translation of Petrarch’s Rime 189. Slater also suggested that these conventional conceits were used in a satirical way by Shakespeare. See also Levenson (1982: 2829).

92

The Beginnings of Romeo and Juliet

    25

For example, it has been noted that Giuseppe Verdi had Rusconi’s and Carcano’s translations of Shakespeare’s complete works by his bed (Weiss 1982: 139).

93

Chapter 3: Patterns in Translation and Production of Romeo and Juliet in the Twentieth and Early Twenty-First Centuries This chapter considers the reception of Romeo and Juliet in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, identifying trends in translation and production. In analysing translations two aspects receive particular attention: the treatment of Petrarchan poetic conventions and of bawdy language, since they are fundamental elements in the tragedy which, as highlighted in the previous chapter, have often posed problems to both directors and translators. According to Roberts (1998: 81) the “conflicting discourses of Petrarchism […] and bawdy […] present alternative views of love and sexuality and […] continually play off and undermine each other in Romeo and Juliet.” As previously highlighted, Romeo and Juliet contains various sonnets: the choruses in Acts I and II, Lady Capulet’s comments about Paris in I.3, and the first dialogue between the lovers at the ball, in I.4. Moreover, throughout the play, rhyming verse and the conventional language of Petrarchism are used by several characters. As Levenson points out, “no one writes poetry in Verona, but everyone speaks it for better or worse” (Levenson/Shakespeare 2000: 56). Recent criticism has also suggested that Petrarchism and the type of love it evokes are challenged and criticised, mainly by Mercutio and by women (Pasternak Slater 1988; Whittier 1989; Roberts 1998). Roberts argues that Shakespeare shows women to be both suspect of and subjects of poetic discourse, fashioning blazons for themselves and able to reproduce Petrarchan tropes. […] women have a capable and often critical poetic voice, disrupting the usual relations of male agency and female passivity in Petrarchan discourse (1998: 86).

Bawdy language is another important element in the play which has a dramatic function. For instance, its presence in the first scene in the dialogue between Gregory and Samson has the purpose of making “explicit, at the beginning of this love tragedy, one possible relationship between man and woman: a brutal male dominance expressed in sadistic quibbles” (Mahood 1957: 60). Sexual violence and male aggressiveness emerge in the play, especially in Mercutio’s speech and behaviour. Bawdy language is present throughout the play: it is obvious in the rude jokes by the servants in the opening scene and in the sexual allusions especially made by Mercutio, but also by Romeo and Benvolio. In II.3.50-94, for instance, Mercutio, Romeo and Benvolio engage in a kind of “contest of wits” in which, as argued by 

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

Roberts, although Mercutio dominates the conversation, all three men participate in the production of sexual innuendo; here bawdy talk becomes a game played between men. We might see this game as primarily linguistic – a friendly competition for the cleverest continuation of sexual innuendo […] – and/or as an assertion of masculinity and male sexual prowess (1998: 89).

Moreover, bawdy language can also be found in the speeches of women. As Roberts (1998: 90) points out, “although women do not engage in bawdy talk to the same extent as men, Romeo and Juliet arguably shows women enjoying sexual innuendo.” Sexual allusions are used by the Nurse and by Juliet, who make references to pleasure and desire. For instance, Juliet’s epithalamium in III.2.1-31, while she is waiting for Romeo in her bedroom, contains references to the loss of virginity, desire and sexual pleasure. As observed by Wells (2010: 162), in this ‘Gallop apace’ speech Juliet “looks forward to [her marriage night], and to her sexual initiation, with passionate and impatient rapture”. However, as highlighted in Chapter Two, despite their importance in the play, bawdy language and poetry were often excised or toned down by Italian translators and actors throughout the nineteenth century. Analyses of Italian translations and productions suggest that until the 1940s Romeo and Juliet was subject to cuts and alterations which mainly affected its vulgar language and poetry. During the first half of the twentieth century the play underwent a process of idealisation and normalisation, to which both translations and performances contributed. By downplaying the variations of tone and censoring the text, eliminating its non-romantic elements, its conventional poetic language and vulgar expressions, the play’s complexity was reduced, the tragedy came to represent idealised romantic love and Romeo and Juliet were elevated to archetypes. Translators of Romeo and Juliet at the beginning of the twentieth century seemed to adopt a “reverential” attitude towards Shakespeare. Such an attitude may be employed when the source text is held in high esteem, when it is perceived as a completed work which requires no further adjustments or amendments, and needs to be reproduced in its entirety. As Aaltonen points out: when the mode of translation is of reverence, the Foreign […] is held in esteem and respected. These texts are either translated in their entirety, or an effort is made to transplant into the indigenous linguistic and cultural system certain features – often aspects of theatre aesthetics – which are deemed essential in them. Translations are used to increase cultural capital in the indigenous system (2000: 64).

Many translators admired Shakespeare as a great writer whose works were considered literary masterpieces, and attempted to explain the complexity of 96

Patterns in Translation and Production

the source text to Italian readers through introductions and footnotes in which wordplay and cultural or literary references were commented upon. However, closer analysis reveals that admiration for the Bard did not prevent translators from slightly amending the play, especially in its bawdy element, and disregarding much conventional poetic language, which were perhaps still not considered essential features worthy of being transplanted into Italian culture. This is in line with the approach of several English editors to Shakespeare’s colloquial language. As argued by Bate and Sénéchal (2007: 30) “until very recently there has been a continued reverence for the bard that often leads to all sorts of words being dismissed, unhelpfully, as ‘bawdy quibbles’, ‘obscure’ or ‘of uncertain meaning’”. The same happened in France. As observed by Jean-Michel Déprats (2004a: 76) “one of the main characteristics of translations from former decades was to water down, or sometimes to censure, the entire verbal stratum that referred to the body and to bodily functions, notably to sexuality.” Cino Chiarini’s 1906 translation of Romeo and Juliet provides an example of this attitude (Chiarini/Shakespeare 1906). The translator’s high esteem for Shakespeare shows in the introduction, in which Chiarini praised Shakespeare and the play, which was defined as “un monumento di grande letteratura artistica” (a great artistic literary monument) (Chiarini/ Shakespeare 1906: 21). The translator also mentioned several critical studies and criticised the previous translations by Carcano and Rusconi as inaccurate and incomplete. Chiarini claimed that his aim was to recreate Shakespeare’s text in its entirety, in prose, attempting to render the complexity of its language. He paid particular attention to wordplay, and added endnotes to explain double meanings and historical, cultural or literary references. However, although Chiarini’s declared intention was to be as close to the original text as possible, analysis shows that a certain degree of “censorship” was still present, since he toned down vulgar allusions. For instance, in I.1.21-25, Samson makes an obscene pun on “the heads of the maids-their maidenheads”: SAMSON […] I will be civil with the maids, I will cut off their heads. GREGORY The heads of the maids? SAMSON Ay, the heads of the maids, or their maidenheads, take it in what sense thou wilt.

Chiarini translated the passage as follows: Sansone: Sarò spietato con le ragazze; voglio rompere a tutte … la testa. Gregorio: La testa alle ragazze? Sansone: Sì, la testa delle ragazze: via, prendila nel senso che vuoi (Chiarini/Shakespeare 1906:119). 97

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet (Samson: I will be ruthless with the maids; I want to break all their … heads. Gregory: The heads of the maids? Samson: Yes, the heads of the maids: come on, take that to mean anything you like)

In a long endnote Chiarini explained that Samson’s extremely licentious language plays on the word “maidenheads”, which can mean both “heads of the maids” and “virginity”. The translator added that since he could not reproduce this obscene pun, he eliminated the second part of the expression as it was “una semplice volgarità” (mere vulgarity) (Chiarini/Shakespeare 1906: 266-267). This attitude was adopted on several occasions where Shakeseare’s text contained vulgar puns. Chiarini explained wordplay and sexual allusions in endnotes, but tended to eliminate bawdiness from his target text. His translation strategy was thus to excise the vulgar language, justifying the omissions with the fact that the plays on words were untranslatable. As far as the lyricism of the play is concerned, Chiarini did not provide any comments on the sonnet form and the use of Petrarchism. Although information on performances before 1937 is scant, it seems likely that the censorship of vulgar allusions that prevailed in translation was also, and more evidently, at work on the stage. The first performance of the century of which some records have remained is a production by the Dario Niccodemi company in 1924, which used Chiarini’s already amended translation, where Italianness was stressed in the setting and scenery (Bragaglia 1973: 106; Anzi 1981: 44-45). Performances up to the midtwentieth century continued the native tradition that interpreted the play as a domestic tragedy, a romantic love story, with a focus on the lovers. As a result, vulgar allusions, wordplay and poetry were elements subject to further omissions. All the features that might “disturb” such an interpretation, like the comedy as well as the artificial poetic language and especially the vulgar allusions, were likely to be excised. Moreover, performances of the play up to 1937 were still dominated by the great actors of the day, who adapted the plays to their own interpretations and focused on the lovers. However, although the mattatori continued to prevail on the Italian stage during the first half of the century, greater attention to Shakespeare’s text was called for by critics. Moreover, from the 1930s theatre directors imposed their own interpretations, showing a certain reverence towards the source text, and often commissioned new translations. For instance, in 1937, director Guido Salvini asked Paola Ojetti to translate Romeo and Juliet for him (Ojetti/Shakespeare 1937), while in 1948 Renato Simoni commissioned poet Salvatore Quasimodo with a new translation for the stage (Quasimodo/Shakespeare 1949). An analysis of Ojetti’s and Quasimodo’s translations corroborates the opinion that Shakespeare’s text was still amended: in these texts bawdy language is cut and Petrarchism is toned 98

Patterns in Translation and Production

down. The downplaying of the bawdiness of Romeo and Juliet in translations for both the page and the stage up to the 1940s contributed to the idealisation of the play as a tragedy of romantic love, and to the crystallisation of this sentimental interpretation. The second half of the twentieth century has been considered by various scholars as a crucial point in the history of Shakespeare’s reception in Italy (Lombardo 2000: 217; Marrapodi 2000). Indeed, during the 1940s the reception of Shakespeare and of Romeo and Juliet in Italy changed. The most important element contributing to this shift in perception was probably the development of Italian Shakespeare studies, especially through the work of Mario Praz, who produced various studies on Shakespeare (Praz 1969) and edited the complete works between 1943 and 1947. According to Lombardo (2000: 218) the second half of the twentieth century witnessed a “new critical seriousness and intensity” which focused on “philological and textual research” and analyses of Shakespeare language and imagery, together with studies of the single plays or of specific periods. Other Shakespeare scholars followed, such as Lombardo and Melchiori. Marrapodi (2002) identified three schools of criticism in Italian Shakespeare studies, including the “structuralist-semiotic school” with Marcello Pagnini, Alessandro Serpieri, Keir Elam, Paola Pugliatti, Romana Rutelli and Angela Locatelli. Another group is influenced by historical Marxism and includes scholars such as Franco Moretti, Marcello Cappuzzo, Paola Colaiacono, Laura Di Michele and Silvano Sabbadini among others. A third group pays close attention to “the rhetorical and ideological uses of language” (Marrapodi 2002) and includes among others, Roberta Mullini, Anna Anzi, Hilary Gatti, Franco Marenco and Masolino D’Amico. Mariangela Tempera, with her Shakespeare Centre in Ferrara and the editing of collections of essays on Shakespeare’s plays in production, is particularly interested in performance theory and dramatic criticism. Another critical field which has emerged focuses on the influence of Italian culture, literature and tradition on Shakespeare, and investigates issues of “appropriation, reception, translation, representations and misrepresentations, […] cultural exchange and intertextuality” between England and Italy. Marrapodi belongs to this school (Marrapodi 2002, 2004, 2007). After the 1940s, a “boom” in translation also took place, with a rise in the number of Shakespeare translations, and various editions both of single plays and of the complete works were published. Romeo and Juliet provides an example of this phenomenon, as it was often translated both for page and stage. Indeed, between 1937 and 2012 seventeen translations were published (two of which were made for specific productions and only appeared in the theatre programmes) and many others were commissioned by directors and have remained as scripts. The next part of this chapter identifies principle 99

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

aspects that have emerged in Shakespeare translation, and in translations of Romeo and Juliet in particular, since the 1940s. 1. Trends in Translation since the 1940s In analysing Italian translations from the 1940s to the early twenty-first century, four important aspects can be noted. First, that a tendency to recreate Shakespeare’s plays in their entirety, avoiding cuts, prevails (especially in translations for the page). Secondly, that in Italy no “authoritative”, “classic” Shakespeare translation exists, and the plays are always retranslated in order to follow changes in the Italian language, changes of taste and criticism, or a specific translator’s or editor’s interpretation. Italian translation practice appears to be strongly affected by the developments in Shakespearean scholarship both in Italy and elsewhere. Since translations are based on English editions, the role of editors in shaping the meaning of Shakespeare’s plays is obviously fundamental. Third, different translations tend to be made according to the function they have in the target culture, whether they are for the page and thus for a reading public, or for the stage and thus meant to be used by a theatre director and company, and address an audience. Fourth, in recent times, especially since the late 1970s, the theatre and critical studies seem to be more linked and to affect one another. As Lombardo (2000: 218) puts it, “the most interesting aspect of the present situation is probably a closer connection between the theatre and Shakespeare criticism.” Translations for the page made since the 1940s tend to recreate Shakespeare in its entirety, without omissions. An analysis of Italian translations of Romeo and Juliet published in the second half of the twentieth century corroborates this opinion. The full text is reproduced without cuts, and instead of simplifying wordplay and censoring the bawdy language in the play, attempts are made at reproducing, or at least explaining, the complexity of Shakespeare’s language, especially the puns, vulgar allusions, and colloquial expressions with Italian ones. The first examples of this new attitude to Shakespeare’s play, of the tendency to recreate the text fully, are the translations of Romeo and Juliet by Augusta Grosso Guidetti (1942), Praz’s editing of Chiarini’s translation (1943) and Cesare Vico Lodovici’s translation (1950). In the preface to her translation of Romeo and Juliet, Grosso Guidetti claimed that she had translated the images in the play with maximum precision and she had tried to reproduce the rhythm and tone of the original text (Grosso Guidetti/Shakespeare 1942: 11-12). What emerges is Grosso Guidetti’s approach to Shakespeare’s text and to translation, her reverential attitude, and her claim of equivalence. An analysis of her translation reveals that, compared with previous translations, she did indeed translate the full text, and attempted to render Shakespeare’s bawdy language 100

Patterns in Translation and Production

without censoring it. For instance, the vulgar allusions of the servants in I.1 are transferred in Italian and also explained in a footnote by her: “SANSONE Taglierò loro la testa. | GREGORIO La testa delle ragazze? | SANSONE Sì, la testa delle ragazze o la loro verginità” (I’ll cut off their heads. The head of the maids? Yes, the head of the maids, or their maidenheads) (Grosso Guidetti/Shakespeare 1942: 281). The poetic language of the play, which imitates Italian poetry, is also paid particular attention and reproduced. According to some scholars, the growing significance of Italian Shakespeare studies has had an impact on the quality of translations (Marrapodi 2002; Lombardo 2000). Luigi Squarzina (1981: 69) claims that “the 1900’s have brought to Italy a blossoming of good translations of Shakespeare.” Lombardo similarly suggests that this new critical seriousness and intensity of criticism has not failed to influence the whole relation between Shakespeare and Italian culture, helping, first of all, to raise the standard of translations, from the edition by various authors under the direction of Mario Praz (1943-47) to the complete prose translation by Gabriele Baldini (1964), from the translation edited for Garzanti first by Nemi D’Agostino […] to the recently completed edition in nine volumes, by various authors, under the direction of Giorgio Melchiori (2000: 218).

Whether these Shakespeare translations are actually “good” or “better” than previous ones, “faithful”, or not, is debatable and is not relevant here. New translations do not necessarily “improve” the previous ones, but focus on different aspects. However, Lombardo is right in saying that Italian Shakespeare criticism has affected translation. The above comments point towards the second important aspect that emerges in Shakespeare translation in the period under investigation: the fact that the plays have always been retranslated. Praz edited the complete works between 1943 and 1947. According to several scholars (Melchiori 1978; Lombardo 2000 among others), this edition constitutes the reference point in Shakespeare translation in Italy. The aim of the edition was, as Praz (1969: 167) explained, “to offer a text closely following the original and philologically reliable, and at the same time fit to be adopted by those theatrical companies which were not satisfied with the current garbled stage versions.” He wanted to provide actors with texts that were closer to the original, with full, not cut and censored, texts, and with a language which was not too modernised (Praz/Shakespeare 1964: XII, 20). Praz’s comments show how performance versions of the plays were judged “unfaithful” to the “real” Shakespeare, since they modernised, altered and “corrupted” the plays to an unacceptable extent. Praz was also extremely critical of previous Italian translators of Shakespeare, who had censored the texts, especially eliminating puns which they did not like and which his edition aimed to highlight. In particular, he criticised Rusconi’s tendency to 101

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

excise some passages and stressed the need to recreate the complexity of Shakespeare’s language, especially his wordplay, in translation (Praz 1969: 110). This emphasis on Shakespeare’s imagery and wordplay was also apparent in Italian Shakespeare studies. As Praz himself acknowledged (1969: 200-201), Shakespeare translation had changed because of the influence of criticism, which in its turn was affected by literary taste and conventions. The changes in taste determined a different type of analysis of Shakespeare’s works. While nineteenth-century scholars focused on the characters, analysing their psychological and philosophical aspects, scholars in the twentieth century were more interested in the plays’ use of language (Praz/Shakespeare 1964: IX). This different approach to Shakespeare’s work and the rejection of a focus on great characters was also determined by the influence of modernism, of writers such as Virginia Woolf and James Joyce (Praz 1969: 201). As Shakespeare studies since the 1930s had highlighted the importance of imagery and wordplay in the plays, in his edition of the complete works and revision of existing translations Praz applied this approach which paid more attention to imagery and ambiguity. As a result, he attempted to translate puns with Italian ones, explaining Shakespeare’s wordplay and the translator’s choices to the readers. When using previously published translations, Praz revised and changed them, highlighting wordplay and vulgar allusions in the cases in which they had been censored or toned down by the original translator. As Praz admitted in the Introduction to his edition of the complete works (Praz/Shakespeare 1964: XIII-XIV), his task consisted in unveiling all the puns which translators had left untranslated or cut. The translation of Romeo and Juliet in Praz’s edition of the complete works (Praz/Shakespeare 1964) is of particular interest since the alterations made by the editor to an existing translation clearly reflect the changes in attitude and taste that had occurred, and the editor’s criteria. Praz’s work on Chiarini’s 1906 translation consisted in adding footnotes which explained wordplay, in rendering English puns and bawdy expressions with “equivalent” Italian ones, and making sexual allusions also more explicit (Praz/Shakespeare 1964: 874). For example, in I.1 Chiarini (Chiarini/ Shakespeare 1906) had avoided translating the word “maidenheads”, and had added an endnote explaining the wordplay. In 1943 Praz invented an Italian play on words based on the similar sounds of “età” (‘age’) and the suffix “ità” (‘-ity’), used in the word “verginità” (‘virginity’), by translating as follows: “SANSONE sarò spietato con le vergini, toglierò loro l’età. | GREGORIO L’età delle vergini? | SANSONE Sì, l’età delle vergini, o la loro vergin-ità” (I’ll be cruel with the virgins. I’ll take away their age. | Their age? | Yes, the age of the virgins, or their virgin-age) (Praz/Shakespeare 1964: 837). A footnote in which he explained his strategy was added. 102

Patterns in Translation and Production

In 1960 another edition of the complete theatre was published by Einaudi, in a translation by Cesare Vico Lodovici. Since the translator’s aim was to produce texts for the theatre, he simplified and modernised the language, while attempting to render the English puns with Italian ones (Lodovici 1964: 17). Examples of this approach can be found in his translation of Romeo and Juliet, which did not contain any explanatory notes, was in prose and used modernised language and Italian colloquial expressions. For instance, Samson’s “I mean, an we be in choler we’ll draw” (I.1.3), was rendered with “Intendo dire che se vado in bestia, sfodero, io” (I mean that if I fly into a rage I draw), while “I strike quickly being moved” (I.1.5) became “Io, se mi scaldo, faccio presto a menar le mani” (if I get worked up, I’m quick to use my fists). The wordplay and bawdiness of the text was not censored, but rather emphasised. For example, in II.1.24-30, Mercutio resorts to vulgar puns on the double meanings of the words “raise”, “spirit”, “stand”, “circle”: MERCUTIO This cannot anger him. ‘Twould anger him To raise a spirit in his mistress’ circle Of some strange nature, letting it there stand Till she had laid it and conjured it down: That were some spite. My invocation Is fair and honest, in his mistress’ name; I conjure only but to raise up him.

Lodovici translated Mercutio’s sexual puns as follows: Arrabbiarsi potrebbe se gli avessi evocato uno spiritello di curiosa natura nel cerchio magico del suo caro bene e lì ritto glielo lasciassimo finché non lo avesse ammorzato lei col suo alambicco e ridotto a ritirarsi. Questo sarebbe un fior di dispetto! Ma il mio scongiuro muove dal giusto e dall’onesto; ch’io lo scongiuro a venir su soltanto in nome e per conto della sua bella (Lodovici/Shakespeare 1950: 36). (my italics) (He might get angry if I had evoked a little spirit of some strange nature in his beloved’s magic circle, leaving it there upright until she had lowered it with her alembic and made it withdraw. This would be a great spite. But my incantation is fair and honest; I conjure him to rise up only in his mistress’ name, and for her)

Another example of how sexual allusions were rendered more obvious through translation is “pop’rin pear” (II.1.40), which became the visually explicit “cetriolo” (‘cucumber’). An opposite approach was adopted in 1963 by the scholar Gabriele Baldini, who translated and published his own version of the complete theatre. His aim was firstly to avoid the modernised language or slang commonly used in translations performed on the Italian stage. Since translation for Baldini was a literary genre, he sought to avoid colloquial 103

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

expressions used in contemporary spoken Italian, and to create a more literary language. Baldini wanted to provide a simple and clear translation, a piece of good Italian prose which could be enjoyed first of all by readers. As a result, he attempted to imitate Manzoni and Leopardi’s prose (Baldini 1964: 19). This translation was admired by Melchiori (1978: 25) for its “constructed, cultured language which exists in its own right” and for being “absolutely faithful”. However, because of Baldini’s approach and his tendency to explain details of Shakespeare’s language, the Italian translation resulted in a much longer text. According to Melchiori (1978: 25) “one word in English corresponds to fifteen in Italian [and] there is no denying that his translation is not theatre, it is literature.” A few examples from Romeo and Juliet can clarify Baldini’s attitude and Melchiori’s comment. Friar Laurence’s advice to Romeo “Wisely and slow. They stumble that run fast” (II.2.94) becomes “E invece t’occorrono e prudenza e calma. Chi corre troppo, finisce con l’inciampare” (On the contrary, you need caution and calmness. He who runs too much, ends up stumbling). After Baldini, the complete works were published again between 1976 and 1991, edited by Melchiori for Mondadori. Romeo and Juliet was in a 1949 translation by Quasimodo (Quasimodo/Shakespeare 1949). Melchiori believed that because of recent developments in Shakespeare studies another edition was needed. The editor’s aim was once again to be closer to Shakespeare’s texts, and in order to achieve this he had to “eliminate all additional stage directions, locations, scene changes and actions”, avoiding the additions made by editors like John Dover Wilson (Melchiori 1978: 27). As he explained, “the text must be an open text, and it will remain open only so long as we do not add indications which Shakespeare himself omitted” (Melchiori 1978: 27-28). Another criterion for his edition was to keep the line division of the passages that were in verse in English, so that Italian readers would have at least “a visual sense of this distinction between prose and verse”, even if the translations were all in prose (Melchiori 1978: 26). This comment points towards one of the various problems encountered by translators of Shakespeare: the mixture of prose and verse. Italian translators tend not to retain this alternation of styles, and usually opt more often for prose than for verse, as the latter might be a formal constraint which prevents them from expressing the full meaning of the text. Moreover, as pointed out by Déprats, “the semantic material is too rich to be constrained in the straightjacket of regular meter” (2001). Another interesting aspect of Melchiori’s edition was that the translations were made either by “men of the theatre or [by] scholars or, in a few fortunate cases, [by] poets, preferring among the latter those versions prepared with a view to theatre performance” (Melchiori 1978: 29). This comment suggests that the editor paid particular attention to the theatrical aspect of Shakespeare’s plays, in which he was 104

Patterns in Translation and Production

particularly interested and which had also emerged in scholarship (Styan 1967; D’Amico 1974; Serpieri 1978; Melchiori/Shakespeare 1976; Melchiori 1982). However, Melchiori stressed the fact that the purpose of his edition was not to offer translations for the stage, but to try and convey the richness of Shakespeare’s language “in a critical context which places it in a historical perspective” (1978: 29). A combination of an attention to the source text and the needs of the theatre was emerging. The influences of changing trends in Shakespeare studies and of the editor’s interpretation are evident in the alterations that Melchiori made to Quasimodo’s translation of Romeo and Juliet, which had originally been created for a performance in 1948 and had been published in 1949. In the 1976 edition of the complete theatre Melchiori added an introduction in which he described the play, its style with a mixture of prose and verse, the use of Petrarchism and the presence of bawdy language. Quasimodo’s translation was supplemented with footnotes in which Melchiori commented on Shakespeare’s language, wordplay and poetry, double meanings and cultural or literary references. A comparison of the two editions shows that also some parts of the 1949 translation were changed, in order to bring it in line with contemporary studies and with Melchiori’s interpretation and translation criteria. For example, Mercutio’s sexual allusions in II.1 were rendered more explicit. Some examples illustrate this point. Quasimodo’s 1949 “se facessi spuntare nel cerchio della sua amata uno spirito” (my italics) (If I made a spirit appear in his beloved’s circle) became “se facessi rizzare nel cerchio della sua amata uno spirito” (my italics) (If I made a spirit arise in his beloved’s circle), where the replacement of “spuntare” (‘to appear’) with the verb “rizzare” (‘to arise’, ‘to come up’, and also ‘to get it up’) makes the line more sexually allusive, since this verb is often used to talk about the male sexual organ. Quasimodo’s “fino a quando essa non lo scongiurasse di piegarsi e di andarsene” (my italics) (until she had begged it to bend and leave) became in 1976 “fino a che lei non l’avesse soddisfatto e placato” (my italics) (until she had satisfied and placated it). Also “I conjure only but to raise up him” (II.1.30), which in 1949 Quasimodo translated with “vuole solo farlo ricomparire” (my italics) (only wants to make him reappear) was turned by Melchiori in 1976 into “vuole solo far levare su lui” (my italics) (only wants to make him rise up/get him up). Melchiori thus appears to emphasise and explicitate puns and sexual allusions. Another aspect that emerges in Melchiori’s edition is the attention paid to the presence of poetic language and the sonnet form. While previous translators had neglected the formal poetic aspect of the play, Melchiori was the first to explain and highlight its importance, both in the introduction to Romeo and Juliet (Melchiori/Shakespeare 1976: 3-10) and in endnotes. For example, the lovers’ dialogue at the ball (I.4.206-223) was accompanied by a 105

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

footnote in which Melchiori explained that the 14 lines made up an English sonnet rhyming abab/cdcd/efef/gg (Melchiori/Shakespeare 1976: 72). This analysis of poetry by the editor is linked to a more general trend in translation. In fact, although no translator of Romeo and Juliet since the second half of the twentieth century has attempted to reproduce the form of the original, with its sonnet form and rhymed verse, Italian translators for the page since the late 1970s have devoted more attention to poetry, emphasising and explaining its meaning and function in the play. The translations by Rutelli (1986; 1998), Obertello (1990), Sabbadini (1991), Melchiori’s edition of Quasimodo’s translation (1976), Lombardo (1994) and Bigliazzi (2012) all comment on Shakespeare’s use of poetry, sonnets, metaphors and conventional language in the play both in introductions and in notes to the translations. Another aspect that emerges from translations of Romeo and Juliet published since the late 1970s is that sexual innuendos tend to be more explicit and, in line with critical studies of the play, more attention is paid to the bawdy element, as well as male and sexual aggressiveness in footnotes or introductions. The translations by Rutelli (1986; 1998), Sabbadini (1991) and Lombardo (1994) emphasise bawdy language. For instance, Rutelli translated Mercutio’s sexual allusions in II.1.24-30 as follows: Potrebbe arrabbiarsi | se gli rizzassi, nel cerchiolino della sua bella, | uno spirito di strana natura e lo lasciassi là ritto | finché lei non lo facesse afflosciare esorcizzandolo. | Questo sì, sarebbe un bel dispetto! Ma la mia evocazione | è chiara e rispettosa: lo esorto solo | a rizzarsi lui, in nome della sua bella (Rutelli/Shakespeare 1998: 139-141) (my italics) (He might get angry | if I raised in his sweetheart’s little circle | a spirit of some strange nature, leaving it erect there, | till she had softened it by exorcising it. | This would be some spite! But my invocation | is clear and respectful: I only urge him | to arise in his mistress’ name)

Rutelli’s lexical choices reveal an effort to find Italian words which would convey the English vulgar puns and frequent double entendres. In 1991 Sabbadini adopted a similar approach: Mercutio’s sexual allusions in II.1 were rendered quite explicit. For instance, “quivering thigh” was turned into “cosce eccitate” (aroused thighs). Other explicit sexual allusions are contained in the following translation of II.1.24-27: “avrebbe ragione se nel centro della sua amata | facessi drizzare un qualche spirito estraneo, | e lì lo lasciassi eretto finché lei l’avesse sfinito | ed esorcizzato, sgonfiandolo” (Sabbadini/Shakespeare 1991: 67) (my italics) (he would be right if I raised some strange spirit in his beloved’s middle, and I left it there erect till she had exhausted it and exorcised it, letting it down). It is worth noting that Sabbadini did not feel the need to justify his translation choices, nor to explain the puns in the original text. He added few endnotes to his 106

Patterns in Translation and Production

translation, where comments were more on the literariness of the play rather than on bawdy language. Lombardo in 1994 was perhaps even bolder and more explicit in his translation of sexual allusions and bawdry. The Shakespeare scholar and translator had Mercutio say: s’irriterebbe se facessi venire nel cerchio della sua donna | uno spirito di natura strana, e lo lasciassi | lì, finché lei non lo prendesse e lo ammosciasse. | […] nel nome della sua donna, io lo chiamo | solo per farlo rizzare” (my italics) (Lombardo/Shakespeare 1994: 65). (he would get annoyed if I made a spirit of some strange nature come in his mistress’ circle, and I left it there, till she had taken it and made it flabby. […] in his mistress’ name, I call him only to get him up)

In the opening scene, Samson’s “I will cut off their heads” (I.1.22) became the colloquial expression “gli farò la festa” (I’ll do them in), while “Ay, the heads of the maids, or their maidenheads” (I.1.24) was rendered as “Sì, alla loro verginità” (Yes, their maidenheads). Lombardo explained in his endnotes that he often opted for quite vulgar words since he wanted to convey the obscene undertones that are implied in Mercutio’s and the servants’ speeches and their frequent puns (Lombardo/Shakespeare 1994: 241, 243). A third important aspect that emerges from translations in the second half of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries is that different translations have been made for the page and the stage. When a new performance is brought to the stage, new translations are usually created, either commissioned to translators or made by the directors. This is the case with Romeo and Juliet. Since the 1930s, new translations have often been commissioned for new productions.1 Theatre directors tend to avoid using published translations addressed to a reading public, which according to them are too “literary” or use an archaic language. For instance, in an interview theatre translator Luca Fontana complains that the Italian theatre often uses very old translations, which are unsuitable for the stage. According to him, each mise en scène of a classic requires its own translation which needs to be discussed by the translator, together with the director and the actors. As translation is part of the dramaturgical analysis of the text, a published translation cannot be used on stage (Fontana 2003: 35). Directors as well as translators often argue that new performances need modernised translations that recreate contemporary language and are closer to their theatre audiences. The use of colloquial words and a modernising of the language are the aspects which are constantly mentioned in comments on translations of Romeo and Juliet for the stage, as well as in reviews of performances. In Italy, while many translations are published, most of them are not used by theatre practitioners. On the other hand, most of the translations made for performance are not published, but usually remain as scripts. In the case of 107

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

Romeo and Juliet, of the published translations available, only Lombardo’s has been used in production after publication. On the other hand, of the several translations made for the theatre only three were published after being performed and have become part of the literary system: those by Ojetti (1937), Quasimodo (1948) and Rutelli (1979). The others have remained in the theatrical system. Few of them, such as those by Dallagiacoma (1980) and by Ponti and Deandrea (2005), were published in the theatre programme but are not available to a wider reading public. However, it should be noted that the separation between translations for the page and the stage is also due to the fact that translations for the theatre not only need a modernised language, but are also strongly affected by the interpretation of the play provided by the director. As Kennedy points out discussing European performances, “it is common practice in the contemporary theatre to commission new translations for new productions, so that the language is not only colloquial but also becomes tied to the interpretation and the mise en scène of the particular performance” (1993: 5). As suggested in Chapter One, translation choices might be dictated by extralinguistic factors, among which is a specific directorial view. As Aaltonen puts it, “in the discourse of theatre productions, and consequently in theatre translation, it is usually taken for granted that the pragmatics of the theatre should outweigh the constraints of the source text” (2000: 75). In translations for the stage changes to the source text are accepted and justified because a specific reading or other factors require them. The translation strategies expected from and accepted by translators are dependent upon the system in which, and for which, the translators work. According to scholar and translator D’Amico, while translating for the page one can attempt to recreate all the nuances of Shakespeare’s language, in translating for the theatre “bisogna spesso sacrificare il desiderio di essere precisi, che può comportare lentezze, dissonanze o quant’altro saboti la comunicazione immediata – in favore della parlabilità” (it is often necessary to sacrifice the desire to be accurate, which may lead to slowness, discordances, or other features that may sabotage immediate communication, for the sake of speakability) (2003).2 As pointed out by Aaltonen (2000: 75), translations made for the stage require adjustments to the requirements of the theatre, and therefore employ adaptation more frequently than translations for the page. As will be shown in the next section and in Chapter Four, translations of Romeo and Juliet used in performance are usually affected by the director’s vision, which may require making cuts or additions, as well as a modernisation (or archaisation) of the language. The last important trend in translation is that since the late Seventies Shakespeare scholarship and theatre practice have become more connected, as cases of collaboration between directors and Shakespeare scholars have 108

Patterns in Translation and Production

become more frequent. Several directors have commissioned new translations from scholars such as Lombardo, Melchiori, Serpieri, Rutelli, D’Amico and Deandrea. This might be partly due to the fact that Shakespeare scholars have recently been more attuned to the theatricality of Shakespeare’s plays, more aware of the fact that they were scripts for performance used by actors, and of the needs of contemporary theatre.3 Marrapodi (2002) explains this contemporary phenomenon as follows: The art of Shakespearean translation has shifted […] to a closer attention to the demands of the theatre and the accessibility of everyday language. This renewed concern with the issues of acting and performance has reduced the gap between the academic community and the practical world of the theatre.

The connection between scholarship and the theatre might be also testified by the fact that some translations of Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare experts have been used in more recent times and scholars have collaborated with theatre directors. Lombardo’s 1994 translation was adopted in a performance directed by Nikolaj Karpov in 2003 and in a 2010 production directed by Alexander Zeldin, Dallagiacoma’s 1980 translation was used by director Marco Bernardi and again in 2003 by Gigi Proietti. In 2000 D’Amico was commissioned a new translation by Maurizio Scaparro and this unpublished version was adopted as a script by Jean-Christophe Saïs in 2003. In 2005 director Gabriele Vacis staged a new translation created specifically for him by scholar Pietro Deandrea and screenplay writer and film director Marco Ponti. 2. Trends in Production since the 1940s Some scholars have remarked that while Romeo and Juliet was extremely popular on stage in the nineteenth century, it did not have a similar role in the twentieth. In the introduction to her translation, Rutelli argues that this fall in popularity was due to various factors: first, fewer Shakespeare plays were performed in the twentieth century, secondly, the comedies increasingly started to be staged, and thirdly, the enthusiasm of the Romantic movement, which had favoured plays such as Romeo and Juliet, ended (Rutelli/Shakespeare 1998: 61). While it is true that many more Shakespeare plays, and especially the comedies, have entered Italian theatre, and that Romeo and Juliet is less popular, there were definitely more productions of this tragedy in Italy than those cited by Rutelli (Rutelli/Shakespeare 1998: 61-62), Lombardo (Lombardo/Shakespeare 1994: 253-254), and Anzi (1980; 2001). For instance, these scholars disregard the importance of productions in Verona and the popularity of open-air theatres and festivals where Romeo and Juliet is often staged. A central role in the modern reception of Romeo 109

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

and Juliet in Italy is played by Verona, which since 1948 has hosted a Shakespeare Festival every summer and has exploited the link with the play for its tourist industry as well. The tragedy has been a favourite in the city, where it has been performed eleven times between 1948 and 2012. It was staged seven times between 1948 and 1977, then a long silence followed until 1998, when an English production by the Royal Shakespeare Company was presented. The next Italian production was directed by Scaparro in 2000, followed by Vacis’ Romeo & Juliet in 2005, and Ferdinando Bruni’s production in 2008. Romeo and Juliet has thus continued to be popular in Italian theatre throughout the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first centuries. However, important shifts in interpretation of the text have also taken place. On top of the well-developed native tradition which sees the play as a domestic tragedy and a romantic story, other patterns and readings have emerged, especially since the mid-twentieth century. This might be partly due to the influence of directors who in the second half of the 1940s emerged as the new stage interpreters, the “chief artistic force in the theatrical enterprise” (Kennedy 1993: 13). Italian productions of Romeo and Juliet since the 1950s have shown the rising importance of directors, whose interpretations have affected performances and translations. Each modern director has approached the play giving new meanings to the story, highlighting different aspects, and altering the elements that did not match his or her own reading of the story. As directors rethink the play in terms of their own views and socio-historical context, significant ideological shifts come to Romeo and Juliet in production. The following part of this chapter discusses the main trends in interpretation in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. As previously highlighted, the prevailing trend of Italian performances until the 1960s was in line with the native tradition, i.e., a reading of the story in terms of domestic tragedy, with a focus on family and personal relationships, and especially on the lovers. Emphasis was laid on the passion and lyricism of Romeo and Juliet as well as on the Italian Renaissance setting of the tale, on its “Italianness”. The productions directed by Guido Salvini (1937/38, 1950 and 1954), Renato Simoni (1948), and Franco Enriquez (1960) were all outdoor performances which stressed historicity by recreating Renaissance architecture and costumes. Elaborate, realistic settings and costumes, together with the use of companies of more than twenty actors and of choirs prevailed, making the productions a “display of spectacle” (Bragaglia 1973: 140).4 The final scene was similar in all the stagings, and the presence of Friar Laurence, his final recapitulation and the reconciliation of the families were retained. The Friar’s role as mediator was fundamental. Compared to performances in the previous century, these productions tended to play fuller texts, as they reintroduced comic scenes, although they still 110

Patterns in Translation and Production

toned down the bawdiness of the text, and cut some parts, as the focus was more on the tragic lovers and on lyricism. Another similarity between these productions is that they all had actors in their late twenties and early thirties to play the lovers. The directors were probably trying to mediate between the requirements of realism and the need to have skilled actors capable of encompassing the technical difficulties of the parts and who could actually speak the lines. Whereas in the late nineteenth century Rossi could play Romeo when he was in his fifties, in the twentieth century, especially since realism emerged in the Thirties and Forties, the use of younger actors became more common. However, the references to Juliet’s extremely young age were often cut from the text as the actresses playing Juliet were evidently much older. Ojetti’s 1937 translation and Salvini’s changes for the subsequent performances are discussed in the next chapter. In the mid-twentieth century a change in interpretation occurred in international productions, as the contemporary relevance of the Romeo and Juliet story was stressed, with an emphasis on hatred and on generational conflict. The tendency to make Romeo and Juliet more contemporary and relevant to its target audiences is partly related to a general international trend in Shakespeare production. As Kennedy (1993: 13) puts it, “Shakespearean performance after the war […] tended to discover contemporary themes and to stress the spectator’s inclusion in those themes.” The conflict in the play was thus redefined according to the problems of the societies in which the tragedy was produced. Moreover, the focus shifted from the lovers to the feud, from love to hatred. As argued by Loehlin: In the latter half of the twentieth century, Romeo and Juliet was transformed, in production and perception, from a play about love to a play about hate. Modern productions have tended to emphasise the feud over the love story, and have used it to comment on a variety of social ills: from the competitiveness and greed of the parents, to the sexual aggression of the young men, to ethnic or cultural differences as a source of conflict (Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002: 66).

Romeo and Juliet began to tackle the issue of generation clash in the 1950s. This shift in interpretation was marked especially by the musical West Side Story directed by Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins with music by Leonard Bernstein (1957; 1961), and Zeffirelli’s theatre productions (Old Vic, 1960; Italian version, 1964) and film version (1968). As Loehlin puts it: Zeffirelli’s Old Vic Production was a seminal moment in the play’s history. Zeffirelli made the play a celebration of youthful rebellion, in keeping with the cultural trends of the sixties and the rise of the teenager. The focus on recognisably modern youth in Zeffirelli’s play and film, as well as in the stage and film versions of Leonard Bernstein’s West Side Story, redefined Romeo and Juliet as a study of generational and cultural conflict (Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002: 2). 111

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

Zeffirelli interpreted the play in terms of generation clash, and his theatre productions and film stressed rebellious, spontaneous and passionate youth. The director’s aim was to make the play more contemporary and lively, and the lovers and their friends look and sound natural, like real Italian passionate adolescents. He accordingly emphasised the youth of the lovers, which was expressed through passion and gestures, and handled the play realistically. The passion, energy and rebelliousness of youth prevailed over rhetoric and poetry, the playfulness of the young citizens of Verona and the Italian readiness to fight were stressed. Loehlin argues that the Old Vic production managed “to free Romeo and Juliet from lyricism, prettiness, and the weight of the past, and present it as a vivid and immediate play about youth” (Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002: 60). The reading of the play in terms of generation clash showed in casting, in language as well as in acting. The protagonists were in their twenties, the language was modernised, and the actors were asked to speak in a natural way, and to use body language more than words. This interpretation affected the text which was cut in both the English and Italian versions (Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002: 63, 245). Zeffirelli’s Old Vic production was performed in Venice in 1961, in English, and was incredibly successful. Zeffirelli adopted the same approach in his Italian production presented in Verona in 1964. This new interpretation required a new translation, which was commissioned to Gerardo Guerrieri. Guerrieri’s version matched the director’s goal to make the play speak to contemporary young people, stressing naturalness, youthfulness, avoiding lyricism and adopting contemporary Italian, with some colloquialisms and wordplay. This translation was criticised for being excessively colloquial and modern, too similar to young people’s slang. For example, a reviewer criticised the use of expressions such as “questi Montecchi del cavolo” (these lousy Montagues), “che bel fusto d’uomo” (what a hunky man), which he believed were unsuitable for a Shakespearean play (De Monticelli 1964). Despite the criticism of some contemporary reviewers, Zeffirelli’s production has become a reference point for all subsequent performances. As Jackson (2003: 16) points out, it “was soon being cited as marking a point of no return in dealings with the play.” In Italy productions have followed the same general interpretative trend, emphasising the contemporary relevance of the story and stressing the generational conflict in particular. Since the 1960s the theme of the generation gap has been dominant together with that of the impossibility of communication between generations. Zeffirelli’s reading influenced the Italian productions that followed, which mostly interpreted the play in the same way, or attempted to detach themselves from it. Subsequent productions in Italy had to deal with this legacy, and were often judged “not good enough” by critics. It is worth noting that after Zeffirelli’s production, almost ten years passed before another director attempted the task of staging 112

Patterns in Translation and Production 5

the play in Verona, and the productions by Enrico D’Amato (1973) and by 6 Orazio Costa (1977) did not meet with the same critical success as Zeffirelli’s. Ugo Volli criticised the constant re-playing of Romeo and Juliet in Verona, arguing that it had more to do with attracting tourists than offering real new interpretations (Volli 1977). Although exaggerated, the criticism of reviewers is a sign that it was difficult to say something new about the play, to go beyond Zeffirelli’s interpretation, surpassing him. It also suggests that critics were perhaps influenced by the legacy of Zeffirelli’s production, and they did not easily accept diverging views. Zeffirelli’s productions had created a very powerful image of the play, which generated expectations in the audiences, thus affecting reception of subsequent performances. It can be argued that Zeffirelli’s interpretation reached an almost canonised status among Italian audiences. His production and film had penetrated Italian consciousness and it was thus difficult for audiences in Verona (and elsewhere) to appreciate a different approach. As a result, Romeo and Juliet disappeared from Verona for twenty years, and only returned in 1998, in an 7 English production by the Royal Shakespeare Company. In the meantime, in other cities attempts were made at interpreting the play following in Zeffirelli’s footsteps, making the story relevant to a contemporary young audience. The reading of the play in terms of generational conflict has prevailed in Italy since the 1960s, and it is still the mode preferred by contemporary directors, who have tended to highlight the absence of communication between generations, focussing on young people, their language and problems. Productions have also been less concerned with realism and spectacle, and costumes and settings have become more stylised and abstract. A further stress on death and on the loneliness of the lovers has been added, tragedy has been emphasised. The late 1970s and the 1980s seemed to continue the reading in terms of generation clash, adding a certain gloominess or negative atmosphere to the story: death tended to prevail in performances. The productions directed by Giuliano Merlo (1979), Marco Bernardi (1980) and Giancarlo Cobelli (1985) followed this interpretative trend.8 In late twentieth-century and early twenty-first century Italian productions, the main issue remains the conflict between generations, and Romeo and Juliet is used to mirror the problems of contemporary young people. Three productions were staged in 1995 (directed by Franco Ricordi, Maurizio Panici, and Giuseppe Patroni Griffi) to celebrate the fourth centenary of the play’s composition, and several more followed. Since the mid-1990s the play has enjoyed a great popularity, a fortune which may be partly ascribed to the success of Luhrmann’s 1996 film, and the phenomenon of “Bardolatry” in the cinema. Romeo and Juliet tends to be seen as a tale 113

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

about and for young people, which addresses the troubles faced by Italian youth. The story is updated, taken out of its Renaissance time, and emphasis placed not only on the generation clash but also on the crisis of ideals of the young generations, on their lack of moral values and of guidance from adults, who are often seen in in a negative light.9 The contemporary relevance of the play and this kind of interpretation are manifested in the settings and costumes, which are usually updated or made more abstract and stylised; in casting, i.e. companies of young actors; and in language, which is usually rather colloquial. Most of the translations used in performance tend to modernise the language and make it sound like the speech used by young people of today, sometimes adopting expressions from their slang and highlighting puns and especially vulgar allusions. In 1995 Patroni Griffi followed this interpretative line, portraying the clash between generations and stressing the energy of youth, its provocative language and behaviour. The director pointed out that he wanted to highlight the love story but also and especially the problems and angst of contemporary young people (Patroni Griffi 1995a). As a result, he felt the need to produce his own translation because the text had to be contemporary, harsh and speakable, whereas in his opinion the various published translations available used an archaic and overliterary language, and thus could not be used on the modern stage. He modernised the language, using colloquialisms and swearwords. Reviewing the performance, D’Amico (1995) was positive about this translation which, according to him, was quite faithful to the original and adopted a speakable, quick, concrete prose without disregarding the poetry of the play. The presence of some swearwords was not criticised because D’Amico felt they did not sound too vulgar or artificial as they were delivered in a natural way (1995). This interpretation in terms of generational conflict has continued into the new millennium. In 2000, after an absence of twenty-three years, the play returned to Verona in a production directed by Scaparro, with a new translation by the Shakespeare scholar and translator Masolino D’Amico. Once again the contrast between generations and the link with contemporary youth was stressed, and this was reflected in the translation, as will be shown in the next chapter. In 2003, other productions which emphasised the generation conflict in various ways, and which used translations made by Shakespeare scholars appeared. Nikolaj Karpov’s Romeo e Giulietta employed Lombardo’s 1994 published translation, while Proietti adopted Dallagiacoma’s 1980 translation, which was modified through some interpolations: colloquial expressions and a line from Leopardi’s L’Infinito were added. In Proietti’s production the coarseness of the servants and of the young men emerged both through language and gestures, and the families were portrayed as members of city gangs.10 More recently, directors Vacis 114

Patterns in Translation and Production

(2005), Alexander Zeldin (2010) and Valerio Binasco (2011) have also read the story in terms of contrast between the young and adults, often focussing on contemporary issues and highlighting the vulgar or violent aspects of the text. For instance, Vacis’s 2005 Romeo & Juliet stressed comedy and bawdiness more than poetry, hatred more than love. Vacis asked Deandrea and Ponti to translate the Shakespeare text “turning the play’s characters into contemporary, easy-going immature adults”, “people in their early thirties who have not yet matured into the responsibilities of full adulthood, loafers whose socio-economic conditions allow them a prolongation of their wild teenage life” (Deandrea 2013: 123, 124). As a result, following Vacis’ requirements, the translators adopted a modernising approach and laid emphasis on the comic and bawdy elements of the text.11 Romeo, Mercutio, Benvolio, but also Juliet, seen as Italians in their thirties, lost all their naïveness and tended to be bawdy and ironic. Overall, sexual references were rendered more explicit, others were added, and several colloquialisms and expletives were interpolated in the speech of most of the characters (Minutella 2008: 250-252). These, however, had a specific function and were seen as a means to provide a natural-sounding and credible contemporary dialogue. The translators’ linguistic choices and insertions were “compensatory tactics” they resorted to “in order to maintain the overall bawdiness and vulgar allusions of the original language” (Deandrea 2013: 125). The heightened vulgarity of the Italian text was on the one hand required by the director’s interpretation and on the other validated by Shakespeare’s play itself, which is one of the Bard’s bawdiest works (Deandrea 2013: 124). In 2010 young British director Zeldin worked in Naples with a company of actors from different ethnicities, many of them first- and second-generation immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa, interpreting the story in terms of generational conflict in modern times. Zeldin’s aim was “to explore the conflict between two world views”,12 the way in which immigrant children in Europe “feel disconnected from the world of their parents” both linguistically and culturally. In Zeldin’s view, “love is a powerful antidote to get away from the environment of their parents”, since it means freedom and makes the young generations feel that they can do anything, even kill themselves. With the collaboration of dramaturge Hussein Omar and acclaimed scenic designer George Tsypin, Zeldin’s production set the story in a gloomy, degraded suburban area and used the wreck of a burned car as a balcony, emphasising the conflict between parents and children but also that between the families of immigrants and the white police. Arab pop music was also played and some parts of the text, particularly where the parents spoke, were translated into Arabic. Lombardo’s 1994 translation, which highlights wordplay as well as the lyrical and poetic features of the play, was chosen for this performance. 115

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

Binasco’s 2011 production re-set the play in today’s Verona, portraying provincial, bourgeois life and focussing on the young people’s lack of values, their existential emptiness (Cannella 2012) and on the generation clash. The director translated and adapted the play with playwright and screenplay writer Fausto Paravidino, retaining much of the play (the performance lasts three and a half hours) and highlighting the contrast between the comic, vulgar, violent and the lyrical features of the text (Porcheddu 2011; Robiony 2011). Another interpretation of Romeo and Juliet emerged in the 1970s, and is still successful in Italy: the view of the play as a myth or canonical text. By the mid-twentieth century the play had reached the status of literary classic and canonised work expressing the myth of the tragic lovers. Romeo and Juliet had become the archetypes of romantic, tragic lovers and their story could be seen as universal, out of history. As Bate points out, by thinking of the title of the play one thinks of an idea. Millions of people who have never read a word of Shakespeare instantly associate Romeo and Juliet with the idea of being in love. [Shakespeare’s play] has become western culture’s archetypal myth of youthful passion (1997: 278).

The process of canonisation of the play ensured that parts of the text, especially the lovers’ speeches, such as the balcony scene or the parting in the morning, entered people’s consciousness. As Christopher McCullough and Graham Holderness point out, in popular culture this tragedy means “poetry” and its famous lines are the expression of pure romantic love (1986: 260). As a result, not only the lovers but the text itself became symbols, the play could be read as a fixed, eternal text. Thus since the 1970s some directors started to stress the play’s status as a classic literary text and the interpretation of the lovers as mythical figures. This approach might involve an emphasis on romantic love and on poetry, and shows in the translation and in cuts to the text. As stress is placed on the lovers and their famous speeches or on their tragic fate, wordplay, comedy and vulgar allusions tend to be excised or toned down. Translations made for such performances seem to be an attempt to have a historicising approach in order to detach the characters from the audience, and might involve an emphasis on the lyricism of the text. The first Italian director to consider the play as a myth was Orazio Costa in 1977, who had older actors in the leading roles, highlighted poetry and adopted a historicising approach, translating the play into rhyming verse full of archaisms. A production directed by Flavio Ambrosini in 1984 also presented the lovers as mythical figures belonging to literature, to the past.13 French director Jean-Christophe Saïs (2003) also went against the fashion of making the characters more real and closer to contemporary adolescents, as 116

Patterns in Translation and Production

he interpreted them as archetypes pertaining to the literary world, and their story as a myth. The influence of this latter view on the translation is explored in the next chapter. Since the 1970s, in addition to referring to the play as a classic and a myth, some directors in Italy have also started to refer to the play as part of a chain of rewritings of this same legend. As Romeo and Juliet had acquired the status of classic literary text, and since it was well-known, at least in its story-line and famous love speeches, the play could be referred to without needing to be reproduced in its entirety. Moreover, the Italian sources of the tale also re-emerged. Some productions have gone back to the novelle, intertwining Shakespeare’s play with the Italian versions, and with other texts. The wealth of rewritings in different media generated by the play is also another powerful web of intertextual relations that has been exploited by modern Italian theatre directors in order to create new interpretations that combine various texts. In these types of productions selected scenes from Shakespeare’s play are mixed with related texts, such as the Italian novelle, the sonnets, and/or various rewritings of the same story (Bellini’s music, film and music versions). The Shakespeare play survives as an intertext which is interweaved with others, and might be transposed to contemporary Italy or be confined to a mythical past. This approach to the play is similar to what Aaltonen describes as imitations or parodies of the source text which “select material, ideas, or themes from it, […] rearranging and combining them with new elements” (2000: 79). In such cases, there is often no need to commission a new translation, and published ones might be used partially and/or rewritten by the company, often without acknowledging them. One of the first examples of this new attitude towards the play is Romeo e Giulietta: storia di Shakespeare secondo Carmelo Bene (Romeo and Juliet: a story by Shakespere according to Carmelo Bene), written and directed by Carmelo Bene (1976), which focussed on Mercutio’s character and was a rewriting of the play as seen by the director and actor. In his performance, Bene played with Shakespeare’s text, using some passages from the drama and mixing them with the sonnets, with Bandello’s novella and Bellini’s music.14 Maria Grazia Cipriani’s Romeo e Giulietta (1986) also combined Shakespeare’s words with Bandello’s version and Bellini’s music, and had puppets on stage representing Romeo, Juliet and Friar Laurence. Another interpretation exploiting various rewritings and the Italianness of the story was La storia di Romeo e Giulietta, directed by Gabriele Vacis (1990), which will be discussed in the next chapter. Francesco Pititto and Maria Federica Maestri also directed a 1997 production which viewed Romeo and Juliet as archetypes and their story as a myth. Only fragments of the Shakespeare play remained, that is, some well-known sentences or words pronounced by 117

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

five actresses either in English or in Italian, which were mixed with passages from Ovid’s story of Phyramus and Thisbe, and with animal sounds. Paolo Rossi’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’: serata di delirio organizzato (Romeo and Juliet: an evening of organised delirium) (2000) played with the popularity of Shakespeare’s tragedy, and with contemporary audiences’ perception of the text. Actor and comedian Rossi staged some of the most famous speeches and scenes of the play directing actors and members of the public. The audience on stage and off stage was involved in a reflection on the meaning of Shakespeare’s language, on their own perception of the text, and on the translation process. Passages from the play were explained and commented upon, performed and sometimes retranslated from Italian into dialect. The show also used other rewritings of the story for different media, such as the Dire Straits’ song, and music and clips from the films by Luhrmann and Zeffirelli. Ironic references to contemporary Italian society and politics were also made. Leo Muscato’s 2005 Romeo e Giulietta. Nati sotto contraria stella (Romeo and Juliet. Star-crossed lovers), Fabio Fassio’s 2008 Giulietta e Romeo: molto rumore… per nulla (Romeo and Juliet: Much ado…about nothing), Armando Punzo’s 2011 Romeo e Giulietta. Mercuzio non vuole morire (Romeo and Juliet: Mercutio doesn’t want to die) are further examples of untraditional readings that exploit the play’s canonised status and experiment with the text, often using only some passages and sometimes intertwining them with other elements. Another interpretation that has come to the fore in international productions in the second half of the twentieth century is the political reading. Starting with West Side Story, international productions have used the play to make political statements relating to their contemporary environment, reading Romeo and Juliet as a tragedy of individuals caught up in political conflicts of different types. The setting is usually updated, the play is transferred from Renaissance Verona to the contemporary societies where the play is produced, and the feud mirrors their political conflicts. As a result, as Loehlin points out, “the theme of ethnic or social hatred has become the dominant one in Romeo and Juliet. The play has come to symbolise bitter blood-feuds everywhere” (Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002: 79). Various recent productions have emphasised race or ethnic divisions, cultural or political differences as barriers. Many examples of this politicisation of the conflict can be found in international productions. For example, political implications emerged in Central and Eastern Europe during the Cold War period, when the play’s popularity increased. The conflict has also been reset between Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East, Hindus and Muslims in India, whites and latinos, whites and blacks, or members of youth gangs in the US (Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002; Jackson 2003; Levenson/Shakespeare 2000, Levenson 2007). 118

Patterns in Translation and Production

In Italy this line of interpretation has not emerged, as witnessed by the fact that no major theatre production has addressed this issue to date. The contrast between the families has always been seen as “neutral”, it has not been politicised: none of the major performances have seen it as having political, social or ethnic connotations. However, in the year 2000 a film and a theatre performance addressed this issue: a production in Torino, and a film by Roberta Torre. Il gioco di Romeo e Giulietta. Una storia nel mercato di Porta Palazzo (The game of Romeo and Juliet. A story in the Porta Palazzo market), directed by Beppe Rosso, Remo Rostagno and Gianni Bisacca, is a little known theatre production which was the result of a project involving the inhabitants of an area of the city (Porta Palazzo) where various ethnic groups and many immigrants live. The Montagues and the Capulets were two families of different ethnicities that were fighting to control the main food market in Turin. The scene was colourful, full of fruit and vegetables, and the music was a mixture of genres. The story was told by a narrator with a northern Italian accent. One particularly powerful scene had the lovers (Romeo a black actor, Juliet a white girl) separated by a rope on fire, and high flames preventing them from touching each other. The production also used parts of Shakespeare’s text in Italian, and some words in the languages of the actors.15 In the same year Roberta Torre’s film Sud Side Stori also addressed the issue of ethnic difference, immigration and racism, casting Romea as a Nigerian prostitute and Tony Giulietto as a Sicilian man. These two versions might be a sign that ethnic differences have become more relevant in Italy, as the country has turned into a multiracial society. It might be possible that new Italian interpretations of Romeo and Juliet will take this issue on board. The film by Roberta Torre takes us to another important aspect of the reception of Romeo and Juliet in Italy: the cinema. Romeo and Juliet is among the plays most frequently transposed to this medium, and it is a favourite among Italians.16 Four films were made by Italian directors since the 1950s, three between 1954 and 1968. Chapter Five explores these films by Castellani (1954), Freda (1964), Zeffirelli (1968) and Torre (2000), providing a complete analysis of the Italian appropriation and fortune of the play, and investigating how the above discussed trends in production and interpretation are partly reflected in Italian films as well. As has been highlighted, significant ideological shifts come to this play in production. Casting, setting, deliberate cutting of parts of the play, and translation choices can all be used to make ideological points. Romeo and Juliet continues to undergo adaptation and cuts in performance either because some elements in the text are deemed problematic or because of changing conventions and tastes in the theatre, or because of specific ideological choices by directors. The next chapter focuses on four theatre productions, 119

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

exploring in particular the link between directorial view and translation, investigating how the trends in interpretation discussed above affect translations produced for and used in the theatre.   1

Paola Ojetti translated the play for Guido Salvini in 1937; Salvatore Quasimodo translated it for Renato Simoni in 1948. In 1954 Giuseppe Salvetti made a new poetic version for director Guido Salvini. Gerardo Guerrieri translated the play for Zeffirelli’s production in 1964, and adapted his translation for a production directed by Enrico D’Amato in 1973. In 1977 director Orazio Costa translated the play himself, using rhymed verse. In 1979 Romana Rutelli translated the play for Giuliano Merlo. In 1980 Marco Bernardi commissioned the translation to Angelo Dallagiacoma. Director Flavio Ambrosini translated and adapted the play in 1984, Mario Roberto Cimnaghi worked for and in collaboration with director Giancarlo Cobelli in 1985. In 1995 director Franco Ricordi used a translation made by Anne-Heide Henschel, while director Maurizio Panici adapted the play with Stefano Antonelli. Working from Quasimodo’s published translation they adapted Shakespeare’s text into rhymed rap. Giuseppe Patroni Griffi translated the play for his own production in 1995. In 2000 Masolino D’Amico translated the play for Maurizio Scaparro, and in 2005 Pietro Deandrea and Marco Ponti were commissioned a new version by Gabriele Vacis. In 2008 director Ferdinando Bruni translated the play himself, in 2010 Massimiliano Palmese translated the text for Giuseppe Merini, while in 2011 Fausto Paravidino and Valerio Binasco created a new translation for a production directed by Binasco. Full information on these productions is available in the appendix. 2 Personal email, 2 October 2003. 3 Scholars such as Melchiori, Serpieri, Lombardo and D’Amico have focused their attention on the theatrical aspect of Shakespeare’s plays and on the relationship between text and performance. See, for instance, D’Amico (1974); Serpieri (1978), Melchiori (1976; 1978; 1982; 1983; 1986; 1992), Lombardo (1987) Lombardo/Shakespeare (1994). 4 Gino Damerini (1937) described Salvini’s 1937 production as impressive, as the scenography aimed at reproducing Renaissance Verona with its towers and palaces, costumes were based on paintings by Botticelli, Ghirlandaio and Carpaccio, and music by Berlioz accompanied the actors. Silvio D’Amico (1937) also defined the production as a sumptuous, noble show. The production directed by Simoni in 1948 in Verona was described by critics as a display of spectacle, in which elaborate, realistic settings were combined with the passion and lyricism of the lovers. Salvini’s 1950 production was again described as representing Renaissance Verona realistically, through a display of spectacle which was enhanced by the use of twelve horses, twenty-eight actors, dancers and a choir. Salvini’s 1954 production, with a verse translation by Salvetti, was in line with the realistic tradition. The production by Franco Enriquez in Verona in 1960 partially shifted the interpretation of the play, as instead of highlighting the romantic elements and poetry or comedy, the tragedy was stressed, especially through the use of dark costumes. In line with tradition, the production was spectacular, as horses and a choir were present. 5 In 1973 Enrico D’Amato followed the tradition inaugurated by Zeffirelli, focusing on the contrast between generations. He used the translation made by Guerrieri for Zeffirelli, although he modified some of the expressions that had been judged exaggeratedly colloquial or too vulgar. D’Amato, however, detached himself from tradition in his use of setting and costumes, which were more stylised and less realistic. Another attempt by D’Amato to do something different from Zeffirelli was the choice of including parts which had been traditionally cut in production, such as the scene of the musicians, and the addition of some clowns to highlight comedy. 6 Another director who attempted to do something different from Zeffirelli and from tradition was Costa, with his 1977 production in Verona. Costa refused realism, had older actors play the lovers (Gabriele Lavia was 34 and Ottavia Piccolo 27) and used his own rhymed verse translation. This production was heavily criticised by various critics, who believed that the 120

Patterns in Translation and Production

    choice of using hendecasyllables resulted in heaviness and placed too much emphasis on one of the two styles in the play, therefore rendering it unbalanced. 7 Romeo and Juliet, directed by Michael Attenborough, Royal Shakespeare Company. Romeo: Ray Fearon, Juliet: Zoe Waites. This was the first RSC production which cast the lovers as belonging to different ethnic groups, as Fearon is black and Waites white. However, the contrast in the play was not seen as due to the different ethnicity. 8 Merlo in 1979 stressed the generation conflict, and the absence of communication, had very young actors and used stylised setting and costumes. The text was a translation made specifically for the stage by the Shakespeare scholar Rutelli. Bernardi’s production in 1980, with a new translation by Dallagiacoma, also stressed the absence of communication between adults and young people and interpreted the play in terms of generational conflict. In line with interpretations since the 1970s, the setting was abstract and costumes stylised. A further example of the more negative interpretation of the play is provided by Cobelli’s 1985 production, in which the actors were portrayed as zombies, they were dead from the start, and there was no place for poetry, love or passion. The play was read as a hymn to death and cuts to the text were made accordingly. 9 In Ricordi’s 1995 production (which used a translation commissioned to Anne-Heide Henschel) all adults, including the Prince, the Nurse and Friar Laurence were seen in a negative light. The Friar was deemed responsible for the tragedy. According to some critics, in this production the generation clash was taken to its extremes. Panici’s 1995 production also emphasised the crisis of contemporary young people in a world in which adults were more and more distant from them. The performance stressed the role of the young generation as rebels against the world of adults. The focus on contemporary youth was evident in the translation, which was by the director himself in collaboration with Stefano Antonelli. They adapted the text into rhymed rap, which they thought was popular among young people and could thus better express their feelings (Panici 1995). Another successful production that stressed the generation conflict and the rebelliousness of youth was that directed by Antonio Latella in 1999, in which six young actors were accompanied by big puppets representing the adults. In the director’s interpretation (Latella 1999), the lovers and their friends symbolise the last generation of the millennium, a generation without parents and moral guides, which does not believe in God but is in search of love and understanding. 10 The productions of both Karpov and Proietti in 2003 stressed the energy of youth and the generation clash, but whereas Karpov focussed on poetry and on comedy, Proietti laid more emphasis on vulgar allusions and comedy. Proietti’s choice of having a balcony made of metal bars and the portrayal of the young men as members of city gangs were reminiscent of West Side Story. 11 The production was well received by audiences and critics alike, although it was booed in Verona during its premiére because of the strong language used by Capulet against his daughter. D’Amico (2005a) also criticised the liberal use of swearwords and of slangish expressions. 12 Personal conversation, 20 December 2012. 13 Various reviewers pointed out that in this production the text was drastically cut because the director’s aim was to focus on the lovers and their isolation. The scenes with the servants and in which comedy or wordplay prevailed were cut as they would distort the attention from the central theme. 14 Bene’s staging probably represented an innovation in the theatre, as he was the first one to attempt to do something new with the play. He did not have a reverential attitude to Shakespeare’s play: he saw it as a classic text that could be referred to and used partially, combining it with other elements in a game of intertextuality and interpretation. Since Bene regarded the play as one of the Bard’s worst, he rewrote it as it “should have been”, focussing on the character of Mercutio (Bene himself) and on his friendship with Romeo, also hinting at homosexuality. 121

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

    15

The play was performed in a courtyard in June 2000 and was filmed. I am grateful to Ave Fontana from the Teatro Stabile di Torino for having told me about this project and having allowed me to watch the video recording. 16 Loehlin describes a silent film directed by Gerolamo Lo Savio in 1911 (Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002: 75-76), while Lombardo mentions a 1912 film with Armando Falconi (Lombardo/Shakespeare 1994: 255).

122

Chapter 4: Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage This chapter investigates translations of the play for the Italian stage, exploring how the previously identified production trends of Romeo and Juliet may affect translation strategies. The chapter calls attention to how interpretations of the play as a domestic tragedy or as a clash between generations, a myth or part of a chain of rewritings influence the way in which the source text is translated for the theatre. As pointed out earlier, since the 1940s, translations for the page have tended to recreate the full play without cuts, whereas translations made for performance tend to include cuts and these alterations can point towards a specific interpretation. Excisions in translation might be due to various reasons: to render the production shorter, or to avoid elements that seem inappropriate for contemporary audiences, or to fit the director’s reading. The need to shorten the play because of different theatrical conventions is called forth by theatre critics. Reviewing Salvini’s 1937 Venice production, Silvio D’Amico pointed out that the division of the play into two acts, each lasting approximately one hour and forty minutes, resulted in a “heavy” performance which was too long for an Italian public (1937: 353). While in the 1930s a theatre audience would expect a performance to last three hours, in 2000 the approximate length seems to be shorter. Indeed, in 2003 Masolino D’Amico argued that contemporary theatre conventions are different from Elizabethan ones. They require that performances last approximately two hours, and thus cuts need to be made to Romeo and Juliet, since performing the full text would take much longer (2003: 19). Some excisions might also be influenced by past productions and differing tastes, as testified by the fact that some passages of Romeo and Juliet are eliminated by most directors, regardless of the language of performance, or the time in which the staging takes place. For instance, recapitulations, long speeches summarising the action that has already been seen on stage, are often cut or shortened. Examples are Benvolio’s account of the fight in which Mercutio and Tybalt are killed, or the Friar’s long speech after the lovers’ death. Loehlin points out that “the Friar’s final recapitulation has often been trimmed (Garrick), or cut entirely (Cushman, Modjeska, Irving)” (Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002: 248). Recent Italian productions also avoid the Friar’s speech, as in Scaparro (2000), Karpov (2003), Saïs (2003), Proietti (2003) and Vacis (2005). Other scenes that are often shortened or omitted in performance are the mourning for Juliet’s supposed death (IV.4.67-90), whose “laments […] have often impressed editors and 

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

producers as indecorous and unsuitably comic” (Levenson/Shakespeare 2000: 322), the Musicians’ scene and the Chorus of Act II (Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002: 222, 226, 127). On the other hand, the Prologue to the play is usually performed, although some directors have chosen to omit it and start the story in medias res, with the brawl. This happened for instance in the recent Italian productions directed by Saïs and by Karpov in 2003. Although there might be similarities in the way various performances abridge the text, the choice of which parts to excise or alter is subjective and meaningful: cuts are not arbitrary, but they can point towards the director’s specific view. Deliberate cutting of specific parts of the play can be used to make ideological points. For instance, the final scene, which contains a reconstruction of the events and the reconciliation of the houses, is extremely important because it moves the focus from the private to the public sphere (Bertinetti 1990: XIV). This scene is subject to many alterations in production, since it can shift interpretation. As highlighted above, the Friar’s closing speech is very often eliminated or shortened in production, partly because it might be considered redundant since it repeats what has already been seen. However, its cutting or alteration might be used by the director if he/she wants to lay emphasis on the negativity of adults. The presence and behaviour of Friar Laurence in the Capulets’ vault is also ambiguous and it poses, as Michael Best (2002: 270) has observed, “a performance crux.” The Friar’s flight and desertion of Juliet when she is in the greatest need of his moral support can be considered equivocal and inexplicable, and might be problematic for a modern audience “with its expectation of consistency in characterization.” The presence or absence of the Friar in the tomb, and the abridging or changing of lines, can shift the meaning of the play dramatically. Many contemporary productions omit the scene altogether, concentrating on the drama of the lovers but also, at the same time, reducing the role of the Friar as mediator. The killing of Paris is another episode that is sometimes cut, probably to focus more on the lovers and to make Romeo’s character more positive. Also the report of Lady Montague’s death has often been omitted, probably to focus on the lovers or to avoid “unnecessary” deaths (Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002: 247). The final reconciliation of the houses has also often been eliminated in recent times, and this excision may be due more to ideological reasons than to “technical” difficulties or a need to shorten the text, since the message of the play changes dramatically. Many directors want to give prominence to the death of the lovers and to emphasise the impossibility of a pacification. This chapter analyses four productions in which Shakespeare’s play undergoes different types of manipulatory processes: Ojetti’s 1937 translation for director Salvini, Vacis’ 1990 La storia di Romeo e Giulietta, D’Amico’s 2000 translation for director Scaparro and Saïs’ use of the same translation in 124

Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage

a 2003 production. Analysis of the translations inserted in specific theatrical contexts aims to explore how translation choices, the cutting or adding of lines, and especially the treatment of bawdy language and verse reflect a particular interpretation. 1. Paola Ojetti’s Translation for Guido Salvini, 1937 In July 1937 Paola Ojetti translated the play for an outdoor performance directed by Guido Salvini in Venice. This translation for the stage, which was called “versione italiana” (Italian version), was published in August 1937 in the theatre journal Comœdia (Ojetti/Shakespeare 1937).1 The same text was adopted by Salvini for his ensuing stagings of the play in 1939, 1950 and 1951. Salvini worked on the same script, altering some parts with a pen.2 The present analysis is based on a comparison of the 1937 script (containing the notes added by the director in 1939, 1950 and 1951) with the translation published in 1937, and with the 1990 published translation (Ojetti/Shakespeare 1990). Only slight changes to the text can be detected between the 1937 production and the following ones. This seems to testify to the fact that the director’s interpretation of the play did not vary significantly through those years. All of Salvini’s productions provide an example of a reading of the play in terms of domestic tragedy and romantic story which prevailed until the 1960s. Photos and reviews of the performances testify to the fact that the director offered a beautiful and realistic mise en scène in which romantic elements prevailed. Various critics stressed the importance of stage designs and praised the spectacular Renaissance settings and costumes, and the beauty of the romantic moments between the lovers. Ojetti’s translation, with its modernised language, was also appreciated (D’Amico 1937; Damerini 1937). An analysis of Ojetti’s translation illustrates her attempt to stress the comedy in the text and to update the language, making it closer to the one used by her contemporary spectators. The translator’s approach is exemplified by the use of some colloquial expressions, especially in the speeches by the servants, the young people and the Nurse. For instance, in the opening scene, Samson’s “an we be in choler we’ll draw” (I.1.3), is rendered with “alla peggio, gli si dà addosso” (if the worst comes to the worst, we’ll attack them), and Gregory’s “do you quarrell sir?” (I.1.48) becomes “volete attaccar briga, messere?” (do you want to pick a quarrel, sir?). In I.2.82-83, the serving-man’s “the great rich Capulet” becomes “quel riccone di Capuleto” (Capulet, that moneybags), whereas the invitation to “crush a cup of wine” becomes “sturare una bottiglia di vino buono” (to uncork a bottle of good wine). In I.4.127-128, the serving-man’s “Cheerly boys, be brisk a 125

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

while, and the longer liver take all” becomes “Allegri ragazzi! Infischiatevene perché ride bene chi ride l’ultimo” (Cheer up boys! Don’t give a damn, because he who laughs last laughs longest). The Nurse also frequently uses colloquialisms, which contribute to highlight her comic character. The Nurse’s “you have made a simple choice” II.4.37), becomes “come scelta non è un gran che” (your choice isn’t anything special), and exclamations like “perbacco” (my goodness) are added. Mercutio’s informal register is also emphasised in Ojetti’s translation. For instance, “where the devil should this Romeo be?” (II.3.1) becomes “ma dove diavolo si sarà cacciato il nostro Romeo?” (where the devil did our Romeo get to?) and “he’s already dead” (line 12) becomes “è bell’e morto” (he’s as dead as a doornail). Mercutio’s words when he gets stabbed by Tybalt, “A plague a both houses, I am sped” (III.1.91) are rendered with “Accidenti alle vostre famiglie! Sono spacciato” (Damn your families! I am a goner), which contain the colloquial words accidenti and spacciato. As far as cuts to the source text are concerned, some reviewers argued that Salvini eliminated from the text the parts which were exaggerated, superfluous, unnecessary for the development of the plot, and those which were vain (anonymous 1937; D’Amico 1937). An anonymous reviewer pointed out that the translator succeeded brilliantly in overcoming the difficulties posed by the play’s puns and vulgar dialogues (anonymous 1937). Analysis of Ojetti’s translation shows that the cuts made to the source text did not simply eliminate “superfluous”, “unnecessary” and “meaningless” parts, but they excised important elements of the text that did not fit the director’s interpretation and contemporary taste. The excisions made by the translator and subsequently by the director were aimed at conveying a specific reading of the play. The literariness of the play and its vulgar language tend to be eliminated or toned down. The trimming of these two elements is in line with the tendency highlighted in translations for the page and the stage during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and therefore with the canonical image of the play as a romantic tragedy “purified” from its imperfections. The literariness of the play may have been downplayed because of the influence of realism and the taste of the time. Ojetti and Salvini appear to have eliminated those aspects which were perceived as too artificial, such as verse and some Petrarchan images. As highlighted in the previous chapter, the conventional language and conceits of courtly love were considered too detached from contemporary taste and poetics, and speeches in rhymed verse would make the characters seem less realistic. Some reviewers in 1937 praised the director for making cuts to the poetry, on the grounds that this literary style was not appropriate to contemporary taste. As Gino Rocca (1937) pointed out, it was necessary to trim some beautiful but purely lyrical 126

Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage

scenes because Italian theatre audiences did not like that kind of exaggerated lyricism. As a result, Ojetti’s translation contained neither rhymed nor free verse, was all in prose, and metaphors and conventional images, though not completely excised, were toned down. Long passages using Petrarchan motifs were usually abridged, especially when uttered by adults. Some examples will clarify the translator’s approach to the literariness of the text. Ojetti cut the lines in which Montague comments on Romeo’s isolation and sorrow using Petrarchan motifs such as the image of the bud and the worm (I.1.144-149). Montague’s words thus lose the imagery and become more concrete, more similar to the ones a modern father might use: “Ma solo a se stesso egli si confida. Potessimo sapere da dove gli viene questa pena, saremmo tanto felici di conoscerla quanto di guarirla.” (But only to himself does he open his heart. Were we to learn where this sorrow comes from, we would be as happy to know it as to cure it).3 In I.3.83-96, Lady Capulet speaks to Juliet through a sonnet, elaborating “a conceit through which she compares [Paris’ face] to a manuscript book.” (Levenson/Shakespeare 2000: 177). As highlighted in the previous chapters, this speech was criticised by some editors and translators, and was often abridged in Italian translations and performances. This description of Paris through a sonnet was turned into prose and slightly shortened by Ojetti. The translator deleted most of the references to the “volume” and cut some lines. Salvini further cut the passage, excising all the allusions to the “book” (in square brackets): MADONNA CAPULETI: Leggigli nel volto e vi troverai la gioia scritta con la penna della bellezza; esamina l’armonia dei suoi lineamenti e vedi come l’uno dia pregio all’altro. E se in quel bel volto trovi qualcosa che possa lasciarti in dubbio, leggi il commento scritto in margine agli occhi suoi. [Per essere perfetto, questo prezioso libro d’amore chiede d’essere legato tra borchie d’oro.] Così la sua ricchezza sarebbe anche la tua e tu gli consentiresti di rendere te pari a lui. (Read over his face and you will find delight written with beauty’s pen; examine the harmony of his lineament and see how one another gives value. And if in that fair face you find something which may make you doubtful, read the comment written in the margins of his eyes. [To be perfect, this precious book of love needs to be bound in gold.] So his richness would also be yours, and you would allow him to be like you.)

The literariness of the passage and the conventional Petrarchan images are toned down, probably in order to make Lady Capulet’s speech appear more natural. Petrarchan conceits are eliminated also from Capulet’s speech when he comments on Juliet’s suffering and compares her to a bark, a sea, and a wind (III.5.126-137). Capulet’s words are as follows: CAPULET When the sun sets, the earth doth drizzle dew; But for the sunset of my brother’s son It rains downright. How, now? A conduit, girl? What, 127

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet still in tears? Evermore show’ring? In one little body Thou counterfeits a bark, a sea, a wind: For still thy eyes, which I may call the sea, Do ebb and flow with tears; the bark thy body is, Sailing in this salt flood; the winds, thy sighs, Who, raging with thy tears, and they with them, Without a sudden calm will overset Thy tempest-tossèd body. How now, wife, Have you delivered to her our decree?

As noted by Loehlin, these “laboured metaphors for Juliet’s tearfulness have almost always been cut down in performance, from Garrick and throughout the twentieth century” (Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002: 199). This is perhaps due to the fact that such metaphors might result in an image of Capulet as a ridiculous character and might contain a satirical vein. Perhaps for this reason, and in line with performance tradition that tends to abridge these lines, Ojetti decided to excise most of this speech. Only four lines were kept of Capulet’s words, so that in Salvini’s performance the man simply said: CAPULETO: Tu sei una grondaia, figliola mia! Come, ancora in lacrime? Ma voi non le avete ancora rivelato il mio proposito? (You are a conduit, my daughter! What? Still in tears? Have you not delivered to her my decree yet?)

As a result of the cuts, Capulet’s character is perceived as a more “down-toearth” person, a man who does not indulge in poetic language and elaborate metaphors, in short, perhaps as a more “Italian” man. A further aspect that is worth noting is that some of Capulet’s lines described above are rewritten and assigned to the Nurse, contributing to the image of the woman as a comic character. Indeed, in a previous exchange with Lady Capulet, the Nurse resorts to the images of the bark, the sea, and the wind. Her conventional language annoys Lady Capulet, who silences her by saying “Basta, ti prego!” (Enough, I beg you!). This shift reflects an interpretation of the characters. The conceits were perceived as exaggerations, therefore not suitable for Capulet’s more practical character. The Petrarchan topoi appear to be also downplayed in the lovers’ dialogues and monologues, although here the cuts are less drastic. What is mostly missing from the lovers’ duets and monologues are elaborate conceits or wordplay, conventional Petrarchan images which seemed unlikely to be pronounced by two young lovers. For instance, when Romeo sees Juliet at the ball, Ojetti cut several lines containing imagery typical of Elizabethan poetry. In Shakespeare’s play Romeo utters the following words (within square 128

Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage

brackets the lines omitted by Ojetti): ROMEO O, she doth teach the torches to burn bright! [It seems she hangs upon the cheek of night As a rich jewel in an Ethiop’s ear, Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear. So shows a snowy dove trooping with crows, As yonder lady o’er her fellows shows.] The measure done, I’ll watch her place of stand And, touching hers, make blessèd my rude hand. [Did my heart love till now?] Forswear it, sight, For I ne’er saw true beauty till this night. (I.4.157-166)

In the 1937 script the monologue is rendered as follows: “ROMEO: Ella insegna alle torce come si fa a splendere! Finita la danza faró benedetta la mia mano rozza toccando la mano di lei. Occhi miei, prima d’ora non avevate mai veduta una bellezza vera.” (She teaches the torches how to burn bright! The dance done, I’ll make blessed my rude hand by touching hers. My eyes, never before have you seen a true beauty.) It is worth noting that probably in 1950 Salvini reintegrated some of the romantic and poetic words of the lovers that had been excised by Ojetti in 1937. The analysis of the script reveals that some lines were added. For example, in the scene described above, the lines “sembra che penda dalla guancia della notte come un ricco gioiello all’orecchio di un’Etiope” (it seems she hangs upon the cheek of night as a rich jewel in an Ethiop’s ear) were reinserted in ink by the director. Also the final exchanges of the lovers in the balcony scene seem to have been shortened in 1937, while some lines were subsequently added by Salvini in 1950. This might point to the fact that the director in 1950 wanted to stress the sentimental and poetic aspects of the play. Through these additions, the lovers’ romantic feelings, passion, and poetry were emphasised, enhancing a reading of the play as a romantic story. This view was corroborated by one reviewer, according to whom the production presented a romantic Shakespeare since the sentimental elements of the play prevailed (De Chiara 1951). The poetic and romantic tone of the play was emphasised, despite the toning down of some of the conventional language of courtly love, because the text was deprived of its sexual allusions and ironic vein. In fact the aspect of the play that was subject to most cuts in Ojetti’s translation was bawdy language: wordplay was simplified and vulgar language was completely excised from the text, resulting in a sentimental vision of the play. As pointed out by Roberts: 129

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet remove the extensive bawdy in Romeo and Juliet […] and you are left with a sanitized, sentimental, romanticized version of the play, far removed from what an Elizabethan audience would have seen or enjoyed (1998: 87).

Ojetti’s translation clearly illustrates this process of bowdlerisation and idealisation. The erosion of vulgar elements from the text is apparent in the translation, as all the passages with vulgar allusions were cut by Ojetti in 1937. For example, Gregory and Samson’s sexual allusions and bawdy puns in the opening scene were excised from the script and the published version. Ojetti eliminated the lines containing references to women and to sexual aggression, and the wordplay on “heads of the maids”, and “maidenheads”. Of the first 31 lines of the opening scene of the play, 16 were deleted. The censorship of bawdy expressions in 1937 reduced the sexual puns of the servants to a comic but “sanitised” exchange. However, it is worth noting that probably in 1950 some of the vulgar allusions were added by the director, as in the script some lines are inserted in ink: SANSONE: Prima combatterò gli uomini e poi sgominerò le donne e rimarranno tutti senza testa. GREGORIO: Anche le donne? SANSONE: La testa o la virtù, intendila come vuoi. GREGORIO: Lo intenderanno loro secondo come se lo sentiranno. (Samson: First I will fight with the men, and then I will trounce the maids and they will all remain without heads. Gregory: Also the maids? Samson: Their heads or their virtue, take it in the sense that you want. Gregory: They must take it in the sense that they feel it.)

In this case, bawdiness is suggested, though it is still downplayed. This addition made by the director may indicate that around the 1950s also in the theatre (as in translations for the page) more attention may have been paid to the complexity and vulgarity of Shakespeare’s language. Another change made by Salvini in 1950 might corroborate this opinion: the addition of twelve lines of dialogue in which Mercutio and Romeo engage in wordplay (II.3). However, analysis of the translation and of the additions made by the director shows that the romantic elements still prevailed and that, although more attention might have been paid to wordplay, bawdy language was still avoided. Indeed, apart from the above examples, all the other instances of vulgar expressions in the text were omitted. For instance, Mercutio’s sexual allusions and bawdy puns in his evocation of Romeo (II.1) were completely eliminated, so that the Italian audience was presented with a passage which was ironical but not vulgar. Out of 43 lines, 20 were cut, eliminating all the puns on “raise a spirit”, “circle”, “stand”. Moreover, other vulgar expressions 130

Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage

throughout the text were cut. As might be expected from a romantic reading of the play, Juliet’s metaphorical language containing sexual references was excised. For instance, her ‘Gallop apace’ speech (III.2) was shortened by cutting the parts which contain references to love, sex and pleasure.4 Lines such as “learn me how to lose a winning match, played for a pair of stainless maidenhoods” (III.2.12-13), or “O I have bought the mansion of a love, | But not possessed it; and though I am sold, | Not yet enjoyed” (III.2.26-28) are explicitly sexual and were obviously censored. These cuts testify to the tendency to avoid sexual allusions and to create a romantic, idealised image of Juliet, as the production probably aimed to present her as a discreet and sexually innocent girl. Romeo also uses bawdy language in the play, especially in his exchange with Mercutio in II.3, when Mercutio encourages him to engage in a kind of “verbal duel”, a “contest of wit” (Levenson/Shakespeare 2000: 232). This ironic, playful, and bawdy aspect of Romeo’s character was downplayed, as most of the lines were eliminated. Together with vulgar puns, also complex wordplay was avoided through simplification. Other cuts also deserve attention. For instance, all references to Juliet’s age are avoided in the translation, through omissions and alterations. Lady Capulet’s “she’s not fourteen” (I.3.13) and the Nurse’s “she’s not fourteen” (line 15) were cut, while the Nurse’s “On Lammas Eve at night shall she be fourteen” (line 23) was translated with “e in quella notte Giulietta nacque” (and on that night Juliet was born). These omissions might be due to two factors. First, because the actresses playing Juliet were much older: in the 1937 production Evi Maltagliati was 29, while Edda Albertini, who played the role in 1950 and 1951, was 24. Second, perhaps Juliet’s age was not mentioned because it was not considered appropriate for a fourteen-year-old girl to get married and have sex. Moreover, as previously noted, in the Italian tradition of the story Juliet was eighteen, and it was Shakespeare who had made her younger and had added sexual references in her monologue. The excision of all sexual innuendos in Juliet’s speech and the omission of references to her very young age are part of a process which acculturated the source text, making it adhere to the cultural values of the target audience. Other important cuts are made in III.5, when Capulet violently reacts to Juliet’s refusal to marry Paris. Although Capulet’s anger and aggressiveness were retained, the cutting of some “stronger” lines might have partly mitigated the man’s violent behaviour, making him less negative. Expressions such as “hang thee, young baggage! Disobedient wretch!” (III.5.159) were omitted, together with Capulet’s threats to disown her. The treatment of Juliet as a piece of property and the reference to her dowry were avoided, so that Capulet’s negative aspects were partly reduced. 131

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

Entire scenes or episodes which are often excised in performance were omitted by Ojetti and Salvini. For instance, the scene of the musicians (IV.4.122-166) after the discovery of Juliet’s “supposed” death was cut, probably in order to avoid a shift of focus to comedy, and to concentrate on the tragic atmosphere.5 The whole speech in which Friar John explains why he was unable to deliver the letter to Romeo was cut in this production, despite its importance to understand the events. This excision might be due to the fact that the director considered it unnecessary, as it would shift the focus of attention from the tragedy of the lovers, highlighting the role of fate, and thus diminishing the dramatic power of the performance. As far as the recapitulations in the play are concerned, they were slightly shortened, but not omitted altogether. The final scene, which is usually subject to most alterations, was trimmed. Ojetti cut some lines, and the director further shortened the scene. However, it seems that no dramatic shifts in interpretation occurred. The Friar was present in the tomb, and a specific translation choice, together with Salvini’s stage direction point towards a positive interpretation of the character in this final moment. Indeed, when Juliet awakened, the Friar’s “Come, good Juliet. I dare no longer stay” (V.3.159) was rendered with “Vieni, andiamo, Giulietta mia, non oso restare più a lungo” (my italics) (Come, let’s go, my Juliet, I dare not stay longer) and the director added the following note on the way the actor should deliver the line: “tutto veloce, soffiato, tremante” (all quickly, in a trembling whisper). After Juliet’s death, many lines containing the dialogues between the Prince, the watchmen, and the lovers’ parents were cut. The report of Lady Montague’s death was omitted, probably because her death was considered unnecessary and exaggerated. The Friar’s recapitulation was translated and performed, though about twenty lines were deleted: the Friar did not explain his presence in the tomb and his behaviour, and the reference to the lovers’ “stolen marriage” was avoided through the cutting of “clandestino” (secret) by the director. The presence of the Friar in the tomb, his words to Juliet and his recapitulation testify to the importance of the character’s role as a mediator in this production which read the play as a domestic tragedy. The reconciliation of the families and the central role of the Prince in this final scene were retained. The play ended with the Prince’s words emphasising the sadness and the uniqueness of the lovers’ story: “Questa mattina ci reca una buia pace, e il sole, in segno di lutto, non si affaccerà. Mai una storia è stata di tanto dolore quanto questa di Giulietta e del suo Romeo” (This morning brings us a glooming peace, and the sun, for sorrow, will not peep. Never was a story of more woe than this of Juliet and her Romeo). As has been shown, Ojetti’s translation for Salvini’s production emphasised the romantic elements of the play at the expense of its vulgar language, matching a reading of the text in terms of domestic tragedy and 132

Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage

romantic love. The translation choices and the process of transposition to the Italian stage resulted in simplification. The source play was modernised and taken closer to a contemporary audience. Complex wordplay and cultural references were simplified or avoided. Ojetti’s translation provides a sanitised, idealised version of the play, in which romantic elements prevail, bawdy language is excised and Romeo and Juliet are deprived of those aspects that would make them seem less romantic. The emphasis on the romantic elements at the expense of its vulgar language is a predominant aspect of the appropriation of the play by Italian directors who read the story in terms of romance and domestic tragedy, presenting an idealised view of the lovers. This reading corresponds to the canonical image of the play, which prevailed in Italian theatre for a long time. 2. Gabriele Vacis’ La Storia di Romeo e Giulietta, 1990 In 1990 the story of the star-crossed lovers was rewritten by the Laboratorio Teatro Settimo as La storia di Romeo e Giulietta (The Story of Romeo and Juliet), by Laura Curino, Marco Paolini, Roberto Tarasco, Gabriele Vacis, and directed by Gabriele Vacis. This production was extremely successful with public and critics alike. Osvaldo Guerrieri (1991) described the performance as moving and original, and praised it for its beautiful mixture of refined language, poetry and dialect. According to him the aching passion of the actors enraptured the audience. For the Laboratorio Teatro Settimo Shakespeare’s play was a rewriting of a pre-existing popular Italian story that belonged to Italian collective memory. The story of Romeo and Juliet, and of their young friends, symbolised youth and its suppression: their death was the accomplishment of an inevitable destiny. The performance started when the lovers were already dead, and they were remembered by the adults, through their memories. The company was interested not in Shakespeare’s play per se, but in the infinite retelling of the tale through time, space and media, before and after Shakespeare made it famous. Moreover, they were attracted by the Italianness of the story (Vacis 1991: 21). The result was a choral performance that gave life to the legend of the lovers by using extracts from Shakespeare’s play interwoven with other Italian incarnations of the story. The present analysis is based on a comparison of the script contained in the theatre programme with a video recording of a performance, the published translations by Quasimodo and Lodovici, the Italian novelle and various reviews.6 In La storia di Romeo e Giulietta the story is set in Verona where, years after the lovers’ death, those who have survived mourn the dead by retelling the tragic events to the next generation. The performance is a collective telling of the story, a rite through which the adults describe the “ancient 133

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

grudge” that killed youth. Friar Laurence, the main narrator, is accompanied by the Nurse, Lady Capulet, Capulet, Lady Montague, and Benvolio. The Friar’s narration is interpolated by the evocation of the dead Romeo and Juliet, Mercutio and Tybalt. The most important moments of their lives are remembered by the adults who perform their parts, exchanging roles scene by scene.7 The fact that the story is narrated creates a shift in emphasis. Shakespeare’s play is not reproduced in its entirety: only parts of it are used in order to give voice to the protagonists. The events are told mainly through an Italian version, Zulieta e Romeo, a poem in Veronese dialect, in rhymed verse, composed by Vittorio Betteloni in 1906, which combines elements from the Italian novelle and from Shakespeare’s play. Betteloni’s work constitutes the main script for the performance, while, as pointed out by Vacis, of Shakespeare’s play the company uses only those words which for them symbolise Romeo and Juliet: famous dialogues such as the balcony scene, the parting at dawn, and the ‘Queen Mab’ speech (1991: 22). No new translation of the play was commissioned. The company compared some published translations, extracted only some passages, and adapted them to its specific needs. Whereas some reviewers (Sicca 1990; Sala 1990) argued that the published translations by Quasimodo and Lodovici were used, an analysis of the script seems to suggest that the company followed Quasimodo’s translation (in its 1976 or 1982 edition) quite closely, and only slight changes were made. Lodovici’s version does not seem to be used in the script, though it might have been used as a reference text. Some reviewers also claimed that the script contained extracts from the novelle by Da Porto, Bandello and Masuccio Salernitano (Guerrieri 1991; Sala 1990). However, an analysis of the script and the video recording reveals that extracts from the novelle were not performed. What seems plausible in this case is that the company read the novelle and used them as a source of inspiration and reference point for their work on Quasimodo’s translation and on Betteloni’s poem.8 This opinion might be corroborated by the following comment by Vacis: iniziammo a raccontare la storia di Romeo e Giulietta utilizzando i versi di Vittorio Betteloni. Per la verità con molta disinvoltura poiché a quella trama non potevamo fare a meno di intrecciare episodi di origine incerta, come incrostazioni sedimentate dall’infinito raccontare (1991: 22). (We started to tell the story of Romeo and Juliet by using Vittorio Betteloni’s poem. To tell the truth, we took several liberties with it since we could not refrain from intertwining that plot with other episodes whose origins were uncertain to us, which were like layers of encrustments that had built up through infinite retellings of the tale)

The script thus appears to be the company’s personal, original rewriting which combines Betteloni’s 1906 poem with selected scenes from 134

Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage

Shakespeare’s play (in the translation by Quasimodo), with references to the native Italian tradition and to various reincarnations of the tale. The interpretation of the story by the Laboratorio Teatro Settimo and their approach to the various incarnations of the myth are illustrated in the opening scene of the performance. Six adults and four adolescents from the Capulets and the Montagues are sitting in a semi-circle. Using Betteloni’s rhyming verse, Friar Laurence describes the setting of the story: Verona, lit by the moonlight, its theatre, and the river Adige. Then the Friar dedicates the scene to “quel celebre poeta forestier | che mi scrivarlo gnanca el so | ma l’è qualcosa come SOSPIR” (that renown foreign poet whose name I can’t even write but it sounds something like SIGH), because he made the Veronese lovers and their great souls famous throughout the world. The characters on stage and the protagonists of the story are introduced in the following way: È l’ora. Qua scomencia la storia dolorosa de Romeo e Zulieta storia senza eroi contada e ricontada da chi a quei gravi dolori ancora sopravvive. Ancora oggi le madri loro: de Romeo, Mater Montecchi, e Mater Capuleti, per Zulieta anche il papà suo, Pater Capuleti, e per Romeo, Benvolio, suo cugino, e…de Zulieta la Baila, sua nutrice a contare e ricontare la tragedia lamentevolissima che eterna il ricordo dei nostri morti bambini: Romeo, puer amatissimo et ammirabile, Zulieta, amoris et pietatis coniugalis rarissimo exemplo, Mercutio, di giovinezza pieno ma non sazio, il prode Tebaldo, ardente e valoroso, che nati sotto contraria stella, con la loro morte seppellirono l’odio di parte. (It’s time. | Here we start | the painful story | of Romeo and Zulieta, | a story with no heroes, | told and re-told | by those who survived | that deep sorrow. | Still today their mothers: | for Romeo, Mater Montecchi, | and Mater Capuleti | for Zulieta, and also her father, | Pater Capuleti, | and for Romeo his cousin Benvolio, | and for Juliet her Nurse, | to tell and retell the most lamentable tragedy | that immortalises the memory of our dead children: | Romeo, a most beloved and admirable young man; | Zulieta, a most rare example of married love and piety, | Mercutio, who was full of youth but never fulfilled, | the valiant Tybalt, who was fiery and brave, | whose misadventured piteous overthrows | did with their death bury their families’ strife)

135

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

The company’s interpretation with their use of different rewritings of the myth emerges clearly in this opening speech. These first lines point to the company’s various sources. The mixture of dialect, Latin and Italian may suggest the old origin of the story, and the fact that it has been retold through time. As in Betteloni’s poem, Juliet is called Zulieta, and dialect is used. References to Shakespeare are provided by borrowing words from the title of the play “la tragedia lamentevolissima” (the most lamentable tragedy) as well as from its Prologue: “che nati sotto contraria stella, con la loro morte seppelliscono l’odio di parte” (star-crossed lovers, whose misadventured piteous overthrows | Doth with their death bury their parents’ strife). The fact that these lines refer not only to Romeo and Juliet, but also to Mercutio and Tybalt shows that the focus will be on the death of the four young people: “i nostri morti bambini” (our dead children). Youth and its suppression are the main theme. Moreover, the lovers and their friends are described from the start through qualities which make them appear all positive, passionate, and young. The focus on the death of youth determines another change from Shakespeare: Lady Montague is alive. She is among the survivors who narrate the story, she is among those responsible for their death. This change is in line with the Italian tradition, as no mention was made of her death in the novelle. Another character who dies in Shakespeare but not in this production is Paris. The omission of his death might have been to avoid an “unnecessary” murder by Romeo, to make him more positive and focus on the lovers and their friends, and perhaps it is also influenced by the Italian novelle. The importance of the native Italian tradition in affecting the changes to Shakespeare’s play thus appears clear from the start. The interpretation in terms of myths around the death of youth, with a focus on different rewritings, and on the Italianness of the story, shows especially in the many cuts to the play. Entire scenes are omitted altogether (for instance, I.1 and I.2, II.3 and II.5, III.3 and III.4, IV.1, IV.2, IV.3, IV.4, and finally V.1 and V.2). Moreover, very few lines are kept from other passages. Despite these omissions, the story line of Shakespeare’s play is mainly followed, since many of the parts that are excised from Shakespeare’s play are replaced by the Friar’s narration, using Betteloni’s poem. However, some elements appear to have been completely eliminated. Some cuts and alterations deserve attention, as they seem aimed at conveying a specific reading of the story, more in line with the native Italian tradition, and/or aimed at stressing the suppression of youth by adults. Some examples will clarify this point. As previously highlighted, cuts affect Lady Montague and Paris. By avoiding their deaths, the story is rendered more similar to the version of the novelle. Moreover, this excision eliminates “unnecessary deaths” which were added by Shakespeare and are probably perceived as not suitable to a reading which focuses on the lovers and their positive character. 136

Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage

Paris is particularly affected by cuts. His marriage with Juliet is arranged only after Tybalt’s death, and he does not appear at all until then. Moreover, his role is further diminished by eliminating his presence in the tomb, in the final scene. These textual excisions contribute to making Paris closer to the character in the native tradition of the story, in which he had a minor role. The part of Shakespeare’s play which is subject to the most significant changes and cuts is the final scene. Only Romeo’s monologue in the tomb was retained (V.3.85-119), and after his “bevo al mio amore!” (Here’s to my love!), all the remaining lines were cut. The subsequent events are narrated by the Friar, who omits important elements, and adds others. An interesting cut regards the Friar himself, who is not in the vault to help the lovers. This constitutes a change not only from Shakespeare but also from the novelle, since in Bandello the Friar was in the sepulchre with Pietro and tried to comfort Juliet. The cutting of the Friar in the tomb might be due to avoid shifting the focus from the lovers and their tragedy, and perhaps also to suggest the negativity of all adults, who are equally responsible for the death of youth. Another important cut can be found in the final scene: there is no final reconciliation of the families. This omission is meaningful, as Shakespeare, Da Porto and Bandello all mention the reconciliation, although Bandello added that the peace did not last long. This excision might suggest that the rivalry between the families will never really be extinguished. This interpretation might be corroborated by the behaviour of the members of the two families during the narration. In fact in the opening scene, when the Friar introduces the Montagues and the Capulets, the two groups start talking loudly and arguing. This also happens when the fight between Mercutio, Tybalt and Romeo is described by Benvolio: the loud comments and arguments reveal that the hatred between the families has not been placated by the death of their children. However, the most important alteration to Shakespeare’s play regards the lovers in the final scene. Following the Italian tradition of the story, Romeo is still alive when Juliet awakes, and they are allowed some moments together. They have a final dramatic dialogue, they exchange the last hugs and kisses, and then die together, with a kiss. The Laboratorio Teatro Settimo thus rejects Shakespeare’s choice, and prefers the scene similar to the Italian versions of the tale, both in the novelle and in Betteloni’s poem. The Friar describes in detail the final moments of the lovers’ lives, their thoughts and feelings, their desperation, the symptoms of the poison on Romeo’s body, and Juliet’s suicide with Romeo’s dagger, using Betteloni’s poem. This choice of having Romeo and Juliet meet and talk before their death is in line with an interpretation that focuses on the lovers and emphasises the Italian origins of the myth. After the Friar’s narration of their death, the epilogue of 137

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

Shakespeare’s play (V.3.305-310) as translated by Quasimodo, but in the past tense, is spoken by the Nurse: BALIA: Quel giorno portò con sé una grigia pace. Il sole per il dolore nascose la sua faccia. Andiamo: abbiamo parlato molte volte di questi Fatti dolorosi, perchè fra quanti vi parteciparono, Alcuni furono perdonati, altri puniti. Ma certo non vi fu mai una storia più infelice di Quella di Giulietta e del suo Romeo. (A glooming peace that morning with it brought. The sun for sorrow did not show his head. Go hence: we have talked many times of these sad things, for among those who took part in them, some were pardoned, and some punished. For never was a story of more woe Than this of Juliet and her Romeo.)

Shakespeare’s final words end the survivors’ rite of remembrance of their “morti bambini” (dead children). Another scene deserves attention, as its presence shows the influence of the company’s interpretation. Benvolio’s recapitulation of the fight between Mercutio, Tybalt and Romeo (III.1.152175), which is usually cut in performance, is retained here, as it fits the company’s point of view of a collective rite of remembrance. As Benvolio witnessed the fight, he can describe the tragic moment without the need to act out the scene. The discussion between the young men therefore is not spoken, but there is a silent fight with long metal bars after which Benvolio narrates the events. The scene ends with the Prince’s words condemning Romeo to exile, which are pronounced by all the actors and actresses in chorus. The treatment of poetry is also affected by the company’s interpretation. The poetic aspect of Shakespeare’s play appears to be downplayed since all the sonnets are eliminated, also the famous “shared sonnet” between Romeo and Juliet at the ball. The sonnet is instead replaced by the Friar’s more concrete, more “physical” narration of the meeting using Betteloni’s words, in dialect. Romeo’s kiss is described as follows: “Romeo un baso su la piccola man le mete | partendo alfin… | Con che el fenise de scombussolarla tuta quanta e de | tuta conquistarla” (Romeo places a kiss upon her small hand | and then goes away…| And leaves her all torn and | all conquered). The first meeting between the lovers is rendered more realistic by making references to the lovers’ feelings and actions, and becomes more in line with the Italian tradition of the tale as told in the novelle. Petrarchan images and poetry are also often trimmed, probably due to the company’s attempt to render the story closer to its Italian origins, more realistic and less artificial. 138

Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage

However, an interesting exception is provided by Capulet’s description of Juliet’s tearfulness. The choice of retaining this oft-cut speech results in a satirical portrayal of the man, who appears to indulge in conventional poetic language and sentimental images, while immediately afterwards he rages against his daughter, insulting her using strong language such as “puttana” (you whore) or “Vattene, bagasciona!” (Go away, you slut!) and threatening her. The whole scene in which Juliet refuses to marry Paris is retained in this production. Capulet’s contradictory language and behaviour results in a negative image of the man and also contributes to highlighting the parents’ responsibility for the children’s deaths. Although Petrarchan poetics is downplayed, a sense of poetry is conveyed by the fact that the romantic moments of Shakespeare’s text are retained and emphasised. This is in line with the company’s focus on Romeo and Juliet and their feelings, as well as with their interpretation of the story as a myth, of which the famous speeches are a central part. For instance, Romeo’s romantic description of Juliet when he first sees her at the ball (I.4.157-166) is retained, so that stress is placed on his romantic character. Lady Montague, playing the part of her son Romeo, utters his words in Quasimodo’s translation: “Oh, essa insegna alle torce come splendere. […] Ha amato mai il mio cuore? Negatelo, occhi: prima di questa notte non ho mai veduto la bellezza” (Oh, how she teaches the torches to burn bright. […] Did my heart love till now? Deny it, eyes: I never saw beauty till this night). The following speech taken from Shakespeare and evoked by the actors is the dialogue of the lovers in the so-called “balcony scene” (II.1). Although the exchange is slightly shortened, most of it is retained and its importance is clearly highlighted. Romeo and Juliet in this scene are played by Friar Laurence and the Nurse, while Juliet’s final lines, “Scenda, scenda, scenda sui tuoi occhi il sonno e la quiete nel tuo cuore. Oh, fossi il sonno e la quiete per poter riposare così dolcemente!” (Sleep dwell upon your eyes, peace in your breast. Oh, would I were sleep and peace, so sweet to rest) are spoken by all the actors and actresses on stage, to stress the intensity of the moment. Another famous romantic speech that is borrowed from Shakespeare is the parting of the lovers in the morning, after the night together. The exchange between Romeo and Juliet in III.5, with their dialogue of the nightingale and the lark is performed almost entirely, with Lucilla Giagnoni (Lady Capulet) playing both lovers. After Juliet’s supposed death all the events that follow in the play are told by the Friar using Betteloni’s poem. The next excerpt from Shakespeare is another famous monologue, Juliet’s “gallop apace” speech, which takes place in the vault, as if it were Juliet’s dream while lying asleep in the Capulet’s sepulchre, waiting for her lover. The monologue is followed by Romeo’s words when he sees his apparently dead love. The fact that all the above speeches are retained contributes to focussing on the lovers, 139

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

highlighting the romantic, poetic and dramatic aspects of the tale. The use of Betteloni’s poem in rhymed verse also further stresses the role of poetry and the status of the story as a myth. Nevertheless, despite the emphasis on the romantic exchanges of the lovers, this production does not present a sentimentalised, idealised or sanitised reading. The bawdiness of Shakespeare’s play is not eliminated, since some of the passages containing vulgar allusions are maintained. Moreover, sexual references are present in the narration by the Friar. A few examples will illustrate this point. Although the opening scene is omitted, some of the bawdy language is kept. For instance, in II.1., lines 6 to 22 are retained, as Romeo’s spirit is evoked by Capulet using Mercutio’s words. After Romeo, Mercutio is also evoked by the Nurse by combining images and words from II.1 and II.4. The sexual innuendo in these lines is emphasised by altering the published translation. Quasimodo’s “per le sue cosce vibranti e quello che ci sta vicino” (for her quivering thighs, and that which is next to them) is turned into “per le sue cosce vibranti e quello che vi sta in mezzo” (for her quivering thighs, and that which lays between them), making the allusion more obvious. However, it should be pointed out that Mercutio’s more explicit vulgar allusions in the following lines are not performed in this production. Nevertheless, the performance seems to emphasise Mercutio’s “dirty mind” on various occasions. His references to sex in the famous “Queen Mab” speech are retained and they are intensified by the actor’s performance. While saying “e le fa donne di buon portamento” (I.4.92) (making them women of good carriage), the actor adds a movement of his hips, which makes the words more explicitly sexual. Another example is provided by the scene in which Benvolio and Mercutio talk about Romeo’s disappearance after the ball. This exchange, which was absent in the script and was added in performance, contains bawdy language and sexual allusions both through words and gestures. Talking about Romeo’s love for Rosaline, Mercutio hugs Benvolio from behind and says in dialect: “Rosalina, se te ciappo, se te ciappo” (Rosaline, if I get you, if I get you). This comment and the accompanied gestures might also hint at homosexual pulsions in Mercutio. The young man’s assault on Benvolio is interrupted by the arrival of the rest of the company, who take him away while he complains “sempre sul più bello!” (always when in the middle of it!). These exchanges were obviously added by the company to the source texts, perhaps to add another interpretative layer to the story. Sexuality plays a central role in this production. The lovers are not idealised, but they are portrayed as “sexually aware”. For instance, Juliet’s sexual innuendos in the “gallop apace” monologue are retained. The passion of the lovers, their feelings and their sexual desires are also emphasised on various occasions by the narrator, using Betteloni’s text. Examples can be 140

Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage

found in the above described first meeting and final scene. Another example is the Friar’s description of the lovers’ wedding night, in which Juliet waiting for Romeo is described as yearning for her love and the narrator makes ironic allusions to the sex enjoyed by the couple. The meeting is narrated in dialect as follows: Ela la baila alor manda a dormir, | e drio el so sposo la se tira pronta in stanza: | e me dovì qua compatir, quel che la fa là | col suo sposo sconta, cari signori, | non velo posso dir. | Quando vien l’alba invece ve dirò | che bisogno no i g’à de desmissiarse: | no i a dormì un minuto, ah proprio no; | i g’avea ben altro da ocuparse. (So she sends her Nurse to sleep, and her husband takes her to the bedroom: and you must forgive me, for I cannot tell you what she does there, hidden, with her husband. When the sun rises, I’ll tell you that it’s time to say goodbye: they have not slept at all; they had other things to do.)

The above description appears in line with the native Italian tradition of the story, as both Da Porto and Bandello make explicit references to the sex enjoyed by the lovers after their wedding. Da Porto explains that “having become clandestinely husband and wife in the way that you have heard, the two lovers happily enjoyed their love for several nights” (2000: 33), while Bandello describes the scene in the following way: “then withdrawn to a corner of the garden, by lying together in love on some bench that was there they consummated their holy marriage. As Romeo was a young man of considerable stamina and very much in love, he repeatedly took pleasure of his beautiful bride” (Bandello 2000: 61).9 It might be argued that the Friar’s narration of the meeting renders the characters more concrete, more real, more aware of their feelings and bodies, more passionate and perhaps more “Italian”, since the characters and the story are taken back to their Italian roots. The comedy of Shakespeare’s play is also affected by the company’s interpretation. Comedy and wordplay are partly toned down since the servants and scenes containing puns are eliminated, and many of the Nurse’s speeches are omitted. Only the Nurse’s comments on Juliet’s age and on her behaviour when she was a child (I.3) are retained. While this initial speech partially portrays the Nurse as a comic character, its function might be to stress Juliet’s very young age. Despite the extensive cuts to Shakespeare’s comic scenes, comedy is not completely eliminated from the story because of the presence of the Nurse’s initial narration, of Mercutio’s playfulness, and of some bawdy comments added by the narrator, some of which appear to be invented by the actors, to suit and enhance their view of the characters. As has been shown, the Laboratorio Teatro Settimo’s treatment of Shakespeare’s play was affected by their interpretation of the story in terms of myth on the death of youth which had originated in Italy and had 141

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

generated a wealth of reincarnations. Cuts and additions contributed to the reItalianisation of the tale, creating a new rewriting which took the play back to its Italian roots. The romantic and tragic moments of the lovers’ story were emphasised, the focus was placed on the passion, playfulness and sexual awareness of the young generations and on the responsibilities of the adults. As previously highlighted, since the late 1970s, various Italian theatre companies have interpreted Shakespeare’s play in a similar way, as a wellknown, classic literary text which is part of a chain of rewritings and which therefore can be used only partially, interwoven with other intertexts, especially the Italian ones. 3. Masolino D’Amico’s Translation for Maurizio Scaparro, 2000 In 2000, after twenty-three years of absence in Italian, Romeo and Juliet returned to Verona, in a production directed by Scaparro, with a company made up of young actors. The Shakespeare scholar and critic D’Amico was commissioned a new translation. This was not the first time D’Amico had worked on this play, as he had written the screenplay of Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet (1968) in collaboration with Franco Brusati, and had translated the dialogues of both Zeffirelli’s and Luhrmann’s films. The present analysis is based on a comparison of D’Amico’s translation with Scaparro’s script, which are both unpublished. An analysis of the script reveals that Scaparro mostly followed D’Amico’s translation closely, and very few alterations and cuts were made by the director. Scaparro’s production provides an example of a reading of the play in terms of conflict between generations, with an emphasis on the contemporary relevance of the story. Several critics pointed out that the mise en scène was neither too contemporary, nor realistically Renaissance, but more stylised. Indeed, Scaparro believed that the story did not need to be updated visually in order to speak to young people, or to be felt contemporary (Zanovello 2001). The set design, costumes and music aimed to give an impression of being of all times. Costumes were reminiscent of Renaissance ones, and swords were used in the fights. The stage was bare, the traditional balcony was absent and it was replaced by a symbolic high wall designed by Emanuele Luzzati, which symbolised the barrier between the families and the lovers.10 The choice of eliminating the traditional balcony and replacing it with a wall was also justified, according to Scaparro, by the original text itself, which never mentions a balcony, only a window (quoted in Castiglione 2000). Scaparro’s interpretation of the play aimed at stressing the separation between the worlds of the young and the adults in particular. His vision of the play is summarised in a statement contained in the theatre programme: the feud, the “ancient rage” between the families threaten and kill the joie de 142

Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage

vivre of the young. The dreams and hopes of Romeo, Juliet and Mercutio, who long to live in a peaceful and free Verona, are shattered by the adults (Scaparro, in Caretti 2001: 6-7). The parents are deemed responsible for their children’s deaths, and the young are victims of their negativity and hatred. According to the director, Romeo and Juliet “è una tragedia d’amore che è e vive in una società di senza amore. A Verona non c’è rispetto per la parola amore” (A tragedy of love that lives in a society ruled by loveless people. There is no respect for the word love in Verona).11 The generation clash and the vision in terms of good and evil is taken to extremes: the adults in the play are “i senza amore” (the loveless), who are too concerned with their hatred and interested in money and in small things, and consider their children as exchange goods. The young in Verona, instead, are positive, passionate, full of life. D’Amico interpreted the play in a similar way, as he considered Romeo and Juliet “un’opera caratterizzata dal tema centrale dell’incomprensione di due gruppi: i giovani e i vecchi […] che non si parlano e non si capiscono” (a work characterised by the central theme of the lack of understanding between two groups: the young and the old […] who do not talk and do not understand one another) (2003: 19-20). The generation conflict is the fundamental theme for both director and translator. As will be shown briefly, Scaparro and D’Amico’s emphasis on the contemporary relevance of the story, on the clash between generations and on the negativity of the adults strongly affected translation strategies. D’Amico’s translation was praised by various critics for being modern and recreating a language spoken by the young. For instance, Paolo Pulcinelli (2000) argued that D’Amico’s translation was “sciolta e immediata” (smooth and direct) and that it created “un credibile linguaggio giovanile, scorrevole, pane al pane, vino al vino” (a believable and fluent youth language, which calls a spade a spade), Ugo Volli (2000) defined it “piuttosto modernista” (rather modernist) and for Rita Cirio (2000) the lively translation contributed to a performance which detached itself from convention. An analysis of D’Amico’s translation illustrates his modernising approach and his attempt to recreate the language spoken by contemporary young people. Various examples of modernised and colloquial language can be found, especially in the speeches of the servants, the young people and the Nurse. For example, in the opening scene Gregory’s “Do you quarrel, sir?” becomes “Per caso cerchi rogna…amico?” (you looking for trouble, man?), which contains the colloquial expression “cercare rogna”, together with the term “amico” (friend, man) which is used ironically. Romeo’s “Well, in that hit you miss” (I.1.204) becomes “Però hai fatto cilecca” (my italics) (Well, you’ve flopped there). Benvolio’s suggestion that Romeo should compare Rosaline with other young women at the ball “And she shall scant show well that now seems best” (I.2.102) is rendered with “E colei che ora sembra la migliore, a 143

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

stento sembrerà passabile” (my italics) (And she who now looks like the best, won’t be anything special). Several contemporary idiomatic expressions are adopted by the young male friends. Romeo’s “Or shall we on without apology?” (I.4.2) is rendered with “O entriamo così, come se niente fosse?” (my italics) (Or shall we go in like this, without turning a hair?), while Benvolio’s reply “We’ll measure them a measure and be gone” (I.4.8) becomes “Noi facciamo quattro salti e poi ce la filiamo” (my italics) (We’ll have a bit of a dance and then we’ll make off). Mercutio’s ironical “The slip, sir, the slip. – can you not conceive?” (II.3.47) is conveyed through the informal “Sveglia, ragazzo, sveglia! Fai lo gnorri?” (my italics) (Wake up, boy, wake up! Are you playing dumb?). Colloquialisms are also used by the Nurse, whose comical and vulgar speech is emphasised. Her comment on Paris, “he’s a man of wax” (I.3.78) becomes the more visual and explicit “quello è una statua di bronzo!” (that man’s a bronze statue), which might remind the audience of the Riace bronzes, with their beautiful naked bodies. When the Nurse meets Romeo, she warns him to behave honourably with Juliet: if ye should lead her in a fool’s paradise, as they say, it were a very gross kind of behaviour, as they say. For the gentlewoman is young; and therefore if you should deal double with her, truly it were an ill thing to be offered to any gentlewoman, and very weak dealing (II.3.154159).

In translating these lines D’Amico resorts to various colloquial expressions: Se avete intenzione di menarla per il naso o cose del genere…sarebbe una vera azione da porco, non so se mi spiego (my italics) (If you’re going to take her for a ride or something like that…it would be really rotten, if you see what I mean.)

Through the choice of contemporary colloquial Italian expressions D’Amico makes the Nurse emerge as a comic woman who stresses physicality. For instance, in commenting on Romeo’s physical features the Nurse says “though his face be better than any man’s, yet his leg excels all men’s” (II.4.39-40), which is rendered as “forse di faccia può passare, e anche la gamba direi che non è proprio da buttare via” (my italics) (perhaps his face is all right, and I’d say his leg isn’t really to be sneezed at either). D’Amico’s selection of a modernised and colloquial language seems to highlight comedy as well as the playfulness of the young in Verona, and it contributes to making the story more contemporary and closer to the target audience. Other translation choices appear to be affected by a specific interpretation and directorial view. An interesting case can be found in the opening prologue. The sentence “from forth the fatal loins of these two foes | A pair 144

Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage

of star-crossed lovers take their life” is rendered with “figli di quei nemici, senz’altra via d’uscita, due sventurati amanti si tolgono la vita” (those enemies’ children, with no way out, two star-crossed lovers take their own lives). The lexical choice made by D’Amico clearly points to the director’s interpretation of the story. In fact, the English phrase “take their lives” could mean “derive their lives” or “deprive themselves of life”. D’Amico eliminates the double meaning inherent in the expression and opts for its negative sense, thus stressing the death and suicide theme right from the start. This choice seems even more interesting if we consider that all the translations mentioned in this book opt for the positive meaning of “take their lives”. No other Italian translator so far has selected the negative sense of this expression. D’Amico’s translation choice stresses the view of the children as victims of their parents, and introduces the theme of suicide at the beginning of the play, emphasising the inevitability of the lovers’ deaths. This shows how the function of the translation and the specific interpretation of the play affect translation choices. The use of the contemporary expression “senz’altra via d’uscita” (with no other way out) is also an example of D’Amico’s modernising approach. It is worth pointing out that the same translation choice was adopted by D’Amico in 1996, for the dubbed version of Luhrmann’s film, which openly updates and refashions the story in contemporary America. The conflict between generations seems to be stressed by Scaparro and D’Amico especially through the rendering of Juliet’s and Capulet’s characters. Various critics pointed out that in this production Juliet was portrayed as passionate, determined, rebellious and strong-willed (Bruni 2000: 26). D’Amico (2000: 13) defines Juliet as “[una] eroina generazionale, decisa, energica, indipendente, pronta a giocarsi tutto per la propria convinzione” (a generational heroine, who is resolute, strong, independent, ready to risk everything in the name of her own convictions). The translation contributes to creating this image of Juliet. D’Amico retains her sexual innuendos and emphasises her self-assertiveness and rebelliousness. For instance, some of her replies to the Nurse are typical ironic Italian expressions. “How oddly thou repliest” (II.4.58) is rendered with “che razza di risposte” (what sort of a reply is that supposed to be?), whereas when the Nurse asks whether she has permission to go to church, her “I have” is turned into “Si capisce” (Of course), which stresses her disappointment with the Nurse and adds an ironic vein. Bassnett (1993: 64) has pointed out that in the play “rebellion against parental authority is primarily against the father.” Although Juliet addresses her father in a respectful way, and does not contradict him openly and in a strong way, she manages to deceive him, also through language. As argued by Roberts (1998: 22), “Shakespeare […] show[s] a daughter successfully defying and evading her father’s 145

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

authority.”12 This aspect is underscored by D’Amico’s translation. In IV.2.16-21, Juliet lies to her father by saying that she has repented “the sin of disobedient opposition” and that from that moment on she will obey and will be ruled only by him. D’Amico emphasises the rebellion theme by translating “of disobedient opposition” into “di disobbedienza e di ribellione” (of disobedience and rebellion). In the same scene the word “rebel” is repeated various times, as Capulet’s “this same wayward girl is so reclaimed” (IV.2.46) becomes “Quella ribelle è tornata all’ovile” (that rebel has returned to the fold). These translation choices stress the importance of rebellion in this production, and at the same time make the situation ironic, as Juliet is deceiving her father. The fact that no cuts are made to Juliet’s speeches to her parents contributes to highlighting the conflict between generations and to making Juliet a strong-willed and rebellious, not an idealised, submissive, character. This was probably also due to an attempt to make Juliet closer to contemporary young women, who are no longer perceived as naïve and submissive, but as more determined. It should also be noted that Juliet’s sexual innuendos in the “gallop apace” speech are retained by D’Amico. For instance, Juliet’s words “O, I have bought the mansion of a love, | But not possessed it, and though I am sold, | Not yet enjoyed” (III.2.26-28) are rendered with “Io ho comprato la dimora di un amore, | Ma senza occuparla; e sono stata venduta | Ma non ancora goduta” (I’ve bought the mansion of a love, but without occupying it, and I’ve been sold, but not yet enjoyed). This renders her more aware of her sexuality, and thus a less idealised and innocent character. This is in line with the translator’s and director’s views of Juliet as a passionate and strong contemporary girl. However, it is worth noting that Scaparro cut all the references to Juliet’s age: “fourteen” is always omitted in the script. This might be due to the fact that the actress playing the part, though young, was evidently not fourteen (Giovanna di Rauso was 23). Another reason might be that the director did not want to place emphasis on her age, as in Italy fourteen is perceived to be a very young age for girls to have sex and get married, since the minimum age for marriage is eighteen. However, the Nurse makes reference to the fact that eleven years have passed from the earthquake, which means the audience is given an idea that Juliet is in her teens. By stressing Juliet’s strong character, her rebelliousness and sexual awareness, but avoiding references to “fourteen”, suggesting her as an adolescent, Scaparro appears to make the image of Juliet conform with notions of young women in contemporary Italian culture. Juliet’s father is arguably the most negative character in the play. Scaparro’s negative interpretation of Capulet appears evident in the translation. While romantic readings of the story attempted to render Capulet more positive by cutting his aggressiveness and threats to Juliet, D’Amico and Scaparro retain all Capulet’s insults in III.5. Moreover, some of his 146

Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage

words are conveyed through a strong language. For instance, lines 156-157, “Out, you green-sickness carrion! Out, you baggage, | You tallow-face!” become “Via di qui, con quella faccia da morte in vacanza! | Vattene, troietta anemica!” (my italics) (Away with you, with that ghastly face that looks like death warmed up! Go away, you anaemic little slut!), while “Out on her, hilding!” (line 167) is rendered with “Fila via, zoccola!” (my italics) (Off with you, you slut!). Moreover, Capulet’s “die in the streets” in line 192 is translated with a strong colloquial verb, “crepa in mezzo alla strada” (my italics) (croak in the streets). Another aspect of the translation that is worth discussing is the choice of personal pronouns, which seems to emphasise the distance between Capulet and both his daughter and his wife, and to indicate the female submission to patriarchal power in the family. In Shakespeare’s text husband and wife use the formal “you” to address one another, while they use the informal “thou” / “thee” to address their daughter, who in her turn shows them respect by using the “you” pronoun for both of them. In the Italian translation, instead, Capulet addresses his daughter and his wife using the informal “tu”, while Lady Capulet addresses her husband using the formal and archaic “voi”, which is chosen by Juliet to speak to both her parents. Donna Capuleti (Lady Capulet) always addresses her husband in a formal way, which might point to her submissiveness or subjugation. The choice of personal pronouns may thus be another sign of the translator’s and director’s interpretation of the characters and their relations. The cuts made by D’Amico and Scaparro are extremely important in conveying the director’s reading of the play. As explained by D’Amico (2003: 19), his translation for Scaparro is shorter than the original text, as he deleted some parts that in his opinion were not suitable for the contemporary theatre. The translator is keen to point out that cuts are necessary and inevitable since it is impossible to retain the full text in contemporary Italian theatre because of fundamental differences in theatrical conventions. D’Amico’s explanation is worth quoting fully: È una versione già un po’ tagliata rispetto all’originale. Non si tratta, comunque, di un adattamento, ma di una traduzione con tagli. Non è una stravaganza, quasi tutte le edizioni recitate di Romeo e Giulietta vengono tagliate. Ci sono delle zone del testo […] che il pubblico di oggi non può non trovare ridondanti. Ad esempio, nel finale, c’è una lunghissima tirata in cui il frate racconta di nuovo tutto quello che è già successo: un pezzo inutile, che non ho mai visto fare da nessuno. Insomma, nel nostro teatro ci sono tempi di fruizione e di esecuzione diversi rispetto al teatro elisabettiano, e quindi accorciare la storia è quasi obbligatorio. […] in sole due ore Romeo e Giulietta non si può certo fare (2003: 19). (This version slightly cuts the original text. However, this is not an adaptation, but a translation with some cuts. It’s not out of the ordinary, since most performances of Romeo and Juliet are abridged. There are some parts of the text […] our contemporary audiences would find redundant. For instance, in the final part, there is a very long speech in which the 147

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet Friar narrates again what has already taken place: this part is unnecessary, and I have never seen anyone perform it. In short, our theatre differs from Elizabethan theatre as far as performance and fruition times are concerned, and therefore we are almost forced to shorten the story. […] as there’s no way Romeo and Juliet can be staged in only two hours.)

D’Amico is right in saying that contemporary theatre conventions require that performances last approximately two hours, and thus cuts need to be made.13 It is also true that the Friar’s speech is often shortened in performance, also in English. However, the claim that the Friar’s final speech is “unnecessary” is debatable. In fact there is a reason for its presence: the characters in the play do not know what the audience knows. Moreover, the speech could provide the man with a way to justify his behaviour and show his shame and that he means well. As pointed out by Loehlin, some recent productions have chosen to perform this speech, “often emphasising the Friar’s guilt and shame” (Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002: 248). In his translation, D’Amico cut the lines containing the Prince’s questions and the Friar’s recapitulation. This might be partly due to the translator’s feeling that retelling what the audience already knows is redundant. However, the excision of the Friar’s narration is not only due to the need to trim “irrelevant” or redundant parts, but it might point towards a negative interpretation of the character. This seems to be corroborated by Scaparro’s further adaptation. In fact, perhaps the most important change determined by the director’s cuts can be found in the final scene, as all Friar Laurence’s appearances are omitted. The Friar does not go to the vault, to help and then desert Juliet, and his final recapitulation is entirely deleted. The complete excision of the Friar from the final scene on the one hand might get round the ambiguity of his behaviour, but at the same time it renders him more negative, as he leaves the lovers to their tragic destiny when they are in most need of his help. D’Amico’s and Scaparro’s cuts seem to affect wordplay as well. Shakespeare’s frequent puns are often omitted. This might be due to the fact that wordplay might prevent an immediate communication with the audience, or that the director wanted to simplify the dialogues. Indeed, as explained by D’Amico, “Scaparro taglia sempre tutto quello che potrebbe rallentare, ostacolare, porre problemi.”14 However, the downplaying of wordplay might also be affected by the translator’s and director’s aim to focus on the lovers and on the conflict between generations. Examples of the tendency to cut wordplay can be encountered in various scenes. For instance, in D’Amico’s translation all the puns by Gregory and Samson in the opening scene are deleted. By avoiding the vulgarity and sexual aggressiveness of the servants, the focus is on their readiness to fight, on the atmosphere of hatred and violence in Verona, on the feud between the two groups, which is what the director wanted to emphasise from the start. Scaparro further trimmed the exchanges between Gregory, Samson and Abraham, also eliminating the 148

Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage

insulting “biting of the thumb”’. The dialogue between the servants before Benvolio’s arrival (I.1.1-59) is reduced by Scaparro to the following lines: GREGORIO: Arrivano quelli di casa Montecchi. SANSONE: Tu provocali io ti spalleggio. GREGORIO: Per caso cerchi rogna…amico? ABRAMO: Non cerco rogna, nossignore! SANSONE: Perché se la cerchi sono qui, amico. Ho un padrone buono come il tuo, sai. ABRAMO: Non migliore? SANSONE: Sì, amico, migliore! ABRAMO: Bugiardo! (Here come some of the house of Montague. Provoke them, I’ll back you up. You looking for trouble, …mate? I’m not looking for trouble, no, sir. Because if you are, I’m here, mate. My master is as good as yours, you know. Not better? Yes, mate, better! Liar!)

Through the elimination of wordplay and bawdy expressions, the exchange is simplified, the role of the servants is downplayed, and the focus is placed on the physical fight and on the visual elements. The cuts made by both translator and director contribute to creating a Verona dominated by the hatred between the families, by violence and by a constant readiness to fight.15 Another example of D’Amico’s treatment of wordplay can be found in II.3: the lines containing complex wordplay, and constituting the “contest of wits” between Mercutio and Romeo are deleted. Juliet’s punning on “ay”, “I” and “eye” (III.2.45-50), when talking to the Nurse, is also omitted, probably because it is considered “exaggerated” or inappropriate for Juliet’s character, as argued by several critics. For instance, Evans maintained that “Shakespeare plays tiresomely on ‘ay’ […] and ‘I’, as well as on the homonym ‘eye’” (Evans/Shakespeare 1998: 132). Moreover, as highlighted by Loehlin, “few directors have allowed Juliet this extravagant punning. All or part of the speech is cut in almost all versions” (Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002: 178). The cutting of wordplay seems to be dictated by the fact that puns are considered excessive and not appropriate to the character, and perhaps to the audience’s taste. Through cuts the translator and the director not only shorten the text, but they eliminate those elements that do not fit their interpretation or contemporary aesthetics and tastes. Another element that is subject to amendments is the literariness of the play. D’Amico’s cuts affect verse and Petrarchan images, probably because 149

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

they were perceived as too artificial and not appropriate to contemporary Italian taste. Petrarchan conceits are shortened, especially when used by adults. In the first scene, Montague’s description of Romeo’s melancholy using Petrarchan images is abridged as D’Amico cut the same lines omitted by Ojetti in 1937. Lady Capulet’s praise of Paris using the metaphor of the book is shortened by seven lines, although the metaphor is retained. Capulet’s description of Juliet’s tearfulness (III.5.126-136) is also omitted. On the other hand, the poetic language of the lovers is retained: Romeo’s oxymora in the opening scene are all kept, Juliet’s epithalamium or “gallop apace” speech (III.2.1-31) is almost entirely retained, and the dialogues of the lovers are not shortened. It seems that the importance of poetry in the lovers’ lives is maintained and stressed in this production. As far as verse is concerned, D’Amico (2003: 19) argues that the use of rhymed verse has a completely different effect today than it had in Shakespeare’s time, when sonnets and the language of courtly love were fashionable. Therefore, according to him, in translating the play it is better to avoid rhymed verse, while attempting to suggest to the audience that the characters use a “high”, “poetic” register. An analysis of the translation reveals that rhymed verse is usually not retained, except for two important cases. The opening and closing lines of the play are in fact in rhymed verse. The Prologue to the play is a sonnet: it is made up of fourteen lines, rhyming abab/cdcd/efef/gg, in decasyllables: CHORUS. Two households both alike in dignity, In fair Verona, where we lay our scene, From ancient grudge break to new mutiny Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean. From forth the fatal loins of these two foes A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life, Whose misadventured piteous overthrows Doth with their death bury their parents’ strife. The fearful passage of their death-marked love, And the continuance of their parents’ rageWhich but their children’s end naught could removeIs now the two hours’ traffic of our stage; The which if you with patient ears attend, What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.

D’Amico retains the form of the original, creating a poem of twelve lines of fixed length (fourteen syllables), divided into six rhyming couplets (aa/bb/cc/dd/ee/ff). The last two lines, containing an appeal to the audience and a reference to the efforts of the theatre company, are cut, probably because it is felt that it is not appropriate for contemporary theatre. The performance thus opens with the following words: 150

Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage

CORO: Tra due grandi famiglie la lotta si scatena Nella bella Verona, dov’è la nostra scena. Dai loro screzi antichi nascon nuovi tumulti E il sangue di fratelli scorre dopo gli insulti. Figli di quei nemici, senz’altra via d’uscita, Due sventurati amanti si tolgono la vita; La loro sorte amara si porta nella tomba Dei due padri nemici la rabbia furibonda. Un amore funesto a morte destinato E un odio di parenti che solo consumato Sarà dalla cruenta fine di quell’amore Questo nostro teatro racconterà in due ore. (Between two great families conflict starts In fair Verona, where we lay our scene. From their ancient feud new troubles arise, And brotherly blood flows after being abused. The children of those foes, with no escape, Two star-crossed lovers their own lives take; Their bitter fate takes to the tomb Their enemy fathers’ furious rage. A fearful death-marked love And the families’ hatred which only That love’s violent end will extinguish, Our theatre will tell you in two hours.)

D’Amico thus chose verse and rhyme to open the performance. Perhaps by reproducing and stressing poetry, especially through sound and rhythm, a contemporary theatre audience would immediately realise the importance of this element in the play. It is worth noting that the same strategy was adopted by D’Amico for the Italian dialogues of Luhrmann’s film, where the Prologue is very similar to the one in Scaparro’s production. The play also ends in verse. The final words of the Prince are a quatrain and a couplet rhyming abab/cc: PRINCE A glooming peace this morning with it brings; The sun for sorrow will not show his head. Go hence to have more talk of these sad things; Some shall be pardoned and some punished. For never was a story of more woe Than this of Juliet and her Romeo. (V.3.305-310)

They are rendered as follows by D’Amico:

151

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet Cupa è la pace che reca il mattino Il sole in lutto vuol celare il viso; Andate a meditare a capo chino Nessuno è assolto, tutti abbiamo ucciso. Mai vi fu storia di maggior dolore Che quella di Giulietta e del suo amore. (Gloomy is the peace that this morning brings The sun in mourning wants to hide its face; Go and meditate with your head bowed Nobody is pardoned, we have all murdered. Never was a story of more woe Than this of Juliet and her love.)

The translator keeps the rhyme scheme, probably to give a sense of symmetry in the play. By retaining rhyme and the poetic form of the original in the opening and closing lines, D’Amico manages to at least suggest the importance of poetry in the play. Scaparro appears to place further emphasis on poetry. Among the director’s slight changes to D’Amico’s lexical choices, the most significant is perhaps the insertion of rhymes, half rhymes and internal rhymes. This might testify to Scaparro’s attempt to stress the importance of poetry for the lovers and to simplify language. For instance, Romeo’s oxymora when he first appears on stage are retained, but one word is changed from D’Amico’s translation in order to emphasise poetry through rhyme: “Cos’altro è? | Una follia che ammansisce, | Un fiele che ti soffoca, e un dolce che ti guarisce” (my italics) (What else is it? | a madness that calms you down, | a gall that chokes you, and a sweetness that heals you). By replacing the adjective “ultradiscreta” (ultradiscreet) chosen by D’Amico with “che ammansisce”, rhyme is added to the text. After realising that Romeo is a Montague, Juliet comments as follows in D’Amico’s translation: “È terribile per me la nascita di questo amore | che mi costringe ad amare un nemico esecrato” (my italics) (It is terrible for me the birth of this love | that makes me love a loathed enemy). Scaparro’s script adds rhyme and simplifies language by replacing “esecrato” with the more common “da odiare”: “È terribile per me la nascita di questo amore | Che mi costringe ad amare un nemico da odiare” (my italics) (It is terrible for me the birth of this love | that makes me love an enemy who must be hated). As far as bawdy language is concerned, D’Amico (2003: 20) maintains that “Shakespeare non era volgare se non a ragion veduta, e quindi non lo si può ‘banalizzare’, nè, traducendolo, cercare la colloquialità ad ogni costo” (Shakespeare was not vulgar per se, but used bawdry deliberately and purposedly, therefore we cannot trivialise him, nor should we look for colloquialisms at all costs when we translate). As a result, vulgar allusions 152

Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage

and sexual innuendos are cut in some cases, probably when they are perceived as exaggerated, while when they are kept they are not rendered with explicitly strong language. For instance, as previously pointed out, the vulgar expressions in the opening scene are omitted: Gregory and Samson do not engage in wordplay nor in sexual puns. Sexual allusions are instead partially retained in the speeches by Mercutio. In the “Queen Mab speech”, Mercutio’s lines “This is the hag, when maids lie on their backs, | That presses them and learns them first to bear, | Making them women of good carriage” (I.4.90-92) are rendered using the verb “montare” (to mount), which has explicit sexual references: “È lei la strega che quando le vergini dormono supine | gli monta addosso e gli insegna a farsi montare, | e ne fa buone portatrici di pesi!” (this is the hag who, when virgins lie on their backs, mounts them and teaches them how to get mounted, | making them good bearers of weights). In II.1, Mercutio’s bawdy language is partially toned down, as the lines containing the bawdy quibbling on “raise”, “stand”, “circle” are cut. However, the speech still contains some sexual innuendo: “se uso il nome della sua bella è solo per farlo rizzare” (if I use his beloved’s name it is only to get him up). Moreover, bawdy quibbles are rendered in an explicit and ironic way in the translation of “O that she were | An open-arse, or thou a popp’rin pear” (II.1.38-39): “Oh, Romeo, se lei fosse, o se fosse una eccetera bella aperta, e tu un bel cetriolone gigante!” (O that she were, o that she were a well-opened et caetera, and you a great big cucumber!).16 The use of the intensifiers “bella” and “bel” and the choice of “cetriolone gigante” make Mercutio’s words visually explicit, but also ironic and humorous. The playfulness of the young men and their use of vulgar jokes is emphasised also when they meet the Nurse. Mercutio’s sexual witticism in “’Tis no less, I tell ye, for the bawdy hand of the dial is now upon the prick of noon” (II.3.106107) is translated with the explicit “La sconcia mano della meridiana ha afferrato il batocchio del mezzogiorno” (the dirty hand of the dial has grabbed the noon-bell’s clapper) where the sexual image is clear. Moreover, D’Amico renders Mercutio’s song “An old hare hoar” (II.3.126) with “Benvenuta la ruffiana da noi figli di puttana” (my italics) (the pimp is welcomed to by us, sons of bitches) which uses a typical Italian swearword and adds rhyme. Through these choices the translator seems to highlight the playfulness and use of vulgar language by Mercutio and Romeo, who might be perceived as similar to contemporary Italian young men. The fact that also Romeo enjoys this type of language renders him less idealised and closer to young Italians. Moreover, as previously argued, also Juliet’s references to sex and pleasure are retained, making her less idealised and more realistic. The final words of the Prince emphasise Scaparro’s view that all the adults, especially the lovers’ parents, are negative and responsible for their children’s deaths. D’Amico’s translation of “some shall be pardoned, and 153

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

some punished” with “nessuno è assolto, tutti abbiamo ucciso” (no one is pardoned, we have all killed) contributes to convey the director’s stress on the negativity of the adults. The deaths of Romeo and Juliet are murders committed by all the adults in Verona, and everyone will be punished, because they are all murderers. The above analysis of D’Amico’s translation and Scaparro’s script has shown how translation choices and cuts contribute to a presentation of the story in terms of generation conflict, in which the negativity and aggressiveness of the adults is opposed to the passion and rebelliousness of the young. The translation emphasises the parents’ responsibility for the death of the young. D’Amico’s text provides a modernised, up-to-date version of the play in which, by keeping the romantic elements but also giving relevance to colloquialisms and bawdy language, the lovers are not idealised, but are portrayed as closer to real contemporary young people. 4. D’Amico’s Translation Used by Jean-Christophe Saïs, 2003 D’Amico’s 2000 translation was adopted in 2003 by French director Saïs in a production by the Teatro Stabile di Torino with a company of young actors from its drama school.17 The present analysis is based on the comparison of D’Amico’s translation with a video recording of the performance. Since Saïs did not know Italian, working with his actors he used D’Amico’s translation but also other published Italian translations and a French version (Saïs 2003: 18). As will be shown briefly, although Saïs mainly followed D’Amico’s text, his modifications to some of the translator’s lexical choices and his cuts in particular show how he adapted the text to his own personal interpretation of the story. As suggested in the previous chapter, Saïs’ approach to Romeo and Juliet went against traditional readings of the play. According to Renato Palazzi (2003) the French director provided a modern, but “out of time” rendering of the story, a fresh and non-rhetorical interpretation of the play which avoided excessive caricatures, the continuous and exaggerated reference to contemporary young people, and the risk of being too romantic. The director rejected a sentimental view of the play, and instead he regarded obsession, violence, cruelty, death, family, and the impossibility of love as its main themes (Saïs 2003: 17). Moreover, the contemporary tendency to update the story, rendering the characters closer to real adolescents was dismissed by the director. As he put it: “Romeo e Giulietta sono nell’impossibilità di amarsi. […] Questi personaggi sono delle grandi figure mitiche, che non esistono nella realtà” (Saïs 2003: 17) (Romeo and Juliet cannot love one another, their love is impossible. […] These characters are great mythical figures who do 154

Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage

not exist in real life). Saïs’ staging is an example of an interpretation of the play in terms of myth, where the stress is placed on the impossibility of love, on the fate which leads the “star-crossed lovers” to their death, and on the hatred and violence that rule in Verona. This vision obviously affected the mise en scène. This dark view was conveyed by the performance, which gave an impression of negativity and gloominess right from the beginning. Critic Gianluca Favetto (2003) observed that the production communicated the impression that everything took place in the Capulets’ vault, “dove giacciono ghiacciati gli amori” (where love lies frozen). The centrality of death was also stressed by the bodies of the dead Tybalt and Mercutio which were left on stage until the end. Everything in the mise en scène contributed to creating a dark and heavy atmosphere: the costumes (all characters wore black, sometimes with white shirts; the only exception was Juliet’s white dress); the bare stage which was covered in a black volcanic-like sand (another element symbolic of destruction) and music. Moreover, Saïs did not want the characters to look “real” or contemporary, but distant and stylised. As the director explained (2003: 17) all the protagonists of this story were archetypes of a human condition, mythical figures who belonged to a poetic reality, a different and remote world. The director’s view of the play as a myth, where characters are archetypes, not real people, and with a stress on death, affected the acting style. Actors did not seem to have positive energy or passions, but they all moved slowly and inexorably towards their destiny, and the scenes of the fights were acted as if in slow motion, rendering them less realistic, and more distant. Saïs’ refusal to make the story contemporary and his interpretation of the play in terms of myth are also illustrated by some of his textual choices. Although the director followed D’Amico’s translation in most cases, on a few occasions Saïs seems to replace the translator’s modernised renderings with more traditional or literal choices. For example, D’Amico’s “una follia ultradiscreta” (an ultradiscreet madness) is changed into “una follia molto discreta” (a very discreet madness). Romeo’s “entriamo così, come se niente fosse?” (shall we go in like this, as if nothing had happened?) is changed into “entriamo così, senza cerimonia?” (shall we go in like this, unceremoniously?), Benvolio’s contemporary idiomatic expressions “Ci giudichino pure come vogliono. Noi facciamo quattro salti e poi ce la filiamo” (Let them judge us as they want. We’ll have a bit of a dance and then we’ll clear off) is changed into the more literal “Ci misurino come vogliono, noi daremo loro una misura di danza” (Let them measure us up as they want, we’ll give them a measure of a dance). An interesting case is provided by the translation of Juliet’s “You kiss by th’ book” (I.4.123). D’Amico translated it with “baci come il Vangelo” (you kiss like the 155

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

Gospel), probably in order to continue and emphasise the religious imagery that Romeo and Juliet use in the shared sonnet. D’Amico interpreted “the book” as “the Bible”, and by extension chose “il Vangelo”. Saïs and his actors, however, preferred to use the more neutral and traditional translation choice “baci come dice il libro” (you kiss as the book says). It is worth noting that most published translations render the set expression “by th’ book” with “baci come dice/insegna il libro” (you kiss as the book says/explains), or “baci secondo le regole/la regola/sapientemente” (you kiss according to the rules/very well). For the dubbed version of Luhrmann’s film D’Amico had opted for the informal “Baci come un dio” (you kiss like a god), where “come un dio” or “da dio” is a modernised and very colloquial expression used by young people today to refer to something that is done very well, in a perfect way. Moreover, the use of the word “dio” allowed the translator to continue the repetition of religious imagery. D’Amico’s avoidance of this expression in his translation for the stage might be due to the fact that perhaps he considered it too colloquial and contemporary, an expression belonging to young people’s slang and which thus suited Luhrmann’s postmodern film but which was not appropriate to a theatre performance. Another change from D’Amico’s translation is the rendering of “a pop’ring pear”, which D’Amico translated as “un cetriolone gigante” (a giant cucumber), whereas Saïs and his actors preferred the more neutral “una pera con la punta” (a pointed pear). Other archaicising choices by the French director can be detected. Juliet’s “she would be as swift in motion as a ball” (II.4.13) was rendered by D’Amico with the modernised and colloquial “filerebbe come una palla da tennis” (she would race as swift as a tennis ball), but was changed by Saïs into “si muoverebbe veloce come una palla” (she would move as fast as a ball). Also Mercutio’s “A plague a both your houses!” (III.1.106), which in D’Amico was “Accidenti alle vostre famiglie” (Damn your families) was turned into the more literal “la peste alle vostre famiglie” (a plague on your families). These alterations might be due to the director’s attempt to avoid excessively colloquial expressions, which would not match his reading of the story in terms of myth. However, the production still used a modern Italian, as no attempts were made at rendering the language more “archaic”. The most significant modifications introduced by the French director were his extensive cuts. The performance lasted about one hour and fortyfive minutes. However, as will be shown, the trimmings were not simply aimed at shortening the text, but they were due to specific ideological reasons, as they contributed to present the director’s view of the story. Saïs’ excisions affect, in particular, the characters of the Nurse and Friar Laurence, comedy, romantic and sentimental elements, and poetry. It is worth noting that while extensive cuts were made throughout the text, the director retained 156

Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage

all the exchanges between Juliet and her parents, and especially Capulet’s aggressive threats and insults. This shows how the director wanted to emphasise the negativity of this character. The Nurse is probably the character that was subject to most amendments. For instance, in the scene between Lady Capulet, Juliet and the Nurse (I.3), some of her comical comments on Juliet were omitted, while her meeting with Romeo and his friends was entirely cut. Also, the exchanges between Juliet and the Nurse, in which the woman plays with Juliet, comments on Romeo’s body and about being tired (II.4) were shortened: several lines from D’Amico’s translation were deleted. By immediately telling Juliet to go to Church, all the Nurse’s comic flavour and playfulness was lost. Moreover, the Nurse did not report Romeo’s banishment to Juliet, nor did she appear in the following scene, in Friar Laurence’s cell. Act IV.2 and IV.4 were also omitted. Through extensive cuts the Nurse’s close relationship with Juliet and her role as confidant were downplayed, together with her comic character. In Saïs’ production she lost the centrality that Shakespeare had given her and all her comical comments. This toning down of the role of the Nurse contributed to giving the impression that Juliet was left alone to her destiny and emphasised the negativity of adults. It also contributed to eliminating comedy from the text. Comedy is indeed the aspect of the play that appears to be subject to most cuts in Saïs’ production. The almost complete omission of the comic exchanges in the text resulted in the prevailing of a gloomy atmosphere, in line with the director’s reading. Some examples will illustrate this point. For instance, the performance started in medias res, skipping the prologue and the vulgar allusions of the servants. The dialogue between Gregory and Samson in the first scene was reduced to “Ti mordi il pollice per noi?” (do you bite your thumb at us?), which was followed by a silent brawl involving about thirty actors. Benvolio’s and Tybalt’s words, as well as the Prince’s comments, were kept. Capulet’s welcoming his guests at the ball, his comments on women with corns and his dialogue with “cousin Capulet” (I.5) were all cut. Moreover, the playfulness of Mercutio, Romeo and Benvolio in II.4, and their bawdy jokes with the Nurse were eliminated (the whole scene was omitted in performance). The scenes of the preparations for the wedding with the servants and the musicians were also all excised. These cuts resulted in the elimination of all comedy from the play, which is in line with a reading which emphasises violence, cruelty and death. Bawdy language, on the other hand, was not completely omitted by Saïs. Though vulgar allusions were often eliminated because of the director’s extensive cuts, bawdy language was retained and even emphasised on some occasions, such as Mercutio’s invocation of Romeo after the ball (II.1). Saïs reintroduced some of Mercutio’s vulgar puns which had been cut by 157

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

D’Amico: “Questo non può offenderlo! Si offenderebbe se facessi venire nel cerchio della sua donna uno spirito di natura strana e lo lasciassi lì finchè lei non lo prendesse e lo ammosciasse” (my italics) (This can’t hurt him. He’d get upset if I made a strange spirit come into his mistress’ circle, and there I left it until she took it and she made it limp). The words in italics, which contain clear sexual undertones, were emphasised through the actor’s performance. The poetry of the play and the romantic elements were also affected by Saïs’ cuts. While D’Amico and Scaparro had attempted to highlight verse by retaining the prologue and the closing lines in rhyme, Saïs omitted them. The prologue and the chorus to Act II were excised, Lady Capulet’s sonnet describing Paris was kept as translated by D’Amico (shortened by seven lines), the shared sonnet between the lovers was rendered as D’Amico had translated it (without rhyme), Capulet’s Petrarchan conceits describing Juliet’s tearfulness were omitted, and the final lines uttered by the Prince were eliminated. In this production there was no emphasis on the literariness of the play and rhymed verse was never used. Important cuts were also made to the romantic moments of the play. For instance, the balcony scene and the dialogue of the lovers in the morning were shortened. In the balcony scene, Saïs cut several lines. As a result, famous sentences such as Juliet’s “My bounty is as boundless as the sea, | My love as deep; the more I give to thee, | The more I have, for both are infinite” (II.1.176-178) or “Parting is such sweet sorrow, | That I shall say ‘good night’ till it be morrow” (II.1.230-231) were omitted. This second part of the balcony scene might have been shortened by Saïs because he wanted to avoid a sentimentalised reading of the play. The acting also rendered the scene less romantic. There was no balcony, but two metal ladders on opposite sides of the stage. Romeo and Juliet were distant and it was impossible for them to reach for one another, or to express their feelings through body language, as they had to cling to the ladders. Another significant cut can be found in III.5. The other “famous” romantic dialogue of the play, the aubade or dawn-parting song “which expresses the regret of two lovers that day has arrived so quickly to part them” (Levenson/Shakespeare 2000: 285) is completely eliminated: lines 1 to 36 are excised. There is no nightingale nor lark, no “I must be gone and live, or stay and die” (line 11). Silence reigns, and when the Nurse arrives Romeo leaves without saying anything. The cutting of the text together with the acting contributes to downplaying the romanticism of the moment, while at the same time emphasising its tragedy. These deletions are in line with Saïs’ rejection of a sentimental and romantic interpretation of the story. Cuts also affect the character of Friar Laurence. It can be argued that the omission of some of his appearances or speeches results in presenting a more negative image of the man. His closeness to Romeo and Juliet is downplayed, 158

Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage

as he is perceived as a more distant, detached figure. Some examples serve to corroborate this opinion. For instance, the scene in which Romeo and Juliet meet the Friar before the wedding (II.5) is omitted. Instead, Saïs inserted a wedding ceremony, in which there was no dialogue among the three characters, but only some words spoken by the Friar in Latin. This addition rendered him perhaps more detached, more formal and authoritative. Moreover, his dialogue with the banished Romeo in the Friar’s cell (III.3) was shortened, and his behaviour was quite aggressive. Indeed, in saying “Ma svegliati! La tua Giulietta è viva!” (Wake up! Your Juliet is alive), the actor playing the Friar slapped Romeo and threw him to the floor. Furthermore, Friar Laurence’s dialogue with Friar John (V.2) was omitted altogether, so that he appeared to have abandoned the lovers. This negative view of the character was emphasised in the final scene, in which the Friar was absent: he was not in the Capulet vault when Juliet awoke, and his final recapitulation was excised. These alterations contribute to an ideological shift, as the Friar appears more detached from the destiny of the lovers since he deserts them when they are in need of his help, and thus becomes a negative character. It seems plausible to argue that the cuts made by Saïs to the Nurse and the Friar in particular contribute to presenting a reading of the play in which all adults are extremely negative, and the lovers are left alone to walk towards their deadly fate. This bleak interpretation was further emphasised in the final scene, which was heavily abridged. Romeo went to the sepulchre alone, not accompanied by Balthasar, and the Friar was not present. When Juliet awoke, just in time to see Romeo die, she was alone in the tomb. She uttered a few words “Cos’è questo? …Cattivo…egoista…neanche una goccia…devo fare presto” (What’s this? Bad, selfish…not even a drop…I must be quick). Then she opened her arms saying “dammi la morte” (give me death) to a mysterious deus ex machina, there was a suffocated shot, and she fell down in slow motion. Sad music started and darkness descended. Death finally reigned: the fate of the lovers was accomplished and no more words were needed. No reconciliation nor comments could follow. The fact that the production ended with Juliet’s death, excising the recapitulations by the Friar, the parents’ sorrows, the reconciliation of the families and the Prince’s comments (V.3.171-310) rendered Saïs’ pessimistic vision, his emphasis on death and on the negativity of adults, even more evident. As has been shown, the cuts made by Saïs to D’Amico’s translation resulted in a stress on death and violence, at the expense of the comic and romantic moments, matching a reading of the play as a myth on the impossibility of love. Moreover, in this case the source text underwent a multiple manipulation, as Saïs worked on an existing translation and adjusted it to his own interpretation of the tale, as well as adopting other sources, that is, other French and Italian translations. 159

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

The productions discussed in this chapter have confirmed that translating for the theatre not only necessarily implies a shortening of the source play partly because of different theatrical conventions and the requirements of a different medium, but especially because of the influence of the director’s own vision of the story. Analysis has demonstrated how specific readings of the play determine translation choices, cuts and alterations when Shakespeare’s text is transferred to the Italian stage. For instance, Salvini’s production represents a traditional, almost “canonical” interpretation of the story as a domestic tragedy with a focus on romantic elements. As a result, there is a tendency to omit bawdy language and the lovers’ sexual references in particular, and these excisions provide an idealised view of Romeo and Juliet, and a sanitised, bowdlerised, canonised version of the play. Scaparro, on the other hand, wanted to emphasise the contemporary relevance of the story, the clash between generations, and the responsibility of the adults. D’Amico’s translation choices thus tend to recreate contemporary colloquial language, to highlight the negativity of the adults and the liveliness of the young. Bawdy language, especially that used by Mercutio, is thus partly retained and sometimes emphasised. Romeo and Juliet are also rendered less idealised and closer to contemporary young people by keeping their sexual allusions. Conversely, Saïs’ rejection of a traditional, sentimental reading of the play, his view of the text as a myth on the impossibility of love, and his stress on death, result in the omission of all the comedy and of several romantic speeches. Moreover, such an interpretation determines his avoidance of D’Amico’s more contemporary colloquial expressions, and his use of published translations as alternative references. Cuts also affect the Nurse and the Friar, so that the distance between the adults and the young people is highlighted. Vacis’ production, on the other hand, views Shakespeare’s play as part of a chain of rewritings which centre around the death of youth, and which originated in Italy. The stress on the Italianness of the story determines the treatment of the Bard’s work, as it is used as an intertext, and only some famous speeches are retained, combined with other Italian works. The native Italian tradition also affects the way the plot and some speeches are altered, as illustrated, for instance, in the final scene which (re)inserts a dialogue between the lovers. These case studies have confirmed that translation choices, cuts, additions and alterations to the source text are necessarily affected by the director’s interpretation of the text and that translation is thus an important part of the mise en scène, since it contributes to creating a specific image of the story and of its protagonists.  

1 An extended version, with the full text translated, was published in 1990 by Newton Compton (Ojetti/Shakespeare 1990). The English parallel text included in the 1990 publication is in the edition of The New Penguin Shakespeare, edited by T. J. B. Spencer in 1967.

160

Romeo and Juliet Translations for the Italian Stage

    2

The typed manuscript based on Ojetti’s translation is held at the Biblioteca Museo dell’Attore in Genova. The first page contains the list of characters and actors of the performance in Venice in 1937 (typed). The names of the actors playing the parts in 1939, 1950 and 1951 are added, handwritten, in pen. 3 Compare with Shakespeare’s text (in square brackets the omitted lines): “But he his own affection’s counsellor | Is to himself - [I will not say how true- | But to himself so secret and so close, | So far from sounding and discovery, | As is the bud bit with an envious worm | Ere he can spread his sweet leaves to the air | Or dedicate his beauty to the same.] | Could we but learn from whence his sorrows grow, | We would as willingly give cure as know.” (I.1.143-151). 4 For an analysis of the passage see, among others, the comments by Levenson (Levenson/Shakespeare 2000: 263-265) and Evans (Evans/Shakespeare 1998: 130-131). See also Loehlin, who points out that “The ‘gallop apace speech was regularly edited for content until the twentieth century; lines 8-16, with their sexual explicitness, were almost always cut. […] the speech is now usually given entire” (Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002: 176). 5 As noted by Wells (1996: 9) and Loehlin (Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002: 226), this episode has often been omitted in performance. 6 I am grateful to Anna Peyron and Loredana Gallarato from the Centro Studi Teatro Stabile di Torino for providing me with all the material on this production. 7 In two cases the same person plays more than one role. For example, Lucilla Giagnoni (Lady Capulet) performs the dialogue of the nightingale and the lark playing both Romeo and Juliet, while Eugenio Allegri (Capulet) plays both Juliet and her father in the scene of Capulet’s aggressive behaviour towards his daughter. 8 Another source of inspiration appears to be another poem entitled Giulieta e Romeo by Berto Barbarani (1905). 9 See Da Porto (1993: 59), Bandello (1993: 130). 10 It is worth noting that a Royal Shakespeare Company production directed by Michael Boyd in June 2000 made a strikingly similar choice and used a high grey wall which dominated the scene. 11 Personal conversation with Scaparro, 15 October 2004. 12 Feminist criticism of the play has emphasised the role of patriarchal power in the play. See Bassnett (1993); Kahn (1978); Roberts (1998) among others. 13 Scaparro’s performance lasted about two hours and fifteen minutes. 14 Personal email, 18 October 2004. 15 Several other parts were abridged by D’Amico and Scaparro. For instance, the Prologue to Act II is omitted altogether in the translation, probably because it was not considered suitable to contemporary theatre conventions, and redundant. In IV.5, in line with various productions, the preparations for the wedding are cut, the lamentations for Juliet’s supposed death are shortened and the scene of the Musicians is omitted altogether. The focus is thus placed on Juliet, and comic elements are avoided. Scaparro further shortened some scenes. Most of the cuts seem to be due to the need to simplify, to shorten the text and avoid elements that would shift the focus of attention from the lovers. Juliet’s wordplay, her misunderstanding in the scene with the Nurse in III.2 are cut, as well as Juliet’s wordplay with Lady Capulet in III.5. 16 It should be noted that in this case D’Amico chose the Q1 euphemism “open et cetera” rather than the vulgar “open-arse” which is found in Q2 and which is chosen by several modern English editors. 17 This performance was part of a project called Tre storie d’amore (Three love stories) by the drama school of the Teatro Stabile di Torino. A group of 19 ex-students of the school and 23 final-year students formed a company which performed three Shakespeare plays (Romeo and Juliet, Midsummer Night’s Dream, Love Labour’s Lost), directed by three international directors. I am grateful to Anna Peyron and Loredana Gallarato, from the Centro Studi Teatro Stabile di

161

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

    Torino, for allowing me to watch the video recording and for providing me with material on the production.

162

Chapter 5: Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen This chapter examines the process of translation of Romeo and Juliet from page to screen, focussing on four Italian films: Renato Castellani’s Romeo and Juliet (1954), Riccardo Freda’s Romeo e Giulietta (1964), Franco Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet (1968) and Roberta Torre’s Sud Side Stori (2000). While Castellani’s and Zeffirelli’s films are well-known among an international public, Freda’s and Torre’s films are almost unknown. The analysis adopts Cattrysse’s target-oriented, star-like model, which attempts to identify the different sources or models that have affected the translation from page to screen. As highlighted in Chapter One, Cattrysse’s multilateral approach offers a useful and comprehensive framework for the analysis of film adaptations, as it considers the differences between play and film as determined by directorial view and other semiotic devices such as cinematic conventions, other films, theatre productions or texts, etc. The role of the researcher is to look for these different models that might have influenced the production of the film. The film adaptations analysed here are seen as translations of Romeo and Juliet, some using more of Shakespeare’s text, others less, and referring also to other “source texts”. Our analysis endeavours to identify the factors that have affected the translation from page to screen, determining changes, cuts and additions. Particular attention is devoted to norms and conventions of the target cinematic system, and to the directors’ interpretations, as the chapter investigates how the different readings of Romeo and Juliet identified in Chapter Three may have impacted on the transposition from written text to film. 1. Renato Castellani’s Giulietta e Romeo, 1954 In 1954 neorealist filmmaker Renato Castellani directed Giulietta e Romeo, an Italian/British production with British protagonists (Laurence Harvey, 25, and Susan Shentall, 19) and a cast of British and Italian actors. Following cinema conventions of the time and of neorealist films in particular, the film was originally acted in English (the main characters were played by British actors, but there were also several non-professional actors) and then dubbed into English and Italian using the technique of post-synch.1 Castellani’s Romeo and Juliet was the first colour film version of the play, the first to be shot on location2 and the first to cast young actors that had approximately the same age as the lovers. Indeed, Susan Shentall and Laurence Harvey were definitely much younger than film stars Norma Shearer (34) and Leslie Howard (42), who had played the leading roles in 

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

George Cukor’s 1936 film. As pointed out by Anthony Davies (1996: 156), “the film set a clear trend in the casting of young actors […] as the two young lovers.” Although the film won the Venice Film Festival as best film that year, critical response by reviewers as well as scholars was, indeed still is, divided, and mainly centred upon the much debated issue of faithfulness to Shakespeare, or freedom of the cinema as an art form. As Kenneth Rothwell (1999b: 126) observes, “bardophiles despised Castellani’s Romeo and Juliet because it put movie making ahead of the text, while the cinéphiles saw it as a work of art independent of its literary source.” Douglas Brode (2000: 50) points out that the film was “lauded in Italy” but “scorned in England” and Jackson has remarked that “for the most part British reviewers were unenthusiastic, and in some cases there was a degree of nationalistic hostility” (2007: 187). A critic in the Financial Times argued that “this ‘prodigious attempt at Anglo-Italian mutual aid’ had resulted only in ‘a prodigious Anglo-Italian mess’” (in Jackson 2007: 186), while a Time reviewer commented that “Castellani’s Romeo and Juliet is a fine poem. Unfortunately, it is not Shakespeare’s poem!” (in Brode 2000: 50-51). Another reviewer argued that “never, I imagine, since Lear received a happy ending, has any Shakespeare text been so hacked, patched, and insensitively thrown away” (in Rothwell 1999b: 126). Brode (2000: 51) maintains that it is difficult to judge Castellani’s film, and concludes that “as cinema, it’s terrific; as an adaptation of a great play, it’s terrible.” According to Roger Manvell, the success of the film at the Venice Film Festival was due to the audience’s response to “a splendidly colourful reincarnation of fifteenth century Italy in Technicolour [while] there were few present in the audience […] who cared one way or the other whether the film kept reasonable faith with Shakespeare” (1971: 97). If judged in terms of how faithful it is to its literary source, the film can be easily seen as a deformation and a betrayal of Shakespeare’s masterpiece. Brode’s comments on Castellani’s changes and desecrative cuts to Shakespeare’s play exemplify this attitude: Castellani felt free to drastically cut the original. Missing were memorable lines in the balcony scene, almost all the low-comedy relief (particularly Peter and the Nurse), as well as the Queen Mab dream speech, Mercutio himself reduced from Hamlet-like pre-existential voice to bit player. With the apothecary gone, Romeo stabbed himself rather than accomplish the deed with poison. Likewise, the director liberally added material, including a scene that explains why Friar John fails to deliver an all-important message to banished Romeo (Brode 2000: 50).

However, as the following analysis will reveal, Castellani’s modifications and supposed “unfaithfulness” to the play are not arbitrarily made: they are “meaningful infidelities”. Castellani’s treason is a deliberate act: excisions as 164

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

well as additions respond to the director’s aims and interpretation of the story, and they point towards the several other elements that he used as source models. Analysis will highlight the various factors and source texts which strongly affected the production of the film, thus overruling at times Shakespeare’s play – determining cuts, additions and alterations.3 Indeed, Castellani’s prime interest was not to create a faithful adaptation of the play. As testified by some of his collaborators, Castellani was interested in the story of the lovers because its theme was similar to the one of his previous three films: the story of young people whose love and dreams were contrasted and destroyed by the society they lived in (see Martini 1956: 40; Spinazzola 1974: 142).4 Vittorio Spinazzola suggests that in Castellani’s film Due soldi di speranza (Tuppence’ worth of hope) (1951) “il mondo appariva come una congiura dei padri a danno dei figli, ai quali non restava se non proclamare la loro ribellione, la volontà di restare fedeli a se stessi” (the world seemed like the fathers’ conspiracy against their children, who had nothing left to do but to proclaim their rebellion and their willingness to stay true to themselves) (1974: 192). As a result, Castellani interpreted the story of Romeo and Juliet in terms of contrast between the young lovers and the world they lived in, with an emphasis on the opposition of the families. Moreover, as some critics have pointed out, Castellani’s original intention was to make a film from Da Porto’s novella, and he had written a first screenplay based only on this Italian work (Martini 1956: 37-46; Nicolai 1986: 223-224). Although Castellani had already written the screenplay, this first project was not accomplished – it is unclear whether because the production company, Rank, wanted Shakespeare to be more prominent, or due to the director’s personal choice – and he wrote a second screenplay which was based on Shakespeare’s play.5 However, although Castellani used Shakespeare, he filtered the play through the native Italian tradition because his aim was to give more emphasis to the Italianness of the story. As will be shown in the following analysis, Castellani did not abandon the Italian novella altogether, and his reading of Shakespeare’s play was mediated by the model of Da Porto’s work. Several cuts and changes from the play are evidence of this influence. For instance, Friar Laurence’s plan to reunite the lovers differs from Shakespeare’s. The Friar’s scheme to take Juliet to Mantua during the Easter procession, disguised as a monk, is borrowed straight from Da Porto (1993: 66; 2000: 39).6 Moreover, as in the novella, Juliet is seen as a determined young woman, and more space is given to this character and her environment compared to Romeo, more cuts are made to Romeo than to Juliet, and some scenes are added in which she is the protagonist. Conversely, extensive cuts affect Romeo’s character, who becomes increasingly solitary and does not have a close relationship with either Benvolio or even with Mercutio. Castellani appears to follow the 165

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

native Italian tradition of the story in his focus on the domestic tragedy, on the private more than on the public aspect, on Juliet and on her relationship with her parents. Perhaps the most striking feature of this film is its Renaissance atmosphere, the feeling of authentic Italianness, which was achieved through exterior filming and references to Renaissance art. Since the director wanted to bring the story back to its original setting, in order to recreate an authentic Quattrocento Italian atmosphere, Castellani made careful studies of the period’s art and music. Hence, another very important, explicit model for the film was Renaissance Italian art. On a visual and aural level – in terms of costumes, setting, photography and soundtrack – Renaissance paintings, sculptures, architecture and music were all imitated. Both covert allusions and overt references to fifteenth-century paintings by Paolo Uccello, Botticelli, Carpaccio, Piero della Francesca, Pisanello and Beato Angelico can be found in various scenes and in all the costumes (Ghenzi 1979: 61-62; Martini 1956).7 For instance, the dress Juliet wears while waiting for the Nurse derives from the painting “La Madonna del Parto” by Piero della Francesca, her night gown was inspired by the painting Venus and Mars by Botticelli, her dress at the ball by a painting by Paolo Uccello, and the dress for her funeral by Carpaccio’s Saint Ursula’s Funeral. Moreover, Capulet’s and Paris’ costumes were inspired by Carpaccio, the Prince’s by Beato Angelico, while in one scene Capulet closely resembles Henry VIII in the portrait by Holbein. Gestures also evoke Renaissance paintings. For example, Juliet’s position while she is reading a book recalls the Virgin Mary’s posture in the Annunciation by Leonardo, while the image of Juliet and Friar Laurence in the cell evokes a painting by the Beato Angelico. According to Jackson, the references to these paintings have a further layer of meaning, since they emphasise the importance of “religious observance” in this film. Jackson suggests that “Castellani […] makes specifically symbolic use of religion. […] By drawing on paintings of religious subjects […] for domestic details and the body language of characters, the film frequently evokes them by association” (2007: 173). The presence of lily branches in some scenes portraying Juliet is also an influence of Renaissance art that carries symbolic, religious value. The lily is a Christian symbol of purity, innocence and virtue associated with the Virgin Mary and with the Archangel Gabriel, and often appears in Renaissance paintings of the Annunciation. A further meaningful interpolation added by Castellani to convey a more “Italian” atmosphere are various allusions to fifteenth-century Italian culture and literature, to poets of the Umanesimo (Lorenzo il Magnifico and Matteo Maria Boiardo). For instance, the music composed by Roman Vlad for the ball was inspired by the rhythms of sixteenth-century Italian dances, while the lyrics of the song sung by a boys’ choir are taken from an Italian sonnet by Matteo Maria Boiardo 166

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

entitled “Io vidi su quel viso primavera” (I saw spring on that face).8 The fact that the song is based on a sonnet might be an attempt by Castellani to point out the importance of poetry in Shakespeare’s play, although it tends to be downplayed in the dialogues in the film. One of the models that strongly influenced the making of the film is Italian neorealism, of which Castellani was an exponent. The conventions of neorealist cinema affect the transposition in various ways (Nicolai 1986: 224). Castellani carefully selected spatial detail and was the first director to shoot scenes on location.9 However, his concept of “on location” was broader. Since Verona did not provide all the needed settings because it had changed through the years, Castellani decided to create an “ideal” Renaissance Verona, by shooting in streets, churches, squares and palaces in various Italian towns and villages in Northern and Central Italy, and then combining them during editing of the film. For instance, the walls of Verona were the walls of Montagnana, the market square by the church was the square next to Siena’s cathedral, the external view of the Capulet palace was Palazzo Van Axel in Venezia, its courtyard was from a house called ‘Ca’ d’Oro’ in Venezia. The cloister of the convent was a real convent in an island near Venezia, while its chapels were churches in Verona and Sommacampagna (Martini 1956: 127-136; Ghenzi 1979: 54). The choice of younger actors in the leading roles was also influenced by Castellani’s neorealist style, which required believable, realistic characters. The lovers had to look young also because the director partially read the story in terms of conflict between adults and young people. Another requirement of neorealism was the use of non-professional actors. In the case of Romeo and Juliet, the cast was composed of both professional and non-professional actors. As explained by Martini (1956: 141), the production company had decided that Susan Shentall, the actress playing Juliet, would be the only nonprofessional actress among the main characters. Shentall, a secretarial student who had never acted before, was “discovered” by Castellani in a pub in London. The remaining leading roles had to be played by professional actors, and mainly British ones, as it was easier to dub them. Laurence Harvey, the actor playing Romeo, was a theatre and cinema actor, who had studied at the Old Vic and had become a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company. The famous Shakespearean actor John Gielgud was chosen to speak the Prologue. Mervin Johns (Friar Laurence) and Flora Robson (the Nurse) were both wellknown theatre actors. The fact that Robson was an excellent and experienced theatre actress seems to have created problems for Castellani, who preferred to “mould” his actors (Martini 1956: 142). On the other hand, most of the less central roles were instead played by ordinary people. For instance, Ubaldo Zollo, playing Mercutio, had never acted before. Tom Nicholls (Friar John) was chosen by Castellani from among the British technicians, while the 167

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

Prince was another improvised actor, the Italian writer Elio Vittorini. The man playing Montague, Giulio Garbinetti (another non-professional actor) was chosen on the day of shooting his first scene (Martini 1956: 137-148). The cinematic convention that the average duration of a film should be two hours also influenced the transposition, as the play needed to be cut. Castellani’s film lasts approximately 134 minutes and the screenplay “retains approximately 36 per cent (approx. 1,081 lines) of Shakespeare’s script” (Tatspaugh 2000: 139). However, as analysis reveals, Castellani’s cuts were not only due to the need to shorten the text for the new medium, but responded to the director’s aims and vision of the story. Castellani’s purpose in making the film was twofold: to translate the play into cinematic language and to stress the story’s Italian roots, making use of Da Porto’s novella (Martini 1956: 55). Thus, first he adjusted the text to the new medium through cuts, because in the cinema words are often secondary to visual effects and the full text cannot be performed. Second, in order to “re-create” an Italian atmosphere, Castellani eliminated all the aspects that for him were not “Italian” and not realistic, that is, all the Elizabethan elements. As a consequence, the director made various changes, many of which were influenced by Da Porto’s novella. Castellani defended his cuts to Shakespeare’s text explaining that he had excised all the aspects that for him were not Italian and not realistic, i.e., all the elements typical of Shakespeare’s language, time and society such as poetry, complex wordplay and witticism (Castellani 1979: 39-40). Castellani’s cuts appear to affect Mercutio’s character in particular. Due to the director’s interpretation, Mercutio is clearly deprived of his importance. His famous “Queen Mab” speech is absent, and several dialogues containing wordplay and bawdy language are excised. This important character is reduced to a secondary role because Castellani wanted to avoid typical Elizabethan elements. As Martini (1956: 56) points out, Castellani was determined in changing this character, since he was too English, a typical “Elizabethan dandy” that was out of place in the Italian society portrayed in the film. Moreover, the dramatic reduction of his role is also clearly influenced by the Italian novelle, in which Mercutio (Marcuccio) only briefly appears, and he is not presented as Romeo’s close friend. However, it is worth noting that one speech by Mercutio is partly retained: his evocation of Romeo after the ball (II.1). Although the last lines with their openly sexual references are cut, some of Mercutio’s bawdy quibbling is kept in this scene, and he emerges as a young man who enjoys vulgar allusions, and entertains the other young men. The cuts to Shakespeare’s text and the choice of retaining the above scene result in a picture of Mercutio which is more similar to the character as defined not by Da Porto, but by Bandello:

168

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen Marcuccio the Cross-Eyed, a very pleasant courtier generally well regarded for his capacity for light-hearted witticisms and pleasantries. Hence he always had some anecdote at the ready to make the company laugh, and he would amuse himself most willingly without causing offence to anyone (Bandello 2000: 54).

The diminished importance of Mercutio also contributes to changing Romeo’s character, who in the film becomes more solitary (Tatspaugh 2000: 139), romantic, and less playful. A fundamental difference from the play is that Romeo goes alone to the ball and to Juliet’s tomb (he is not accompanied by Balthasar). Romeo is distant not only from his parents, but also from Mercutio and from Benvolio. His relationship with his male friends is reduced considerably through several textual omissions. For instance, the whole scene in which Romeo engages in wordplay with Mercutio (II.3) as well as the scene in which Benvolio and Mercutio talk about Tybalt and Romeo (III.1) are omitted. On the other hand, Romeo’s initial love for Rosaline and almost all the romantic exchanges with Juliet are kept, perhaps to emphasise Romeo’s sentimental nature. Cuts seem to stress the romantic side of Romeo’s character at the expense of his playful one. This interpretation appears in line with a reading of the story that centres around the lovers, their feelings and their struggle against society. However, once again a source for the above changes are the Italian novelle, which did not show Romeo with friends (Benvolio did not exist and Marcuccio was not Romeo’s close friend) and focussed on the lovers. The film’s portrayal of the fight in which Mercutio and Tybalt die is also more in line with the Italian tradition of the story. In the film the predominance of male aggressiveness and violence in Verona is emphasised from the start since the brawl between the servants ends with the killing of Abraham. In this type of society, Romeo is not an exception, and he kills Tybalt simply because revenge is required, not because of his close friendship with Mercutio (as in Shakespeare). The episode in the film becomes something midway between Shakespeare and the Italian novelle by Da Porto and Bandello, in which Marcuccio was not even involved in the fight and Romeo killed Tebaldo because many of his men had been killed and Tebaldo was the most aggressive of his enemies (Da Porto 1993: 59; Da Porto 2000: 34).10 The novelle function as a model for the film also in Castellani’s choice to describe Juliet and her environment in more detail than Romeo and his, and in the characterisation of Juliet. The director’s cuts appear to be directed to portray Juliet as romantic but less passionate than in the play, avoiding any exaggerated behaviour or reaction, and conventional poetic language. As pointed out by Martini, Castellani considered Juliet’s passion, expressed through language and behaviour, as excessive and superfluous 169

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

(Martini 1956: 85). As a result, her more “passionate” side is toned down by eliminating her “gallop-apace” monologue, all her references to sex, some of her ambiguities with Lady Capulet and with the Nurse. Moreover, Juliet appears more positive since she never expresses negative feelings. Her desperate plan to commit suicide if the Friar does not have a remedy is omitted. As argued by Jackson, the film emphasises “Juliet’s vulnerability and modesty” (2007: 180). The pruning of Juliet’s lines was perhaps also due to the influence of neorealism, which required more “concrete” characters and language. Other aspects of Shakespeare’s play that were subject to cuts were the sonnet form, rhymed verse and the conventional conceits of Petrarchism, which had to be eliminated because they were typical of Elizabethan language and the characters would sound unnatural (Nicolai 1986: 225). All the sonnets in the dialogues of the play are shortened. Only the Prologue is retained, uttered by John Gielgud, perhaps to stress a derivation from literature, from Shakespeare and theatrical tradition.11 Castellani’s attitude towards these features of the text agrees with that of most Italian translators, Shakespeare scholars and directors up to the mid-twentieth century, who perceived the play’s literariness as an unnatural, exaggerated trait typical of Elizabethan times and not worthy of being transplanted into the Italian culture. It is also worth noting that Castellani avoided any sexual explicitness in the relationship between the lovers, both in words and in images. For instance, in their first meeting at the ball Romeo and Juliet do not kiss, during the balcony scene they do not even touch, as they are separated by a metal gate and are quite distant, and in the scene of the wedding they are separated once again by a grille and they finally kiss through it. Moreover, on their first and only night together, when Romeo arrives Juliet is not excited about being with her husband, but is instead crying for his banishment. When Romeo arrives on the balcony Juliet is leaning against the wall, crying, and when Romeo kneels at her feet, hugging her, the camera focuses on her tearful face while she recites some lines from III.2. Then, after a close-up on Juliet’s face, darkness descends, and we are left to imagine what happens during the night. The scene in the morning is played with the lovers dressed, on the bed. Castellani seems to emphasise the pureness of Romeo and Juliet’s love, to idealise them, and to present them as victims of society. Several images of barriers, among which the city walls and the grille separating Romeo and Juliet during the wedding, contribute to symbolise the imprisonment of the lovers within the society of Verona and to underline the impossibility of their love. As observed by Rothwell, “graphic images of confinement, separation, and suffocation replace the emotional content lost by textual deletions” (1999b: 127). 170

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

As far as Capulet is concerned, his speeches are subject to very few cuts.12 Emphasis seems to be placed on his authoritative and choleric character, especially through Sebastian Cabot’s acting. According to Rothwell, the actor “wins a lifetime claim to being the best ever Capulet with his ferocious scolding, or scalding, of Juliet for refusing to marry Paris” (1999b: 128). Capulet’s hot temper is illustrated first by his behaviour at the ball, when he hits Tybalt and throws a mask to the floor, in anger because the young man does not want to obey him. The scene in which Juliet refuses to marry Paris also provides an example of the negativity of this man: his speech is retained, the actor shouts and hits the table violently various times. Castellani’s emphasis on Capulet as an authoritative, aggressive and suffocating patriarch, and of his role as the major obstacle to the lovers’ happiness, is also illustrated by the fact that the director provided the actor with heels, in order to make him taller, more commanding, and menacing (Martini 1956: 83).13 The real obstacle to Romeo and Juliet’s happiness seems to be Capulet more than the feud between the families. This interpretation departs from the role of Juliet’s father in Da Porto’s novella, but points towards another source model: Castellani’s previous films, which centred on the contrast between the young and the adults. The character of Lady Capulet deserves particular attention. In Castellani’s film she appears as a woman who is subdued by her violent husband, and who tries to protect her daughter. Martini (1956: 92) points out that the director wanted to stress her negative relationship with her husband and to render her kinder than she was in Shakespeare’s text. Da Porto’s description of Lady Capulet might have influenced Castellani’s approach. The director manages to provide such an image by cutting some of her lines and showing her in particular situations, as a few examples can illustrate. When Capulet arranges Juliet’s wedding with Paris (III.4), Lady Capulet is present in the room but does not speak a word (her two lines are cut): she sits knitting, keeps silent and looks sadly at her husband, and the audience is left with doubts as to her approval of the plan. In the following scene, when she goes to Juliet’s room, she is rendered less negative by cutting her revenge plans of poisoning Romeo.14 The interpretation of Lady Capulet as subdued to her husband, but as more positive and affectionate towards Juliet is illustrated by her behaviour when Capulet rages against Juliet. When the man raises his voice, hits the table violently and threatens and insults Juliet, Lady Capulet pushes Juliet and the Nurse out of his study, while she remains inside to try to calm him down. She stays to face her aggressive and choleric husband, perhaps because she is used to such outbursts, she can take them, while she tries to protect her daughter and the Nurse. The omission of her final words to Juliet in this scene – “Do as thou wilt, for I have done with thee” (III.5.203) – also makes her more supportive. Moreover, Juliet’s 171

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

mother appears affectionate as she hugs or kisses her daughter on various occasions. As observed by Jackson “there is an easy intimacy between mother and daughter rather than the distance that some productions (including Zeffirelli’s film) have preferred” (2007: 177). As far as the Nurse is concerned, Castellani retains her importance and her affectionate and comic aspect, while the cuts affect her vulgar side, since all her sexual references and more obscene comments are excised. For instance, her comments on “maidenhead” when she appears with Juliet and Lady Capulet are cut, her meeting with Romeo and Mercutio in which she accepts money from Romeo (II.4), is deleted, as well as her comments when she urges Juliet to marry Paris because Romeo, being banished, cannot be enjoyed by her and therefore is of no use to her. The excision of the lines “For it excels your first; or if it did not, | Your first is dead – or ‘twere as good he were | As living here, and you no use of him” (III.5.223-225) renders the Nurse’s advice to marry Paris less vulgar. A character that is subject to interesting alterations is Friar Laurence, who differs from both Shakespeare and the novelle. Castellani clearly sees him as a good-hearted and well-meaning person. In order to emphasise this, the director eliminates the behaviour or words which might put him in a negative or ambiguous light, making him seem at times a little naïve. The most important change to the character is in the final scene. Castellani avoids his ambiguous words (“I dare no longer stay”) and his cowardly behaviour in the tomb with Juliet. He does not desert Juliet, but remains by her side, praying “Oh Dio misericordioso!” (Oh merciful God!), trying to find a solution. Ironically, it is because he is praying that he does not see Juliet with the dagger and cannot prevent the tragedy. As pointed out by Martini (1956: 74), Castellani heightened the good-natured aspect of the Friar’s character, turning him into a seraphic man. It is his naivety that causes the tragic misunderstandings and events of the story. However, the positive and slightly naïve image of the Friar in the film is also different from the character in the novelle, where he is more negative and ambiguous, a hypocrite. This interpretation of the Friar might be the result of Castellani’s personal view, mediated by another source model belonging to Italian literature: the character of Fra’ Cristoforo in Alessandro Manzoni’s I Promessi Sposi (The Betrothed). Although Castellani did not explicitly acknowledge such derivation, the use of Manzoni’s character as a model is evident. One scene in particular resembles an episode in the Italian novel, i.e. the scene in which Juliet goes to the convent after her refusal to marry Paris. The first sequence in which Friar Laurence talks to Paris, and when Juliet arrives, is cut: Paris is omitted from the scene. Juliet goes to the convent, enters the enclosure, in the cloister asks Friar John where Friar Laurence is, then enters his cell and hugs the Friar, sobbing. Friar John is shocked by the presence of a woman in the 172

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

enclosure, and when he sees Juliet hugging Friar Laurence he stands by the doorway coughing, as if to point out that such a behaviour is against the rules. Friar Laurence approaches him, says in Latin “Omnia munda mundis” – meaning that for the pure of heart everything is pure – and closes the door. The camera focuses on the puzzled Friar John, who repeats “Omnia munda mundis”, clearly wondering about its mysterious meaning. This scene is directly derived from chapter eight of I promessi sposi, an episode in which Agnese and Lucia enter the enclosure with Renzo to see Fra’ Cristoforo, at night, Fra’ Fazio points out to his superior that women are not allowed in the convent and Fra’ Cristoforo replies with the Latin words “Omnia munda mundis”.15 Friar Laurence’s character is influenced by Manzoni’s Fra’ Cristoforo, and Friar John by Fra’ Fazio. Friar John’s role is expanded by Castellani, who renders him a slightly comical and naïve person that appears in various scenes. It is Friar John who tells Friar Laurence of Romeo’s banishment, he is present when Juliet goes to Friar Laurence to seek help, and he is sent to Mantova to deliver the letter to Romeo. The expansion of this character is due to the influence of two models: Manzoni’s I Promessi Sposi and George Cukor’s 1936 film. The scene in Shakespeare’s play in which Friar John tells Friar Laurence that he could not deliver the letter to Romeo because of pestilence (III.2) is translated into cinematic language by Castellani, who interpolates a sequence in which Friar John goes to Mantua and is detained inside a sick man’s house. However, this scene is not an invention by Castellani, as it is extremely similar to a sequence in Cukor’s film, and a derivation seems plausible. A further added element that may derive from Cukor is a scene in which Juliet sees Paris before the ball, in the Capulets’ house. After Lady Capulet’s “the valiant Paris seeks you to his love” (I.3.75), the camera cuts to Capulet and Paris (I.2) discussing. Then a brief scene is inserted: the camera returns to Juliet’s room where the Nurse calls Juliet to the balcony, from which she can “have a look” at Paris. Juliet and her mother run to the balcony and observe Capulet and Paris going down the stairs of the palace. The three women smile, while they observe Paris, and then Lady Capulet asks Juliet if she can “love the gentleman” and exhorts her to observe him during the ball. Lady Capulet and the Nurse kiss Juliet and they all go back inside, smiling. Lines such as the Nurse’s description of Paris as “a man of wax” are cut, and Lady Capulet’s sonnet is shortened, although the metaphor of the book is partially retained. The idea expressed in those lines is replaced and reinforced by images in which the man becomes the object of the women’s look. In this film women are not passive, but they take the initiative, observe and “read” men, and are close to one another. Castellani seems to emphasise female bonding, the lively and affectionate atmosphere between the women in the Capulet’s house, which contrasts with the solitary life lead by Romeo. This 173

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

might be due to the director’s particular interpretation, but perhaps also to the influence of the Italian tradition of the story, as in the novelle Juliet’s relationship with her mother is given emphasis, and Juliet is determined and takes the initiative. Nevertheless, since a similar scene can be found in Cukor’s film, we can argue that the previous film version of the play clearly functioned as an intertext for Castellani’s transposition. Castellani also adds a wedding scene which uses some lines from Shakespeare. Juliet arrives in the convent’s church and waits in the confessional, in which a grille separates women from the enclosure and through which the friars confess them. The lovers get married through the grille, kiss through it and Romeo departs with the Friar. This scene seems to be inspired by Da Porto, where the marriage takes place in a confessional, after the Friar has removed a metal grille.16 Derivation from various models or source texts also seems plausible for the added scene of Juliet’s funeral procession. First, the insertion of a funeral procession might be justified by the fact that it is described by Da Porto,17 and it was also added to Shakespeare’s play by Garrick. Juliet’s dress and the procession are also visually inspired by the painting Saint Ursula’s funeral by Carpaccio. Moreover, it is worth pointing out that the scene in Castellani reminds the viewer of Juliet’s funeral procession in Cukor’s adaptation. This might be due to a derivation, but it might also be possible that both directors were visually inspired by the same painting. Cukor’s film appears to be a model for Castellani for various scenes. For instance, Cukor presents Romeo not in the streets of Verona but outside, in a meadow, in a “bucholic” atmosphere; Juliet sees Paris before the ball, as the Nurse and her mother show her the man. Cukor also has a choir of boys singing at the ball, and a scene with Friar Laurence writing a letter to Romeo and sending Friar John to Mantua, with his being blocked there. There is a clear influence of these scenes on Castellani’s film. Finally, a brief mention of the ending of Castellani’s film should be made. The direcor retains Romeo’s killing of Paris (with a candle-stick), while – having excised the Apothecary – Romeo kills himself with a dagger, as in the Italian tradition. As previously noted, Friar Laurence’s behaviour in the tomb is deprived of its ambiguity by replacing his “I dare no longer stay” with “O Dio misericordioso!” (Oh, merciful God!). The remaining part of the scene, with the arrival of the guards, of the Prince, and the Friar’s recapitulation is cut. The film ends in the cathedral, with the Prince, Benvolio, Capulet, Lady Capulet, and Montague. The report of Lady Montague’s death is omitted, although she is not present to bewail her son’s death. The reconciliation of the families is hinted at, but Shakespeare’s words are excised: Capulet kneels by Montague and they hold hands. 174

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

As has been shown, Castellani’s translation from page to screen is strongly target-oriented, and is affected by several factors. Castellani reinterpreted Shakespeare’s play through his own sensitivity, mediating it through the Italian tradition and previous films and works. The film’s textual cuts, alterations and interpolations are clear symptoms of other models used by the director. Various elements have strongly affected the production of the film, thus sometimes overruling Shakespeare’s play. Although the Italian novella by Da Porto is the main, powerful model and interpretative filter that affects the transposition from play to screen, determining deviations from Shakespeare, several other influences can be detected. These are neorealism, Castellani’s previous films, Italian fifteenth-century paintings and architecture, and Cukor’s film. Bandello also bears some influence, especially in the depiction of Mercutio’s character. Manzoni’s I Promessi Sposi (The Betrothed) provides another source text, or intertext, especially for the interpretation of Friar Laurence and Friar John. Together with the novelle, Italian literature and art thus represent important sources, and Cukor’s previous film version clearly functioned as an intertext for Castellani’s transposition. 2. Riccardo Freda’s Romeo e Giulietta, 1964 The following Italian film version of Romeo and Juliet was directed by Riccardo Freda in 1964. Freda was a controversial Italian director who made about fifty films, experimenting with all sorts of genres.18 He became famous for his horror films – he made the first Italian horror film in 1957, I Vampiri (The Vampires), under the pseudonym of Robert Hampton. Freda was strongly against the fashion of neorealism in Italian cinema, to which he preferred American spectacular films such as adventure and western films which made audiences dream (Della Casa 2001: 7). For him cinema was action and emotion, and it had to depict the extraordinary rather than the everyday. He was not interested in common, real, people, but in heroes (Fofi and Faldini 1979: 356). As a result, Freda made costume dramas, historical films, several films inspired by literary works, horror films and adventure films.19 However, his works, apart from a few exceptions, were not appreciated by producers and very often he had to make films on very low budgets; most critics also disregarded them (Della Casa 1999; Morandini 2004).20 Freda’s version of Romeo and Juliet appears to be unknown to most people. It is never mentioned in studies on Shakespeare on film, or in the introductions to the various editions of the play.21 Moreover, very little information on the film is available even in critical works on the director. The film was shot on location in Spain for the externals and in Italy in the Titanus 175

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

studios in Rome.22 It is a Spanish/Italian production with Italian, Spanish and English-speaking actors. The leading roles were played by Geronimo Meynier (23)23 and Rosemarie Dexter (20).24 Actors spoke their own language and were subsequently all dubbed.25 As explained by Stefano Della Casa (2005), Freda was commissioned to shoot the film by a Spanish production company, and accepted it because it was an opportunity to make a costume drama.26 According to the film dictionary Il Morandini (Morandini 2004: 586), in transposing the play to the screen Freda focused on the most romantic and popular aspects of the story. Mauro Gervasini (2003) considers the film as “un’interessante trasposizione che ha il respiro del cappa e spada e qualche risvolto horror” (an interesting transposition which has the atmosphere of a swashbuckling film and some horror overtones). This comment is particularly interesting, as it suggests that adventure and horror films might have influenced the making of this version. Analysis reveals that Freda followed Shakespeare’s narrative structure quite closely and that his alterations to the play and the style of filming are clear influences of the genres the director liked most, and of his interpretation of the story. Despite being a costume drama, the film contains features of various genres and several sources can be identified. As the following discussion will reveal, other semiotic devices which influenced the making of this version were adventure/western films, horror films, previous films made by the director, Castellani’s and Cukor’s adaptations, and the Italian tradition of the story. The influence of western adventure films is apparent right from the beginning, in the pre-credit sequence. The film opens with a panning shot of a field surrounded by mountains in which a group of men on horseback (the Capulets) are destroying some fences, allowing the enclosed cattle to escape. The loud, alarmed bellowing of cows and the whinnying of horses prevail. A second group of men (the Montagues) arrives and a fight with swords and crossbows ensues, the only words uttered being “a morte i Montecchi!”, “a morte i Capuleti!” (death to the Montagues! / death to the Capulets!) Men shoot their arrows from the trees, horses fall, a man jumps off his horse onto another rider who tumbles off, then a man falls on the ground. The camera freezes on the image of the man’s bloodied face, music begins then the title “Romeo e Giulietta” appears, followed by the credits. Derivation from Shakespeare is declared in the title, but the director highlights that it is a “libera riduzione”, that is, a free rendering. This sequence also seems to suggest that this version is different from the traditional depiction that one might expect. With Shakespeare’s words completely eliminated and Benvolio and Tybalt absent, chases on horseback, violence, fights and blood – which are recurrent elements in westerns – prevail. The film’s use of violence to take control of the herd is another theme borrowed from westerns. Moreover, 176

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

the scene is not set in a square in Verona, but in the countryside. However, the following scene with the Prince’s speech in his palace is directly taken from Shakespeare. An interesting addition emerges: the Prince’s words “have thriced disturbed the quiet of our streets” become “hanno turbato tre volte la quiete delle nostre strade e delle nostre campagne” (my italics) (have thrice disturbed the quiet of our streets and our countryside). In the following scene, another addition is made: Benvolio explains that the brawl was caused by “una razzia tentata dai Capuleti” (a raid attempted by the Capulets). The two families are feuding rich land and cattle owners living in Verona during Renaissance times and the characters wear period costumes.27 The influence of adventure films on Freda’s version is also evident in other scenes. The director modifies the episode in which the servant asks Romeo and Benvolio to read the invitation to the Capulet’s ball. As Peter enters an “osteria/saloon”, some of the Montagues’ servants start teasing him and make him stumble. A fight ensues between the Capulets and the Montagues, and Peter loses the guest list, which is found by Romeo. Most of Shakespeare’s dialogue is omitted, and this brawl clearly recalls saloon sequences with fist-fights in western movies: the men fight, plates, chairs and tables get broken, a man falls off a balcony, another one is thrown into the air. Romeo learns about the ball by finding the sheet of paper on the floor, and his friends tell him to go to the party to compare Rosaline to the other girls. Another inserted scene which brings to mind adventure films shows Romeo fleeing from Verona at dawn, after the night spent with Juliet. Having descended from a stone wall, he is stopped by a group of armed guards, who want to arrest him and try to put a rope around his wrists. Romeo manages to escape by hitting them, jumping on a horse and galloping away, through the gates of the town and through the fields. The guards chase him on horseback, but Romeo hides inside a crevice in a rock; they pass by, and the camera focuses on his satisfied smile. This scene, which is more than two minutes long and is accompanied by orchestral music (Rachmaninoff’s piano concerto n. 2, movement 3, Allegro scherzando), contains traces of several models. Adventure films are evoked through non-stop galloping horses, chases, the centrality of the landscape and the portrayal of the hero. Scenes with horses and long chase sequences on horseback are also a typical feature of Freda’s style.28 The setting – woods, mountains and red rocks – reminds spectators of spaghetti westerns, which were shot in the same Spanish locations. The employment of quick camera movement, long silences, closeups of Romeo and operatic music to underscore the character’s mood and create suspense are traits borrowed from Sergio Leone’s films. On the other hand, the portrayal of Romeo as a handsome, positive hero seems more in keeping with the protagonists of traditional American westerns than with Leone’s anti-heroes. 177

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

The above scenes, together with Romeo’s image as an adventurous young man, are in keeping with Freda’s idea of cinema as action and with his interest in heroes. Another aspect that emerges from the above described scenes, as well as from the cuts made to Romeo’s speeches, is that the character is defined through his actions rather than his words. This is again a typical feature of Freda’s films. As explained by Gervasini (2003), the director preferred to psychologically define the characters through actions, rather than resorting to the theatrical verbosity which was typical of costume dramas. Romeo is frequently seen through close-ups, his bravery is emphasised – his adventures accompanied by music – while several of his speeches are eliminated. Romeo’s behaviour also renders him a determined young man. He appears clever, strong and passionate, and no unpleasant or weak aspects of his character are highlighted. For instance, his attempt to commit suicide in the Friar’s cell, when he is banished, is omitted, as are Friar Laurence’s comments on his “womanish” side. Moreover, he does not use any bawdy language or wordplay. The addition of scenes and the cutting of some lines – with the complete omission of poetic language and wordplay – contribute to making him more concrete, but also more idealised. It is worth noting that the literariness of Shakespeare’s text is excised from most speeches. For instance, the Prologue is omitted, Romeo’s oxymora in the first scene are cut, Lady Capulet’s sonnet describing Paris is shortened, Mercutio’s ‘queen Mab’ speech is eliminated, the shared sonnet is abbreviated and deprived of its religious images, Capulet’s poetic language describing Juliet’s tearfulness is excised. Poetic images tend to be eliminated or simplified through paraphrase. These alterations, too, can be attributed to the director’s preference for action rather than language. This is apparent, for instance, when we first see Romeo, as his description of his love for Rosaline is shortened, and all the oxymora eliminated. Romeo’s exchange with his friends before the ball is also omitted, as is all the complex wordplay in which he engages with Mercutio in the morning, before meeting the Nurse. The character of Mercutio seems closer to Shakespeare’s than it is in Castellani’s film. However, Mercutio’s riotous quibbling and his “queen Mab” speech are excised, perhaps due to the influence of Castellani or of the novelle. As in Castellani’s adaptation, nobody engages in bawdy wordplay. All the play’s sexual allusions are censored in this film: the opening scene with the servants’ wordplay is cut, all the sexual allusions and puns by Mercutio, the young men and the Nurse are excised. While the comical aspect and vulgar wordplay are eliminated from the text, Freda retains some comedy by giving more importance to the servant Peter, who was played by Mario De Simone, an Italian comedian who had worked in films with Totò. This points to 178

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

another source that might have slightly influenced Freda – Cukor – who gave similar importance to the character of Peter. Another similarity with other films is the addition of a brief scene which shows why Romeo never received the Friar’s letter. In order to replace the play’s narration by Friar John, Freda resorts to images. Two friars arrive with their donkeys at the gates of Mantua, but they are stopped by guards who tell them that it is impossible to enter the town. However, in contrast to previous films, no mention is made of a plague. Further eliminations include Juliet’s use of complex poetic imagery and sexual allusions. She is quite detached from her mother and the Nurse, and is presented as a strong-willed young woman. This is achieved by highlighting her desire to commit suicide in Friar Laurence’s cell, by retaining part of her “potion speech”, and by showing her anger at the Nurse when she suggests that she marries Paris. Juliet turns her head away, and wipes her cheek after being kissed by the Nurse. The night before her wedding Juliet even refuses to let the Nurse kiss her goodnight. Cuts to poetry and wordplay result in a simplification of language, but also in a sanitised and idealised character, akin to Freda’s depiction of Romeo. The story appears to be interpreted as a domestic tragedy in which the focus is on the lovers, who are seen as heroes. The scene in which Juliet drinks the sleeping potion owes a debt to another model for the film: horror movies. A bright red light surrounds Juliet, the camera focuses first on her face, on her blue eyes, then on the red liquid and her lips in an extreme close-up. This framing and the predominance of red convey a sense of tragedy, of death. The scene with the Apothecary, which was omitted by Castellani, is imbued with tension by Freda, who adds a visual reference to death through a skeleton and a skull. The last scene also bears the influence of horror films, because of the presence of lightning, red and blue lights, thunder and extreme close-ups of terrified faces. When Romeo arrives outside the church, a long fight with Paris starts, its dramatic quality enhanced by music and darkness. When Paris falls dead and Romeo enters the church there is thunder, and lightning illuminates the church with a bright blue light, then darkness descends again. When Romeo sees Juliet’s body another loud thunder clap amplifies his terror. After his monologue, Romeo drinks the poison and dies. There is almost hyperbolic pathetic fallacy as thunder is heard continually throughout the final scene, which is full of close-ups of the protagonists’ faces and especially their eyes. The final scene deserves further comments. First, Friar Laurence finds Paris’ body outside the church and as Juliet is crying in the tomb hugging Romeo, she hears him saying “Presto! Cercate aiuto!” (Quick, find help!). A close-up of Juliet’s face shows she has realised that she has to hurry, so she takes the dagger and stabs herself. Friar Laurence arrives too late: he descends into the tomb accompanied by dramatic music, the camera zooms 179

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

on his terrified face and the film ends with the audience sharing his point of view, following his gaze, pausing on what he sees: a close-up of the dead lovers. This last scene is also a reference to a previous horror film by Freda, Lo spettro (The ghost) (1963), in which the actor playing Friar Laurence (Umberto Raho) played a priest. Raho appeared in the final dramatic scene, commenting on the fact that evil is among us and inside each of us. The film ended with a close-up of the priest’s horrified face (Della Casa 1999: 81; Della Casa 2001: 319). The two scenes are strikingly similar, and the terrified silent face of Raho in Giulietta e Romeo might be a reminder of his words in Lo spettro, and a suggestion of a final comment to the story. Evil, which is part of human nature, reigns in Verona: it is the cause of the lovers’ death. By ending the film with the death of Romeo and Juliet, eliminating the final speech by the Friar and the reconciliation of the families, the film focuses on the lovers and the final message seems to be that death prevails. By making Friar Laurence arrive after Juliet’s death, Freda relieves him of blame. This view of the Friar had previously emerged in the cuts and changes made by Freda to the character. Friar Laurence is subject to important alterations, which render him perhaps more earthly, less of a holy or philosophical man. His speech on Nature is shortened, many of his proverbs omitted, while he is given lines which were not his in Shakespeare. In fact, the Friar takes on Benvolio’s lines from the exchange with Romeo, in which Romeo talks about his love for Rosaline and his cousin suggests he looks at other women. In Freda therefore the Friar is surprised that a girl wants to live chastely and tells Romeo to stop thinking about Rosaline. This comment might appear strange for a Friar, and renders him different from Shakespeare’s character, and more involved in earthly matters. Moreover, it should be noted that the Friar’s advice in the film is more direct than that he gives in Shakespeare. Compare Freda’s “Cercatene un’altra, bella come lei” (Look for another one, as beautiful as she is) with “by giving liberty unto thine eyes, | Examine other beauties” (I.1.223-224). Another important alteration is the cutting of his words in the tomb because of his late arrival and of his final recapitulation. The modifications made to this character by Freda show that the director sees him as closer to Romeo and more practical. Music contributes to creating Freda’s reading of the story in terms of romance, adventure and terror: scores by Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff highlight the romantic and dramatic moments amplifying the protagonists’ feelings. Music themes underscore the scenes of Romeo’s flight from and to Verona, the lovers’ encounters, as well as the fights and the final scene. For instance, the romance of the lovers’ first night and their sad parting at dawn are emphasized by the lyrical, melancholic operatic theme of Rachmaninoff’s Piano concerto n. 2, movement 2, while the following scene in which Romeo escapes from Verona chased by the guards is accompanied by the fast tempo, 180

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

agitated rhythm and tension of movement 3. The use of Tchaikovsky’s Romeo and Juliet (Fantasy overture after William Shakespeare) and Francesca da Rimini op. 32 (Fantasy after Canto V of the ‘Inferno’ from the Divine Comedy) are particularly interesting, as the former is a reincarnation of the story, and the latter is inspired by another famous love story belonging to Italian literature. Freda thus combines Shakespeare’s play with one of its musical reincarnations and ties it into an Italian tradition of doomed romance. Freda follows the traditional interpretation of the story as a domestic tragedy centred around the idealised lovers, who are seen as heroes, and he mediates Shakespeare through other intertexts, including his favourite cinematic models – adventure, western and horror films, long chase sequences, fights, dramatic images – previous films, and a dark view of human nature. While no particular directors or works are directly quoted, there are cross-filtrations from different genres. Visually, the film makes use of some conventionalised, recurrent images and elements of the western, i.e., mountains and fields; the tight-bodied dresses of women and fist-fights in saloons; the use of bows and arrows; the dominant presence of horses; closeups of the positive hero. The film shares with spaghetti westerns, and Leone in particular, the use of the same locations, and of long, wordless scenes with close-ups of the protagonist and dramatic music. The presence of several scenes with horses, chases and brawls, as well as Romeo’s portrayal as an adventurous, clever, strong young man – reminding us of adventure films – are also in keeping with Freda’s style, with his idea of cinema as action and with his interest in heroes. The horror genre, to which the film also relates, is evoked through the use of colours, light, music and camera movement, as well as through direct references to Freda’s film Lo spettro and the exploitation of some typical visual tropes. Cukor’s adaptation functions as a source model for the characterization of Peter, while this film shares with Castellani’s version the reference to theatre through the casting of a Shakespearean actor, Carlo D’Angelo,29 the removal of wordplay, bawdy language and poetry, the adding of a death in the opening scene as well as the detachment of the Prince from the people of Verona, since he always appears in his palace. 3. Franco Zeffirelli’s Romeo e Giulietta, 1968 While Freda’s film passed almost unnoticed, Zeffirelli’s 1968 version – which followed his acclaimed 1960 stage production – was a great box office success: made with a budget of 1.5 million dollars, “it eventually grossed $50 million” (Zeffirelli 1986: 229). The film was a British-Italian production with British actors and a few Italian ones, and it was shot partly 181

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

on location (in Tuscania, Pienza, and Gubbio) and at the Cinecittà studios.30 Romeo and Juliet premiered at the Odeon Cinema in Leicester Square, London, on the 4th March 1968, and in New York in September 1968.31 Zeffirelli conceived the film as a translation of his 1960 stage interpretation into cinematic language. In interpreting the story for the stage in 1960, Zeffirelli was strongly influenced by contemporary society, and wanted to represent the atmosphere he felt in the 1960s. As he explained in his autobiography, there was a spirit of youthful high spirits [and] a spirit of rebellion […] but one that carried with it a message of enthusiasm and cheerfulness rather than depression. It seemed to me, even at the beginning of the 1960s, that young people were about to give everyone a very pleasant jolt, and it was this that I wanted to bring to the London stage (1986: 161).

Romeo and Juliet was seen as a play about youth, its energy, liveliness, rebelliousness and passion. The young people in the story were like the teenagers of his time. In making the film, the director had a double aim. First, he wanted to highlight the conflict between generations, focussing on the vitality and passion of the young. This made the film extremely successful among young people, as it appealed to them: “the popcorn-eating, potsmoking, youthful audience which has discovered in too many classrooms how monstrously dull Shakespeare can be made, swarms to see how lively and contemporary this eminently popular sixteenth century figure can be” (quoted in Levenson 1987: 123). Second, Zeffirelli aimed to provide a portrayal of Italy: “it will really be a documentary of the period as well […] I know my Romeo and Juliet; but, oh, how I also know my Italy” (quoted in Pilkington 1994: 165). An Italian atmosphere was conveyed through realistic settings and colourful Renaissance costumes, but perhaps even more by the characters’ behaviour, their physicality and passion. As observed by Levenson (1987: 89), “Zeffirelli had redefined poetry as a specifically Italian mode of expression, essentially non-verbal and extremely passionate.” The stress on youth and passion required young actors: Leonard Whiting (16) and Olivia Hussey (15) were selected from a large number of adolescents because of their exceptional beauty (Zeffirelli 1986: 223). Zeffirelli describes Whiting as “ideal. He was beautiful in that Renaissance page-boy way that was revived during the 1960s; he could probably act; and, as was obvious when I met him, he was very ambitious.” Hussey had originally been rejected because she was “unfortunately overweight, clumsylooking and bit her nails constantly” (Zeffirelli 1986: 225). However, when she returned for a second test

182

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen she was a new woman: she had lost weight dramatically. Her magnificent bone structure was becoming apparent, with those wide expressive eyes and her whole angular self. She was now the real Juliet, a gawky colt of a girl waiting for life to begin (Zeffirelli 1986: 226).

The director’s comments testify to his accurate selection of the actors not on the basis of their acting skills, but for their physical appearance. Despite the film’s international success, Zeffirelli has been criticised for his modernising and drastic cutting of the original: only thirty-five per cent of Shakespeare’s text was retained (Pilkington 1994: 165). Joan Ozark Holmer is particularly harsh in criticising the director’s excisions: Zeffirelli’s deletions from the play’s text might be questioned for their quantity as well as their quality. He retains only about a third of the play’s lines, and what he chooses to delete involves not only obscure language […] which is easier to justify, but also philosophical passages, much more difficult to justify (1996: 164).

Rothwell explains that “inevitably the textual ‘purists’ railed against Zeffirelli’s deletions, which were needed to cram the action into two hours and nineteen minutes” (1999b: 133). The cinema convention that requires films to last approximately two hours obviously played a part in Zeffirelli’s approach to the source text. The cinematic convention of avoiding repetition might also explain why Benvolio’s and Friar’s Laurence’s final recapitulations are omitted, as they might seem redundant. Nevertheless, as previously argued, while cutting of the source text is dictated by the needs of the cinema and its conventions, the choice of which parts to cut is subjective, and Zeffirelli’s omissions were often aimed at providing a specific interpretation of characters and situations. Most omissions are meaningful, since they respond to specific needs, create certain readings and highlight themes which Zeffirelli deemed important. The following analysis will explore Zeffirelli’s interpretation and how this determined translation strategies, cuts and additions to the play, also identifying other possible models for the film. While doing so, we will consider how relationships are portrayed by the director. One might agree with Jorgens (1977: 86), who describes the film as “a ‘youth movie’ of the 1960s which glorifies the young and caricatures the old, a Renaissance Graduate.” As the focus of the film is the contrast between young people and adults, the energy of the young lovers is highlighted by Zeffirelli in several ways. Cuts to their speeches or actions contribute to rendering them more “physical” and natural, more passionate and also more positive. For example, complex wordplay or poetic language, conceits and oxymora are cut; all the sexual allusions of Juliet and Romeo are excised; and Juliet’s embittered comments at the Nurse’s advice to marry Paris (“Ancient

183

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

damnation! O most wicked fiend!”) are eliminated, with Juliet simply and determinedly saying “Go!”. Perhaps the most important excisions affect Romeo’s character, as Zeffirelli eliminates three compromising aspects of his behaviour in the play: his initial love for Rosaline, the episode of the Apothecary, and his killing of Paris.32 This trimming is clearly aimed at rendering Romeo more stable: his love is not fickle, he does not take advantage of a poor man, nor does he commit a second murder. Moreover, Romeo’s killing of Tybalt is shown as caused by his affection for Mercutio and the desperate need to avenge his death. Zeffirelli’s aim to read Romeo as untainted is also witnessed by the fact that he had filmed the killing of Paris, and then decided to cut it. The director’s explanation for the omission of the episode clarifies his view: You don’t want that. I mean, young people wanted us to have the romantic meeting between the dead girl – who was not dead – and Romeo who had threatened to kill himself. If he was a murderer – ‘Ugly boy, ugly boy!’ It wouldn’t have worked. And besides, the thing was long enough (Zeffirelli, in Loney 1990: 245).

As regards Juliet, Zeffirelli portrays her as a lively, passionate, determined adolescent who expresses her feelings more through gestures than through words and who takes the initiative. All her monologues are excised, and her impulsive and childish side is stressed by having her run, laugh, sigh, cry, sob and giggle repeatedly.33 Although sexual allusions are eliminated from her speeches, Juliet’s passion emerges from her behaviour. Her desire is shown both in the scene of the first meeting, when an extreme close-up of Juliet closing her eyes emphasises her pleasure when Romeo touches her hand, in the balcony scene, in the wedding scene as she runs towards Romeo, to kiss him and hug him despite the Friar’s presence, and on the morning after the wedding, when she looks at her husband’s naked body with a smile. Zeffirelli was particularly criticised for cutting most of the literary language of the play. As noted by Ace G. Pilkington, the film “is usually praised for its action and spirit and blamed for its elimination of the poetry” (1994: 165). Levenson observes that in this film “there are few traces of lyricism. [Zeffirelli] distinguishes the protagonists from other characters by allowing them to speak less – and less articulately – than the others, even while they look beautiful and very young” (Levenson/Shakespeare 2000: 93). Romeo’s oxymora on love and hate when we first see him are completely omitted and two famous monologues – Juliet’s “gallop apace” and “potion” speeches – are eliminated. Before drinking the sleeping potion, Zeffirelli gives Juliet a much simpler and clearer line: “Love, give me strength!” The excisions are probably due to two reasons. First, perhaps the young inexperienced actors were not skilled enough to speak the lines. Pilkington 184

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

suggests that it was “a choice necessitated by the inexperience of his young stars” (1994: 165). The actors’ problems with the speaking of verse were stressed by Richard Burton, who commented on the rehearsals as follows: “‘You’ve got problems with the verse,’ said Richard. ‘But perhaps it doesn’t matter – you’re probably right. It certainly looks great’” (quoted in Zeffirelli 1986: 228). This opinion also points to the second possible reason. Zeffirelli believed that the most important thing was to have beautiful, young, passionate protagonists, while verse was a secondary element in the play. Moreover, according to him, also for Shakespeare “youth was more important than enunciation” (1986: 162).34 Zeffirelli’s interpretation stressed gestures and physical passion more than verbal eloquence, since for him the language of youth is made of gestures. The use of body language to communicate is also what distinguishes the young generation from adults. As suggested by Jorgens: Like the lovers, the young bloods of the square ‘speak’ with their bodies and their ‘weapons’. The young distrust the rhetoric of the old: Juliet asks ‘what’s in a name?’ Mercutio responds to Benvolio’s echoing of parental cautions with ‘blah, blah, blah’, and Romeo is so impatient with Friar Laurence’s tired saws while awaiting Juliet that he fills in the next word each time the holy man pauses. The impotent old, on the other hand, talk and talk … They seem overly deliberate, unspontaneous, slow compared with the young (1977: 85).

However, the omission of poetic language also affects the lines spoken by older characters. For instance, of the fourteen lines making up the sonnet of the Prologue, only eight are retained, Lady Capulet’s sonnet with the metaphor of the book is excised, Capulet’s description of Juliet’s tearfulness is deleted. Extensive cuts to the literariness of the play might also be due to the director’s intention to create an idea of naturalness and of “Italianness”, a realistic Renaissance atmosphere. As Jorgens (1977: 88) points out, Zeffirelli “stripped away much of the self-conscious verbal artifice which clashes with realistic surfaces and colloquial readings.” Moreover, the trimming of poetic language was obviously affected by Zeffirelli’s intention to popularise Shakespeare, to bring Shakespeare to the masses. As the director himself declared, with the cinema, you have to make up your mind whether you do a film for a small number of people who know it all – and it’s not very exciting to work for them – or really make some sacrifices and compromises but bring culture to a mass audience (Zeffirelli, quoted in Loney 1990: 244).

Zeffirelli’s popularising intent also implied modifications and additions to Shakespeare’s play. As explained by Jackson: 185

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

In his desire to make ‘classic’ texts popular and accessible, he has often freely rearranged the order of the narrative of the plays, as is commonly necessary in adaptation for the cinema, but emotional situations are singled out and underlined, sometimes with additional dialogue, and ‘difficult’ words may be changed (2007: 194).

For example, Juliet repeatedly sighs and cries, saying “Oh God!” after Romeo’s farewell; at Juliet’s supposed death Capulet cries “Juliet! My baby, where is she?”, replacing Shakespeare’s words. Zeffirelli’s adding of words not contained in Shakespeare’s text provoked some criticism. According to Pilkington: Zeffirelli […] is also guilty of another sin in the purists’ catalogue of seven deadly edits – rewriting. He does this in two ways, by replacing words with others which are supposedly easier for his audience to grasp, and by inserting entirely new lines for the same reason. Some of the changes indicate that Zeffirelli had a distressingly low estimate of his audience’s intelligence (1994: 167-168).

An interesting and highly regarded interpolation is Romeo and Juliet’s theme song, What is a youth?, which is performed at the Capulets’ ball by a male singer. This addition was perhaps aimed to compensate for the cutting of poetry in the film. The song develops the themes of youth and carpe diem, drawing on images used in Italian Renaissance poetry: “What is a youth? | Impetuous fire. | What is a maid? | Ice and desire. | The world wags on | A rose will bloom | it then will fade. | So does a youth, | so does the fairest maid.”35 The lyrics are “a haunting ode to the transience of time” (Lehmann 2010: 134). The music, composed by Oscar winner Nino Rota, becomes the love theme of the film which accompanies the lovers throughout their brief life. This addition also seems to be a reference to previous film versions by Castellani and Cukor, in which boys’ choirs sing during the lovers’ meeting at the ball. Zeffirelli’s treatment of vulgar expressions and obscene language deserves attention since sexual allusions play an important part in the film, especially in defining Mercutio’s character, played by John McEnery. The play’s bawdy language is partly abridged. For instance, the servants’ coarse wordplay in the opening scene is omitted, sexual allusions are eliminated from Juliet’s words, and Mercutio’s conjuring up of Romeo after the ball is eliminated. However, elsewhere Mercutio constantly makes references to sex and violence, both through language and gestures. Before the arrival of the Nurse he engages in sexual innuendo with Romeo and Benvolio, and his gestures are explicitly sexual; he also plays with the Nurse in a vulgar way, showing with his arms and hands what his jokes mean, when he refers to the “bawdy hand of the dial” which is “upon the prick of noon”. Moreover, when

186

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

Tybalt wants to have “a word” with him he says “here’s my fiddlestick” while his sword comes out of water, as he is sitting in a fountain. As argued by Jackson, “the phallic gestures with which he illustrates his bawdy jokes […] are part of a repertoire of eccentric and more or less disturbing physical effects” (2007: 201). Through language but perhaps even more through John McEnery’s gestures, Mercutio emerges as a crazy, funny entertainer, almost obsessed with ideas of sex and male aggressiveness. As observed by Jorgens (1977: 85), “it is what Mercutio does as much as what he says that makes him so bawdy, irreverent, erratically alive.” Lehmann has remarked that the combination of Zeffirelli’s direction and John McEnery’s deeply-nuanced portrayal of Mercutio […] has forever changed the way that this role is interpreted. Indeed, McEnery’s ‘Queen Mab’ speech smacks of a barely-contained lunacy that no film actors have been able to master since (2010: 145).

Mercutio might also be perceived as a misogynist because of his allusions to violence towards women. During the “Queen Mab” speech he becomes more aggressive as he says “This is the hag, when maids lie on their backs, | That presses them and learns them first to bear, | Making them women of good carriage. This is she” (I.4.90-93). According to Peter Donaldson: Zeffirelli acknowledges and even exaggerates the misogynistic basis of Mercutio’s wit, presenting it as a desperate attempt to retain Romeo’s by keeping him loyal to the values of the male pack. This is evident in the Queen Mab speech in 1.4 where Mercutio, in sharp contrast to performance tradition, is not in control of his copious verbal improvisations; he is manic and desperate […] his angry gestures become more violent while he enacts Queen Mab’s lessons for women (1990b: 158).

Furthermore, it has been observed that, in contrast to interpretations of the character in previous films, Zeffirelli’s portrayal of Mercutio engages with issues of homosexuality (Porter 1988; Donaldson 1990b; Van Watson 1992). According to Donaldson, the film “was also, for its time, perhaps the most daring of all Shakespeare adaptations in its bringing to the surface homoerotic aspects of Shakespeare’s art” (1990b: 145). However, homoerotic aspects tend to remain as a hidden text, a subtext that does not openly emerge, but which is hinted at through the display of male bodies and through Mercutio’s behaviour in particular. Donaldson (1990b: 160) suggests that “in Zeffirelli’s version [Mercutio] is played in terms that make him seem at times not merely Romeo’s friend but his (former) lover, cast off when the latter opts for women.” Several scenes in the film seem to emphasise a loving relationship between Mercutio and Romeo. The most evident one is at the end of the ‘Queen Mab’ speech quoted above when, in describing violence against women, Mercutio becomes increasingly aggressive, shouts and also 187

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

loses control of himself, as if he was having a nightmare. As Romeo realizes his friend’s distress, he gets closer to him, puts his hand upon his shoulder, takes his head in his hands saying “Thou talk’st of nothing” and their foreheads are presented in close-up. This moment of tender intimacy is interrupted by their friends who want to hurry to the ball, and take Mercutio away while the two friends keep looking at one another, both in silence. This scene hints at a deep affection between the two men. Indeed, as observed by Lehmann, “staring eye-to-eye with their lips parted, their impassioned and deeply private exchange is as romantic – in its own, subtle way – as the scenes between Romeo and Juliet themselves” (2010: 146). A similar contact of the two faces in close-up, forehead to forehead, is shown just before Mercutio’s farewell to Romeo, after being wounded by Tybalt. Mercutio’s vision is blurred, he sees Romeo out of focus and takes Romeo’s face in his hands, asking him “Why the devil came you between us?”. Romeo’s closeness to Mercutio is also the reason why he commits a murder. The peaceful Romeo becomes violent and aggressive only when his best friend dies: his fury against Tybalt is dictated by the need to avenge Mercutio. As observed by Jackson (2007: 201-202): Romeo has come a long way from being the neatly turned-out, flower-wielding noncombatant of his first appearance. In the script’s words Romeo ‘stabs his enemy with his dagger, brutally, with all the fury of the ex-pacifist who has renounced his cause’ (p. 117, sc. 30).

This partially retains Romeo’s aura as a well-meaning, good and peaceful young man. A difference from Shakespeare should be noted in this scene: because of his love for Mercutio and eagerness to avenge his death, it is Romeo who runs after Tybalt, with Mercutio’s blooded handkerchief in his hand, and not Tybalt who comes back. This choice is probably due to the director’s personal reading of the relationship between the friends, but might also partly be an influence of previous interpretations. Indeed, with the exception of Freda, all previous films had shown Romeo running after Tybalt. On the other hand, Zeffirelli detaches himself from tradition by showing Mercutio’s death as an accident, and Tybalt almost shocked by what he did, as their duel had been played as a game. This interpretation is in keeping with the image of Mercutio as a jokester and with Zeffirelli’s stress on the liveliness and passion of young people. Zeffirelli adds another example of male bonding and of tenderness between young men which is not present in Shakespeare nor in previous film versions: Romeo’s farewell to Balthasar, in which the boy holds Romeo’s hands while a tear falls on his cheek. This added scene echoes Romeo’s parting from his parents in Castellani’s film, but might function differently to emphasise male bonding. Balthasar’s attachment to Romeo is also shown 188

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

when he reports of Juliet’s death, and cries. As shown in the above cases of affection between male friends, Zeffirelli seems to explore different types of relationships. The contrast between young people and adults also emerges in the film’s portrayal of relationships. The Capulets’ marriage is clearly unhappy: when Capulet looks at Lady Capulet from a window, commenting to Paris that girls are marred by early marriage, her cold, embittered face and her closing of the window show that there is no love between the two. However, Lady Capulet is far from being old and unattractive, she is still concerned about her looks (she is shown being made up by two servants), and Zeffirelli suggests that she might even be having an incestuous affair with the much younger Tybalt, with whom she dances at the ball.36 Zeffirelli hints at this also by changing Shakespeare’s text, making Lady Capulet pronounce words spoken by her husband. When Tybalt argues with Capulet, Lady Capulet intervenes to calm them down: she tells Tybalt “you are a princox, go, be quiet”, while she bitterly turns to her husband saying coldly “for shame, I’ll make you quiet!”. Moreover, her passionate reaction to Tybalt’s death seems more that of a lover than that of an aunt. Her loose and messy hair also emphasises her desperation. Another scene which is added by Zeffirelli is that of Juliet’s funeral procession, which, as we have seen, had also been inserted by Cukor and Castellani. Zeffirelli shows a close-up of a worried Balthasar and one of a Friar Laurence smiling with satisfaction as things are going according to his plans. This highlights their contrasting perspectives. Following the example of previous films, Zeffirelli also adds a scene that shows Friar Laurence giving a letter to Friar John, and one which shows why Friar John does not deliver the letter to Romeo. All film versions of the play contain the scenes which translate into images the narration by Friar John. This addition is probably due to media differences, to the fact that cinema can show events that are narrated in the play, while narrations tend to be avoided. However, it should be noted that Zeffirelli choses mere fate – and slowness – to be the reason for the tragedy. Balthasar’s fast horse overtakes the slow moving Friar John with his donkey. Then as Romeo hurries back to Verona on horseback, Friar John has stopped to drink water and does not see him. This alteration seems to suggest that pure chance determines Romeo and Juliet’s tragedy but also that Friar Laurence is not wise in helping the lovers. The importance of fate in the story was confirmed by Zeffirelli in an interview with The Guardian: “‘The central idea is that of a puppeteer, Destiny, who handles all the characters. They are all puppets on a stage and no one is fully responsible. The whole tragedy is permeated with the idea of fate. There is nothing to do. […]’ (Guardian, 5 March 1968)” (quoted in Jackson 2007: 195-196). Zeffirelli’s cuttings and alterations to the text contribute to rendering the character of Friar Laurence more ambiguous. For instance, in the scene in the 189

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

Capulet vault, by repeating “I dare no longer stay” four times, with rising tones of fear in his voice, and then running away, he is clearly portrayed as a coward. The deletion of his final recapitulation and his absence from the funeral of the lovers also reinforce the negativity of the character. This seems in keeping with Zeffirelli’s view of the Friar: The character of Friar Laurence disintegrates and rightly so. He is introduced in the beginning as a man who believes in drugs and spells and magic. He thinks the answer to the problems of life lies in these kinds of solutions. He is a man haunted by a wrong idea … He’s punished at the end because the poison he has given to Juliet hits him like a boomerang …In fact, he makes one mistake after another. He should have taken the two children to the families, to the Prince, and said, ‘This is it. I’ll marry them in public in the square.’ Everything would have been all right (quoted in Loney 1990: 264-265).

The great Shakespearean actor and director Laurence Olivier also took part in the film: he spoke the Prologue, as well as the final words, in voiceover. Moreover, he also dubbed Lord Montague, who was played by an Italian actor, and made several other noises (Zeffirelli 1986: 229). This presence creates several intertextual links and points to various models. First of all, it is a clear reference to Shakespeare, and to theatrical tradition. As Holderness points out: the voice used, that of Lord Laurence Olivier, is a familiar theatrical voice, reverberant with cultural authority: so in this production the Chorus’ interpretation of events is developed into a complete narrative frame, establishing a clear perspective from which we may judge and respond to the dramatic action (2002: 158).

Secondly, it connects the film directly with Castellani’s version, in which the Chorus was pronounced by Gielgud, as well as to other models. As some critics have remarked, the opening shot with an overview of Verona is also a homage to Olivier’s Henry V film (Pilkington 1994: 166; Jorgens 1977: 81). The initial overview of Verona with its river might also evoke a similar image at the beginning of Cukor’s film. Brief references to other films can also be pointed out. For instance, people going to the market on carriages and horses are also shown by Castellani, while in Cukor as in Zeffirelli after the first brawl the Prince arrives on horseback with his guards, accompanied by trumpets. During the brawl in the opening sequence members of the two families carry wounded men to the palaces, and Capulet and Montague are seen in their palaces’ courtyards (a quotation from Castellani). As already noted, the male singer at the ball is another insertion mediated from previous film versions. An important aspect of Zeffirelli’s film is the use of images. Shakespeare’s words are often conveyed through visual language. According 190

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

to Holding (1992: 40), “Zeffirelli’s approach can best be described as one of substitution, in which he replaces the density of language with an equivalent density of image.” Several images run throughout the film, creating a sense of continuity and another level of signification. Images of male aggressiveness associating swords with lower parts of the body, of circles, hands, the sun, fire and a shroud are the most important ones. Some images replace Shakespeare’s words, while in other cases they reinforce the meaning of the text. Images of the sun over Verona at the beginning of the film, and images of fires are recurrent throughout the film. There are torches with burning flames in close-up during Mercutio’s ‘Queen Mab’ speech, several flames burn at the Capulets’ ball and during Juliet’s funeral. They can be seen as symbolising the passions that prevail in Verona: love, hatred and violence. Images of hands play an important part in the film, and reflect Shakespeare’s stress on them in the prologue and in the shared sonnet. For instance, the camera focuses on Romeo and Juliet’s hands during their first meeting, while their voices speak of saints, lips and hands; in the balcony scene there are close-ups of their hands touching, Juliet kisses Romeo’s hand, and as they depart their hands are the last ones to separate. In the tomb in the final scene, Romeo takes Juliet’s hand and kisses it, and Juliet’s awakening is shown through an extreme close-up of her hand starting to move, then touching her lips and face. Images of circles also represent a symbolic visual pattern, which recurs in various scenes: during the ball (a pattern on the floor, people dance in circles); a circular pattern on the church floor on which Romeo and Juliet kneel during their wedding; in the fights.37 As suggested by Jorgens (1977: 85), “the ball and the fights are thematically linked by the motif of the circle, which was first introduced in the opening shot of the sun, and is echoed later on the church floor at the marriage of Romeo and Juliet.” The shroud is another important image that recurs through the film, and which may symbolise death. As Jorgens (1977: 81) points out, “as the camera pans over deathly still Verona, bathed in early morning light, the city is shrouded in fog. There is a formal rightness in this image, for the white shroud is one of the central motifs of the film.” The film also presents images of masculinity in which the male sexual organ is associated with the sword. Donaldson (1990b: 154) has pointed out how Zeffirelli replaces “the obsessive verbal equation of erect penis and sword” in Shakespeare’s text with images which focus on the young Capulets’ codpieces. In fact, while the words are omitted, the camera presents first the lower part of their bodies, and then moves up to show their faces. Tybalt’s entrance contains similar images, with the camera slowly moving from feet to face, pausing on his legs and codpiece. Donaldson argues that

191

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet Tybalt’s entrance is even more emphatically phallic – first his feet, then a tilt that pauses abruptly at his crotch; then his face. […] The camera does not merely replicate the verbal texture of anxious phallic wordplay; it also displays the men’s bodies as objects of an engrossed, sensual appreciation. The young men are all trim and attractive (especially Tybalt, played by Michael York): they are presented, to use Laura Mulvey’s useful phrase, ‘to-be-looked-at’ (1990b: 145).

Romeo is an exception to this equation of male aggressiveness. The way in which Zeffirelli presents him clearly shows his being different. He is a handsome, peaceful man. In contrast with the other young men in the play, when he first appears on screen, he is seen holding a flower, there is a closeup of his beautiful face, and he is accompanied by romantic music. Lehmann argues that “the first shot of Romeo suggests the extent to which the camera is enamoured with him, as he emerges in soft focus, flower in hand” (2010: 153). According to Donaldson (1990b: 145) “this flower […] (especially in the context of late 1960s antiwar sentiment) connotes nonaggressive, pacific masculinity.” Another visual element that emerges in the film is the male body. The camera focuses on the bodies of the young men in several scenes, especially during the fights. The fight between Romeo and Tybalt in particular is extremely physical, their shirts are torn and show their torsos, when the men lose their rapiers they fall to the ground and struggle covered in dust until the fight concludes with Tybalt collapsing on Romeo on the floor. Furthermore, in more than one scene, camera movement and the focus on male bodies give an impression that men are looked at, they are objects of our gaze. For instance, in the love scene in the morning the camera lingers on Romeo’s naked body while Juliet is still asleep, and when she wakes up the spectator observes the beauty of Romeo’s body again, but this time identifying with Juliet’s point of view. Subverting traditional cinema narratives which present the woman as the object of the look (Mulvey 1975),38 here Zeffirelli presents the man as looked at both by him, an external viewer, and the female protagonist. Moreover, even in other scenes, Romeo seems to be more looked at than Juliet. She is not seen naked in the film, while Romeo’s back stays on screen for some seconds. As Donaldson puts it: [Juliet’s] gaze, together with her quick wit and energetic physical command of herself and of the scenes in which she appears, implies parity between genders, as Zeffirelli moves away from the conventions of mainstream cinema and toward a more reciprocal and unpredictable treatment of sexuality. In the film’s central love scene the camera’s interest in male beauty – established independently of Juliet earlier in the film – and Juliet’s loving gaze are brought together (1990b: 167).

One might argue that in the love scene between Romeo and Juliet in the morning Zeffirelli emphasises the male body as object of the look and of 192

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

desire from a point of view which only partially coincides with Juliet’s. The young male body appears to be seen in terms of spectacle, and to function on two levels, both as erotic object for the spectators and for Juliet. Lehmann observes that “the […] shot of Romeo standing naked before the window, bathed in the light of dawn, is even more provocative, for he moves like an Adam in Paradise, unselfconsciously stretching in his beautiful skin” (2010: 158). The fact that the camera lingers on Romeo’s body might also be due to the director’s personal appreciation of his beauty. Zeffirelli’s comment on Whiting when they first met is worth quoting: “he was the most exquisitely beautiful male adolescent I’ve ever met” (Zeffirelli 1986: 228). The use of camera movement and close-up creates a feeling of voyeurism and we initially seem to share the director’s gaze, which gradually comes to coincide with Juliet’s gaze, as she wakes up. As Donaldson argues: making use of heterosexual film conventions governing the deployment of the male gaze, as well as on his own contrary or complementary presentation of men as objects of an admiring gaze, Zeffirelli creates a spectatorial position neither simply male or female nor simply identificatory or detached (1990b: 170).

Donaldson sees this perspective as “bisexual”, whereas Van Watson (1992) considers Zeffirelli’s gaze as openly homosexual, since according to him in several scenes both Romeo and Tybalt are presented as objects of the director’s gaze. Zeffirelli’s use of camera movement, his way of presenting the lovers and the young male friends in the film, adds an interpretative layer to the story which had not emerged previously, and which might be linked to Zeffirelli’s personal experience. If the film is interpreted within a biographical framework, the homoerotic subtext, the frequency of male bodies on display, and a male/female gaze, might be connected to Zeffirelli’s ambivalent attitude towards his own homosexuality. As the autobiography seems to suggest, being a conservative Catholic Zeffirelli believed his sexual dispositions were sinful: “I believe totally in the teachings of the Church and this means admitting that my way of life is sinful” (1986: 241). As Donaldson (1990b: 146) points out, “the life does not explain the art, but a review of several key incidents from Zeffirelli’s early life may foster sensitivity to aspects of the film that have received insufficient attention.” Zeffirelli ends the film with the lovers’ funeral procession. Most of the lines are cut, only the Prince’s speech remains, with his final words spoken by Olivier in voice-over, so as to create a symmetry between opening and closing of the film. As the bodies of the lovers are carried into the church, members of the two families follow, in pairs. Various critics have commented on gestures of reconciliation between the families (Jorgens 1977: 193

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

90; Tatspaugh 2000: 142).39 However, the lovers’ parents do not really seem to make any open gesture of consolement and peace: they simply look at one another, and then lower their heads in sadness. On the other hand, those who were closer to the lovers, i.e., the younger members of the families and the servants, seem to make peace. The Nurse strokes Benvolio’s cheek, Balthasar and Peter hug one another, other young men shake hands. This difference in behaviour might be read as yet another example of the contrast between the negativity of adults (who still find it difficult to make peace) and the positivity of the young. This analysis has shown how cuts and additions, the actors’ performances and their gestures, camera movement and the use of images contribute to constructing Zeffirelli’s own personal view of the story, his critical interpretation. Through various strategies Zeffirelli creates his own vision of the play, and new meanings and readings of the story and of its protagonists emerge. Zeffirelli’s translation from page to screen appears to engage with different issues which were perhaps linked to his own personal sensitivity and to contemporary society: love, peace, sexual desire and sexual freedom, anger, passion, and the energy of youth. Different types of desire and of gazes emerge and are intertwined, and different types of relationships and of love are explored, while the generation gap is clearly brought to the fore. The director’s interpretation of the story, his view of youth, together with his preferred cinematic style and previous film versions of the play constitute the models through which Shakespeare’s play was mediated by Zeffirelli and transferred on screen. 4. Roberta Torre’s Sud Side Stori, 2000 After Zeffirelli’s 1968 film no further attempts were made at filming the play, until the new “Shakespeare-mania” of the 1990s, and the success of Luhrmann’s modernised version. Since then, new, anti-traditional, postmodern films have been produced, which play with the Shakespeare texts, with the tools of the cinema, with the audience’s perceptions of Shakespeare, and with intertextuality. Roberta Torre’s Sud Side Stori is an example of this different approach to Shakespeare’s play, which is similar to the one highlighted in the theatre. The film exploits the status of Romeo and Juliet as a classic text and uses it only as an intertext, by means of quotations and allusions, in a game of inversions and subversions of names and roles. Torre makes the story of Romeo and Juliet migrate back to Italy, this time to Sicily, and uses the source text(s) to highlight the contradictions in her own society. The main theme of her film becomes the conflict between races and cultures, this time between black and whites, which has become highly 194

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

problematic in Italy too, and which in this film inevitably leads to the same tragic ending. She transposes the story temporally and spatially, plays with the Bard’s text, with the tools of the cinema, and interacts with the spectators by referring to other famous reincarnations of the tale and to the context of production. This almost playful approach, and a style which is a mixture of parody, grotesque, kitsch and pastiche, are intertwined with a political interpretation of the story, as the film focuses on ethnic conflict. The following analysis considers how the film deals with issues of immigration and racism, how it draws on stereotypes in order to portray the “Other” and how the war between the “two households” is defined. While doing so, other works that have influenced the making of the film – the director’s own past production, consisting of short films, interviews and documentaries, as well as previous versions of the story – are identified. Sud Side Stori is a musical, set in contemporary Palermo, where Romeo and Juliet are a black woman and a white man who are separated by prejudices and “who fight for the right to love each other precisely because they are different”.40 Toni Giulietto is an untalented rock singer while Romea Wacoubo is a Nigerian woman who has just arrived in Palermo with a group of immigrants and is forced to work as a prostitute. The arrival of the “Africans” – mostly women – sows confusion among the native Sicilians, and the domestic tragedy turns into a tragedy caused by racial tensions between Sicilians and African immigrants. A brief analysis of the title, the main characters and the plot of the film will clarify Torre’s attitude towards Romeo and Juliet and towards contemporary Italian and American culture. The film’s most evident model or direct intertext is West Side Story. The title Sud Side Stori is a clear ironic reference to the famous musical, from which the film also borrows the genre, the ethnic conflict and the names of some characters. Toni Giulietto’s name refers to West Side Story’s Tony, while his fiancée is called Maria – the female protagonist in the American musical. The name Toni is also linked with the Italian rock singer Little Tony – a sort of Italian Elvis Presley – who appears in the film as Giulietto’s idol. The insertion of racial difference as the film’s main theme is an important link with West Side Story. As previously observed, the American musical recast Shakespeare’s feuding families as rival gangs of whites (the Jets) and Puerto Ricans (the Sharks) in New York in the Fifties, thus introducing ethnic difference as the barrier between the tragic lovers, and the cause of their death. As Robin Wiegman has noted, “film narratives” in the United States have been obsessed since their beginning by the “anxiety in American culture concerning interracial sexuality” and they have very often concluded “that the cost of interracial sex in much too high […] or likely to result in tragedy” (1998: 163). Wiegman cites West Side Story as an example of this attitude.41 195

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

If we compare Sud Side Stori with Shakespeare’s play, at the level of the story the film presents similar actions and characters, which are adapted to an Italian context and comically distorted. Juliet’s parents are represented by Toni Giulietto’s three obnoxious unmarried aunts while Romea’s friends are called Mercutia and Baldassarra (female versions of Romeo’s best friend and faithful servant in the play). The arranged marriage with Paris becomes Giulietto’s ten-year engagement with Maria, not a “pretty flower” but a sad overweight girl. The Prince is represented by the mayor of Palermo, who is promoting a campaign of tolerance, integration and peace among the townspeople and the African immigrants. A figure which is perhaps an ironic and negative version of Friar Laurence – as he enacts a similar function of “helper” and creates strange potions – is “u zu’ Pippo” (Uncle Pippo), the owner of a tavern whose clientele consists exclusively of men who drink, gamble and possibly have sex together. He is a “dodgy” man with a strange metallic voice, who sits inside a big wine bottle-shaped confessional and tells Giulietto that “quella Romea ti porterà alla perdizione!” (that Romea will lead you to perdition). The Nurse is absent, but Little Tony might be viewed as her surrogate because of his role as Giulietto’s helper (he brings Romea to him so that they can spend the night together). Romeo’s banishment for killing Tybalt becomes Romea’s exile from Palermo with all her friends, because she is accused of the death of Zu’ Vincenzo (Uncle Vincent) – a man who was in love with her and supposedly had a heart attack while having sex with her. The desperate Giulietto wants to free Romea from her slavery, but since the only way is to buy her passport back, he needs thirty million lire. He steals money from Giuseppona, and goes to Zu’ Pippo for help. Zu’ Pippo’s strategy is the same as Friar Laurence’s: a sleeping potion will make him seem dead, and enable him to escape and free Romea. However, in “Africa” newspapers contain news from Palermo, so Romea reads about Giulietto’s death, runs back to Palermo and stabs herself by the body of her beloved. Giulietto wakes up too late, and after seeing her dead, he accidentally dies, killed by two mafia killers. After a close-up of the dead lovers, we hear the breaking news about the gunfire, then a journalist appears on the screen and comments on the lovers’ doomed romance using the play’s final lines. The film presents a web of intertextual relations with the play, other film adaptations, Torre’s previous production and contemporary society. While it directly hints at West Side Story, Shakespeare’s play is used as a subtext, and its words are used directly only in three instances. After the first meeting, Romea uses a line uttered by Romeo during the balcony scene, saying to her friends that “Amore è allontanato da amore con la stessa tristezza come i ragazzi che vanno a scuola” (“But love from love, toward school with heavy looks”) (II.1.203). These words are later repeated by Santa Rosalia. She later 196

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

pronounces an adaptation of Juliet’s famous lines: “Oh Giulietto, Giulietto! Perché sei tu Giulietto?” (Oh Giulietto, Giulietto, why are you Giulietto?). Finally, the journalist adopts the Prince’s last words as a comment on the lovers’ sad story, in an almost exact translation of the play’s final sestet (V.III.305-310), where only the names of the lovers are modified.42 This closing sequence is also a clear quotation from Luhrmann’s 1996 film, in which the same lines were read by an anchorwoman (a real TV newsreader), in voice-over and then on television. The same strategy is adopted by Torre, who chooses a real-life journalist (a constant element in her productions). Torre’s relationship with Romeo and Juliet is thus clearly through a game of parallels, inversions and subversions of roles and situations. Torre plays with Shakespeare’s tragedy through references to its characters and its plot, and by using quotations, both of words and of images, but also referring to other source models and presenting her own, peculiar vision of the tale. The director explained that the film was inspired by a real event, the suicide of a young Sicilian man because his love for a black woman was opposed by his family (Torre, quoted in Rotella 2000). In this version of Romeo and Juliet the feud, the war, is not between “two households, both alike in dignity”, but between two cultures and identities. We witness a racial conflict between the inhabitants of a poor neighbourhood in Palermo, living in Vicolo Anello (Ring Alley) and the new immigrants arrived from Africa. The film is set in Palermo also because Sicily is seen by Torre as a frontier, the place where different ethnic groups meet and clash. Sicilian shores are, indeed, one of the first regions of Italy where migrants arrive, packed in boats, through illegal immigration. The film portrays the drama of racial tension in a land of contradictions, contrasts, intolerance and prejudices. It is the story of the difficulty or impossibility of overcoming and defying prejudices and reconciling different cultures. In an interview the director explained her idea: Ho voluto fare un film sull’immigrazione che arriva e arriverà, sulle difficoltà che porta inevitabilmente con sé. Credo che questa sarà la più forte rivoluzione dei prossimi anni. Tutti hanno paura del diverso, qualcuno lo dice, altri fingono, altri non hanno ancora capito. I miei personaggi lo gridano e non cercano conciliazione. Romea e Giulietto nel 2000 sono una donna nera e un uomo bianco che lottano per amarsi e si vogliono proprio per la loro diversità. La musica li unisce, i pregiudizi li separano (Torre 2000). (I wanted to make a film about immigration which is taking and will take place, about the difficulties that it inevitably brings with it. I believe that this will be the greatest revolution of the years to come. Everybody is afraid of the other, someone admits it, others pretend they aren’t, others have not understood it yet. My characters shout it and don’t look for conciliation. Romea and Giulietto in the year 2000 are a black woman and a white man who struggle in order to love each other and want each other exactly because of their difference. Music unites them, prejudice parts them.)

197

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

The problem, which is set out at the beginning of the film, is that the old city of Palermo is faced by a double invasion. First, on a political level, the mayor wants to introduce a new black saint, San Benedetto il Moro (Saint Benedict the Moor), but this idea is rejected by the prejudices of people and by the mafia, leading to protests in town. This issue is introduced by the patron saint of Palermo, Santa Rosalia, who is one of the narrators, who acts as a parallel to Shakespeare’s Chorus, and who then lets the other narrator tell us the second problem in Palermo. On a social level, in fact, we are presented with the invasion of the city by a group of African women, who arrive with their suitcases and settle down in Vicolo Anello. The black women introduce difference and diversity through colours, music, and language, and their arrival shocks the inhabitants of the area. The people of Vicolo Anello, especially the women, do not accept them, they are scared and disgusted by their being different: Toni’s aunts’ initial reaction is to shout “the cannibals!”, implying that they see these women as monsters. However, the shock and disgust is not shared by the men, who actually seem happy with this arrival, and “intrigued” by the newcomers, as we can detect from Zu’ Vincenzo and Toni’s reaction. Toni and Romea look at one another, and it is love at first sight; Toni has a vision: he hears the voice of the mayor asking him to become the new man “of tolerance and integration”. An important feature of the film is Torre’s exploitation of stereotypes. She resorts to racial and sexual stereotypes and exaggerates them, so that the spectator almost feels disturbed. The scene of the arrival of the “Other”, the African immigrant, contains some interesting elements. Firstly, in presenting Romea, the narrator (Giuseppona) describes her as “a black panther”, thereby subscribing to a common racist discourse of black as primitive, savage, and associating black people with “exotic”, wild animals. This presentation of the newcomers inserts itself into racial discourse, which is construed “through representation of the body, its skin, hair, and facial shape” (Wiegman 1998: 159). The African women are defined through their appearance to the white gaze. The scream “the cannibals” also draws upon racist stereotypes. The film constantly exploits stereotypes and this technique needs to be analysed and its significance questioned. Another element that emerges in this scene is the fact that Torre plays with names but also with inverting roles. The first meeting of the “starcrossed lovers” is a reference to the balcony scene, but here Toni is on the balcony and Romea is in the street. This inversion and opposition up/down can be read in two different ways. It could mean that in contemporary society the traditional role of the man is taken by the woman, it is the woman who is more active, who makes decisions. Indeed, later Romea is the one who runs back to Toni, and commits suicide for her love: in this film she takes the role which traditionally belongs to Romeo. This could be a sign that women are 198

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

stronger than men in this film (and in society), that they have an active role, whereas men are more passive. This can be seen throughout the film, and this interpretation could be supported by the fact that in general women are dominant figures (Romea’s friends are Baldassarra and Mercutia, Toni’s only family are three old spinsters, and the two narrators are women). This is also a sign of self-referentiality, as Torre focuses on women in many of her works.43 On the other hand, this change of role and of position of the lovers seems to have another, much stronger, connotation: it might have racial and sexual implications. It suggests that white inhabitants are superior or dominant – socially as well as with regard to physical location: all the people of Vicolo Anello are on their balconies – while black characters are subjugated and subordinated. It is an allusion to power, stating the superiority of the whites who exercise control over the blacks, and it also bears a sexual meaning: men are on top and dominate. Physical location of black and white characters therefore reveals a social and sexual power imbalance. This interpretation is corroborated by the real “balcony scene”, where Romea is presented not as a person, but as a body, a sexual object to be observed and used. The body is in fact displayed and sexualised through a specific use of the camera. As Robert Stam and Louise Spence (1983) have noted, films construct racial (and sexual) meaning through the use of the camera, which enables us to see through a specific point of view. In this case, the spectator sees Romea first from Toni’s point of view, from above, but then the camera swiftly moves and makes us observe her as an object to be looked at and analysed in detail. The camera descends to street level, and gives us a close-up of her feet in pink shoes with high heels, then slowly moves upwards, focusing on her long, beautiful legs, her short dress, then finally briefly on her face. The use of slow motion, close-up and camera movement creates a feeling of voyeurism and we seem to share the “white male gaze”. This is in line with what Lisa Bloom critiques as the “traditional art historical narratives that insist on the disengaged look of the universal man”, by showing how traditionally “the viewing process is construed as masculinist” (1999: 5). The female is an image to be looked at, a sexual object, and she “is defined in terms of spectacle” (White 1998: 119). This presentation of Romea clearly shows how, as Mulvey (1975: 11) has suggested, “women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness”. Moreover, “going far beyond highlighting a woman’s to-be-looked-at-ness, cinema builds the way she is to be looked at into the spectacle itself” (Mulvey 1975: 17). This is an example of both sexual and racial voyeurism, and it is even more disturbing as the director, the one who guides the camera and therefore our view, is a woman. Torre might aim at showing us and denouncing the way we, as white spectators, 199

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

usually perceive women, and the black female in particular, or the way black women are generally portrayed and viewed in films. However, it might seem unclear whether she accepts the stereotype, and the “racist exoticization of blacks” (hooks 1992a: 25), or plays with it and her audience. It can be argued that she constantly plays with stereotypes, and common perceptions, and exaggerates them, in order to make us realise how much of our viewing is usually construed through stereotypes and guided by a camera which most of the times coincides with the white male gaze. Moreover, by exaggerating the presentation of the black female body Torre wants to be disturbing, and therefore perhaps asks us to question our traditional, and often unconscious, way of looking. As pointed out by Mulvey (1975: 11), “traditionally the woman displayed has functioned on two levels: as erotic object for the characters within the screen story, and as erotic object for the spectator within the auditorium.” In the film the director is foregrounding the white male gaze to such an extent that we must find it uncomfortable and therefore we question its omniscience. After the arrival of the African women, who settle down and become neighbours with the townspeople, a war begins, and every attempt to achieve integration both on a political and a private level fails. We witness a war between cultures and identities, a war which is verbally, rather than physically, violent. It is a war of words, which are as fierce and hurtful as real weapons. It is women who fight against one another, whereas the men seem to enjoy the presence of the “Other” through sexual consumption. The film portrays women fighting against one another in order to take control of the neighbourhood and join men in their unchallenged “birth right” to power. In this way, through strategies of divide and conquer, women are divided and it is easier for men to retain control over them all. The two groups of women (Toni’s aunts and fiancée vs Romea’s friends) never really have any physical contact, because of their repulsiveness towards the other, and never really try to understand one another. The use of stereotypes shows how the “Other” is perceived, constructed and defined. The Africans, the “Other”, are not accepted, and are feared, as their presence and attractiveness challenges the white women’s status and relationship with white men. They become the object of anxiety, anger and prejudice, and they are therefore attacked through racist comments. Stuart Hall (1997: 258) has observed how “stereotyping reduces, essentializes, naturalizes and fixes “difference”, [it] symbolically fixes boundaries, and excludes everything which does not belong, [therefore maintaining] social and symbolic order”. The “Other” is seen as different, dirty, polluted, dangerous, and belonging to an undefined group, which Kristeva calls “abjected” (1982). This is precisely the attitude Toni’s aunts have towards the black newcomers, as they call them “dirty nigger’, “disgusting niggers”, “monkeys”, and they make comments on how 200

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

much they stink. In a sequence where we see the aunts and Romea’s friends fiercely commenting on the “Other”, each in their own house, the three spinsters wonder what those “niggers” eat: they believe that they eat bananas, cockroaches, mice and worms, that they never wash themselves and that they stink. The Sicilian women reject integration because they cannot possibly share their street with those “dirty niggers”. These comments demonstrate how fiercely prejudice rages in this community, and how the “Other”, i.e., black people, is constructed through ignorance. The “Other” has no individuality, identity, and origin, it is non-identified. The immigrants are from “Africa” – which is portrayed in the film as a primitive land – they are black, and therefore “bad” by definition. This portrayal denounces the fact that racism is generated by ignorance, and that the stereotype is, as Homi Bhabha has said, “a false representation of a given reality” (1983: 27). At the same time Romea’s friends discuss the behaviour of the Italians they have encountered. The African women say that Italians are fat, eat non-stop, have huge bellies, and they stink: they are disgusting. Later on one of the black women explains that she does not kiss white men because “they don’t brush their teeth”. These women base their judgement on the brief experience they have had of Italians, and reduce the members of the other group to a few fixed characteristics, therefore also adopting stereotypes. Like the white women, they do not accept difference, and Mercuzia and Baldassarra try to convince Romea that Italian men “stink of cheese” and that Toni is not good for her. However, the film seems to comment on the fact that the two groups do not see how similar they really are. The director shows us the similarities between the white and black women in various ways. One example is the fact that the aunts eat lots of bananas (which is what the blacks are supposed to do and which they despise). Another example is their refusal of the “Other” and the strategy each group resorts to in order to put an end to the impossible love: Mercuzia and Baldassarra take Romea to a black witch, whereas Toni’s aunts and Maria go to the white witch, and both inevitably are cheated by the witches. Another issue raised by Torre and related to immigration is the way black women are mistreated, the issue of exploitation and slavery, and of prostitution. In order to denounce this situation more strongly, Torre uses a technique that reminds us of her past production. She inserts scenes in which the black women seem to be answering questions for an interview. They explain their story to the camera, telling us that working as prostitutes is not their choice, but that they have been forced to do so in order to get their passports back. This passage is realistic, as most of the black women in the film were effectively playing themselves (some of them at the time of shooting were indeed working as prostitutes, some as housemaids, and most of them did not have a passport). The use of the interview technique is 201

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

another self-reference by Torre, whose previous works include many interviews and documentaries, especially with women, and based in Palermo.44 In an interview in 1997 Torre explained that she has always been interested in authenticity and in doing anthropological research, through dialogue and interaction with real people (quoted in Martina 1997). The director maintained that before filming she asked each of the women to tell her story in English, then the stories were translated into Italian, and became their speech in the film (quoted in Gualerzi 2000). However, although she allows the black women to tell stories that are probably true, through documentary style, the question arises as to the authenticity of the interview. The film and the interview are cinematic products and as such they are created through directorial manipulation: the experiences of the women are controlled, mediated and filtrated by Torre. The degree of manipulation and artificiality, through the interview and the lyrics sung by the women, is obvious. The women sing “dalle sei di sera vieni qua e trovi l’Africa più nera / vieni qua e ti scegli la tua nera,[…] quando è estate o inverno a voi piace l’Africa a Palermo.” (from 6 pm you come here and find black Africa, you come here and choose your black woman, […] in the summer and in winter you like Africa in Palermo). Their songs comment on another issue related to immigration in contemporary Italy: the hypocrisy of society that condemns the exploitation of these women, and prostitution, but at the same time contributes to their slavery by “using” them. In a brief passage, after showing the African women talking about their experience as slaves, one Italian man admits he has brought them to Sicily and shouts “è colpa nostra!” (it’s our fault!). He refers to the contemporary Italian situation where scafisti (people smugglers) exploit these immigrants by illegally transporting them to Sicilian shores for “dieci milioni” (ten million lire), thus contributing to their slavery. In the film the women of Vicolo Anello want to send away the African women, whereas the men are happy about their presence, as they often pay them to get pleasure. Therefore for the white women the “Other” is dangerous and dirty, whereas the white men are attracted to them because of their “exoticism”. This double reaction to the African women is typical of the ambivalent approach to “otherness”, which Bhabha (1983: 19) has described as central to the stereotype and to the “object of colonial discourse”: otherness causes repulsion and attraction, fear and desire all at the same time. Another aspect of the film that deserves attention is the negative portrayal of Sicilian women, which again draws on stereotypes. Toni’s aunts, who are presented as spinsters, are fat and make mean comments. Maria is portrayed as a sad, obese, bulimic woman whose only aspiration in life is to marry Toni – who despises her and calls her “the whale.” Toni’s aunts could be seen as overweight (i.e., stagnant and self-indulgent) personifications of out-dated prejudiced values. Their being Sicilian, or from the South, might also bear 202

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

some significance. Torre seems to exploit another stereotype, that of middleaged Sicilian women as being overweight housewives, always cooking, eating, and gossiping. Moreover, these women seem to embody the prejudices that the word “spinster” evokes: they have not managed to conquer any men, because they are ugly, and as a consequence they are not real, “whole” women, and their meanness is due to their unhappiness. The way Torre portrays the Sicilian women reinforces the use of stereotypes in the film. The director makes us see these women through the eyes of those who use stereotypes, and this attitude is ridiculed through the use of exaggeration. The point of view in this case might be that of a Northern Italian, for whom Sicily is almost as different as Africa. Indeed the film appears to view Sicily in a way not too dissimilar from Africa. This portrayal of Sicily might be a strategy employed by the director to challenge our prejudices towards people from the “South”. On the other hand, Torre’s point of view might be interpreted as the gaze of the woman from the North who analyses the “South”. She might be seen as the woman who neither belongs to Sicily nor to Africa, yet observes and studies these “outsiders”. Her comment on Sicily as “[un] posto di frontiera, […] con delle storie umane ai limiti della sopravvivenza” (a frontier, […] with at the edge of survival human stories) could raise criticism and corroborate this interpretation (Torre, quoted in Martina 1997). By comparing the images of Maria and Romea, we are made more aware of another important aspect: the divide between fat as ugly and thin as beautiful, of the values contemporary Western culture attaches to beauty, and of what Naomi Wolf (1990) calls “the beauty myth”. Music plays an important part in the film, since the mixture of sounds, rhythms, and styles tries to bridge the gap between cultures. Romea and Toni want to be together despite their differences, and music helps them. Music is their only possible channel of communication, and Mario Merola and Little Tony (two old-fashioned, “out of date” singers, outsiders, too) attempt to mediate between the two worlds through their love songs. However, music fails to bring the lovers and the two worlds together, because Romea and Toni die and the black women are “banned” from Sicily and forced to go back to Africa. The message conveyed is that there can be no peace, no love nor tolerance in this Palermo. Hatred and prejudice win, and the lovers are doomed to a tragic end, as in the original story of Romeo and Juliet. This seems to imply that interracial relationships and sex are still considered impossible, and lead to tragedy. In this case another, more telling, death, is that of Zu’ Vincenzo. This death is the cause of Romea’s “banishment” from Palermo, as all the African women are sent back to their native country. The film concludes with a commentary by a journalist, a TV reporter, who is joined in the final words with the voice-over of Giuseppona, the main 203

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

narrator of the story, speaking Sicilian dialect. It is possible to notice similarities in style and in dialogue with Luhrmann’s film, where the anchorwoman comments on the news from a TV screen, perhaps in order to show us the importance of television and information through journalism in our time. However, the message regarding the importance of television in contemporary culture might be different. Indeed previously Giuseppona had told us how the story really went, and she warned us not to believe all we are told. The film actually ends, as it had started, with Santa Rosalia (the Chorus) addressing the audience from her painting on a wall. She tells us that finally the black saint was accepted by the white saints. But – she adds – they are saints. However, the acceptance of the black saint does not mean that they are all alike: “Ma questo non vuol dire che siamo tutti uguali tutti uguali tutti uguali tutti uguali…” (But this doesn’t mean we’re all the same, all the same, all the same…). The words “tutti uguali” are repeated, as if they were played by a jammed disc, therefore making us wonder what the final message is. Torre might be telling us that, in order to have tolerance and integration, we should not try to make the “Other” become like us, but instead accept the differences, attempt to understand them, and become enriched by a different culture. One might doubt whether it will ever be possible in contemporary Italy, whether we will ever have an Italy where different cultures can coexist in a peaceful way. Perhaps it can only happen among saints. On the other hand, Santa Rosalia’s final comment might be Torre’s way of telling us that we do not accept a multicultural Italy because we only look at the differences between us. We often base our judgement on stereotypes, and we are blind to the fact that the similarities are outweighing the differences. Analysis has shown that Torre’s film addresses contemporary relevant issues such as the exploitation of black women, immigration, racism and a view of women as sexual objects, refers to many models and makes use of racial and sexual stereotypes through a style which is often over the top and grotesque. The director presents the stereotype as a cartoon-like, ridiculous reduction, and might be viewed as using extreme reductiveness in order to validate the need to deconstruct our stereotypes, our ways of “viewing” a film, and our position as spectators. Torre’s narrative technique also has a distancing function: while in the other adaptations the narrative voice is covert – events narrate themselves so that the viewer is more involved with the story – in this version there are two overt narrators who intervene and directly speak to the viewers, telling them how to interpret what happens. These obtrusive narrators break the illusion of reality and make the audience more alert. Torre’s choice of names, themes, camera movement, narrative technique and exaggerated style seems to aim to distance the audience from the story, in order to render them more aware of the issues at stake, more able to observe and judge the events, stereotypes and prejudices portrayed, and 204

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

more prone to play with her game of parallels, quotations and subversions. Shakespeare’s text becomes one among many sources which are intertwined in this film, a pretext to address serious problems in an ironic way. The four Italian films analysed in this chapter provide examples of the previously discussed production trends, which interpret the play in terms of domestic tragedy, generation clash, myth and rewriting, and political conflict. Torre’s film appears to exemplify a political reading of the story: its contemporary relevance is highlighted by the fact that ethnic difference and racism form the barriers between the lovers in contemporary Italian society. The director updates and relocates the story in contemporary Sicily, in Palermo, the conflict being between native Sicilians and African immigrants. Moreover, the status of Shakespeare’s play as a canonical text and a myth, as a story which is recognised by all, implies that the director only uses it as source of inspiration, as raw material from which to develop a film which ‘quotes’ very few lines from the play. On the other hand, Zeffirelli’s film is clearly an example of reading in terms of generation clash, which also raises and addresses issues of male bonding, sexuality and homoeroticism, which were relevant to his time and lifestyle. Castellani’s and Freda’s films seem to interpret the story more in terms of domestic tragedy, with an idealised and perhaps sanitised view of the lovers. Analysis has revealed that adopting Cattrysse’s target-oriented, translation studies approach can be useful in understanding how Shakespeare’s play is transferred to screen. Considering the differences from the literary source as symptoms of other norms that have influenced the making of the films has shed new light on the adaptations, their directors and their various sources. The Italian film adaptations of Romeo and Juliet exemplify different interpretations of the play and bear traces of several models, since all four films refer to numerous filmic and non-filmic intertexts. This chapter has identified several factors that have worked as sources for the making of each film, such as directorial view, the native Italian tradition of the story, cinema conventions, each director’s own past production, previous film versions, other rewritings. By so doing, we have proven that the translation from page to screen of Romeo and Juliet is a complex decision-making process in which cuts, alterations, additions to Shakespeare’s play, camera movement, the setting, the choice of music and costumes are always meaningful, since they contribute to creating a specific reading of the story and are symptoms of alternative sources and crossfiltrations. The Shakespearean play is (re)appropriated by Italian filmmakers who bring it back to its Italian roots, attempt to render it more Italian, interpret the story from their own point of view, giving it a new meaning, and inserting it in their target culture and society.

205

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

  1

The cinema practice at the time was that films would be acted and then the sound would be dubbed afterwards during editing, both in English and in Italian: this technique was called postsynch. As regards neorealist films in particular, they would tend to have non-professional actors even as the main characters but, as Pierre Sorlin (1996: 91-92) points out, these “were surrounded by professionals and their part was entirely dubbed by actors.” On neorealism and Italian cinema see Sorlin 1996; Bondanella 1994; Landy 2000; Lizzani 1992; Micciché 1999; Brunetta 1993. 2 Rothwell points out that Castellani’s film “inaugurated the vogue for ‘authentic’ Renaissance settings in Shakespeare movies and teleplays” (1999b: 125). 3 The analysis is based on the Italian version of the film, which has recently become available on video and DVD. The video version was sold in 2000 together with the newspaper L’Unità, while a DVD version, only in Italian, was released in 2003. It is difficult to access the English version which can only be found in a few libraries. Another important source of information is a book by Stelio Martini (1956), which contains parts of Castellani’s screenplay (written in Italian), as well as details on the production of the film. Another recent source of information is the description provided by Russell Jackson (2007: 161-191), who consulted two copies of the film’s shooting script, one held at the Birmingham Shakespeare Library, the other at New York Public Library. 4 Sotto il sole di Roma (Under the Sun of Rome) (1948) described the lives of young people in Rome during the Second World War, while in the film È primavera (It’s Spring) (1950) Castellani dealt with the life and problems of two young Italian men. Due soldi di speranza (Tuppence’ Worth of Hope) (1951) told of the life of a young unemployed man in Naples. 5 According to Nicolai (1986: 224) the screenplay based on Da Porto only was not accepted by the English production company which did not agree on making a film on Romeo and Juliet that completely disregarded the Bard. Martini (1956: 46) does not mention the production company and explains that Castellani changed the screenplay because he thought Shakespeare could not be completely left out. According to Jackson (2007: 163) “an old friend, Joseph Janni,” who “had become an influential producer […] encouraged Castellani to propose a Romeo and Juliet film, but insisted that only a more thoroughly ‘Shakespearean’ version would find favour.” 6 The Friar’s plan in Da Porto is as follows: “At the right moment I shall come, take you out and keep you in my cell until I go to the forthcoming meeting of our order, which we hold in Mantua. I shall escort you there to your husband, disguised in our habit” (Da Porto 2000: 39). 7 About five hundred costumes were designed by Leonor Fini after Castellani’s suggestions. Stelio Martini’s book contains photos of the film next to the paintings that inspired them. All the costumes were inspired by Renaissance paintings (Martini 1956: 117). The women’s dresses and hairstyles, as well as the men’s clothes, were taken from various paintings (see Ghenzi 1979 and Martini 1956). 8 During the ball a man announces that a boys’ choir will sing a song based on a sonnet by Matteo Maria Boiardo entitled “Io vidi su quel viso primavera.” Boiardo lived in Ferrara in the second half of the fifteenth century and became famous for his poetry, his sonnets and L’Orlando innamorato. 9 Cukor (1936) had also attempted to provide historical authenticity by carrying out research on Italian Renaissance architecture and paintings. As Brode points out, to ensure that his images would ring true, Thalberg dispatched researchers to Verona. Some photographed old buildings, returning with references for art director Cedric Gibbons. Others diligently copied Renaissance paintings (Botticelli, Carpaccio, Bellini, Gozzoli) as well as surviving fifteenth century church frescoes to provide costume designer Oliver Messel with a sense of the era’s clothing (2000: 44). A detailed analysis of Cukor’s 1936 film is provided by Jackson (2007: 128-161). See also Tatspaugh (2000: 135-138), Brode (2000: 43-48), Coursen (1996: 28-53). 206

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

    10

See Da Porto’s account: “In the main street the Montecchi and Capelletti set upon each other on one occasion, and neither family was prepared to give way to the other. As Romeo fought he took care not to strike any member of his wife’s family out of consideration for her. Yet finally, as many of his own family had been wounded and almost all of them chased from the street, Romeo, overcome by fury, fell upon Tebaldo Capelletti who appeared to be the most formidable of his enemies, and sent him to the ground with a mortal blow” (Da Porto 2000: 34). 11 As pbserved by Jackson, John Gielgud, “dressed and made up to resemble the playwright, gazes at the title-page of the First Folio and then addresses the audience, lending the film the joint authority of Shakespeare and himself” (2007: 168). 12 His description of Juliet’s tearfulness using poetic language was probably omitted because it was not considered appropriate to an authoritative and violent person. 13 Capulet’s “big” shoes can be noticed in his first appearance in the film. On Capulet’s character see Martini (1956: 83). 14 III.5.88-92 are excised: “I’ll send one in Mantua, | Where that same banished runagate doth live, | Shall give him such an unaccustomed dram, | That he shall soon keep Tybalt company; | And then I hope thou wilt be satisfied.” 15 The episode in I promessi sposi (The Betrothed) is described as follows: “Once they were inside, Fra Cristoforo softly closed the door again. Then the sacristan could contain himself no longer, and calling the friar to one side began muttering in his ear: ‘But, father, father! At nightin church-with women-shut-the rules-but, father!’ And he shook his head.-Just think!-Fra Cristoforo thought as the lay-brother was stammering out these words-if it was some rascal making his escape, Fra Fazio wouldn’t make any difficulties at all; and yet a poor, innocent girl, who’s escaping from a wolf’s clutches… ‘Omnia munda mundis,’, he said then, suddenly turning to Fra Fazio, and forgetting that the latter knew no Latin. But it was this very oversight that gave the words the right effect. If Fra Cristoforo had begun to argue and produce reasons, Fra Fazio would have been at no loss to find other reasons to oppose against his; and heaven knows how and when it would have ended. But at the sound of words so pregnant with mysterious meaning, and uttered with such an air of decision, he felt that they must contain the solution to all his doubts. He calmed down, and said: ‘Ah, well! You know better than I do.’” (Manzoni 1997: 115116). 16 The scene of the wedding is described in Da Porto as follows: “As it was Lent, one day the maiden went to the monastery of St Francis, pretending that she wished to have her confession heard. Having gone into one of those confessionals used by these friars, she sent for Frate Lorenzo. Hearing that she was there, the friar, accompanied by Romeo, entered the same confessional from within the convent and, having both locked the door and removed the iron grate that separated them from the maiden, said to her […]” (Da Porto 2000: 33). 17 Da Porto describes Juliet’s death and funeral as follows: “Then the maiden was taken from there and transported to Verona where, with much pomp and honour, amidst the tears of all her relatives and friends she was buried as though dead in the aforementioned crypt in the cemetery of Saint Francis” (Da Porto 2000: 41). 18 For information on Freda see Della Casa (1999); Fofi and Faldini (1979); Freda (1981); Spinazzola (1974); Della Casa (2001); Pellizzari (1978); Gervasini (2003). See also the reviews of his films in Morandini (2004). 19 Among the most famous are Aquila Nera (1946), with Gino Cervi, inspired by a short story by Puskin; I miserabili (1947), with Gino Cervi, from Victor Hugo; Il cavaliere misterioso (1948), with Vittorio Gassman, on the adventures of Giacomo Casanova; Spartaco – Il gladiatore della Tracia (1953); the first Italian horror film, I Vampiri (1957); L’orribile segreto del dr Hichcock (1962), with Barbara Steele, another horror film with a reference to Hitchcock (ironically misspelt in the title); Lo spettro (1963), with Barbara Steele.

207

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

    20

For instance, a film inspired by Puskin, Aquila Nera (1946), with Gino Cervi, was extremely popular among the public (it was third at the box office that year) but was almost unnoticed by critics. 21 However, it appears in encyclopaedias of the cinema (see Morandini 2004: 564), it was broadcast on television by Rai3 and it is included in the collection of videos at the Centro Shakespeariano in Ferrara. I am grateful to Mariangela Tempera and Vanni Borghi from the Centro Shakespeariano for allowing me access to the film. 22 I am grateful to Stefano Della Casa for providing me with information on the film and on Freda. 23 Geronimo Meynier was 23 in 1964 and was probably quite well known in Italy, as he had acted in several films, often playing the role of a romantic young man in comedies about contrasted love. His role in Giulietta e Romeo therefore suited him. 24 Scarce information is available on this Anglo-Italian actress, who was 20 in 1964. Giulietta e Romeo was her second film. She appeared in Sergio Leone’s 1965 film Per qualche dollaro in più (For a few dollars more) and acted in other films in the 1960s and 1970s. 25 For instance, in some scenes it is clear that Rosemarie Dexter, playing Juliet, speaks English, while Geronimo Meynier (Romeo) and Friar Laurence (Umberto Raho) speak Italian, while Toni Soler (the Nurse) and Carlos Estrada (Mercutio) seem to speak Spanish. 26 Stefano Della Casa, personal telephone conversation, 20th January 2005. 27 Perhaps because the film was mostly shot in studios, and because of the paucity of money available, Renaissance buildings and the streets of Verona are not shown, and we only see some frescoed rooms, a market square by stone walls, and lots of fields and mountains. Friar Laurence is also seen for the first time in a garden outside town, and in his cell. 28 Della Casa (2001: 11) talks about the “cavalcate mozzafiato di Freda” (Freda’s breathtaking horse rides) and explains that he used to ask the stuntmen to take great risks in order to have spectacular scenes. However, according to Della Casa (2005) in Romeo and Juliet there are fewer scenes with horses and races than in most of his films. Gervasini (2003) also points out that Freda was almost obsessed with great spectacular mass scenes, and with horse races. Horses for him were even more important than actors. 29 Carlo D’Angelo, playing the Prince, performed in several Shakespeare plays and used to dub Laurence Olivier. 30 Zeffirelli explained that he used some exterior filming because it was cheaper: “Because of our limited funds, I had spent a lot of time searching for locations in Tuscany and central Italy for exterior filming. I wasn’t sorry about this, as I welcomed the idea of doing something different and knew that we had some truly magnificent backgrounds to use” (1986: 227). 31 For information on the making of the film see Zeffirelli (1986: 223-230) and Jackson (2007) in particular. Chapter ten of Zeffirelli’s Autobiography (1986: 152-174) contains information on the theatre production. For critical studies on this film see Jackson (2007); Lehmann (2010); Holmer (1996); Pilkington (1994); Donaldson (1990b); Jorgens (1977: 79-91); Manvell (1971: 97-100); Levenson (1987); Davies (1996: 153-162); Rothwell (1999b: 125-142); Van Watson (1992); Holderness (2002: 151-182); Tatspaugh (2000: 135-159); Brode (2000: 51-55). 32 The episode in which the servant asks Romeo to read the guests list is also omitted. We do not know why Romeo and his friends go to the ball. Once there, Romeo seems initially attracted by a young woman, but once he sees Juliet he realises what love is and forgets about her. Rosaline’s name is mentioned later by Friar Laurence. 33 When she sees Romeo at the ball she goes around the hall searching for him; she makes a strong refusal to marry Paris, and she dismisses the Nurse with a determined “Go!” when she feels betrayed by her. Moreover, when Friar Laurence tells her about the potion she eagerly tries to catch it with her hand; at night she has no hesitations: she does not call the Nurse back, and she has no fears before drinking the potion.

208

Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen

    34

Zeffirelli’s approach to Shakespeare’s language is clearly explained in the autobiography, when he talks about the theatre production: “I was not imbued with the classic Shakespearean verse drama tradition which still adhered to the Victorian view that a correct speaking of the immortal lines was of more importance than any dramatic impact the author might have intended. Thus only experienced, and hence elderly, actors and actresses played the principal roles, making Romeo and Juliet a near travesty. Two counter-arguments to this tradition occurred to me. The first and lesser was that all cultures from China to Venezuela acknowledge Shakespeare as the world’s greatest playwright – even in translation – which would indicate that his dramatic insights are perhaps more valid than his poetic ones and independent from them. Second and more important, Shakespeare used a fourteen-year-old boy to play Juliet and even in his day such boys can hardly have been much good at verse speaking – to the author, youth was more important than enunciation” (Zeffirelli 1986: 162). 35 Compare with some lines from the song Il trionfo di Bacco e Arianna (The triumph of Bacchus and Ariadne), written in the fifteenth-century by Lorenzo de’ Medici (also known as Lorenzo il Magnifico): “Quant’è bella giovinezza, | che si fugge tuttavia! | Chi vuol esser lieto sia: | Di doman non v’è certezza!” (How beautiful youth is, yet it flies! | Let all those who want to, be happy: | no one’s sure about tomorrow). 36 According to Loehlin “Zeffirelli seems to have been the first to introduce a sexual affair between Tybalt and Lady Capulet; [which] is now quite common on stage” (Loehlin/Shakespeare 2002: 123). Jackson, who consulted the shooting script, also confirms this interpretation: “The script suggests a clearer indication of what might be going on: Tybalt walks off with Lady Capulet, and ‘Capulet looks after the two of them as they move away with a strange expression. Perhaps he has seen in a flash the excessive affection and intimacy between his wife and nephew. But he pulls himself together at once and turns with a merry face to his guests’ “(p. 56, sc. 18) (2007: 204). 37 For an analysis of images of circles and other visual tropes in the film see Jorgens (1977) and Rothwell (1999b). 38 About women in films, the male gaze, and the notion of ‘to-be-looked-at-ness’ in mainstream cinema, see Mulvey (1975). 39 According to Jorgens (1977: 90): “as the two families file through the cathedral door toward the camera and the credits pass over the screen, there are gestures of consolement and reconciliation. The feud is over.” Tatspaugh (2000: 142) similarly observes that “the griefstricken families, their households and friends pause at the threshold to exchange condolences and forgiveness.” 40 Roberta Torre, in an interview, http://www.labiennaledivenezia.net/57mo…e2000/ skd_film.cfm?LanguageID=IT&ID=203 (consulted 18.02.2002). 41 As previously highlighted, this racial issue was also stressed in 1996 by Luhrmann, who updated the story and set it in contemporary America, where the conflict is between young gangs of whites and Latin Americans. In recent years we have witnessed the (re)introduction of the racial or ethnic issue, and the tension between cultures in productions of Romeo and Juliet set in America, as this has become a crucial problem. 42 “Questo mattino reca una lugubre pace. Il sole per il dolore non vuole mostrare il suo volto. Partiamo di qua per parlare più a lungo di questi tristi eventi. Alcuni saranno perdonati, altri puniti. Perché mai vi fu storia più triste di quella di Toni Giulietto e della sua dolce Romea.” Compare with Shakespeare’s “A glooming peace this morning with it brings: | the sun for sorrow will not show his head. | Go hence to have more talk of these sad things; | Some shall be pardoned and some punished. | For never was a story of more woe | Than this of Juliet and her Romeo” (V.3.305-310). 43 See, for instance, the short films Hanna Schygulla (1992); Femmine folli (1993); Angelesse (1994), in which Torre interviews seven women living in Palermo, in neighbourhoods controlled

209

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

    by the mafia. For further information on Torre’s filmography see http://www.vitagraph.it/ torre.htm (consulted 20.02.2013) and http://www.robertatorre.com (consulted 20.02.2013). 44 See Angelesse (1994), which presents interviews with seven women living in Palermo, talking about their lives, relationships, family, and their subordinate role to men; Il cielo sotto Palermo (1995), an interview with two anonymous prisoners in a jail in Palermo; Spioni (1995) an interview with some children living in a mafioso neighbourhood, in which the children explain what “mafia” is for them.

210

Conclusion Our analysis of the reception of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet in Italy supports the view that the study of the translation and reception of a play cannot be separated from an analysis of the cultural context in which it takes place, and from an investigation of the relationship between the source and the target culture. Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet has shown how the approach of Italian culture to Shakespeare in general and to Romeo and Juliet in particular has changed through time, and that changes in translational behaviour have been determined by this relationship. In the transfer to Italian culture, the play is rewritten according to several factors belonging to the receiving culture, such as poetics, ideology, the conventions of the literary, theatrical and cinematic systems, as well as different notions of translation. The analysis of the transfer of the play to the Italian literary system, from its beginnings to the twentieth century, has highlighted how the notion of translation varies, since it is heavily affected by shifting poetics and conventions. What is regarded as translation at one point in time is not accepted as such in another historical moment. Moreover, a translation strategy that is accepted in the literary system might not be acceptable in the theatrical or cinematic ones. For instance, as has been highlighted, during Shakespeare’s time texts travelled across linguistic and cultural borders to be used and adapted by other writers, without the need to acknowledge any sources. When Shakespeare’s play entered the Italian literary and theatrical systems, in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, it was through intermediate neoclassical French versions, which bore slight resemblances to the Bard’s work, but these texts are nevertheless translations and represent the textual practices of that period. As we have seen in Chapter Two, the notion of translation prevailing at the time was that of creative imitation and rewriting according to the rules of neoclassic tragedy, and to the tastes of the receiving culture. A foreign work had to be substantially acculturated, adapted to the conventions and poetics of the period, and its alterity had to be toned down. As demonstrated in Chapter Two, other intertexts were also involved, as translation was a manipulation of previous works in the interests of the receiving culture. Early Italian rewritings of the play both for the page and the stage were based on the French versions. These, however, were often combined with the native Italian tradition of the story, in order to suit Italian tastes. The Italian novelle and other rewritings of the same story thus worked as source models that competed against Shakespeare’s play and were intertwined with it. 

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

As Shakespeare started to be appreciated in literary circles, and to be considered a “great author”, the approach of translators also changed, and more source-oriented translations appeared, which were based on his work and on contemporary critical studies. However, as shown by this study, although more attention was devoted to Shakespeare and to his text, manipulation still took place, in accordance with the taste and ideology of the target culture, and the needs of the literary and theatrical systems. Elements such as vulgar puns and sexual allusions, as well as extreme lyricism, were toned down or excised because they were perceived as “inappropriate”. Translators for the page in the nineteenth century might seem to have been more source-oriented compared to previous ones, and certainly claimed to be faithful to Shakespeare, whom they praised for his genius. However, this book has shown that each translator still followed a specific agenda based on his or her own taste, as well as the ideology and poetics of the time, and toned down or eliminated aspects which he/she considered unsuitable, or indecorous, only retaining those which were judged important and worthy of transplantation into the receiving culture. In the twentieth century, the idea of source-oriented translation prevailed in translations that were destined to enter the literary system. Moreover, as previously noted, since the mid-twentieth century translations for the page always contain the full text, they are uncut. As Shakespeare had become a “literary saint”, a reverential attitude prevailed in translations for the page. Translators strove to faithfully and “accurately” reproduce the Bard’s words, and sometimes criticised previous translators who had “betrayed” the Author, by being unfaithful to, or by “misunderstanding” his works. However, the fact that contemporary translations for the page contain the full text does not mean in any case that they are “better” than previous ones – better, for instance, than eighteenth-century belles infidèles, or that there has been an “evolution” in translation. It simply means that notions of translations for the page have changed so that cuts to the text are no longer accepted in a literary context. In fact what clearly emerges from the analysis of translations for the page produced in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries is that each translator is always influenced in his/her translation choices by his or her own view of the Shakespeare text, his or her own personal poetics, as well as by new critical studies and interpretations, and by the policies of the editors and publishing companies. Each translator continues to highlight specific aspects and to draw attention to certain elements or themes which he or she considers important, and the translation choices and type of language adopted depend on the aim of the translator. Our analysis has demonstrated how translation is never “neutral”, but is rather always a process that adapts the source text to the needs of the 212

Conclusion

receiving culture; consequently translation is never “faithful”, not even when it claims to be so. Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet also confirms that acculturation and adaptation always take place when transferring the play to the receiving culture. Our study suggests that acculturation and appropriation are inherent aspects of translation, which are at work in all types of translation, both for page, stage and screen. As shown, translation is always a form of appropriation influenced by the values of the target culture; it is a reading and an interpretation of the text that is conditioned by the surrounding context in which and for which the translation is made; and a rewriting that adapts the source text and creates an image of it that can be accepted by the receiving culture. A tendency to render the play more “Italian”, avoiding “foreign” elements seems to emerge in several translations. The elimination or downplaying of poetic language, complex wordplay, puns and sexual allusions has been observed in several translations for page and stage during the nineteenth and early twentieth century, as well as in translations for the stage and screen in the twentieth century. This might be an attempt to rid the text of Shakespearean elements, or of aspects that are not in line with the target culture’s view of the play, and to stress “Italianness”, which favours passions more than elaborate language and conceits. Moreover, it was through a process of acculturation that Shakespeare’s play became a canonical text also in Italian culture, and translation strategies contributed to the creation of such a canonised image. The book has revealed the process through which Romeo and Juliet became a classical tale of tragic romantic love through a process of rewriting in line with the norms and conventions of the target literature and theatre, that is to say by means of acculturation. Translators of Romeo and Juliet in the nineteenth century erased or downplayed elements they perceived as inappropriate, and always naturalised and domesticated the text (at least to a certain extent) in order to make it fit into Italian culture, their tastes and their own view of the story. For instance, translators from this period tended to tone down or excise elements such as vulgar allusions, wordplay and excessive lyricism or conceits so that an idealised, romanticised version of Romeo and Juliet emerged. Both in literature and in the theatre the play was adapted, censored, sanitised, romanticised through translation. This shows how translation strategies contributed to the creation of an image of the play as the quintessential romantic tragedy. This was the reading which, for a long time, dominated Italian criticism, translation and performance, the image that has become canonical. It might be argued that the canonical interpretation of the play was established through a process of critical study and appreciation which started with English editors and theatre practitioners, and to which also Italian translation practice contributed. The 213

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

Italian canonisation of Shakespeare’s play can be seen as part of a wider, “transnational” process. As Delabastita and D’hulst argue: the processes underlying the establishment and propagation of literary canons (in general) and the Shakespeare myth (in particular) operate at least partly on an international (interlingual, interliterary, intercultural) level. […] cultural monuments are not beyond history but are always (re)constructed (1993: 21).

The present study also confirms that the function of the target text in the receiving culture determines different translation strategies. The literary, theatrical, and cinematic systems require, accept and apply different strategies. As the analysis of translations produced for page, stage and screen in the second half of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries suggests, different rules emerge in translations according to where, in the target culture, the target text will come to be positioned. The differences between translations for the page and those for stage and screen are influenced by several factors. First, they are affected by the technical requirements of the medium: what can be transferred to the new medium, and what literary, theatrical and cinematic conventions allow and require. If translations are made for the page, the full text is translated, and there is an attempt to reproduce the source text fully. If the translation is destined for the theatrical system, cuts are allowed and needed. The same is true if the target text is inserted into the cinematic system, which requires adaptation to the medium through cuts and alterations. Second, how a director reads the play conditions, even determines the way in which the play is translated and treated on stage and screen, which parts to cut, alter, or add, and whether to adopt other intertexts. Translations for the stage and the screen are affected by what the director wants to convey, and his or her interpretation. For instance, as has been demonstrated, readings of the play as a domestic tragedy may imply cuts to bawdy language and comedy, and may instead stress the romantic elements of the story, with a focus on the lovers; interpretations that emphasise the generation clash, on the other hand, involve an emphasis on youth, may use a more colloquial language and may alter the text in order to paint a more negative picture of adult characters; readings which accentuate the mythical dimension of the play and its canonical status tend to tone down comedy and wordplay, and to avoid modernised language and colloquial expressions; while interpretations which see the play as being part of a chain of rewritings use it as an intertext and combine it with other rewritings of the tale. Third, in contemporary stage and screen versions the presence of other sources or intertexts appears in greater evidence. As a result, the concept of translation seems to be complicated when different

214

Conclusion

modes of presentation are involved. Actual translation strategies in theatre and cinema amplify and blur the boundaries of translation. The analysis of the Italian reception of Shakespeare’s play from early translations to contemporary ones has also revealed how the native Italian tradition of the story plays an important role in the process of acculturation or (re)appropriation. The Italian novelle and their portrayal of the story have affected the way Italian culture has reappropriated the tale through translation, as they constitute a strong body of works that can be and have been used as intertexts. They are a reference point belonging to Italian culture which re-emerges and becomes intertwined with Shakespeare’s version at different times, and for different purposes, and contributes to rendering the story more “Italian”. The native tradition conditioned early translations for page and stage, and continues to re-emerge also in recent interpretations, both for the stage and the screen. For instance, as shown in Chapter Two, the early reception of Shakespeare’s play was affected by the Italian tradition, and interwoven with it. As illustrated in Chapter Four, the production directed by Vacis re-Italianises the story by filtering Shakespeare’s play through the Italian novelle and other Italian versions based on them. The analysis of Castellani’s film in Chapter Five has also demonstrated the fundamental role of the novelle in shaping the director’s translation for the screen. In this film, the novella by Da Porto constitutes a powerful source model and interpretative filter which determines deviations from Shakespeare’s version. Thus, this tradition is unravelled by translators and directors, and it can compete against or be combined with Shakespeare’s version in the creation of new interpretations. The analysis of the Italian fortuna of Romeo and Juliet thus also suggests that the notion of translation as a linear transfer from a fixed source text to a target text is complicated by translation strategies conditioned by the way in which different forces come into play and bear an influence on the relationship between texts. These forces can be exercised by critical studies, the target culture’s poetics and ideology, the native (in our case, the Italian) tradition of the story, the function of the target text within the target culture, the status of Shakespeare’s play as a canonical text, the existence and visibility of other rewritings of the same story. Another interesting aspect that emerges from the case studies on the contemporary Italian reception of Romeo and Juliet is the exploitation of the text’s canonical status. The fact that in Italian culture Shakespeare’s play is a canonical text seems to affect recent rewritings of the play for the stage and the screen. The fact that the play is perceived to be well known by everybody (even people who have never read it have an idea of what it is about and have heard of it) seems to “free” rewriters, in particular translators for stage and screen. The assumption that their audience knows what Romeo and Juliet is 215

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

about gives them freedom to refer to the play without having to “reproduce” it fully, or even use the Bard’s words, or at least not all of them. The source text thus becomes an intertext, and might simply be alluded to. This type of relationship between source play and rewriting is evident in Vacis’ production, which sets the scene after the lovers’ death, and uses only some “famous speeches” from the play; or in Torre’s film, which contains a few lines from Shakespeare and transposes the story temporally and spatially, making allusions to the source text and playing with the audience. In such rewritings, the translators/directors do not “betray” the source text but rather play with Shakespeare and his drama, as well as with images of Shakespeare. Therefore the rewriting can become a game – a play on cross-references and allusions to Shakespeare and his work, but also to other rewritings – in which the audience is asked to take part. The latter approach to the source text emphasises another aspect that has emerged in recent translations for stage and screen. As previously discussed, the popularity of Shakespeare’s play and its position as a canonical, classic text, has generated a number of rewritings. Some of these, in their turn, have become famous and may be seen to embody the play in contemporary Italian and Western culture, so that they can also be referred to in their own right. For instance, Zeffirelli’s film, West Side Story and more recently Luhrmann’s William Shakespeare’s Romeo+Juliet constitute popular rewritings and can act as intertexts, other models used in translations for the stage and screen. Daniel Mesguich’s definition of a classic and his comments on the inevitability of intertextuality when staging one may be useful in referring to Italian rewritings of Romeo and Juliet. According to him, the definition of a classic text is that it is not one, but two texts. The first text is the materially visible, readable text, […]. The second text, which is most often unwritten and sometimes unspoken, consists of the interpretative layers which, over the years, have been and continue to be grafted onto the original text: commentaries, analyses, past productions, and critical receptions, stereotypical images […]. By its very nature the second text remains open-ended. It is the sum of the ‘classicization’ of the first. Hence any production of a classic must stage at one and the same time the play and its accompanying baggage of previous interpretation to the point where there is constant interplay between source text and secondary literature (quoted in Heylen 1993: 124).

Mesguich uses the concept of intertextuality as a shaping force in his productions, both of Hamlet and of Romeo and Juliet, showing the complex relationships created by a classic, and playing with multiple texts, which have been generated by and from it, so that “the boundaries separating original and translation are thrown into relief” (Heylen 1993: 138). This has also appeared to happen in recent Italian rewritings for stage and screen, in particular in Vacis’ production, in which different source texts, all 216

Conclusion

versions of a common story, are intertwined to create a new text. As discussed in Chapter Three, similar approaches have been adopted by several directors in their rewritings of Shakespeare’s work. For instance, Bene in 1976 used Bellini’s music, and Shakespeare’s sonnets, while in 2000 Rossi started his performance of Romeo and Juliet: serata di delirio organizzato, with Dire Straits’ song, had pictures of the “McGlobe” theatre and of Shakespeare above the stage, and showed clips of Zeffirelli’s and Luhrmann’s films to the audience. The case studies in Chapter Five have also shown how previous film or theatre versions of the play may influence subsequent ones. Torre’s film is another clear example of a rewriting which uses Shakespeare’s play as an intertext, but also refers to reincarnations of the play which have become well-known in contemporary culture, such as West Side Story and Luhrmann’s film. While intertextuality can be found in all texts, in recent rewritings for the stage and especially for the cinema it can become a shaping force and its presence is more evident, as if it were an open invitation to the audience to take part in a game. This approach might be a reflection of postmodern aesthetics. As Loehlin suggests discussing Luhrmann’s film, intertextuality is “the reference to other works, genres and styles, whether as homage, parody, simple imitation or even unconscious duplication”, and it can be considered “one of the hallmarks of postmodern cinema” (2000: 124). Such “bold” rewritings of the play for stage and screen represent another way in which our culture translates the play, another image that is created by adopting and mixing different interrelated models, and by playing on the canonical status of the drama. The relationship of these rewritings to Shakespeare’s text throws light on Italian culture’s approach to Shakespeare and to the play, and also on the target culture’s own preoccupations and poetics. The types of translations discussed show how target texts often refer not only to the Shakespearean source text, but also to other texts. Our study of Italian translations for page, stage and screen thus suggests that when a canonical text such as Shakespeare’s play is translated into another language and culture, and especially when other media are involved, a binary notion of translation cannot account for actual translation processes, as multiple sources and forces come into play. It is through such complex mechanisms that the powerful tool of translation has allowed Italian culture to (re)appropriate the story of the lovers, to reclaim it, and to reinvent it according to its own needs and values, producing new views of it. The translation of Shakespeare’s play not only to page, but also to stage and screen proves useful in providing an insight into how Italian culture actually makes sense of Shakespeare and relates to Romeo and Juliet. 217

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet

Peter Brook’s comment on the impossibility and undesirability of a “neutral” theatre production which “lets the author speak” without intervention by the director might be applied to translation: When I hear a director speaking glibly of serving the author, of letting the play speak for itself, my suspicions are aroused, because this is the hardest job of all. If you just let a play speak, it may not make a sound. If what you want is for the play to be heard, then you must conjure its sound from it. This demands many deliberate actions (Brook 1990: 43).

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet has shown how translation is a means through which Italian culture “conjures” the sound of Romeo and Juliet, by (re)appropriating the story and giving it its own voice, and by taking several deliberate actions that invest the play with new meanings. More voices remain to be heard, and translation will continue to be one of them.

218

Appendix 1: Italian Translations of Romeo and Juliet This section contains Italian translations of Romeo and Juliet in chronological order, followed by the name of the translator. 1814. Leoni, Michele. Giulietta e Romeo. Florence: G. Marenigh. 1821. Leoni, Michele. Giulietta e Romeo, in Tragedie di Shakspeare. Tradotte da Michele Leoni. Verona: Società Tipografica Editrice. vol. VII. 1831. Barbieri, Gaetano. Romeo e Giulietta: tragedia di Guglielmo Shakespeare. Milan: Truffi. 1847. Carcano, Giulio. Giulietta e Romeo; tragedia di Guglielmo Shakspeare. Milan: coi tipi di Luigi di Giacomo Pirola. 1852. Rusconi, Carlo. Giulietta e Romeo, in Teatro Completo di Shakespeare, voltato in prosa italiana da Carlo Rusconi, 3rd edition, Vol. I. Turin: Cugini Pomba e Comp. Editori. 155228. 1889. Boito, Arrigo. Giulietta e Romeo (unpublished manuscript, only Act I and part of Act V). 1906. Chiarini, Cino. Romeo e Giulietta. La storia degli amanti veronesi nelle novelle italiane e nella tragedia di Shakespeare. Florence: G. C. Sansoni Editore. 1923. Chiarini, Cino. William Shakespeare. Romeo e Giulietta. Testo, traduzione e note a cura di Cino Chiarini (2nd edn.). Florence: Sansoni. 1937. Ojetti, Paola. Romeo e Giulietta, di William Shakespeare, versione italiana di Paola Ojetti. Adattamento per le rappresentazioni veneziane a Ca’ Foscari di Guido Salvini, in COMOEDIA, XIX (8): 401-416. 1942. Grosso Guidetti, Augusta. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta. Turin: UTET. 1947. Errante, Vincenzo. William Shakespeare, La tragedia di Romeo e Giulietta. Florence: G. C. Sansoni. 1949. Quasimodo, Salvatore. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta. Verona/Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore. 1950. Lodovici, Cesare Vico. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta. Turin: Einaudi. 1963. Baldini, Gabriele. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta. Milan: Rizzoli. 1963. Obertello, Alfredo. William Shakespeare, La tragedia di Romeo e Giulietta. Milan: Mondadori. 1968. Rutelli, Romana. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta. Rome: Officina edizioni. 1975. Meo, Antonio. William Shakespeare. Romeo e Giulietta. Milan: Garzanti. 1976. Quasimodo, Salvatore. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta, in Melchiori, Giorgio (ed.) Tutto il Teatro di William Shakespeare, Vol IV: Le tragedie. Milan: Mondadori. 1980. Dallagiacoma, Angelo. Romeo e Giulietta di William Shakespeare. Florence: La Casa Usher. 1982. Quasimodo, Salvatore. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta, ed. by Giorgio Melchiori. Milan: Mondadori. 1990. Ojetti, Paola. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta. Rome: Newton Compton. 1990. Obertello, Alfredo. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta, ed. by Anna Luisa Zazo. Milan: Oscar Mondadori. 1991. Sabbadini, Silvano. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta. Milan: Garzanti. 1994. Lombardo, Agostino. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta. Milan: Feltrinelli. 1995. Franconeri, Francesco. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta. Colognola ai Colli: Demetra. 1998. Rutelli, Romana. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta. Venice: Marsilio. 2001. Quasimodo, Salvatore. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta, ed. by Anna Luisa Zazo. Milan: Mondadori.

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet 2005. Ponti, Marco and Pietro Deandrea. ‘William Shakespeare: Romeo Σt Juliet. Raccontato da Marco Ponti e Pietro Deandrea’ in Various Authors, Romeo Σt Juliet – R Σt J Links. Turin: Fondazione Teatro Stabile Torino. 87-157. 2009. Pierini, Federica. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta. Siena: Lorenzo Barbera editore. 2010. Serra, Alessandra. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta. Palermo: A.E.D. Selino. 2012. Bigliazzi, Silvia. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta. Turin: Einaudi.

220

Appendix 2: Italian Productions of Romeo and Juliet (19002012) 1924. Romeo e Giulietta. Dario Niccodemi Company. Director: Dario Niccodemi. Cast: Luigi Cimara (Romeo), Vera Vergani (Juliet). Venue: Milan. 1937. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Guido Salvini. Translation: Paola Ojetti. Cast: Gino Cervi (Romeo), Evi Maltagliati (Juliet), Memo Benassi (Mercutio), Gualtiero Tumiati (Friar Laurence), Bella Starace (Nurse). Venue: Venice, Cortile di Ca’ Foscari. Date: 20 July 1937. 1939. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Guido Salvini. Translation: Paola Ojetti. Cast: Renzo Ricci (Romeo), Laura Adani (Juliet), Guido Morisi (Mercutio), Mario Brignolari (Friar Laurence), Mercedes Brignone (Nurse). Venue: Rome, Teatro Argentina. Date: 10 January 1939. 1948. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Renato Simoni. Translation: Salvatore Quasimodo. Cast: Giorgio De Lullo (Romeo), Edda Albertini (Juliet), Renzo Ricci (Mercutio), Sandro Ruffini (Friar Laurence), Lella Brignone (Nurse), Antonio Battistella (Chorus). Venue: Verona, Teatro Romano (Shakespeare Festival). Date: 26 July 1948. 1950. Romeo e Giulietta. Directors: Guido Salvini and Luigi Squarzina. Translation: Paola Ojetti, adaptation by Pino Casarini. Cast: Vittorio Gassman (Romeo), Edda Albertini (Juliet), Renzo Ricci (Mercutio), Salvo Randone (Friar Laurence), Paola Borboni (Nurse), Antonio Crast (Chorus). Venue: Verona, Piazza dei Signori (Shakespeare Festival). Date: 20 August 1950. 1954. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Guido Salvini. Poetic version: Giuseppe Salvetti. Cast: Giorgio Albertazzi (Romeo), Annamaria Guarnieri (Juliet), Gianni Santuccio (Mercutio), Evi Maltagliati (Nurse), Salvo Randone (Friar Laurence), Luigi Vannucchi (Chorus). Venue: Verona, Teatro Romano (Shakespeare Festival). Date: 7 July 1954. 1960. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Franco Enriquez. Translation: Salvatore Quasimodo. Cast: Gianmaria Volonté (Romeo), Carla Gravina (Juliet), Giancarlo Sbragia (Mercutio), Aldo Silvani (Friar Laurence), Ave Ninchi (Nurse), Arnoldo Foà (Chorus). Venue: Verona, Corte di Castelvecchio (Shakespeare Festival). Date: 5 July 1960. 1964. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Franco Zeffirelli. Italian version by Gerardo Guerrieri. Cast: Giancarlo Giannini (Romeo), Annamaria Guarnieri (Juliet), Paolo Graziosi (Mercutio), Lina Volonghi (Nurse), Alfredo Bianchini (Friar Laurence), Bruno Cirino (Chorus). Venue: Verona, Teatro Romano (Shakespeare Festival). Date: 4 July 1964. 1973. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Enrico D’Amato. New translation by Gerardo Guerrieri. Cast: Gianni Giuliano (Romeo), Ludovica Modugno (Juliet), Oreste Rizzini (Mercutio), Elsa Vazzoler (Nurse), Gianni Galavotti (Friar Laurence), Mauro Avogadro (Chorus). Venue: Verona, Teatro Romano (Shakespeare Festival). Date: 3 August 1973. 1976. Romeo e Giulietta: Storia di Shakespeare secondo Carmelo Bene. Written and directed by Carmelo Bene. Cast: Carmelo Bene (Mercutio), Franco Branciaroli (Romeo), Barbara Lerici (Juliet), Lydia Mancinelli (Paris). Venue: on tour in Italy. Date: 1976/1977 1977. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Orazio Costa. Translation and adaptation: Orazio Costa. Cast: Gabriele Lavia (Romeo), Ottavia Piccolo (Juliet), Pina Cei (Nurse), Antonio Salines (Mercutio), Enrico Ostermann (Friar Laurence), Vittorio Stagni (Chorus). Venue: Verona, Teatro Romano (Shakespeare Festival). Date: 1 July 1977. 1979. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Giuliano Merlo. Translation: Romana Rutelli. Production: Compagnia dei Filodrammatici di Milano. Cast: Roberto Sturno (Romeo), Nunzia Greco (Juliet), Paride Calonghi (Mercutio), Miriam Crotti (Nurse), Giorgio Biavati (Friar Laurence). Venue: Milan. Date: 1979. 1980. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Marco Bernardi. Translation: Angelo Dallagiacoma. Production: Teatro Stabile di Bolzano. Cast: Aldo Reggiani (Romeo), Maria Teresa Martino (Juliet), Orlando Mezzabotta/Corrado Pani (Mercutio), Marina Pitta/Donatella Ceccarello



Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet (Nurse), Gianni Galavotti/Tonino Travaglini (Friar Laurence). Venue: Bolzano. Date: 1980 (on tour in 1981/82). 1984. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Flavio Ambrosini. Translation and adaptation: Flavio Ambrosini. Cast: Giorgio F. Lera (Romeo), Paola Ubaldeschi (Juliet), Giangilberto Monti (Mercutio), Salvino Raco (Friar Laurence), Giovanna Ubaldeschi (Nurse). Venue: Milan. Date: December 1984. 1985. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Giancarlo Cobelli. Translation: Mario Roberto Cimnaghi, adaptation by Mario Roberto Cimnaghi and Giancarlo Cobelli. Production: VenetoTeatro. Cast: Massimo Belli (Romeo), Susanna Fassetta (Juliet), Beppe Tosco (Mercutio), Ettore Conti (Friar Laurence), Alida Valli (Nurse). Venue: Vicenza, Teatro Olimpico. Date: 1985. 1986. Romeo e Giulietta, from William Shakespeare. Director: Maria Grazia Cipriani. Scenes and costumes: Graziano Gregori. Music from Vincenzo Bellini. Production: Teatro del Carretto. Cast: Maria Grazia Cipriani, Anna Del Bianco, Maria Teresa Elena, Graziano Gregori, Ilaria Massagli, Marco Sodini. On tour in 1986/87, and again in 1996/97. 1990. La Storia di Romeo e Giulietta by Laura Curino, Marco Paolini, Roberto Tarasco, Gabriele Vacis. Director: Gabriele Vacis. Production: Laboratorio Teatro Settimo. Cast: Marco Paolini (Friar), Laura Curino (Nurse), Lucilla Giagnoni (Lady Capulet), Eugenio Allegri (Capulet), Mariella Fabbris (Lady Montague), Mirko Artuso (Benvolio). Venue: Taormina. Date: August 1990 (on tour 1991/1992) 1995. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Franco Ricordi. Translation: Anne-Heide Henschel. Production: Compagnia Teatro Drammatico. Cast: Rinaldo Rocco (Romeo), Franca Greco (Juliet), Franco Ricordi (Mercutio), Graziano Giusti (Friar Laurence), Carla Cassola (Nurse). Venue: Milan. Date: March 1995. 1995. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Maurizio Panici. Translation and adaptation: Stefano Antonelli and Maurizio Panici. Production: Teatro Argot (Milan) and Festival Borgio Verezzi. Cast: Massimiliano Franciosa/Valerio Mastrandrea (Romeo), Micol Pambieri (Juliet), Bruno Armando (Mercutio), Alessandra Costanzo (Nurse), Rolando Ravello (Friar Laurence). Venue: Borgio Verezzi. Date: July 1995 1995. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Giuseppe Patroni Griffi. Translation: Giuseppe Patroni Griffi. Production: Teatro Nazionale Arte della Commedia. Cast: Kaspar Capparoni (Romeo), Laura Nardi (Juliet), Max Malatesta (Mercutio), Luigi Lo Cascio (Benvolio), Isabella Guidotti (Nurse), Marcello Donati (Friar Laurence). Venue: Rome. Date: 26 April 1995. 1996. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Serena Sinigaglia. Translation: Salvatore Quasimodo. Actors: Mattia Fabris (Romeo), Arianna Scommegna (Juliet), Fausto Russo Alesi (Mercutio), Stefano Orlandi (Friar Laurence), Maria Piler Perez Aspa (Nurse). Production: Associazione Teatrale Indipendente per la Ricerca. Venue: Milan. Date: February 1996. 1997. Romeo e Giulietta. From William Shakespeare. Translation and adaptation: Francesco Pititto and Maria Federica Maestri Dramaturgy: Francesco Pititto. Directors: Francesco Pititto and Maria Federica Maestri. Cast: Ghislaine de Montadouin, Elisa Orlandini, Lucia Perego and Sandra Soncini, with the eight-years old Giulia Peri. Production: LENZ Rifrazioni. Venue: Parma. Date: November 1997 (on tour 1998). 1999. Romeo e Giulietta. From William Shakespeare. Adaptation: Antonio Latella. Director: Antonio Latella. Production: Elsinor/Fontanateatro. Cast: Matteo Caccia (Romeo), Silvia Ajelli/Elisabetta Valgoi (Juliet), Marco Foschi, Annibale Pavone, Enrico Roccaforte, Rosario Tedesco. Venue: Milan. Date: November 1999 (on tour until 2003). 2000. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Maurizio Scaparro. Translation: Masolino D’Amico. Production: Teatro Eliseo in collaboration with Estate Teatrale Veronese. Cast: Max Malatesta (Romeo), Giovanna Di Rauso (Juliet), Giacinto Palmarini (Mercutio), Fernando Pannullo (Friar Laurence), Donatella Ceccarello (Nurse). Venue: Verona, Teatro Romano (Shakespeare Festival). Date: 27 July 2000 (on tour 2000/2001).

222

Appendix 2 2000. ‘Romeo and Juliet’, Serata di Delirio Organizzato. From William Shakespeare. Written and directed by Paolo Rossi. Cast: Paolo Rossi, Giovanni Cacioppo, Emanuele Dell’Aquila, Sergio di Paola, Carlo Giuseppe Gabardini, Modou Gueye, Giorgio Palombino, Pepe Ragonese. Date: On tour 2000/2001 (TV recording broadcast by Sky TV on 28 November 2001). 2001. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Claudio Boccaccini. Translation and adaptation: Rossella Izzo. Cast: Lorenzo Balducci (Romeo), Myriam Catania (Juliet), Emiliano Reggente (Mercutio), Giuseppe Russo (Benvolio), Aldo Massaro (Friar Laurence). Venue: Milan. Date: 23 November 2001. 2003. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Jean-Christophe Saïs. Translation: Masolino D’Amico. Production: Teatro Stabile di Torino. Cast: Alessio Romano (Romeo), Francesca Bracchino (Juliet), Nicola Bortolotti (Mercutio), Francesca Ciocchetti (Nurse), Marco Toloni (Friar Laurence). Venue: Turin. Date: 23 May 2003. 2003. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Nikolaj Karpov. Translation: Agostino Lombardo. Production: Teatro Stabile di Calabria. Cast: Lorenzo Gleijes/Francesco Borchi/Francesco Zecca/Luca Ventura (Romeo), Guia Zapponi/Federica De Cola/Giada Parlanti (Juliet), Francesco Zecca (Mercutio), Manolo Muoio/Roberto Marinelli (Friar Laurence), Maria Orobello (Nurse), Guia Zapponi/Giada Parlanti (Lady Capulet). Venue: Rome. Date: 25 November 2003 (on tour 2004). 2003. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Gigi Proietti. Translation and adaptation: Angelo Dallagiacoma. Production: Compagnia del Brancaccio. Cast: Alessandro Averone (Romeo), Valentina Marziali (Juliet), Alessandro Albertin (Mercutio), Nadia Rinaldi (Nurse), Massimiliano Giovanetti (Friar Laurence). Venue: Rome. Date: 14 October 2003. 2005. Romeo e Giulietta. Nati Sotto Contraria Stella. Director: Leo Muscato. Production: LeArt’ Teatro. Cast: Ruggero Dondi (comedian, Juliet), Salvatore Landolina (comedian, Romeo), Ernesto Mahieux (comedian, Mercutio, Lady Capulet, Friar Laurence), Pier Francesco Loche (comedian, Benvolio, Nurse, Friar Laurence), Marco Gobetti (comedian, Balthasar, Capulet, Friar Laurence), Giordano Mancioppi (comedian, Thybalt, Paris), Dario Buccino (comedian, Musician). Venue: Ascoli Piceno. Date: 18 February 2005, on tour 2006/2007, 2011/2012. 2005. Romeo e Giulietta. Complessi Bandistici Della Nobile Verona. Director: Pippo Di Marca. Adaptation: Pippo Di Marca. Production: Compagnia del Metateatro. Cast: Elisa Gestri (Romeo), Anna Paola Vellaccio (Juliet), Daniele Bernardi (Mercutio), Patrizia Bernardini (Nurse), Luigi Lodoli (Friar Laurence), Carlo Fico (Prince). Venue: Rome. Date: 30 March 2005. 2005. Romeo & Juliet. Director: Gabriele Vacis. Translation and adaptation: Marco Ponti and Pietro Deandrea. Production: Teatro Stabile di Torino. Cast: Jurij Ferrini (Romeo), Sarah Biacchi (Juliet), Beatrice Schiros (Mercutio), Tommaso Banfi (Tybalt), Glen Blackhall (Benvolio), Stefania Maschio (Nurse), Wilma Sciutto (Lady Capulet), Federico Vanni (Capulet), Andrea Pierdicca (Friar Laurence), Antonio Pizzicato (Prince). Venue: Verona, Teatro Romano (Shakespeare Festival). Date: 1 July 2005. 2005. R&J Links. Director: Gabriele Vacis. Production: Fondazione Teatro Stabile di Torino. Cast: Glen Blackhall, Simona Frattini, Fabio Ghidoni, Valerio Perino and high school students (project Laboratorio R&J Links / Progetto SCUOLA SUPERiore). Venue: Turin. Date: 2 November 2005 2006. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Maurizio Panici. Translation and adaptation: Maurizio Panici and Stefano Antonelli. Production: Compagnia Argò and Teatro Bellini, Stabile di Napoli. Cast: Gabriele G. Russo (Romeo), Martina Stella (Juliet), Fabio Ferri (Mercutio), Sandro Querci (Tybalt), Adriano Braidotti (Benvolio), Gabriella Morea (Nurse), Caterina Scalaprice (Lady Capulet), Maurizio Panici (Capulet), Camillo Grassi (Friar Laurence), Andrea Bacci (Paris), Bindo Toscani (Prince). Venue: Barletta. Date: 10 February 2006. 223

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet 2006. Giulietta e Romeo: Molto Rumore...Per Nulla. Director: Fabio Fassio. Adaptation: Fabio Fassio. Production: Teatro degli Acerbi. Cast: Stefano Orlando (Romeo), Chiara Magliano (Juliet), Matteo Campagnoli (Mercutio), Massimo Barbero (Tybalt), Massimiliano Porzio (Benvolio), Patrizia Camatel (Nurse), Monica Gatti (Lady Capulet), Dario Cirelli (Capulet), Lucio Bosco (Friar Laurence), Mirko Serpentino (Paris), Antonio Muraca (Montague), Marco Elli (Friar John and Cupid). Venue: Costigliole d’Asti (AT). Date: 31 March 2006. 2007. Giulietta e Romeo (musical). Director: Sergio Carrubba. Music: Riccardo Cocciante. Lyrics: Pasquale Panella. Cast: Flavio Gismondi, Marco Vito, Daniele Carta Mantiglia (Romeo), Alessandra Ferrari, Tania Tuccinardi, Maria Francesca Bartolomucci, Denise Faro (Juliet), Gian Marco Schiaretti, Francesco Capodacqua (Mercutio), Angelo Del Vecchio, Damiano Borgi (Benvolio), Valerio Di Rocco, Gaetano Caruso (Tybalt), Silvia Querci, Chiara Luppi (Nurse), Fabrizio Voghera, Luca Maggiore (Friar Laurence), Francesco Antimiani, Giuseppe Pellingra (Montague), Giuseppe Pellingra, Francesco Antimiani (Capulet), Alessandro Arcodia, Gaetano Caruso (Prince Escalus). Venue: Verona, Arena di Verona. Date: 1 June 2007. 2008. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Ferdinando Bruni. Translation: Ferdinando Bruni. Production: Teatro dell’Elfo in collaboration with Estate Teatrale Veronese and AMAT. Cast: Nicola Russo (Romeo), Federica Castellini (Juliet), Ida Marinelli (Nurse), Luca Torraca (Friar Laurence), Edoardo Ribatto (Mercutio), Giancarlo Previati (Capulet), Andrea Fugaro (Tybalt/Friar John), Alessandra Antinori (Lady Capulet), Fabiano Fantini (Prince), Alessandro Rugnone (Benvolio), Nicola Stravalaci (Montague/Peter), Silvio Laviano (Paris/Gregory), Jacopo Fracasso (Balthasar). Venue: Verona, Teatro Romano (Shakespeare Festival). Date: 23 July 2008 2008. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Maria Federica Maestri. Translation: Francesco Pititto. Production: Lenz Rifrazioni. Cast: Valentina Barbarini, Liliana Bertè, Guglielmo Gazzelli, Mattia Lumaca, Paolo Maccini, Luigi Moia, Paolo Pediri, Lino Pontremoli, Carlina Delfina Rivieri, Enzo Salemi, Sandra Soncini, Elena Sorbi, Laura Vallavanti, Elena Varoli, Barbara Voglia. Venue: Parma. Date: 11 December 2008. 2009. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Andrea Baracco. Adaptation: Andrea Baracco, Giulia Dietrich. Production: Compagnia “I Termini” supported by Accademia Nazionale d’Arte Drammatica “Silvio D’Amico”, Trilly Produzioni. Cast: Piergiuseppe Di Tanno (Romeo), Livia Castiglioni (Juliet), Roberto Manzi (Benvolio), Gaia Saitta (Nurse), Enzo Curcurù (Mercutio/Balthasar). Venue: Rome. Date: 28 April 2009 2009. Scene da Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Federico Tiezzi. Translation: Michele Leoni, Agostino Lombardo, Giuseppe Patroni Griffi. Dramaturgy: Federico Tiezzi, Barbara Weigel, Giovanni Scandella. Adaptation: Federico Tiezzi. Production: Teatro Metastasio Stabile della Toscana. Cast: Franco Graziosi/Matteo Romoli (Romeo), Francesca Benedetti/Caterina Simonelli (Juliet), Roberto Latini (Mercutio), Fabricio Christian Amansi (Tybalt), Alessandro Schiavo (Benvolio), Marion D’Amburgo (Nurse), Ciro Masella (Capulet), Graziano Piazza (Friar Laurence), Giorgio Consoli (Paris/Prince), Simone Martini (Apothecary), Alessio Nieddu (Peter), Francesco Tasselli (Balthasar). Venue: Prato. Date: 26 November 2009. 2010. Romeo and Juliet. Director: Alexander Zeldin. Translation: Agostino Lombardo. Production: Napoli Teatro Festival Italia in co-production with teatro Stabile di Napoli, in collaboration with the Young Vic Theatre and development support by the National Theatre Studio, Compagnia Teatrale Europea. Cast: Enzo Curcurù (Romeo), Anissa Daoud (Juliet), Alessandro Sampaoli (Mercutio), Olivier Cherki (Tybalt), Pasquale Loffredo (Benvolio), Evelyn El Garby Klay (Nurse), Nadia Kibout (Lady Capulet), Mahmoud Said (Capulet), Salvo Lombardo (Friar Laurence), Matteo Carlomagno (Prince), Andrea Caimmi, Bruno Minotti. Venue: Naples. Date: 4 June 2010. 2010. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Giuseppe Marini. Translation: Massimiliano Palmese. Production: Società per Attori in collaboration with Accademia d’Arte Drammatica “Silvio 224

Appendix 2 D’Amico” Roma, Accademia “Palcoscenico” Padova. Cast: Lucas Waldem Zanforlini (Romeo), Eleonora Tata (Juliet), Mauro Conte (Mercutio), Riccardo Francia (Benvolio, Balthasar), Sonia Barbadoro (Nurse), Simone Pieroni (Capulet), Fabio Bussotti (Friar Laurence), Fabio Fusco (Prince, Peter), Nicolò Scarparo (Montague, Friar John), Marco Grossi, Francesco Wolf. Venue: Rome. Date: 26 October 2010. 2011. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Valerio Binasco. Translation and adaptation: Fausto Paravidino and Valerio Binasco. Production: Nuova Teatro Eliseo in collaboration with Compagnia Gank and Gloriababbi Teatro. Cast: Riccardo Scamarcio/Francesco Montanari (Romeo), Deniz Özdogan (Juliet), Andrea Di Casa (Mercutio), Gianmaria Martini (Tybalt), Fulvio Pepe (Benvolio), Milvia Marigliano (Nurse), Lisa Galantini/Marcela Serli (Lady Capulet), Antonio Zavatteri (Capulet), Filippo Dini (Friar Laurence), Giampiero Rappa (Prince), Roberto Turchetta (Paris), Fabrizio Contri (Montague, Peter), Nicoletta Robello (Lady Montague). Venue: Rome. Date: 14 February 2011. 2011. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Serena Sinigaglia. Translation: Salvatore Quasimodo. Production: Compagnia Atir. Cast: Mattia Fabris (Romeo), Arianna Scommegna (Juliet), Carlo Orlando (Mercutio), Marco Brinzi (Tybalt), Chiara Stoppa (Benvolio), Maria Pilar Perez Aspa (Nurse), Sandra Zoccolan (Lady Capulet), Fabrizio Pagella (Capulet), Stefano Orlandi (Friar Laurence). Venue: Rome. Date: 14 May 2011. 2011. Giuliett’e Romeo. M’engolfi ‘l Core, Amore. Director: Filippo Timi. Adaptation: Filippo Timi. Production: Teatro Stabile dell’Umbria. Cast: Luca Rondolini (Romeo), Vittoria Chiacchella (Juliet), Mauro F. Cardinali (Mercutio), Lucia Mascino (Nurse), Filippo Timi (Cupid). Venue: Spoleto. Date: 2 July 2011. 2011. Romeo e Giulietta. Mercuzio Non Vuole Morire. Director: Armando Punzo. Adaptation: Armando Punzo. Production: Compagnia della Fortezza. Cast: inmates of Volterra prison. Venue: Volterra, Festival Volterra Teatro. Date: 18 July 2011, 24 July 2012. 2011. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Claudio Autelli. Adaptation: Claudio Autelli. Production: Fondazione Pontedera Teatro/LITTA_produzioni in collaborazione con Associazione Culturale LAB121. Cast: Francesco Meola (Romeo), Giulia Viana (Juliet), Andrea Pinna (Mercutio, Capulet), Camillo Rossi Barattini (Tybalt, Lady Capulet, Paris), Michele Schiano di Cola (Nurse, Friar Laurence). Venue: Pontedera (PI), Teatro Era. Date: 10 November 2011. 2012. Romeo e Giulietta. Director: Claudio Boccaccini. Adaptation: Claudio Boccaccini. Production: Compagnia dei Giovani del Teatro Ghione. Cast: Ludovica Bizzaglia, Tiziano Caputo, Flaminia Fegarotti, Maurizio Greco, Alessandro Parise, Mario Scerbo, Ariele Vincenti, Gioele Rotini, Andrea Bizzarri, Stefano Dalla Costa, Alessandro De Feo, Pierluigi Gigante, Giacomo Sannibale, Pamela Muscia, Alida Sacoor, Aurora Giuliani. Venue: Rome. Date: 14 February 2012.

225

References Section 1 lists Primary Sources, including English editions of Romeo and Juliet, Italian and French translations of Romeo and Juliet, of other plays and of Shakespeare’s Complete Works, in alphabetical order by name of editor or translator. Section 2 contains Secondary Sources, including critical works and reviews of performances. Section 3 contains the Filmography.

Primary Sources Angeli, Diego. 1932. William Shakespeare, Teatro, nuova traduzione di Diego Angeli. Milan: Fratelli Treves. Baldini, Gabriele. 1963. William Shakespeare, Opere complete, nuovamente tradotte e annotate da Gabriele Baldini. Milan: Rizzoli. Baldini, Gabriele. 1983. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta. Introduzione, traduzione e note di Gabriele Baldini. Milan: Rizzoli (first published 1963). Bandello, Matteo. 1993. Giulietta e Romeo in Romano, Angelo (ed.) Le storie di Giulietta e Romeo. Rome: Salerno Editrice. 109-159 (first published in 1554). –– 2000. ‘The Unfortunate Death of Two Most Wretched Lovers’ (tr. N. Prunster) in Prunster, Nicole. Romeo and Juliet before Shakespeare. Four Early Stories of Star-Crossed Love by Masuccio Salernitano, Luigi da Porto, Matteo Bandello, and Pierre Boaistuau. Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies. 49-84. Barbarani, Berto. 1905. Giulieta e Romeo. Milan: Luigi Ronchi. –– 1941. Giulietta e Romeo. Nel suo testo rinnovato e definitivo. Verona: Ed. L’albero. Barbieri, Gaetano. 1831. Romeo e Giulietta: tragedia di Guglielmo Shakespeare; tradotta da Gaetano Barbieri. Milan: Truffi. Baretti, Giuseppe. 1777. Discours sur Shakespeare et sur Monsieur de Voltaire par Joseph Baretti secretaire pour la correspondence etrangere de l’academie royale britannique. London: chez. J. Nourse, libraire du roi/Paris: chez Durand Neveau. Bazzoni, Giunio and Giacomo Sormani. 1830. Opere di Guglielmo Shakespeare tradotte da Giunio Bazzoni e Giacomo Sormani. Milan: Per Vincenzo Ferrario (3 vols). Betteloni, Vittorio. 1906. Zulieta e Romeo: storiella in versi de un poeta popolan. Padova: L. Crescini e C.. Bevington, David, Barbara Gaines and Peter Holland (eds). 2007. Romeo and Juliet: Shakespeare in Performance (The Sourcebooks Shakespeare). London: A & C Black Publishers Limited. Bigliazzi, Silvia. 2012. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta, ed. by Silvia Bigliazzi. Turin: Einaudi. Boaistuau, Pierre. 1559. Histoires Tragiques extraictes des oeuvres italiens de Bandel, et mise en nostre langue francaise, par Pierre Boaistuau. Paris: Vincent Sertenas. –– 2000. ‘Third Tale. Of two lovers, one of whom dies of poison, the other of unhappiness’ (tr. N. Prunster) in Prunster, Nicole. Romeo and Juliet before Shakespeare. Four Early Stories of Star-Crossed Love by Masuccio Salernitano, Luigi da Porto, Matteo Bandello, and Pierre Boaistuau. Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies. 85-122. Boldieri, Gherardo. 1993. ‘L’infelice amore de i due fedelissimi amanti Giulia e Romeo, scritto in ottava rima da Clizia nobile veronese ad Ardeo suo’ in Romano, Angelo (ed.). Le storie di Giulietta e Romeo. Rome: Salerno Editrice. 160-236. (first published in 1553). Bonucci, Antonio. 1778. Giulietta e Romeo di Mr. Ducis dal vero francese trasportata in vero italiano dall’Abate Antonio Bonucci Fiorentino. Florence: Stecchi e Pagani.



Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet Brooke, Arthur. 1998. The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet, written first in Italian by Bandell, and nowe in Englishe by Ar. Br. in Evans, G. Blakemore (ed.). Romeo and Juliet (The New Cambridge Shakespeare). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 215-249 (first published in 1562). Carcano, Giulio. 1843. Teatro scelto di Shakespeare. Milan: Pirola. –– 1847. Giulietta e Romeo. Tragedia di Guglielmo Shakspeare; traduzione di Giulio Carcano. Milan: coi tipi di Luigi di Giacomo Pirola. –– 1860. Teatro di Shakespeare scelto e tradotto in versi da Giulio Carcano. 2nd ed. Napoli: Rossi Romano. –– 1883. Teatro di Shakespeare, scelto e tradotto da Giulio Carcano, 4th edition. Naples: Gabriele Regina Editore. –– 1893. ‘Lettera a R. Bonghi, 17 febbraio 1859’ in Opere Complete. Milan: Cogliati. –– 1914. Teatro di Shakspeare, scelto e tradotto da Giulio Carcano. Naples: F. Bideri. Cherubini, Antonio. 1823. Giulietta e Romeo, ballo tragico in sei atti d’invenzione e composizione di Antonio Cherubini. Vicenza: Parise tip. Chiarini, Cino. 1906. Romeo e Giulietta. La storia degli amanti veronesi nelle novelle italiane e nella tragedia di Shakespeare, nuovamente tradotta da Cino Chiarini. Florence: G. C. Sansoni Editore. –– 1923. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta. Testo, traduzione e note a cura di Cino Chiarini (nuova tiratura). Florence: Sansoni. Conti, Antonio. 1726. Il Cesare. Faenza: (s.n.). D’Agostino, Nemi (ed.). 1991. Tutto il teatro di William Shakespeare. Milan: Garzanti. __ (ed.). 2000. Tutto il teatro di William Shakespeare. Con enciclopedia multimediale (CD Rom version with Multimedia encyclopedia). Milan: Garzanti. Da Porto, Luigi. 1993. ‘Istoria novellamente ritrovata di due nobili amanti con la loro pietosa morte, intervenuta già nella città di Verona nel tempo del Signor Bartolomeo della Scala’ in Romano, Angelo (ed.). Le Storie di Giulietta e Romeo. Rome: Salerno Editrice. 49-80 (first published in 1530). –– 2000. ‘A tale recently come to light, about two noble lovers and their pitiful death, which took place in the city of Verona during the time of Lord Bartolomeo della Scala’ (tr. N. Prunster) in Prunster, Nicole. Romeo and Juliet before Shakespeare. Four Early Stories of Star-Crossed Love by Masuccio Salernitano, Luigi da Porto, Matteo Bandello, and Pierre Boaistuau. Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies. 27-48. Dalla Corte, Girolamo. 1596. L’Istoria di Verona. Verona: Discepolo. Dallagiacoma, Angelo. 1980. Romeo e Giulietta di William Shakespeare; traduzione di Angelo Dallagiacoma, illustrazioni tratte da ‘I tarocchi del Mantegna’. Florence: La Casa Usher. Della Valle, Cesare. 1830. Giulietta e Romeo. Tragedia in cinque atti di Cesare della Valle Duca di Ventignano. Rinaldo D’Asti, commedia in un atto, 2nd edition. Milan: P. M. Visaj (first published in 1826). Ducis, Jean-François. 1770. Hamlet. Tragédie imitée de l’anglais. Paris: Gogué. –– 1832. Roméo et Juliette. Tragédie en cinq actes, représentée pour la premiére fois en 1772 in Œuvres, Tome Premier. Paris: lebigre Frères, Libraires. 79-147 (first published in 1772). –– 1859. Roméo et Juliette. Tragédie en cinq actes, représentée pour la premiére fois en 1772; repr. in Oeuvres de J. F. Ducis. Paris: Ledentu, Libraire-Editeur. 41-61 (first published in 1772). Errante, Vincenzo. 1947. William Shakespeare. La tragedia di Romeo e Giulietta: traduzione di Vincenzo Errante. Florence: G. C. Sansoni. Evans, G. Blakemore (ed.). 1998. Romeo and Juliet (The New Cambridge Shakespeare). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (first published in 1984).

228

References Franconeri, Francesco. 1995. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta, Traduzione di Francesco Franconeri. Colognola ai Colli: Demetra. Gibbons, Brian (ed.). 1998. Romeo and Juliet (The Arden Shakespeare). London: Methuen (first published 1980). Gritti, Francesco. 1774. Amleto. Tragedia di M. Ducis (ad imitazione della Inglese di Shakespear) – tradotta in verso sciolto. Venice: (s.n.). Grosso Guidetti, Augusta. 1942. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta. Traduzione di Augusta Grosso Guidetti, in Grosso Guidetti (ed.). William Shakespeare, Teatro. Turin: UTET. Groto, Luigi. 1993. Adriana in Romano, Angelo (ed.). Le Storie di Giulietta e Romeo. Rome: Salerno Editrice. 237-392 (first published in 1578). Hugo, François-Victor. 1859-1866. Oeuvres Completes de William Shakespeare. F. V. Hugo traducteur (tr. F. V. Hugo). 14 vols. Paris: Pagnerre. La Place, Pierre Antoine de. 1746-1749. Le Théatre Anglois. Londres: (s.n.). Le Tourneur, Pierre. 1776-1783. Shakespeare. Traduit de l’anglois. Paris: Vve Duchesne. Leoni, Michele. 1814. Romeo e Giulietta. Recato in versi italiani da Michele Leoni. Florence: G. Marenigh. –– 1819-1821. Tragedie di Shakespeare, tradotte da Michele Leoni, in versi. Verona: Edizioni Società Tipografica. –– 1821. Giulietta e Romeo, in Tragedie di Shakspeare. Tradotte da Michele Leoni (vol. VII). Verona: Società Tipografica Editrice. –– 1823. Otello o il Moro di Venezia. Tragedia di G. Shakespeare. Ridotta per la scena italiana da Michele Leoni. Turin: Tipografia Chirio e Mina. –– 1911. Giulio Cesare, tragedia di Guglielmo Shakespeare tradotta da Michele Leoni di Parma, rev. ed.. Milan: Tip. G. De Stefanis. Levenson, Jill L. (ed.). 2000. Romeo and Juliet (The Oxford Shakespeare). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Lodovici, Cesare Vico. 1950. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta, traduzione di Cesare Vico Lodovici. Turin: Einaudi. –– 1960. William Shakespeare, Teatro, traduzione e note di Cesare Vico Lodovici. Turin: Einaudi. Loehlin, James N. (ed.). 2002. Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare in Production). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lombardo, Agostino. 1994. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta. Traduzione e cura di Agostino Lombardo. Milan: Feltrinelli. Manzoni, Alessandro. 1988. I promessi sposi, ed. Ezio Raimondi and Luciano Bottoni. Milan: Principato. –– 1997. The Betrothed and History of the Column of Infamy. ed. David Forgacs and Matthew Reynolds. London: J.M. Dent. Marconati, Aline. 2006. William Shakespeare Romeo e Giulietta. Marina di Massa: Ed. Clandestine. Melchiori, Giorgio (ed.). 1976. William Shakespeare, Tutto il Teatro. Milan: Mondadori. Meo, Antonio. 1975. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta. Traduzione di Antonio Meo. Milan: Garzanti. Mercier, Louis-Sébastien. 1797. Le tombe di Verona dramma del cittadino Mercier. Traduzione del signor Giuseppe Ramirez. (tr. G. Ramirez). Venice: Stella. –– 2005. Les Tombeaux de Vérone (Giulietta e Romeo) di Louis-Sébastien Mercier (1740-1814). Introduzione, traduzione e note a cura di Pierluigi Ligas (tr. P. L. Ligas). Verona: Libreria Editrice Universitaria. 197-423.

229

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet Obertello, Alfredo. 1963. William Shakespeare, La tragedia di Romeo e Giulietta, traduzione di Alfredo Obertello. Milan: Mondadori. –– 1990. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta, a cura di Anna Luisa Zazo, traduzione di Alfredo Obertello, introduzione di Paolo Bertinetti. Milan: Oscar Mondadori. Ojetti, Paola. 1937. Romeo e Giulietta, di William Shakespeare, versione italiana di Paola Ojetti. Adattamento per le rappresentazioni veneziane a Ca’ Foscari di Guido Salvini, COMOEDIA, XIX(8), 10 August 1937: 401-416. –– 1990. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta, traduzione di Paola Ojetti, testo inglese a fronte, edizione integrale. Rome: Newton Compton. Painter, William. 1567. The Palace of Pleasure. London: Henry Denham. Pierini, Federica. 2009. William Shakespeare Romeo e Giulietta, introduzione di Chiara Cretella e Luigi Weber, trans. Federica Pierini. Siena: Lorenzo Barbera editore. Ponti, Marco and Pietro Deandrea. 2005. ‘William Shakespeare: Romeo Σt Juliet. Raccontato da Marco Ponti e Pietro Deandrea’ in Various Authors, Romeo Σt Juliet – R Σt J Links. Torino: Fondazione Teatro Stabile Torino. 87-157. Praz, Mario (ed.). 1964. William Shakespeare, Tutte le opere. Florence: Sansoni. Quasimodo, Salvatore. 1949. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta, nella traduzione di Salvatore Quasimodo. Verona/Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore. –– 1976. Romeo e Giulietta, in Melchiori, Giorgio (ed.) William Shakespeare, Tutto il Teatro. Milan: Mondadori. –– 1982. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta. Traduzione di Salvatore Quasimodo, a cura di Giorgio Melchiori. Milan: Mondadori. –– 2001. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta, traduzione di Salvatore Quasimodo, Introduzione di Paolo Bertinetti, a cura di Anna Luisa Zazo. Milan: Mondadori. Ramirez, Giuseppe. 1797. Le tombe di Verona. Dramma del cittadino Mercier. Traduzione del signor Giuseppe Ramirez. Venice: (s.n.). Rolli, Paolo. 1739. ‘Hamlet’s soliloquy “to be or not to be”’, Delle Ode di Anacreonte Teio. London: (s.n.). Rusconi, Carlo. 1838. Teatro completo di Shakespeare, tradotto dall’originale inglese da Carlo Rusconi. Padova: coi tipi della Minerva. –– 1852. Giulietta e Romeo, in Teatro Completo di Shakespeare. Voltato in prosa italiana da Carlo Rusconi, 3rd edition, vol I. Turin: Cugini Pomba e Comp. Editori. 155-228. –– 1858. William Shakespeare, Teatro completo. Voltato in prosa da Carlo Rusconi (4th edition). Turin: UTET. Rutelli, Romana. 1968. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta, a cura di Romana Rutelli. Rome: Officina edizioni. –– 1998. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta, a cura di Romana Rutelli, revised edition. Venice: Marsilio. Sabbadini, Silvano. 1991. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta, Introduzione di Nemi D’Agostino. Prefazione, traduzione e note di Silvano Sabbadini. Milan: Garzanti. Salernitano, Masuccio. 1597. ‘Mariotto e Ganozza, Novella XXXIII’ in Romano, Angelo (ed.) Le storie di Giulietta e Romeo. Rome: Salerno Editrice. 456-466. Scevola, Luigi. 1818. Giulietta e Romeo. Tragedia quinta di Luigi Scevola bresciano. Milan: dai torchi di Gio. Pirotta. Serra, Alessandra. 2010. William Shakespeare Romeo e Giulietta, a cura di Alessandra Serra. Palermo: A.E.D. Selino. Spencer, T. J. B. (ed.). 1996. Romeo and Juliet (The New Penguin Shakespeare). Harmondsworth: Penguin (first published 1967). Torri, Alessandro (ed.) 1831. Giulietta e Romeo, novella storica di Luigi Da Porto di Vicenza, Edizione XVII. Pisa: Fratelli Nistri e Cc.. 230

References Valentini, Domenico. 1756. Il Giulio Cesare. Tragedia Storica di Guglielmo Shakespeare, tradotta dall’Inglese in Lingua Toscana. Siena: Agostino Bindi. Verri, Alessandro. 1769-1777. Hamlet. Principe di Danimarca. Tragedia di Shakespeare (unpublished manuscript, held at the Archivio Verri, Milan). –– 1777. Othello, il Moro di Venezia (unpublished manuscript, held at the Archivio Verri, Milan). Verri, Pietro and Alessandro Verri. 1911. Carteggio di Pietro e Alessandro Verri, vol. 3, Agosto 1769-Settembre 1770, ed. by Francesco Novati and Emanuele Greppi. Milan: Cogliati. Zeno, Apostolo. 1705. Ambleto. Venezia: (s.n.).

Secondary Sources Aaltonen, Sirkku. 1996. Acculturation of the ‘Other’. Irish Milieaux in Finnish Drama Translation. Joensuu: Joensuu University Press. –– 2000. Time-Sharing on Stage: Drama Translation in Theatre and Society. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Agorni, Mirella. 2000. ‘Quale teoria per la pratica della traduzione multimediale?’ in Bollettieri Bosinelli, Rosa Maria et al. (eds) La traduzione multimediale. Quale traduzione per quale testo? Bologna: CLUEB. 395-406. Albrecht-Crane, Christa and Dennis Ray Cutchins (eds). 2010. Adaptation Studies: New Approaches. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Altarocca, Claudia. 2000. ‘Rossi: Il mio Shakespeare è un vero bastardo’ in La Stampa (11 May 2000). Anderman, Gunilla. 1998. ‘Drama Translation’ in Baker, Mona (ed.) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. 71-74. –– 2005. Europe on Stage: Translation and Theatre. London: Oberon Books. Andrew, Dudley. 1984. ‘Adaptation’ in Concepts in Film Theory. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. 96-106. Anonymous. 1937. ‘Ammirato successo di Romeo e Giulietta nel cortile di Ca’ Foscari’ in Il Gazzettino (21 July 1984). Anonymous. 1937. ‘Romeo e Giulietta a Ca’ Foscari’ in Gazzetta di Venezia (21 July 1937). Anonymous. 1996. ‘Romeo e Giulietta scanzonati e tragici’ in La Repubblica (23 February 1996). Anzi, Anna. 1980. Shakespeare nei teatri milanesi del Novecento (1904-1978). Bari: Adriatica Editrice. –– 2001. Shakespeare nei teatri milanesi del Novecento (1978-2000). Bari: Adriatica Editrice. Aquarone, Alberto. 1984. ‘Gusto e costume nell’anglomania settecentesca’ in Convivium, Anno XXVI, fascicolo 1: 43-61. Ardini, Pippo. 1998. ‘Tira aria di anni Settanta’ in La Sicilia (15 March 1998). Arrigoni, Nicola. 2011. ‘Se Giulietta ha la barba bianca’ in La Provincia di Cremona (23 February 2011). Audino, Antonio. 2011. ‘Scamarcio smarrito nel ruolo di Romeo’ in Il Sole 24 Ore (18 February 2011). Aycock, Wendell and Michael Schoenecke (eds) 1984. Film and Literature: a Comparative Approach to Adaptation. Texas: Texas Tech University Press. Baines, Roger, Cristina Marinetti and Manuela Perteghella (eds). 2011. Staging and Performing Translation. Text and Theatre Practice. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Baldini, Gabriele. 1964 ‘Il fine di farsi gustare dal lettore, evitando il gergo teatrale’ in Sipario 218: 19-20. 231

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet Baldo, Ernesto. 1995. ‘Romeo e Giulietta: così giovani, nudi e disperati’ in La Stampa (25 April 1995). Ball, Robert Hamilton. 1968. Shakespeare on Silent Film: a Strange Eventful History. London: Allen and Unwin. Bandettini, Anna. 1984. ‘Sul palco Shakespeare-film. “Romeo e Giulietta? Due possessivi”’ in La Repubblica (26 October 1984). Barba, Eugenio. 1985. Beyond the Floating Islands. New York: PAH Publications. Barthes, Roland. 1977. Image, Music, Text (tr. S. Heath). London: Fontana. Bassano, Enrico. 1960. ‘Recensione’ in Dramma 286(July): 61-62. Bassnett, Susan, 1980. ‘An Introduction to Theatre Semiotics’ in Theatre Quarterly X(38): 47-53 –– 1981a. Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. –– 1981b. ‘The Translator in the Theatre’ in Theatre Quarterly X(40): 37-44. –– 1985. ‘Ways Through the Labyrinth: Strategies and Methods for Translating Theatre Texts’ in Hermans, Theo (ed.) The Manipulation of Literature. London: Croom Helm. 87-103. –– 1991. ‘Translating for the theatre: the case against “performability”’, TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Redaction 4(1): 99-113. –– 1993. ‘Wayward Sons and Daughters: Romeo and Juliet, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and Henry IV, Part I’, in Shakespeare: The Elizabethan Plays. London: MacMillan. 53-71. –– 1998a. ‘When is a Translation Not a Translation?’ in Bassnett, Susan and André Lefevere. Constructing Cultures. Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 2540. –– 1998b. ‘Still Trapped in the Labyrinth: Further Reflections on Translation and Theatre’, in Bassnett, Susan and André Lefevere. Constructing Cultures. Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 90-108. –– 1998c. ‘The Translation Turn in Cultural Studies’ in Bassnett, Susan and André Lefevere. Constructing Cultures. Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 123-140. –– 2004. ‘Engendering Anew: Shakespeare, Gender, and Translation’ in Hoenselaars, Ton (ed.) Shakespeare and the Language of Translation. London: Arden. 53-67. –– 2011a. ‘Translation or Adaptation?’ in Reflections on Translation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 40-43 (first published in 2005). –– 2011b. ‘Plays for Today’ in Reflections on Translation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 98-101 (first published in 2006). –– 2011c. ‘Playing on Words’ in Reflections on Translation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 106109 (first published in 2007). Bassnett, Susan and David Hirst. 1987. A Woman in Search of Herself (English version of Luigi Pirandello’s Trovarsi). BBC Radio 3 (30 June 1987). Bassnett, Susan, and André Lefevere (eds). 1990. Translation, History and Culture. London and New York: Cassell. –– 1998. Constructing Cultures. Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Basso, Pierluigi. 2000. ‘Fenomenologia della traduzione intersemiotica’ in Dusi, Nicola and Siri Nergaard (eds.) Sulla traduzione intersemiotica, numero speciale di VS 85-87: 199-216. Bastin, George L.. 1998. ‘Adaptation’ in Baker, Mona (ed.) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge. 5-8. Bate, Jonathan. 1997. The Genius of Shakespeare. London: Picador. Bate, Jonathan and Héloïse Sénéchal. 2007. ‘Editing Shakespeare for the Twenty-First Century’ in The European English Messenger 16(1): 25-32. Bazin, André. 1967. What is Cinema? (tr. H. Gray). Berkeley: University of California Press. Beja, Morris. 1979. Film and Literature. New York: Longman. 232

References Bellini, Pasquale. 2006. ‘La furia di Romeo e Giulietta’ in La Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno (12 February 2006). Bernardelli, Francesco. 1961. ‘Romeo e Giulietta di Shakespeare al Nuovo’ in La Stampa (9 September 1961). Berry, Ralph. 1978. ‘Romeo and Juliet: the Sonnet-World of Verona’ in The Shakespearean Metaphor. Studies in Language and Form. London: MacMillan. 37-47. Bertani, Odoardo. 1987. ‘Il magico gioco di Romeo e Giulietta’ in Avvenire (14 February 1987). Bertinetti, Paolo. 1990. ‘Introduzione’ in Obertello, Alfredo. William Shakespeare, Romeo e Giulietta, ed. by Anna Luisa Zazo, tr. by Alfredo Obertello. Milan: Mondadori. V-XVI. Best, Michael. 2002. ‘The Text of Performance and the Performance of Text in the Electronic Edition’ in Computers and the Humanities, 36(3): 269-282. Bevington, David. 2007. ‘As Performed: In Covent Garden, London in 1811’ in Bevington, David, Barbara Gaines and Peter Holland (eds). 2007. Romeo and Juliet: Shakespeare in Performance (The Sourcebooks Shakespeare). London: A & C Black Publishers Limited. 11-18. Bevione, Laura. 2003. ‘L’amore ai tempi del Bardo’ in Hystrio (July-September 2003). Bhabha, Homi. 1983. ‘The Other Question…The Stereotype and Colonial Discourse’ in Screen, 24(6): 18-36. Bialkovski, Brian. 2001. ‘Facing Up to the Question of Fidelity: The Example of A Tale of Two Cities’ in Literature/Film Quarterly 29(3): 203-209. Biglia, Magda, 2000. ‘Paolo Rossi: Così ti strapazzo Romeo e Giulietta’ in Il Giorno (10 November 2000). Bigliazzi, Silvia, Peter Kofler and Paola Ambrosi (eds). 2013. Theatre Translation in Performance. New York-Abingdon: Routledge. Birch, David. 1991. The Language of Drama. London: MacMillan. Bloom, Lisa. (ed.). 1999. With Other Eyes. Looking at Race and Gender in Visual Culture. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press. Bluestone, George. 1957. Novels into Film. Baltimore: John Hopkins University. Bly, Mary. 1996. ‘Bawdy Puns and Lustful Virgins: the Legacy of Juliet’s Desire in Comedies of the Early 1600s’ in Shakespeare Survey 49: 97-109. Bolt, Ranjit. 1996. ‘Translating verse Plays. In conversation with David Johnston’, in Johnston, David (ed.). Stages of Translation. Bath: Absolute Press. 249-261. Bondanella, Peter. 1994. Italian Cinema from Neorealism to the Present. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company. Boose, Lynda, and Richard Burt (eds.) 1997. Shakespeare, the Movie: Popularizing the Plays on Film, TV, and Video. London: Routledge. –– 2003. Shakespeare the Movie, II. Popularizing the Plays on Film, TV, Video, and DVD. London and New York: Routledge. Bordwell, David and Kristin Thompson. 2001. Film Art. An Introduction. New York: McGrawHill. Bragaglia, Leonardo. 1973. Shakespeare in Italia. Personaggi ed interpreti. Vita scenica del teatro di Guglielmo Shakespeare in Italia (1792-1973). Rome: Trevi editore. Brisset, Annie. 1996. A Sociocritique of Translation: Theatre and Alterity in Québec, 1968-1988, trans. By Rosalind Gill and Roger Gannon. Toronto: Toronto University Press. Brode, Douglas. 2000. Shakespeare in the Movies. From the Silent Era to Shakespeare in Love. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Broeck, Raymond van den. 1978. ‘The concept of equivalence in translation theory: Some critical reflections’ in Holmes, James, José Lambert, and Raymond van den Broeck (eds.) Literature and Translation. Leuven: Acco. 29-47.

233

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet Brognoligo, Gioachino. 1904. ‘La vita e le opere di Luigi Da Porto’ in Studi di storia letteraria. Rome/Milan: Società Dante Alighieri di Albrighi, Segati e C.. 9-117. Brook, Peter. 1990. The Empty Space. London: Penguin Books. (first publ. in 1968). Brooke, Nicholas. 1968. Shakespeare’s Early Tragedies. London: Methuen. Brooks, Jeremy. 1960. ‘In Fair Verona’ in New Statesman, LX (1544): 564-566. Brunelli, Bruno. 1950. ‘Interpreti di Shakespeare in Italia’ in Ridenti, Lucio (ed.). Shakespeare degli italiani. Turin: Società Editrice Torinese. 39-55. Brunetta, Gian Piero. 1993. Storia del cinema italiano. Dal neorealismo al miracolo economico 1945-1959. Vol. 3. Rome: Editori Riuniti. Bruni, Flavia, 2000. ‘Romeo e Giulietta? L’utopia dell’amore’ in Secolo d’Italia (repr. in the theatre programme: Teatro Stabile di Roma, Romeo e Giulietta di William Shakespeare, regia Maurizio Scaparro, p. 26). Bryant, J. A., 1974. ‘The Problematic Friar in Romeo and Juliet’ in English Studies 55: 340-350. Bullough, Geoffrey. 1957. Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare, Vol. 1. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Burnett, Mark Thornton. 1997. ‘Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet’ in Literature/Film Quarterly 25: 78-82. –– 2007. Filming Shakespeare in the Global Marketplace. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. –– 2008. ‘Madagascar Will: Cinematic Shakespeares/Transnational Exchanges’ in Shakespeare Survey 61: 239-255. –– 2010. ‘Screen Shakespeares: Knowledge and Practice’ in Critical Quarterly 52(4): 48-62. –– 2013. Shakespeare and World Cinema. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burnett, Mark Thornton and Ramona Wray (eds). 2000. Shakespeare, Film, Fin de Siècle. Houndmills and London: MacMillan. –– (eds). 2006. Screening Shakespeare in the Twenty-First Century. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Burt, Richard. 1997. ‘The Love That Dare Not Speak Shakespeare’s Name: New Shakesqueer Cinema’ in Boose, Lynda and Richard Burt (eds.) Shakespeare, the Movie: Popularizing the Plays on Film, TV and Video. London: Routledge. 240-268. –– 1998. Unspeakable Shaxxxspeares: Queer Theory and American Kiddie Culture. New York: St. Martin’s Press. __ (ed.) 2007. Shakespeares After Shakespeare: an Encyclopedia of the Bard in Mass Media and Popular Culture, 2 vols. Westport, CT and London: Greenwood. Bussi, Elisa and Laura Salmon Kovarski (eds). 1996. Letteratura e cinema: la trasposizione. Bologna: CLUEB. Calderwood, James L.. 1971. ‘Romeo and Juliet: A Formal Dwelling’ in Shakespearean Metadrama. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Calvini, Angela. 1999. ‘Romeo e Giulietta, tragedia senza adulti’in Avvenire (7 November 1999). Cannella, Claudia. 2003. ‘Musica “ambient” per Romeo e Giulietta’ in Corriere della Sera (1 March 2003). –– 2009. ‘Giulietta osa rompere la catena di violenza’ in Corriere della Sera (14 January 2009). –– 2012. ‘Una pazza bambina nella nebbia’ in Corriere della Sera (11 February 2012). Caretti, Laura (ed.). 1979. Il teatro del personaggio. Shakespeare sulla scena italiana dell’Ottocento. Rome: Bulzoni. –– 1986. ‘Il palcoscenico di Giulietta’ in Tempera, Mariangela (ed.) Romeo and Juliet: dal testo alla scena. Bologna: CLUEB. 241-256. –– 2001. ‘Il palcoscenico di Giulietta’ in the theatre programme Romeo e Giulietta di William Shakespeare, regia Maurizio Scaparro. Rome: Eliseo, Teatro Stabile di Roma. 2-8.

234

References Carlson, Marvin. 2006. Speaking in Tongues: Language at Play in the Theatre. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Cartelli, Thomas and Catherine Rowe. 2007. New Wave Shakespeare on Screen. Cambridge: Polity Press. Cartmell, Deborah, 2000a. Interpreting Shakespeare on Screen. Basingstoke: MacMillan. –– 2000b. ‘Franco Zeffirelli and Shakespeare’ in Jackson, Russell (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 212-221. –– 2010. Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice: The Relationship Between Text and Film. London: Methuen Drama. –– (ed.). 2012. A Companion to Literature, Film and Adaptation. Oxford: Blackwells Publishing. Cartmell, Deborah, and Imelda Whelehan (eds). 1999. Adaptations: From Text to Screen, Screen to Text. London and New York: Routledge. –– (eds) 2007a. The Cambridge Companion to Literature on Screen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. –– 2007b. ‘Introduction-Literature on Screen: a synoptic view’ in Cartmell, Deborah, and Imelda Whelehan (eds) The Cambridge Companion to Literature on Screen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1-12. Carvalho Homem, Rui and Ton Hoenselaars (eds). 2004. Translating Shakespeare for the Twenty-First Century. Amsterdam-New York, NY: Rodopi. Castellani, Renato. 1979. ‘Renato Castellani: Giulietta e Romeo’ in Toffetti, Sergio and Roberto Vaccino (eds.) Shakespeare e il cinema. Turin: Città di Torino, Assessorato per la Cultura. 39-40 (first published in 1954). Castiglione, Elisabetta. 2000. ‘Romeo e Giulietta, purché giovani’ in Il Giorno (7 November 2000). Catford, J. C.. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press. Cattrysse, Patrick. 1992. ‘Film (Adaptation) as Translation: Some Methodological Proposals’ in Target 4(1): 53-70. –– 1997. ‘The Unbearable Lightness of Being: Film Adaptation Seen from a Different Perspective’ in Literature/Film Quarterly 25(3): 222-230. –– 2000. ‘Media Translation. Plea for an Interdisciplinary Approach’ in Dusi, Nicola and Siri Nergaard (eds.) Sulla traduzione intersemiotica, numero speciale di VS 85-87: 251-269. Charlton, Henry Buckley. 1948. Shakespearian Tragedy. London: Cambridge University Press. Chatman, Seymour. 1974. ‘What Novels Can Do That Film Can’t (and vice versa)’, in Mast, Gerald, Marshall Cohen and Leo Braudy (eds.) Film Theory and Criticism. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 403-419. –– 1978. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Chiaretti, Tommaso. 1977. ‘E Carmelo-Mercuzio gioca con il teatro’ in La Repubblica (25 January 1977). –– 1980. ‘Scusi, ha visto Shakespeare?’ in La Repubblica (27 December 1980). –– 1984. ‘Agli amanti manca la parola’ in La Repubblica (30 October 1984). –– 1985. ‘Giovani amanti impuri. Mentre in città regna la peste’ in La Repubblica (24 September 1985). Chiarini, Cino. 1896. Studi shakespeariani. Livorno: Giusti. Chiaromonte, Nicola. 1965. ‘I ribaldi di Verona’ in Il Mondo (19 October 1965). Chillington Rutter, Carol. 2000. ‘Looking at Shakespeare’s women on film’ in Jackson, Russell (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 241-260. Chinzari, Stefania. 1995. ‘“Nudi? No, casti come Giulietta e Romeo.” Patroni Griffi racconta il suo Shakespeare “under 20” che domani debutta a Roma’ in L’Unità (25 April 1995). 235

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet Cimnaghi, Mario Roberto. 1985. ‘Di là dalla storia verso il mistero’ in Cimnaghi, Mario Roberto (ed.) Romeo e Giulietta. VenetoTeatro: Ediz. VenetoTeatro. 37-40. Cipolla, Alfonso. 2005. ‘Uno Shakespeare dai due volti’ in La Repubblica (5 November 2005). Cirio, Rita. 1995. ‘Parola di nudo’ in L’Espresso (19 May 1995). –– 2000. ‘Amanti controtendenza’ in L’Espresso (14 September 2000). –– 2009. ‘Romeo e Giulietta nella roulotte’ in L’Espresso (December 2009). Clark, Noel. 1996. ‘Translating for the Love of it’ in Johnston, David (ed.) Stages of Translation. Bath: Absolute Press. 23-34. Clemen, W. H. 1951. The Development of Shakespeare’s Imagery. London: Metuen. Clough, Cecil. H. 1993. ‘Love and War in the Veneto: Luigi da Porto and the True Story of Giulietta e Romeo’ in Chambers, David S., Cecil H. Clough and Michael E. Mellett (eds.) War, Culture and Society in Renaissance Verona. London and Rio Grande: The Hambledon Press. 99-127. Coelsch-Foisner, Sabine and Holger Klein (eds). 2004. Drama Translation and Theatre Practice. Frankfurt and Main: Peter Lang. Collins, Michael. 1982. ‘The Literary Background of Bellini’s I Capuleti ed i Montecchi’ in Journal of the American Musicological Society XXXV: 532-538. Collison-Morley, Lacy. 1916. Shakespeare in Italy. Stratford upon Avon: Shakespeare Head Press. Cordelli, Franco. 2003. ‘L’indiavolato ‘Romeo e Giulietta’ di Proietti’ in Corriere della Sera (16 October 2003). –– 2011. ‘Romeo e Giulietta con Scamarcio star: capolavoro registico’ in Corriere della Sera (16 February 2011). Corona, Maria. 1970. La Fortuna di Shakespeare a Milano (1800-1825). Bari: Adriatica. Corrigan, Robert. 1961. ‘Translating for actors’ in Arrowsmith, William and Roger Shattuck (eds) The Craft and Context of Translation. Austin: University of Texas Press. 95-106. Costantini, Emilia. 1995. ‘Patroni Griffi: “Nudi ma casti i miei Romeo e Giulietta. E hanno i tormenti dei giovani d’oggi’ in Corriere della Sera (25 April 1995). –– 2003. ‘Romeo e Giulietta, l’amore distrugge’ in Corriere della Sera (24 November 2003). Coursen, H. R.. 1996. ‘Romeo and Juliet: A Beautiful Film for Beautiful People?’ in Shakespeare in Production. Whose History?. Athens: Ohio University Press. 28-53. Crinò, Anna Maria. 1950. Le traduzioni di Shakespeare in Italia nel Settecento. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Crivelli, Renzo S.. 2002. ‘Agostino Lombardo traduttore: voci shakespeariane e parole d’inchiostro’ in Restivo, Giuseppina and Renzo Crivelli (eds) Tradurre/Interpretare “Amleto”. Bologna: CLUEB. 195-204. Crowl, Samuel. 2000. ‘Flamboyant Realist: Kenneth Branagh’ in Jackson, Russell (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 222-238. Crowther, Bosley. 1954. ‘Review’ in New York Times (22 December 1954). Cuomo, Franco. 1977. ‘Quattro autotreni per le bottiglie di Shakespeare’ in Avanti (15 January 1977). D’Amico, Masolino. 1974. ‘L’importanza della scenografia verbale nella costruzione di Romeo e Giulietta’ in Scena e parola in Shakespeare. Turin: Einaudi. 53-84. –– 1995. ‘Romeo e Giulietta: dietro gli atleti il vuoto’ in La Stampa (28 April 1995). –– 2000. ‘L’eterna storia di un amore giovane’, in the theatre programme Romeo e Giulietta di William Shakespeare, regia Maurizio Scaparro. Rome: Eliseo, Teatro Stabile di Roma. 1113. –– 2003. ‘I problemi di un’opera eterna sospesa tra poesia e prosa. Colloquio con Masolino D’Amico’ in the theatre programme William Shakespeare. Tre storie d’amore. Turin: Teatro 236

References Stabile di Torino.19-20. –– 2005a. ‘Con Vacis Romeo e Giulietta dicono le parolacce’ in La Stampa (4 July 2005). –– 2005b. ‘Il risultato ibrido dell’attualità’ in La Stampa (1 November 2005). –– 2008. ‘Per Romeo e Giulietta amore e morte in un loft’ in La Stampa (31 July 2008). D’Amico, Silvio. 1937. ‘Note e Rassegne’ in Nuova Antologia (1 August 1937). –– 1948. ‘Due ragazzi impazziti d’amore’ in Il tempo (28 July 1948). –– 1950. ‘Giulietta e Romeo al Festival del Teatro’ in Il Tempo (21 August 1950). –– 1954. ‘Giulietta e Romeo disturbati dal maltempo’ in Il Tempo (9 July 1954). Damerini, Gino. 1937. ‘Romeo e Giulietta in una regia di eccezione rappresentata in Ca’ Foscari’ in Gazzetta del Popolo (21 July 1937). –– 1964. ‘La Romeo e Giulietta italiana di Franco Zeffirelli’ in Dramma 334(35): 90-92. Davico Bonino, Guido. 1985. ‘Cobelli: due mummie per Shakespeare e pareti nere sulla scena del Palladio’ in La Stampa (22 September 1985). Davies, Anthony. 1986. ‘Shakespeare and the Media of Film, Radio and Television: A Retrospect’ in Shakespeare Survey 39: 1-11. –– 1988. Filming Shakespeare’s Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. –– 1996. ‘The Film Versions of Romeo and Juliet’, in Shakespeare Survey 49: 153-162. Davies, Anthony and Stanley Wells (eds.). 1994. Shakespeare and the Moving Image: the Plays on Film and Television. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deandrea, Pietro. 2013. ‘“You kiss like in a movie”: a contemporary translation/adaptation of Romeo and Juliet’ in Brown, Sarah Annes, Robert I. Lublin and Lynsey McCulloch (eds) Reinventing the Renaissance. Shakespeare and his Contemporaries in Adaptation and Performance. London: Palgrave MacMillan. 122-140. De Chiara, Ghigo. 1951. ‘Romeo e Giulietta al Valle’ in Avanti! (s.d.). De Feo, Sandro. 1961. ‘I baci veri di Giulietta. Zeffirelli ringiovanisce Shakespeare’ in L’Espresso (17 September 1961). –– 1965. ‘Un western di Shakespeare’ in L’Espresso (17 October 1965). De Marinis, Marco. 1982. Semiotica del teatro. Milan: Bompiani. –– 1988. Capire il teatro. Lineamenti di una nuova teatralogia. Florence: La Casa Usher. De Matteis, Tiberia. 2003. ‘Romeo e Giulietta due bravi acrobati’ in Il Tempo (28 November 2003). De Michelis, Cesare G.. 2002. ‘L’Amleto nella cultura russa’ in Del Sapio Garbero, Maria (ed.) La traduzione di Amleto nella cultura europea. Venice: Marsilio. 43-50. De Monticelli, Roberto. 1961. ‘Uno spettacolo pieno di forza tragica’ in Il Giorno (6 September 1961). –– 1964a. ‘Più riuscita l’edizione dell’Old Vic’ in Il Giorno (6 July 1964). –– 1964b. ‘Romeo e Giulietta: amore antico con parole moderne’ in Epoca (July 1964). –– 1973. ‘Un dramma d’amore con contorno comico’ in Il Giorno (5 August 1973). Del Sapio Garbero, Maria (ed.). 2002. La traduzione di Amleto nella cultura europea. Venice: Marsilio. Delabastita, Dirk. 1989. ‘Translation and mass-communication: film and TV translation as evidence of cultural dynamics’ in Babel 35(4): 193-218. –– 1990. ‘Translation and the Mass Media’, in Bassnett, Susan and André Lefevere (eds) Translation, History and Culture. London: Pinter. 97-109. –– 1993. ‘Hamlet in the Netherlands in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries. The Complexities of the History of Shakespeare’s Reception’ in Delabastita, Dirk and Lieven D’hulst (eds) European Shakespeares. Translating Shakespeare in the Romantic Age. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 219-233. –– 1998. ‘Shakespeare translation’ in Baker, Mona (ed.) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge. 222-226. 237

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet –– 2004. ‘Notes on Shakespeare in Dutch Translation. Historical Perspectives’ in Carvalho Homem, Rui and Ton Hoenselaars (eds) Translating Shakespeare for the Twenty-First Century. Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi. 99-116. Delabastita, Dirk and Lieven D’hulst (eds). 1993. European Shakespeares. Translating Shakespeare in the Romantic Age. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Della Casa, Stefano. 1999. Riccardo Freda. Rome: Bulzoni Editore. –– 2001. ‘L’horror’ in De Vincenti, Gino (ed.) Storia del cinema italiano, Vol. X, 1960-1964. Venice: Marsilio. 319-329. Déprats, Jean-Michel. 2001. ‘Translating Shakespeare’. Paper presented at the Translating Shakespeare Study Day (University of Oxford, 1 June 2001). –– 2004a. ‘Translation at the Crossroads of the Past and Present’ in Carvalho Homem, Rui and Ton Hoenselaars (eds) Translating Shakespeare for the Twenty-First Century. Amsterdam – New York, NY: Rodopi. 65-78. –– 2004b. ‘Translating Shakespeare’s Stagecraft’ in Hoenselaars, Ton (ed.) Shakespeare and the Language of Translation. London: Thomson Learning. 133-147. Derrida, Jacques. 1981. Positions. Trans. by Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. –– 1985. ‘Des Tours de Babel.’ Trans. by Joseph F. Graham. In Graham, Joseph F. (ed.) Difference in Translation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 165-248. Di Giammarco, Rodolfo. 1995. ‘Quattro secoli d’amor tragico’ in La Repubblica (16 May 1995). –– 1995. ‘Romeo e Giulietta come statue nude. Patroni Griffi: “Due ragazzi d’oggi”’ in La Repubblica (26 April 1995). –– 2003. ‘Romeo e Giulietta per attori “biomeccanici”’ in La Repubblica (26 November 2003). –– 2011. ‘Romeo e Giulietta’ in La Repubblica (11 February 2011). Di San Secondo, Rosso. 1951. ‘Romeo e Giulietta di Shakespeare’ in Il Giornale d’Italia, s.d.. Dollimore, Jonathan and Alan Sinfield (eds.). 1986. Political Shakespeare. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Donaldson, Peter S.. 1990a. Shakespearean Films/Shakespearean Directors. Boston: Unwin Hyman. –– 1990b. ‘“Let Lips Do What Hands Do”: Male Bonding, Eros, and Loss in Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet’ in Shakespearean Films/Shakespearean Directors. Boston: Unwin Hyman. 145188. Donin, Gastone. 1960. ‘Montecchi e Capuleti stasera a casa loro’ in Corriere Lombardo (6 July 1960). Downer, Alan, S.. 1962. ‘For Jesus’ Sake Forbear: Shakespeare versus the Modern Theater’ in Shakespeare Quarterly XIII(2): 219-230. Drago, Giuseppe. 1998. ‘Il verso sciolto nel ringhio canino’ in Oggi Sicilia (13 March 1998). Drakakis, John (ed.). 1985. Alternative Shakespeares. London and New York: Methuen. Duranti, Riccardo. 1979. ‘La doppia mediazione di Carcano’ in Caretti, Laura (ed.) Il teatro del personaggio. Shakespeare sulla scena italiana dell’Ottocento. Rome: Bulzoni. 81-111. –– 1998. ‘Italian tradition’ in Baker, Mona (ed.) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge. 474-483. Dusi, Nicola. 2000. ‘Introduzione. Per una ridefinizione della traduzione intersemiotica’ in Dusi, Nicola and Siri Nergaard (eds) Sulla traduzione intersemiotica, numero speciale di VS 8587: 3-54. Dusi, Nicola and Siri Nergaard (eds). 2000. Sulla traduzione intersemiotica, numero speciale di VS 85-87. Dyer, Richard. 1977. ‘Stereotyping’ in Gays and Film. London: British Film Institute. 27-39. Eagleton, Terry. 1986. William Shakespeare. Oxford: Blackwell. 238

References Eco, Umberto. 2000. ‘Traduzione e interpretazione’ in Dusi Nicola and Siri Nergaard (eds) Sulla traduzione intersemiotica, numero speciale di VS 85-87: 55-100. –– 2001. Experiences in Translation. Trans. by Alastair McEwen. Toronto: Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press). –– 2003. Dire quasi la stessa cosa. Esperienze di traduzione. Milan: Bompiani. Elam, Keir. 1980. The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. London: Methuen. Empson, William. 1930. Seven Types of Ambiguity. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Erens, Patricia (ed.). 1990. Issues in Feminist Film Criticism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Espasa, Eva. 2000. ‘Performability in Translation: Speakability? Playability? Or just Saleability?’ in Upton, Carole-Anne (ed.) Moving Target. Theatre Translation and Cultural Relocation. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. 49-62. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1978. ‘The Position of translated literature within the literary polysystem’ in Holmes, James, José Lambert and Raymond Van den Broeck (eds) Literature and Translation. Louvain: Acco. 117-127. –– 1990. ‘Translation and Transfer’ in Poetics Today 11(1): 73-78. Even-Zohar, Itamar, and Gideon Toury. 1981. Translation Theory and Intercultural Relations, Special Issue of Poetics Today 2(4): 9-29. Fabbri, Paolo. 2000. ‘Due Parole sul trasporre’ in Dusi, Nicola and Siri Nergaard (eds) Sulla traduzione intersemiotica, numero speciale di VS 85-87: 271-284. Farrell, Joseph. 1996. ‘Servant of Many Masters’ in Johnston, David (ed.) Stages of Translation. Essays and Interviews on Translating for the Stage. Bath: Absolute Classics. 44-55. Favetto, Gian Luca. 1990. ‘Questa è la istoria di Romeo e Giulietta. Settimo studia Shakespeare’ in La Repubblica (2 August 1990). –– 1992. ‘E il nuovo teatro ricomincia da Shakespeare’ in La Repubblica (27 March 1992). –– 2003. ‘Giovani attori stabili. Torino va a cercare registi in Francia’ in Diario (23 May 2003). Ferrero, Nino. 1977. ‘Shakespeare secondo Carmelo’ in L’Unità (8 March 1977). Ferrauto, Emanuela. 2010. ‘Alexander Zeldin e il suo Romeo and Juliet: carnale, emozionante, contemporaneo’. On line at: http://blog.libero.it/criticateatrale/8951028.html (consulted 20/11/2012). Fiore, Enrico. 2001. ‘Quegli adolescenti da “Apocalypse Now”. Originale Romeo e Giulietta di Latella al Nuovo’ in Il Mattino (25 November 2001). –– 2002. ‘Romeo e Giulietta, giovani senza idee’ in Il Mattino (11 November 2002). –– 2003. ‘Recensione’ in Il Mattino (1 December 2003). –– 2006. ‘Per Giulietta amore nel segno dell’eversione’ in Il Mattino (19 February 2006). Fischer-Lichte, Erica. 1984. The Semiotics of Theater. Trans. by Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Flaiano, Ennio. 1965. ‘Con il linguaggio Yé-Yé è di scena Scespirelli’ in L’Unità (17 October 1965). Fofi, Goffredo and Franca Faldini (eds). 1979. L’avventurosa storia del cinema italiano. Raccontata dai suoi protagonisti. Milan: Feltrinelli. Fontana, Luca. 2003. ‘Colloquio con Luca Fontana’ in the theatre programme of the project William Shakespeare. Tre storie d’amore. Turin: Teatro Stabile di Torino. 35. Freda, Riccardo. 1981. Divoratori di celluloide. Cinquant’anni di memorie cinematografiche e non. Milan: Emme Edizioni. Garber, Marjorie. 1981. Coming of Age in Shakespeare. London, New York: Methuen. Garrone, Nicola. 1977. ‘Romeo? È plagiato da Mercuzio’ in La Repubblica (22 January 1977). Gatti, Hilary. 1968. Shakespeare nei teatri milanesi dell’Ottocento. Bari: Adriatica Editrice.

239

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet Gelli, Piero. (ed.). 2001. Dizionario dell’opera. Milan: Baldini e Castoldi (also available at http://www.myword.it/opera/dictionary (consulted 18.01.2013). Genette, Gérard. 1982. Palimpsestes: la Littérature au second degré. Paris: Seuil. Gennari, Anna. 1999. ‘Tutti pazzi per Shakespeare’ in Grazia (19 March 1999). Gentzler, Edwin. 2001. Contemporary Translation Theories, revised 2nd edition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Geron, Gastone. 1977. ‘Verona fedele a Romeo e Giulietta’ in Il Giornale (3 July 1977). –– 1985. ‘Diventa una macabra processione di zombi l’impossibile amore di Giulietta e Romeo. Un “trionfo della morte” firmato Cobelli’ in Il Giornale (22 September 1985). Gervasini, Mauro. 2003. ‘Biografia di Riccardo Freda’ in Film TV (21 December 2003). Ghenzi, Sandro. 1979. ‘La produzione di Sandro Ghenzi’ in Toffetti, Sergio and Roberto Vaccino (eds) Shakespeare e il cinema. Turin: Città di Torino, Assessorato per la Cultura. 53-54 (first published in 1954). Giacovelli, Enrico. 2002. Un secolo di cinema italiano, 1900-1999. Turin: Lindau. Giammusso, Maurizio. 1976. ‘Shakespeare secondo Bene’ in Corriere della Sera (20 August 1976). Giddins, Robert and Erica Sheen (eds). 2000. The Classic Novel From Page to Screen. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. Gillin, John and Victor Raimy. 1940. ‘Acculturation and Personality’ in American Sociological Review 5: 371-380. Giubilei, Franco. 2000. ‘Paolo Rossi sotto al balcone’ in La Stampa (6 March 2000). Godard, Barbara. 1995. ‘Theorizing feminist discourse/translation’ in Bassnett, Susan and André Lefevere (eds) Translation, History and Culture. London: Cassell. 87-97. Gonella, Simona. 1991. ‘Le fonti della storia di Romeo e Giulietta’ in the theatre programme La storia di Romeo e Giulietta. Quaderni del Laboratorio Teatro Settimo, stagione 1990/91. Settimo Torinese: Laboratorio Teatro Settimo. 24-25. Gorbman, Claudia. 1998. ‘Film Music’ in Hill, John and Pamela Church Gibson (eds) The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 43-50. Graf, Arturo. 1911. L’Anglomania e l’influsso inglese in Italia nel secolo XVIII. Turin: Loescher. Graham-Jones, Jean. 2007. ‘Editorial comment: the stakes of theatrical translation’ in Theatre Journal 59(3): ix-xiii. Gregori, Maria Grazia. 1979. ‘In fretta e furia si consuma la tragedia’ in L’Unità (3 August 1979). –– 1985. ‘Romeo e Giulietta un amore nel buio’ in L’Unità (3 September 1985). ––1987. ‘Romeo è innamorato di un automa’ in L’Unità (18 February 1987). –– 1995. ‘Romeo & Co., ribelli con causa’ in L’Unità (30 July 1995). Gualerzi, Valerio. 2000. ‘Roberta Torre: “È stata una grande esperienza umana” Intervista alla regista’. On line at: http://www2.kwcinema.kataweb.it/venezia2000/p_torre_gualerzi.html (consulted 20.03.2013). Guerrieri, Gerardo. 1954. ‘L’interpretazione di Shakespeare dal Settecento al Novecento’ in Cinquant’anni di teatro in Italia. Rome: Bestetti Edizioni d’arte. 71-86. Guerrieri, Osvaldo. 1991. ‘Ricordi Romeo e Giulietta, “putei” morti per amore?’ in La Stampa (31 July 1991). –– 1995. ‘Romeo borgataro giuggiolone’ in La Stampa (31 July 1995). –– 2000. ‘Romeo e Giulietta: tutto e subito’ in La Stampa (30 July 2000). –– 2003. ‘Romeo e Giulietta, il freddo dell’amore’ in La Stampa (10 May 2003). Gurr, Andrew. 1996. ‘The Date and Expected Venue of Romeo and Juliet’ in Shakespeare Survey 49: 15-25.

240

References Gury, Jacques. 1993. ‘Heurs et malheurs de Roméo et Juliette en France à l’époque romantique’ in Delabastita, Dirk and Lieven D’hulst (eds) European Shakespeares. Translating Shakespeare in the Romantic Age. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 187-202. Hale, Terry and Carole-Anne Upton. 2000. ‘Introduction’ in Upton, Carole-Anne (ed.) Moving Target. Theatre Translation and Cultural Relocation. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. 113. Halio, Jay (ed.). 1995. Shakespeare’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’: Texts, Contexts, and Interpretation. Newark and London: Associated University Press. Hall, Stuart (ed.). 1997. Representation. Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Hatchuel, Sarah. 2004. Shakespeare from Stage to Screen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hawkes, Terence. 1986. That Shakespeherian Rag: Essays on a Critical Process. London: Methuen. –– (ed.). 1996. Alternative Shakespeares Vol. 2. London and New York: Routledge. Hermans, Theo. (ed.). 1985. The Manipulation of Literature. Studies in Literary Translation. London: Croom Helm. –– 1993. ‘Report’ in Delabastita, Dirk and Lieven D’hulst (eds) European Shakespeares. Translating Shakespeare in the Romantic Age. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 183-186. –– (ed.). 2002. Crosscultural Transgressions. Research Models in Translation Studies II. Historical and Ideological Issues. Manchester and Northampton MA: St Jerome Publishing Company. Heylen, Romy. 1993. Translation, Poetics, and the Stage. Six French Hamlets. London and New York: Routledge. Hill, John and Pamela Church Gibson (eds). 1998. The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hodgdon, Barbara. 1998. The Shakespeare Trade; Performances and Appropriations. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hoenselaars, Ton. 2003. ‘Shakespeare and translation’ in Wells, Stanley and Lena Cowen Orlin (eds) Shakespeare. An Oxford Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 645-657. –– (ed.). 2004. Shakespeare and the Language of Translation. London: Arden. Holderness, Graham (ed.). 1988. The Shakespeare Myth. Manchester: Manchester University Press. –– 2001. Cultural Shakespeare. Essays in the Shakespeare Myth. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. –– 2002. Visual Shakespeare. Essays in Film and Television. Hatfield: Univeristy of Hertfordshire Press. Holding, Peter. 1992. ‘Romeo and Juliet’. Text and Performance. London: MacMillan. Holmer, Joan Ozark. 1996. ‘The Poetics of Paradox: Shakespeare’s Versus Zeffirelli’s Cultures of Violence’ in Shakespeare Survey 49: 163-179. Holmes, James, José Lambert and Raymond Van den Broeck (eds). 1978. Literature and Translation. Louvain: Acco. hooks, bell. 1992a. ‘Eating the Other’ in Black Looks: Race and Representation. Boston: South End Press. 21-39. –– 1992b. ‘The Oppositional Gaze’ in Black Looks: Race and Representation. Boston: South End Press. 115-132.

241

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet Howard, Tony. 2000. ‘Shakespeare’s Cinematic Offshoots’ in Jackson, Russell (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 295-313. Hutcheon, Linda. 2006. A Theory of Adaptation. Abingdon-New York: Routledge. Hutcheon, Linda, with Siobhan O’Flynn. 2013. A Theory of Adaptation. Second edition. Abingdon-New York: Routledge. Imperiali, Isabella (ed.). 2000. Shakespeare al cinema. Rome: Bulzoni Editore. Jackson, Russell (ed.). 2000. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. –– 2001. ‘Shakespeare in the cinema’ in De Grazia, Margreta and Stanley Wells (eds) The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 217-233. –– 2003. Romeo and Juliet. Shakespeare at Stratford. London: The Arden Shakespeare/Thomson. –– 2007. Shakespeare Films in the Making: Vision, Production ad Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jakobson, Roman. 2000. ‘On Linguistic Aspects of Translation’ in Venuti, Lawrence (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge. 113-118 (first published in 1959). James, Henry. 1949. ‘Notes from Paris’ in The Scenic Art. London: Rupert Hart-Dans. 53-54 (first published in 1867). Janis, Maria. 1996. ‘What Translators of Plays Think About Their Work’ in Target, 8(2): 341364. Johnston, David (ed.). 1996. Stages of Translation. Bath: Absolute Press. –– 2000. ‘Valle-Inclán: The Meaning of Form’ in Upton, Carole-Anne (ed.) Moving Target. Theatre Translation and Cultural Relocation. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. 85-99. –– 2004. ‘Securing the Performability of the Play in Translation’ in Coelsch-Foisner, Sabine and Holger Klein (eds) Drama Translation and Theatre Practice. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang. 25-38. –– 2011. ‘Metaphor and Metonymy: the Translator-Practitioner’s Visibility’ in Baines, Roger, Cristina Marinetti and Manuela Perteghella (eds) Staging and Performing Translation. Text and Theatre Practice. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 11-30. Jorgens, Jack J.. 1977. Shakespeare on Film. Bloomington: IN. Jorgensen, Paul A.. 1955. ‘Castellani’s Romeo and Juliet: Intention and Response’ in Film Quarterly 10(1): 1-10. Kahn, Coppélia. 1983. ‘Coming of Age in Verona’ in Lenz, Carolyn Ruth Swift, Gayle Greene and Carol Thomas Neely (eds) The Woman’s Part. Feminist Criticism of Shakespeare. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 171-193 (first published in 1978). Kaplan, E. Ann. 1997. Looking for the Other. Feminism, Film, and the Imperial Gaze. New York and London: Routledge. Kennan, Patricia and Mariangela Tempera (eds). 1992. Shakespeare from Text to Stage. Bologna: CLUEB. Kennan, Patricia Ann. 1986. ‘Le forme e i motivi dell’amor cortese in Romeo and Juliet: fatti e antefatti’ in Tempera, Mariangela (ed.) Romeo and Juliet: dal testo alla scena. Bologna: CLUEB. 101-124. Kennedy, Dennis (ed.). 1993. Foreign Shakespeare. Contemporary Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kenny, Dorothy. 1998. ‘Equivalence’ in Baker, Mona (ed.) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge. 77-80.

242

References Kidnie, Margaret Jane. 2000. ‘“The Way the World is Now”. Love in the Troma Zone’ in Burnett, Mark Thornton and Ramona Wray (eds) Shakespeare, Film, Fin de Siècle. Houndmills and London: MacMillan. 102-120. Klein, Holger and Michele Marrapodi (eds). 1999. Shakespeare and Italy, Shakespeare Yearbook Vol. X. Klein, Michael and Gillian Parker (eds). 1981. The English Novel and the Movies. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing. Kline, Karen. 1996. ‘The Accidental Tourist On page and on Screen: Interrogating Normative Theories About Film Adaptation’ in Literature/Film Quarterly 24(1): 70-83. Kolker, Robert P.. 1998. ‘The Film Text and Film Form’ in Hill John and Pamela Church Gibson (eds) The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 11-23. Koller, Werner. 1989. ‘Equivalence in translation theory’. Trans. by Andrew Chesterman, in Chesterman, Andrew (ed.) Readings in Translation Theory. Helsinki: Finn Lectura. 99-104. Kowzan, Tadeusz. 1975. Littérature et spectacle. The Hague: Mouton. Krebs, Katja. 2007. ‘Theatre Translation and the Formation of a Field of Cultural Production’ in Kelly, Stephen and David Johnston (eds) Betwixt and Between: Place and Cultural Translation. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 69-82. –– 2012. ‘Translation and Adaptation. Two Sides of an Ideological Coin?’ in Raw, Laurence (ed.) Translation, Adaptation and Transformation. London and New York: Continuum. 4253. –– (ed.). (2013). Translation and Adaptation in Theatre and Film. London and New York: Routledge. Krebs, Katja and Màrta Minier. 2009. ‘Performative Acts: Translating for the Theatre’ in Pietrzak-Franger, Monika and Eckart Voigts-Virchow (eds) Contemporary Drama in English, Vol. 16. Adaptations–Performing across Media and Genres. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. 65-79. Kristeva, Julia. 1969. Semeiotike: recherches pour une s’emanalyse. Paris: Editions du Seuil. –– 1970. Le texte du roman. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. –– 1982. Powers of Horror. New York: Columbia University Press. Laera, Margherita. 2011. ‘Theatre Translation as Collaboration: Aleks Sierz, Martin Crimp, Nathalie Abrahami, Colin Teevan, Zoë Svendsen and Michael Walton discuss Translation for the Stage’ in Contemporary Theatre Review 21(2): 213-225. Lambert, José. 1993. ‘Shakespeare en France au tournant du XVIIIe siècle. Un dossier européen’ in Delabastita, Dirk and Lieven D’hulst (eds) European Shakespeares. Translating Shakespeare in the Romantic Age. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 25-44. Landy, Marcia. 2000. Italian Film. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lanier, Douglas. 2007a. ‘“What’s in a name?”: Romeo and Juliet and Pop Culture’ in Bevington, David, Barbara Gaines and Peter Holland (eds) Romeo and Juliet: Shakespeare in Performance (The Sourcebook Shakespeare Series). London: Methuen Drama. 19-25. –– 2007b. ‘William Shakespeare, filmmaker’ in Cartmell, Deborah and Imelda Whelehan (eds) The Cambridge Companion to Literature on Screen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 61-74. Laroque, François. 1995. ‘Tradition and Subversion in Romeo and Juliet’ in Halio, Jay (ed.) Shakespeare’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’: Texts, Contexts, and Interpretation. Newark and London: Associated University Press. 18-36. Latella, Antonio. 1999. ‘Romeo e Giulietta. Presentazione’. On line at: http://www.elsinor.net/ produzioni/romeoegiul.html (consulted 25.04. 2004). Lawrence, W. W.. 1969. Shakespeare’s Problem Comedies. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Lefevere, André. 1975. Translating Poetry: Seven Strategies and a Blueprint. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum. 243

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet –– 1984. ‘Refraction – Some Observations on the Occasion of Wole Soyinka’s Opera Wonyosi’ in Zuber-Skerrit, Otrun (ed.) Page to Stage. Theatre as Translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 191-198. –– 1992. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London: Routledge. –– 1993. Translating Literature: Practice and Theory in a Comparative Literature Context. New York: The Modern Language Association of America. –– 1998. ‘Acculturating Bertolt Brecht’ in Bassnett, Susan and André Lefevere. Constructing Cultures. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 109-122. –– 2000. ‘Mother Courage’s Cucumbers. Text, system and refraction in a theory of literature’ in Venuti, Lawrence (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge. 233-249 (first published in 1982). Lehmann, Courtney. 2010. Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. The Relationship Between Text and Film. London: A & C Black Publishers Limited. Lehmann, Courtney and Lisa S. Starks (eds). 2001. Spectacular Shakespeare: Critical Theory and Popular Cinema. Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Levenson, Jill. 1982. ‘The Definition of Love: Shakespeare’s Phrasing in Romeo and Juliet’ in Shakespeare Studies 15: 21-36. –– 1984. ‘Romeo and Juliet before Shakespeare’ in Studies in Philology 81: 325-347. –– 1987. Shakespeare in Performance: Romeo and Juliet. Manchester: Manchester University Press. –– 1995. ‘“Alla stoccado carries it away”: Codes of Violence in Romeo and Juliet’ in Halio, Jay (ed.) Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet: Texts, Contexts, and Interpretations. Newark and London: Associated University Press. 83-96. –– 1996. ‘Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet: The Places of Invention’ in Shakespeare Survey 49: 45-55. –– 2007. ‘In Production: Romeo and Juliet Through the Years’ in Bevington, David, Barbara Gaines and Peter Holland (eds) Romeo and Juliet: Shakespeare in Performance (The Sourcebook Shakespeare Series). London: A & C Black Publishers Limited. 1-9. Lever, Julius Walter. 1978. The Elizabethan Love Sonnet. London: Methuen. Levin, Harry. 1960. ‘Form and Formality in Romeo and Juliet’ in Shakespeare Quarterly 11: 311. Levith, Murray J.. 1987. Shakespeare’s Italian Settings and Plays. Basingstoke: MacMillan. Ligas, Pierluigi. 2005a. ‘Introduzione’ in Mercier, Louis-Sébastien. 2005. Les Tombeaux de Vérone (Giulietta e Romeo) di Louis-Sébastien Mercier (1740-1814). Introduzione, traduzione e note a cura di Pierluigi Ligas. Verona: Libreria Editrice Universitaria. 11-99. Ligas, Pierluigi. 2005b. ‘Les Tombeaux de Vérone’, in Mercier, Louis-Sébastien, 2005. Les Tombeaux de Vérone (Giulietta e Romeo) di Louis-Sébastien Mercier (1740-1814). Introduzione, traduzione e note a cura di Pierluigi Ligas. Verona: Libreria Editrice Universitaria. 100-188. Lizzani, Carlo. 1992. Il cinema italiano. Dalle origini agli anni Ottanta. Rome: Editori Riuniti. Locatelli, Angela. 1986. ‘Anticipazione e performance in Romeo and Juliet’ in Tempera, Mariangela (ed.) Romeo and Juliet: dal testo alla scena. Bologna: CLUEB. 39-50. –– 1993. ‘The fictional World of Romeo and Juliet: Cultural Connotations of an Italian Setting’ in Marrapodi, Michele, et al. (eds) Shakespeare’s Italy: Functions of Italian Locations in Renaissance Drama. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 69-84. Lodovici, Cesare Vico. 1964. ‘La difficoltà di arrivare a una prosa semplice’ in Sipario 218: 1719. Loehlin, James N.. 1997. ‘Top of the World, Ma’: Richard III and Cinematic Convention’ in Boose, Linda and Richard Burt (eds) Shakespeare, the Movie: Popularizing the Plays on Film, TV, and Video. London: Routledge. 67-79. 244

References –– 2000. ‘“These Violent Delights have Violent Ends”: Baz Luhrmann’s Millennial Shakespeare’ in Burnett, Mark Thornton and Ramona Wray (eds) Shakespeare, Film, Fin de Siècle. Houndmills and London: MacMillan. 121-136. Lombardo, Agostino. 1956. ‘De Sanctis e Shakespeare’ in English Miscellany 7: 91-146. –– 1964. ‘Shakespeare e la critica italiana’ in Sipario 218: 2-13, 65. –– (ed.). 1979. Shakespeare e Jonson. Il teatro elisabettiano oggi. Rome: Officina Edizioni. –– 1987. ‘Tradurre La Tempesta’ in Serpieri, Alessandro and Keir Elam (eds) Mettere in scena Shakespeare. Parma: Pratiche. 91-104. –– 1992. ‘Ungaretti e i sonetti di Shakespeare’ in Per una critica imperfetta. Rome: Editori Riuniti. 119-134. –– (ed.). 2000. Memoria di Shakespeare. Rome: Bulzoni. Londré, Felicia Harrison. 1986. ‘Romeo and Juliet’ in Leiter, Samuel (ed.) Shakespeare Around the Globe: A Guide to Notable Postwar Revivals. New York: Greenwood Press. 625-659. Loney, Glenn (ed.). 1990. Staging Shakespeare: Seminars on Production Problems. New York: Garland. Longo, Tiziana. 1986. ‘Romeo e Giulietta due agnellini sacrificali nella buia Verona vista da Cobelli’ in Stampa Sera (14 March 1986). Lucidi, Marcantonio, 2011. ‘L’amore ha un paio d’occhiali’ in Left (25 February 2011). M. A.. 2001. ‘Giulietta e Romeo amore in rock’ in Il tempo (23 November 2001). Maguire, Simon. 1989. Vincenzo Bellini and the Aesthetics of Early Nineteenth-Century Italian Opera. New York and London: Garland Publishing. Mahood, Molly. 1957. Shakespeare’s Wordplay. London: Methuen. Manganelli, Giuliana. 2001. ‘Amore e adrenalina per giovani “contro”’ in Il Secolo XIX (29 November 2001). Manin, Giuseppina. 1985. ‘Cobelli: “il lutto si addice a Romeo e Giulietta”’ in Corriere della Sera (15 September 1985). Mansini, Laura. 1982. ‘Il ritorno di Giulietta’ in L’Adige (26 March 1982). Manvell, Roger. 1971. Shakespeare and the Film. New York: Praeger. Manzella, Gianni. 1998. ‘Una tragedia inafferrabile’ in Il Manifesto (13 January 1988). Manzoni, Franco. 2000. ‘Romeo e Giulietta dedicato ai giovani’ in Corriere della Sera (7 November 2000). Marcus, Millicent. 1993. Filmmaking by the Book: Italian Cinema and Literary Adaptation. London: the John Hopkins University. Marinetti, Cristina. 2013. ‘Transnational, Multilingual and Post-dramatic: The Location of Translation in Contemporary Theatre’ in Bigliazzi, Silvia, Peter Kofler and Paola Ambrosi (eds) Theatre Translation in Performance. Abingdon-New York: Routledge. 27-37. Marinetti, Cristina, Manuela Perteghella and Roger Baines. 2011. ‘Introduction’ in Baines, Roger, Cristina Marinetti and Manuela Perteghella (eds) Staging and Performing Translation. Text and Theatre Practice. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 1-8. Marinetti, Cristina and Margaret Rose. 2013. ‘Process, Practice and Landscapes of Reception: an Ethnographic study of Theatre Translation’ in Translation Studies 6(2): 166-182. Marino, Massimo. 1998. ‘Romeo e Giulietta tra gli stoccafissi salati (e il desiderio sessuale è tutto un suono)’ in L’Unità (12 January 1998). Markus, Zoltan. 2002. ‘Berlino e Budapest: gli Amleti dell’Europa in guerra’ in Del Sapio Garbero, Maria (ed.) La traduzione di Amleto nella cultura europea. Venice: Marsilio. 6175. Marrapodi, Michele (ed.). 2000. Shakespeare and Intertextuality. The Transition of Cultures Between Italy and England in the Early Modern Period. Rome: Bulzoni.

245

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet –– 2002. ‘Shakespeare Studies in Italy’. On line at: http://web.uvic.ca/shakespeare/Library/ Criticism/shakespearein/italy1.html (consulted 02.04.2003). –– (ed.). 2004. Shakespeare, Italy, and Intertextuality. Manchester: Manchester University Press. –– (ed.). 2007. Italian Culture in the Drama of Shakespeare and his Contemporaries. Rewriting, Remaking, Refashioning. Aldershot: Ashgate. Marrapodi, Michele et al. (eds). 1993. Shakespeare’s Italy: Functions of Italian Locations in Renaissance Drama. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Marrapodi, Michele and Holger Klein (eds). 1999. Shakespeare and Italy. Shakespeare Yearbook 10. Lewinston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press. Marsden, Jean I. (ed.). 1991. The Appropriation of Shakespeare: Post-Renaissance Reconstructions of the Works and the Myth. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Martellotta, Mara. 2000. ‘Romeo e Giulietta a Porta Palazzo’ in Torino Sera (13 June 2000). Martina, Stefano. 1997. ‘Lavori in Corto: Intervista a Roberta Torre. Un esordio in bella Mostra’ in CineCritica (April/September 1997). Martini, Emanuela. 1998. Ombre che camminano: Shakespeare nel cinema. Turin: Lindau. Martini, Stelio (ed.). 1956. Giulietta e Romeo di Renato Castellani. Rocca San Casciano: Cappelli Editore. Massai, Sonia (ed.). 2005. World-Wide Shakespeares: Local Appropriations in Film and Performance. London: Routledge. Mast, Gerald, Marshall Cohen and Leo Braudy (eds). 1974. Film Theory and Criticism. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. McCullough, Christopher and Graham Holderness. 1986. ‘Romeo and Juliet e il teatro della poesia’ in Tempera, Mariangela (ed.) Romeo and Juliet: dal testo alla scena. Bologna: CLUEB. 257-280. McFarlane, Brian. 1996. Novel to Film: an Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. –– 2000. ‘It wasn’t like that in the book’ in Literature/Film Quarterly 28(3): 163-169. –– 2007. ‘Reading Film and Literature’ in Cartmell, Deborah and Imelda Whelehan (eds) The Cambridge Companion to Literature on Screen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 15-28. Melchiori, Giorgio. 1978. ‘Translating Shakespeare: An Italian View’ in Shakespeare Translation 5: 19-30. –– 1979. ‘Tradurre Shakespeare’ in Lombardo, Agostino (ed.) Shakespeare e Jonson. Il teatro elisabettiano oggi. Rome: Officina Edizioni. 258-280. –– 1982. ‘The staging of the Capulet’s Ball: Doubling as an Art’ in Conejero, Manuel Angel (ed.) En torno a Shakespeare, vol. 2. Valencia: Instituto Shakespeare, Universidad de Valencia. 129-153. –– 1984. ‘Peter, Balthasar and Shakespeare’s Art of Doubling’ in Modern Language Review: 777-792. –– 1986. ‘Romeo and Juliet dal testo alla scena’ in Tempera, Mariangela (ed.) Romeo and Juliet: dal testo alla scena. Bologna: CLUEB. 9-24. –– 1992. ‘Shakespeare from Text to Stage’, in Kennan, Patricia and Mariangela Tempera (eds) Shakespeare from Text to Stage. Bologna: CLUEB. 13-25. –– 1994. ‘La tragedia lirica: “Romeo and Juliet”’ in Shakespeare. Genesi e struttura delle opere. Rome-Bari: Laterza. 208-230. Metz, Christian. 1974. Film Language. A Semiotics of the Cinema. New York: Oxford University Press. –– 1977. The Imaginary Signifier. Bloomingdale: Indiana University Press. Micciché, Lino (ed.). 1999. Il neorealismo cinematografico italiano. Venice: Marsilio. Minutella, Vincenza. 2003. ‘Sud Side Stori. Romeo and Juliet emigrate to Sicily’ in Burns, 246

References Jennifer, and Loredana Polezzi (eds) Borderlines. Migrazioni e identità nel Novecento. Isernia: Cosmo Iannone Editore. 363-371. –– 2008. ‘“What’s in a name?” References to women in Romeo and Juliet and their translation into Italian’ in Martelli, Aurelia and Virginia Pulcini (eds) Investigating English with Corpora. Studies in Honour of Maria Teresa Prat. Monza: Polimetrica. 239-255. –– 2012. ‘Romeo and Juliet from Page to Screen: A Multilateral Model for the Analysis of Three Italian Films’ in Journal of Adaptation in Film and Performance 5(1): 25-39. Miola, Robert. 2000. ‘Seven Types of Intertextuality’ in Marrapodi, Michele (ed.) Shakespeare and Intertextuality. The Transition of Cultures Between Italy and England in the Early Modern Period. Rome: Bulzoni. 23-38. Moore, Olin H.. 1950. The Legend of Romeo and Juliet. Columbia: Ohio State University Press. Morandini, Laura, Luisa and Morando. 2004. Il Morandini. Dizionario dei film 2005. Bologna: Zanichelli. Morley, John. 1986. ‘How Long is to Lammas-tide? La maturazione dei protagonisti in Romeo and Juliet’ in Tempera, Mariangela (ed.) Romeo and Juliet dal testo alla scena. Bologna: CLUEB. 165-173. Muir, Kenneth. 1977. The Sources of Shakespeare’s Plays. London: Methuen. Mullini, Roberta. 1986. ‘“Vieni a veder Montecchi e Cappelletti”: Romeo and Juliet da Dante a Shakespeare’ in Tempera, Mariangela (ed.) Romeo and Juliet dal testo alla scena. Bologna: CLUEB. 51-68. Mulvey, Laura. 1975. ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ in Screen 16(3): 6-18. Munday, Jeremy. 2001. Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge. Munro, J. J. (ed.). 1908. Brooke’s “Romeo and Juliet”. London: Chatto and Windus. Naldi, Paola. 1998. ‘Il linguaggio di corpi in amore. Romeo e Giulietta a Parma’ in La Repubblica (10 January 1998). Nardi, Piero. 1944. Vita di Arrigo Boito. Milan: Mondadori. Naremore, James (ed.). 2000. Film Adaptation. London: Athlone. Neale, Steve. 1979. ‘The Same Old Story: Stereotypes and Difference’ in Screen Education 32(3): 33-37. Nergaard, Siri. 2000. ‘Conclusioni. Intorno all’ipotesi della traduzione intersemiotica. Riflessioni a margine’ in Dusi, Nicola and Siri Nergaard (eds) Sulla traduzione intersemiotica, numero speciale di VS 85-87: 285-296. Neri, O.. 1995. ‘Romeo e Giulietta parlano slang’ in L’Unità (8 December (1995). Newmark, Peter. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. New York and London: Prentice-Hall. Nicolai, Rina. 1986. ‘Giulietta e Romeo: una contaminazione filmica’ in Tempera, Mariangela (ed.) Romeo and Juliet: dal testo alla scena. Bologna: CLUEB. 223-240. Nocera Avila, C.. 1987. ‘Una nota sulle traduzioni shakespeariane d’oggi’ in Serpieri, Alessandro and Keir Elam (eds) Mettere in scena Shakespeare. Parma: Pratiche. 105-113. Nord, Christine. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester, UK: St Jerome Publishing. Novy, Marianne. 1984. ‘Violence, Love and Gender in Romeo and Juliet and Troilus and Cressida’ in Love’s Argument: relations in Shakespeare. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press. 87-97. Nulli, Siro Attilio. 1918. Shakespeare in Italia. Milan: Ulrico Hoepli Editore Libraio. Oldoini, Nicla. 2003. ‘Pozioni, alambicchi e tanta carne. Romeo e Giulietta mai così passionali’ in La Stampa (1 March 2003). Ottolenghi, Valeria. 1998. ‘Verità animale, sogno d’amore e tragedia di morte’ in Gazzetta di Parma (14 January 1998).

247

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet O’Thomas, Mark. 2010. ‘Turning Japanese: Translation, Adaptation and the Ethics of TransNational Exchange’ in Albrecht-Crane, Christa and Dennis Ray Cutchins (eds) Adaptation Studies: New Approaches. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. 46-61. Paganini, Paolantonio. 1973. ‘L’ombra di Amleto fra Romeo e Giulietta’ in La Notte (4 August 1973). Palandri, Enrico. 1991. ‘La soppressione della giovinezza’ in the theatre programme La storia di Romeo e Giulietta. Quaderni del Laboratorio Teatro Settimo, stagione 1990/91. Settimo Torinese: Laboratorio Teatro Settimo. 11. Palazzi, Renato. 1984. ‘Tra sonno e veglia Romeo e Giulietta’ in Corriere della Sera (26 October 1984).) –– 1987. ‘Romeo e Giulietta fra sogno e favola’ in Corriere della Sera (15 February 1987). –– 1998. ‘Romeo e Giulietta, un amore darwiniano’ in Il Sole 24 ore (18 January 1998). –– 2003. ‘Recensione: Romeo e Giulietta’. On line at: http://www.delteatro.it/hdoc/ area_rec.asp?recensioneID=7085&startposition=1 (consulted 25.04.2004). –– 2005. ‘Romeo, Juliet e i ragazzacci del quartiere’ in Il Sole 24 Ore (13 November 2005). Palazzo, Lucio. 2006. ‘Visionario fra la gente di strada’ in La Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno (10 February 2006). Panici, Maurizio. 1995. ‘Note di regia’ in the theatre programme of Romeo e Giulietta, Teatro Argot, traduzione e adattamento Stefano Antonelli e Maurizio Panici, regia di Maurizio Panici (s.p.). Partridge, Eric. 1960. Shakespeare’s Bawdy. New York: Dutton. Pasternak Slater, Ann. 1988. ‘Petrarchanism Comes True in Romeo and Juliet’ in Habitch, Werner, D. J. Palmer and Roger Pringle (eds) Images of Shakespeare. London: Associated University Press. 129-150. Patroni Griffi, Giuseppe. 1995a. ‘Romeo e Giulietta a nudo. Patroni Griffi parla del suo spettacolo che va in scena al Nazionale’ in Il Messaggero (25 April 1995). –– 1995b. ‘Romeo e Giulietta. Una versione italiana di Giuseppe Patroni Griffi’ in PrimaFila (April 1995): 116-117. Pavis, Patrice. 1989. ‘Problems of translation for the stage: Interculturalism and post-modern theatre’ in Scolnicov, Hanna and Peter Holland (eds) The Play Out of Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 25-44. –– 1992. Theatre at the Crossroads of Cultures. London and New York: Routledge. Paz, Octavio. 1992. ‘Translation: literature and letters’ in Schulte, Rainer and John Biguenet (eds) Theories of Translation. An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 152-162 (first published in 1971). Pellizzari, Lorenzo (ed.). 1978. Cineromanzo. Il cinema italiano 1945-53. Milan: Longanesi. Perona, Piero. 1977. ‘Ah Giulietta, poverina! È Mercuzio il mattatore’ in Stampa Sera (14 March 1977). –– 1979. ‘Shakespeare non è per tutti’ in Stampa Sera (24 July 1979). Perteghella, Manuela. 2008. ‘Adaptation: “bastard child” or critique? Putting Terminology Centre Stage’ in Journal of Romance Studies 8(3): 51-65. Peterson, Douglas L.. 1967. The English Lyric from Wyatt to Donne. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Petrone Fresco, Gaby. 1991. Shakespeare’s Reception in 18th Century Italy: the Case of ‘Hamlet’. PhD thesis. University of Warwick. –– 1993. ‘An Unpublished Pre-Romantic Hamlet in Eighteenth-Century Italy’ in Delabastita, Dirk and Lieven D’hulst (eds) European Shakespeares. Translating Shakespeare in the Romantic Age. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 111-128. Pilkington, Ace G.. 1994. ‘Zeffirelli’s Shakespeare’ in Davies, Anthony and Stanley Wells (eds) Shakespeare and the Moving Image: the Plays on Film and Television. Cambridge: 248

References Cambridge University Press. 163-179. Poli, Magda. 1995. ‘Romeo e Giulietta in una grezza sintesi’ in Corriere della Sera (9 December 1995). –– 1998. ‘Romeo e Giulietta, giovani davvero’ in Corriere della Sera (15 January 1998). –– 2000. ‘Romeo e Giulietta senza sospiri’ in Corriere della Sera (10 November 2000). Ponti, Marco and Pietro De Andrea. 2005. ‘La terribile attualità di Shakespeare. Nota introduttiva alla traduzione’, in the theatre programme Romeo & Juliet, R&J Links, un progetto di Gabriele Vacis e Roberto Tarasco, regia di Gabriele Vacis. Turin: Fondazione del Teatro Stabile di Torino. 25-28. Porcheddu, Andrea. 2011. ‘Romeo e Giulietta’. On line at: http://delteatro.it/recensioni/201103/romeo-e-giulietta.php (consulted 20.11.2012). Porro, Maurizio. 1977. ‘Romeo: “questa è storia di mafia!”’ in Corriere della Sera (1 July 1977). Porter, Joseph. 1988. Shakespeare’s Mercutio: His History and Drama. London: University of North Carolina Press. Possenti, Eligio. 1960. ‘Romeo e Giulietta di Shakespeare recitata nel cortile di Castelvecchio’ in Corriere della Sera (6 July 1960). –– 1961. ‘Romeo e Giulietta di Shakespeare nell’edizione dell’Old Vic di Londra’ in Corriere della Sera (6 September 1961). Praz, Mario. 1944. ‘La fortuna di Shakespeare in Italia’ in Storia della letteratura inglese. Florence: Sansoni. –– 1964. ‘Conservare l’originalità della lingua senza pensare al pubblico’ in Sipario 218: 20. ––1969. Caleidoscopio Shakespeariano. Bari: Adriatica Editrice. Principe, Igor. 2000. ‘Romeo e Giulietta hanno ancora vent’anni’ in Il Giornale (7 November 2000). Prosperi, Giorgio. 1965. ‘Come una corsa alla morte Romeo e Giulietta di Zeffirelli’ in Il Tempo (8 October 1965). –– 1986. ‘Lo Shakespeare simbolista di Cimnaghi e Cobelli’ in Il Tempo (14 February 1986). Prunster, Nicole. 2000. Romeo and Juliet before Shakespeare. Four Early Stories of StarCrossed Love by Masuccio Salernitano, Luigi da Porto, Matteo Bandello, and Pierre Boaistuau. Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies. Pulcinelli, Paolo. 2000. ‘Romeo e Giulietta, due ragazzi come tanti’ in L’Arena di Verona (28 July 2000). Quadri, Franco. 1985. ‘Trionfo della morte?’ in Panorama (13 October 1985). –– 1995. ‘Ma questi due amanti conoscono la passione? “Romeo e Giulietta” perdenti e datati’ in La Repubblica (28 April 1995). R., F.. 1977. ‘Uno Shakespeare nuovo al Festival di Verona’ in La Stampa (3 July 1977). R., P.. 1979. ‘Shakespeare delicato’ in Corriere della Sera (21 December 1979). Rabbione, Elio. 2005. ‘Pasticcio in salsa contemporanea’ in Corriere dell’Arte (19 November 2005). Raboni, Giovanni. 1987. ‘Che attori quegli automi: sembrano veramente umani’ in Corriere della Sera (10 February 1987). –– 1996. ‘Romeo e Giulietta giovani, finta novità’ in Corriere della Sera (21 March 1996). Radice, Raul. 1961. ‘Il XX festival del Teatro inaugurato all’insegna dell’Europa’ in Il Giornale d’Italia (6/7 September 1961). –– 1964. ‘Romeo e Giulietta di Shakespeare a Verona’ in Corriere della Sera (6 July 1964). Ravazzin, Luciano. 1982. ‘Romeo e Giulietta: in bellezza e pulizia’ in L’Arena (18 March 1982). Raw, Laurence (ed.). Translation, Adaptation and Transformation. London and New York: Continuum. Reiß, Katharina and Hans J. Vermeer. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translattionstheorie. Tubingen: Niemeyer. 249

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet Restivo, Giuseppina and Renzo Crivelli (eds). 2002. Tradurre/Interpretare “Amleto”. Bologna: CLUEB. Reynolds, Peter (ed.). 1993. Novel Images: Literature in Performance. London: Routledge. Righetti, Angelo (ed.) 1999. Rileggere/Re-reading ‘Romeo and Juliet’. Verona: Università. Rigotti, Domenico. 1979. ‘Un valzer in casa Capuleti’ in Avvenire (3 August 1979). –– 2003. ‘Giulietta e Romeo a tutto ritmo’ in Avvenire (14 March 2003). –– 2010. ‘”Romeo e Giulietta” e il calcio nelle periferie degradate’ in Avvenire (6 June 2010). Ripellino, Angelo M.. 1977. ‘Frana sul monte Shakespeare’ in L’Espresso (13 February 1977). Risset, Jacqueline. 2002. ‘Mallarmé, Amleto e il vento’ in Del Sapio Garbero, Maria (ed.) La Traduzione di Amleto nella cultura europea. Venice: Marsilio. 33-42. Rizzo, Salvatore. 1998. ‘Romeo e Giulietta, una tragedia narrata per eccessi’ in Giornale di Sicilia (13 March 1998). Roberts, Sasha. 1998. William Shakespeare. Romeo and Juliet. Plymouth: Northcote House Publishers. Robiony, Simonetta. 2011. ‘Shakespeare ci insegna: non c’è amore senza morte’ in La Stampa (11 February 2011). Rocca, Gino. 1937. ‘“Romeo e Giulietta” nel cortile di Ca’ Foscari’ in Popolo d’Italia – Milano (21 July 1937). Romano, Angelo (ed.). 1993. Le Storie di Giulietta e Romeo. Rome: Salerno Editrice. Ronfani, Ugo. 1995. ‘Lo Shakespeare crudele dei nostri giovani’ in Il Giorno (15 December 1995). –– 1996. ‘Romeo e Giulietta porci con le ali’ in Il Giorno (22 March 1996). –– 2000. ‘Purché gli amanti siano giovani’ in Il Giorno (10 November 2000). Rose, Margaret and Cristina Marinetti. 2011. ‘The Translator as Cultural Promoter: or How Renato Gabrielli’s Qualcosa Trilla Went on the Road as Mobile Thriller’ in Baines, Roger, Cristina Marinetti and Manuela Perteghella (eds) Staging and Performing Translation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 139-153. Rossi, Sergio. 1993. ‘Duelling in the Italian manner: the case of Romeo and Juliet’ in Marrapodi et al. (eds) Shakespeare’s Italy: Functions of Italian Locations in Renaissance Drama. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 112-124. Rotella, Luca. 2000. ‘Sud Side Stori, regia di Roberta Torre. Shakespeare a modo mio’. On line at: http://www.scanner.it/cinema/sudsidest427.php (consulted 28.03.2013). Rothwell, Kenneth S.. 1999a. A History of Shakespeare on Screen. A Century of Film and Television. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. –– 1999b. ‘Spectacle and song in Castellani and Zeffirelli’ in A History of Shakespeare on Screen. A Century of Film and Television. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 125142. Rothwell, Kenneth S. and Annabelle Henkin Meltzer. 1990. Shakespeare on Screen: An International Filmography and Videography. New York and London: Neal-Schuman Publishers. Ruffini, Franco. 1974. ‘Semiotica del teatro: ricognizione degli studi’ in Biblioteca teatrale 9: 34-81. –– 1978. Semiotica del testo: l’esempio teatro. Rome: Bulzoni Editore. Russell Brown, John. 1962. ‘Franco Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet’ in Shakespeare Survey 15: 147-155. Rutelli, Romana. 1978. Romeo e Giulietta. L’effabile. Naples: Liguori. –– 1986. ‘“Giulietta sono io”’ in Tempera, Mariangela (ed.) Romeo and Juliet: dal testo alla scena. Bologna: CLUEB. 25-37.

250

References Saïs, Jean-Christophe. 2003. ‘Romeo e Giulietta: l’ossessione della parola’ in the theatre programme William Shakespeare. Tre storie d’amore. Turin: Teatro Stabile di Torino. 1718. Sala, Rita. 1990. ‘C’era una volta a Verona. Una tragedia d’amore raccontata con le emozioni’ in Il Messaggero (23 August 1990). –– 1995. ‘Così giovani, così romantici. Giulietta e Romeo di Patroni Griffi come una storia di oggi’ in Il Messaggero (28 April 1995). –– 2000. ‘Questo Shakespeare così vero, forte, innamorato. E giovane’ in Il Messaggero (29 November 2000). –– 2011. ‘Romeo e Giulietta, che storia’ in Il Messaggero (19 February 2011). Sanders, Julie. 2006. Adaptation and Appropriation. Abingdon-New York: Routledge. Sanguineti, Edoardo. 1977. ‘Il mestiere di morire’ in L’Unità (20 April 1977). Savioli, Aggeo. 1977. ‘La controllata follia di Bene-Shakespeare’ in L’Unità, 27 January 1977). –– 1980. ‘Con l’amore tornano di moda oggi anche Romeo e Giulietta’ in L’Unità (28 December 1980). –– 1995. ‘L’amorosa follia dei giovani vince la cecità dei “grandi”’ in L’Unità (6 April 1995). Schaffner, Christina. 1998. ‘Skopos Theory’ in Baker, Mona (ed.) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge. 235-238. Scolnicov, Hanna and Peter Holland (eds). 1989. The Play Out of Context: Transferring Plays from Culture to Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scotti, Paolo. 2001. ‘Le ansie giovanili secondo Shakespeare’ in Il Giornale (30 November 2001). Scragg, Leah. 1992. Shakespeare’s Mouldly Tales. London: Longman. –– 2003. ‘Source Study’ in Wells, Stanley and Lena Cowen Orlin (eds) Shakespeare. An Oxford Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 373-383. Serpieri, Alessandro. 1989. ‘Tradurre Amleto: linguaggio scenico ed episteme’ in Biblioteca teatrale 13/14/15: 27-34. Serpieri, Alessandro and Keir Elam (eds). 1987. Mettere in scena Shakespeare. Parma: Pratiche. Serpieri, Alessandro et al. (eds). 1978. Come comunica il teatro: dal testo alla scena. Milan: Il Formichiere. Serpieri Alessandro et al. 1988. Nel laboratorio di Shakespeare. Dalle fonti ai drammi. Parma: Pratiche. Serra, Umberto. 1982. ‘Shakespeare tutto grigio’ in Il Mattino (12 February 1982). Shaughnessy, Robert. 1998. Shakespeare on Film. London: MacMillan. Shohat, Ella, and Robert Stam. 1994. Unthinking Eurocentrism. Multiculturalism and the Media. London and New York: Routledge. Sicca, Monica. 1990. ‘Poeti ed attori, tutti intorno a Romeo e Giulietta’ in Stampa Sera (11 October 1990). Silvestri, Giuseppe. 1948. ‘Montecchi e Capuleti rivivono nella rossa Verona scaligera’ in Corriere d’Informazione (21/22 July 1948). Simonetta, Umberto. 1995. ‘Romeo e Giulietta più volgari che nudi’ in Il Giornale (28 April 1995). Sinyard, Neil. 1986. Filming Literature: the Art of Screen Adaptation. New York: St Martins Press. Sisley, Joy. 2000. Translating from One Medium to Another. Explorations in the Referential Power of Translation. PhD thesis. University of Warwick. Snell-Hornby, Mary. 2007. ‘Theatre and Opera Translation’ in Kuhiwczak, Piotr and Karen Littau (eds) A Companion to Translation Studies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 106-19. Sorlin, Pierre. 1996. Italian National Cinema 1896-1996. London and New York: Routledge. Spiller, Michael R. G.. 1992. The Development of the Sonnet. An Introduction. London and New 251

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet York: Routledge. Spinato, G.. 1997. ‘L’amore ossessivo tra Romeo e Giulietta’ in La Repubblica (23 March 1997). Spinazzola, Vittorio. 1974. Cinema e pubblico. Milan: Bompiani. Spurgeon, Caroline F. E.. 1935. Shakespeare’s Imagery and What it Tells Us. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Squarzina, Luigi. 1981. ‘Translating Theatre’ in Shakespeare Translation 8: 67-74. Stam, Robert. 2000. ‘Beyond Fidelity: the Dialogics of Adaptation’, in Naremore, James (ed.) Film Adaptation. London: Athlone. 54-76. –– 2005. Literature Through Film: Realism, Magic and the Art of Adaptation. Oxford: Blackwell. Stam, Robert and Louise Spence. 1983. ‘Colonialism, Racism and Representation’ in Screen 24(2): 2-20. Stam, Robert and Alessandra Raengo (eds). 2004. A Companion to Literature and Film. Oxford: Blackwell. Stam, Robert and Alessandra Raengo (eds). 2005. Literature and Film: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Adaptation. Oxford: Blackwell. Starks, Lisa. 1997. ‘Introduction’ in Post Script: Essays in Film and the Humanities. Special Issue: Shakespeare and Film-Adaptation 17(1): 3-5. –– 1998. ‘Introduction’ in Post Script: Essays in Film and the Humanities. Special Issue: Shakespeare and Film-Derivatives and Variations 17(2): 3-7. Styan, J. L.. 1967. Shakespeare’s Stagecraft. London: Cambridge University Press. Sutherland, James. 1970. ‘How the Characters Talk’ in Cole, Douglas (ed.) Twentieth Century Interpretations of ‘Romeo and Juliet’. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.. 76-84. Taroff, Kurt. 2011. ‘Whose play is it anyway? Theatre Studies, Translation Studies and Translation for the Stage’ in Journal of Adaptation in Film and Performance 4(3): 241-254. Tatspaugh, Patricia. 2000. ‘The tragedies of love on film’ in Jackson, Russell (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.135-159. Taviano, Stefania. 2001. Italians on the Twentieth Century Stage: Theatrical Representations of Italianness in the English-Speaking World. PhD thesis. University of Warwick. –– 2005. Staging Dario Fo and Franca Rame: Anglo-American Approaches to Political Theatre. Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate. Taylor, Gary. 1989. Reinventing Shakespeare: A Cultural History from the Restoration to the Present. New York: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. Tedeschi, Liliana. 1960. ‘Capelli rossi e lentiggini per la Giulietta 1960’ in Alba (July 1969): 6-9. Tempera, Mariangela (ed.). 1986. Romeo and Juliet: dal testo alla scena. Bologna: CLUEB. Terron, Carlo. 1960. ‘Giulietta tra le mura di casa’ in Il Tempo (July 1960). Thomas, Keith. 1986. ‘L’intraducibilità di Romeo and Juliet’ in Tempera, Mariangela (ed.) Romeo and Juliet: dal testo alla scena. Bologna: CLUEB. 203-210. Tian, Renzo. 1961. ‘Successo dell’Old Vic nel Romeo e Giulietta’ in Il Messaggero (6 September 1961). –– 1965. ‘È interamente ridotto a spettacolo il Romeo e Giulietta di Zeffirelli’ in il Messaggero (8 October 1965). –– 1977. ‘I due linguaggi di Romeo e Giulietta’ in Il Messaggero (28 July 1977). Tornqvist, Egil. 1991. Transposing Drama. Studies in Representation. London: MacMillan. Torre, Roberta. 2000. ‘Sud Side Stori’. On line at: http://www.labiennaledivenezia.net/ 57mo…e2000/skd_film.cfm?LanguageID=IT&ID=203 (consulted 18.02.2002). Torri, Alessandro. 1961. Bibliografia della Novella ‘Giulietta e Romeo’ di Luigi Da Porto. Florence: Sansoni Antiquariato. 252

References Toury, Gideon. 1978. ‘The Nature and Role of Norms in Literary Translation’ in Holmes, James, José Lambert and Raymond Van den Broeck (eds) Literature and Translation. Louvain: Acco. 83-100. –– 1980. In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute. –– 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Tynan, Kenneth. 1960. ‘The Straight answer’ in The Observer (9 October 1960). Upton, Carole-Anne (ed.) 2000. Moving Target. Theatre Translation and Cultural Relocation. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. –– 2011. ‘The Translator as metteur en scène, with Reference to Les Aveugles [The Blind] by Maurice Maeterlinck’ in Baines, Roger, Cristina Marinetti and Manuela Perteghella (eds) 2011. Staging and Performing Translation. Text and Theatre Practice. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 31-48. Vacis, Gabriele. 1991. ‘Nostalgia del dramma. Appunti sparsi durante le prove della Storia di Romeo e Giulietta’ in the theatre programme La storia di Romeo e Giulietta. Quaderni del Laboratorio Teatro Settimo, stagione 1990/91. Settimo Torinese: Laboratorio Teatro Settimo. 21-23. Vallora, Marco. 1986. ‘Biancaneve e i 7 giganti’ in Panorama (16 November 1986). Van den Broeck, Raymond. 1993. ‘Report’ in Delabastita, Dirk and Lieven D’hulst (eds) European Shakespeares. Translating Shakespeare in the Romantic Age. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 105-109. Van Watson, William. 1992. ‘Shakespeare, Zeffirelli, and the Homosexual Gaze’ in Literature/Film Quarterly 20: 308-325. Vanoye, Francis. 2000. ‘De l’adaptation d’un texte littéraire au cinema. “Les fiancailles de Monsieur Hire” et “M. Hire”’ in Dusi, Nicola and Siri Nergaard (eds) Sulla traduzione intersemiotica, numero speciale di VS 85-87: 143-151. Vatteroni, Chiara. 1980. ‘Rigore e fortune di un regista. Intervista a Marco Bernardi’ in Il Piccolo (16 November 1980). Vazzoler, Laura (ed.). 1984. Due copioni da Shakespeare per Eleonora Duse. Rome: Bulzoni. Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London and New York: Routledge. –– 1998. The Scandals of Translation. Towards an Ethics of Difference. London and New York: Routledge. –– (ed.). 2000. The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge. Vermeer, Hans. 2000. ‘Skopos and commission in translational action’ in Venuti, Lawrence (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge. 221-232. Vincendeau, Ginette (ed.). 2001. Film/Literature/Heritage. A Sight and Sound Reader. London: British Film Institute. Vindrola, Alessandra. 2005. ‘Romeo e Giulietta, trentenni di oggi’ in La Repubblica (2 November 2005). Volli, Ugo. 1977. ‘Troppe tombe per Giulietta’ in La Repubblica (6 July 1977). –– 1995. ‘Mal d’amore tra tanto odio’ in La Repubblica (31 July 1995). –– 2000. ‘Che cos’è l’amore? Roba da ragazzini’ in La Repubblica (29 July 2000). –– 2005. ‘Vacis, Romeo e Giulietta in salsa manga e Tarantino’ in La Repubblica (7 November 2005). Wagner, Geoffrey. 1975. The Novel and the Cinema. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Weiss, Piero. 1982. ‘Verdi and the Fusion of Genres’ in Journal of the American Musicological Society, XXXV: 138-156. Wells, Stanley. 1996. ‘The Challenges of Romeo and Juliet’ in Shakespeare Survey 49: 1-14. 253

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet –– 2010. ‘Sex and Love in Romeo and Juliet’ in Shakespeare, Sex, and Love. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 148-167. Whelehan, Imelda. 1999. ‘Adaptations: The contemporary dilemmas’ in Cartmell, Deborah and Imelda Whelehan (eds) Adaptations: From Text to Screen, Screen to Text. London and New York: Routledge. 3-19. White, Patricia. 1998. ‘Feminism and Film’ in Hill, John and Pamela Church Gibson (eds) The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 117-134. White, R. S. (ed.). 2001. Romeo and Juliet. Contemporary Critical Essays. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Whittier, Gayle. 1989. ‘The Sonnet’s Body and the Body Sonnetized in Romeo and Juliet’ in Shakespeare Quarterly 40(1): 27-41. Wiegman, Robert. 1998. ‘Race, Ethnicity and Film’ in Hill, John, and Pamela Church Gibson (eds) The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 158-168. Willems, Michèle. 1994. ‘Verbal-Visual, Verbal-Pictorial or Textual-Televisual? Reflections on the BBC Shakespeare Series’ in Davies, Anthony and Stanley Wells (eds) Shakespeare and the Moving Image. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 69-85. Wolf, Naomi. 1990. The Beauty Myth. How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women. London: Vintage. Worthen, William B.. 2003. Shakespeare and the Force of Modern Performance. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Wray, Ramona. 2007. ‘Shakespeare on Film in the New Millennium’ in Shakespeare 3(2): 270282. Zacchi, Romana. 1986. ‘Il prisma della Fortune: Romeo e Giulietta dal poema di Arthur Brooke alla variante shakespeariana’ in Tempera, Mariangela (ed.) Romeo and Juliet: dal testo alla scena. Bologna: CLUEB. 69-84. Zaniboni, Maria Cristina. 1988. Un’antica passione: Romeo e Giulietta dalle fonti a Shakespeare. Imola: Grafiche Galeate. Zanovello, Silvana. 2001. ‘I giovani scelgono sempre l’amore’ in Il Secolo XIX (23 November 2001). Zeffirelli, Franco. 1979. ‘Una mano più forte ha scritto la vostra storia’ in Toffetti, Sergio and Roberto Vaccino (eds) Shakespeare e il cinema. Turin: Città di Torino, Assessorato per la Cultura. 46-48 (first published in 1969). –– 1986. The Autobiography of Franco Zeffirelli. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Zatlin, Phyllis. 2005. Theatrical Translation and Film Adaptation: A Practitioner’s View. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Zuber, Ortrun. 1980. Languages of the Theatre: Problems in the Translation and Transposition of Drama. Oxford: Pergamon. 92-103.

254

References

Filmography Section a) lists in chronological order the films from Romeo and Juliet discussed or mentioned in the book. Details include country, year, director, cast, production company and duration. Section b) gives a more summary list (title, country, year, director), in alphabetical order, of other films mentioned in the book.

a) Films from Romeo and Juliet Romeo e Giulietta (Italy, 1911). Dir. Gerolamo Lo Savio. Cast: Francesca Bertini (Giulietta), Armando Falconi (Romeo). Prod.: Film d’Arte Italiana. Mins.: 25. Romeo e Giulietta (Italy, 1912). Dir. Gerolamo Rosario. Cast: Gustavo Sereni (Romeo), Francesca Bertini (Giulietta). Prod.: information unavailable. Mins.: 31. Romeo and Juliet (USA, 1936). Dir. George Cukor. Cast: Leslie Howard (Romeo), Norma Shearer (Juliet), John Barrymore (Mercutio), Edna May Oliver (Nurse), Basil Rathbone (Tybalt), C. Aubrey Smith (Capulet), Andy Devine (Peter), Conway Tearle (Escalus), Ralph Forbes (Paris), Henry Kolker (Friar Laurence), Robert Warwick (Montague), Virginia Hammond (Lady Montague), Reginald Denny (Benvolio), Violet Kemble (Lady Capulet). Prod.: MGM. Mins.: 126. Les amants de Verone (France, 1949). Dir. André Cayatte. Cast: Anouk Aimée (Georgia), Serge Reggiani (Angelo). Prod.: Films de France. Mins.: 110. Romeo and Juliet/Giulietta e Romeo (UK/Italy, 1954). Dir. Renato Castellani. Cast: Laurence Harvey (Romeo), Susan Shentall (Juliet), Flora Robson (Nurse), Mervin Johns (Friar Laurence), Ubaldo Zollo (Mercutio), Norman Wooland (Paris), Sebastian Cabot (Capulet), Lidia Sherwood (Lady Capulet), Giulio Garbinetti (Montague), Nietta Zocchi (Lady Montague), Bill Travers (Benvolio), Thomas Nicholls (Friar John), Enzo Fiermonte (Tybalt), Giovanni Rota (alias Elio Vittorini, the Prince of Verona), Luciano Bodi (Abraham), Dagmar Josipovich (Rosaline), John Gielgud (Chorus). Prod.: Sandro Ghenzi, Joseph Janni, Universalcine/Verona Cinematografica, Rank. Mins.: 138. Romeo, Julia a Tma (Romeo, Juliet and Darkness) (Czechoslovakia, 1960). Dir. Jirí Weiss. Cast: Ivan Mistrík (Pavel), Daniela Smutná (Hanka). Prod: information unavailable. Mins.: 92. Romanoff and Juliet (USA, 1961). Dir. Peter Ustinov. Cast: Sandra Dee (Juliet Moulsworth), John Gavin (Igor Romanovv), Peter Ustinov (The General of Concordia). Prod.: Universal/International. Mins.: 112. West Side Story (USA, 1961). Dir. Robert Wise, Jerome Robbins. Cast: Natalie Wood (Maria), Richard Beymer (Tony), Russ Tamblyn (Riff), Rita Moreno (Anita), George Chakiris (Bernardo), Tucker Smith (Ice), Tony Mordente (Action), Eliot Feld (Baby John), Joe De Vega (Chino), Jay Norman (Pepe), Gus Trikonis (Indio), Simon Oakland (Shrank), Bill Bramley (Krupke). Prod.: United Artist. Mins.: 151 Romeo e Giulietta/Los amantes de Verona (Italy/Spain, 1964). Dir. Riccardo Freda. Cast: Geronimo Meynier (Romeo), Rosemary Dexter (Juliet), Carlos Estrada (Mercutio), Toni Soler (Nurse), Andrea Bosic (Capulet), Umberto Raho (Friar Laurence), Antonella Della Porta (Lady Capulet), José Marco (Paris), Elsa Vazzoler (Lady Montague), Franco Balducci (Benvolio), German Grech (Tybalt), Mario De Simone (Peter), Antonio Gradoli (Montague), Bruno Scipioni (Balthasar), Carlo D’Angelo (Prince Escalus). Prod.: Imprecine/Hispamer Films. Mins.: 95. Romeo and Juliet/Romeo e Giulietta (UK/Italy, 1968). Dir. Franco Zeffirelli. Cast: Leonard Whiting (Romeo), Olivia Hussey (Juliet), Pat Heywood (Nurse), John McEnery (Mercutio), Michael York (Tybalt), Antonio Pierfederici (Montague), Esmeralda Ruspoli (Lady Montague), Paul Hardwick (Capulet), Milo O’Shea (Friar Laurence), Bruce Robinson 255

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet (Benvolio), Roberto Bisacco (Paris), Roy Holder (Peter), Murray Head (Chorus), Ugo Barbone (Abraham), Prologue and Epilogue spoken by Laurence Olivier. Photography: Pasqualino De Santis; Art direction: Luciano Puccini, Renzo Mongiardino; Costumes: Danilo Donati; Music: Nino Rota; Choreography: Alberto Testa. Prod.: Bhe/Verona Produzione/Dino De Laurentiis Cinematografica. Mins.: 152. Romeu e Julieta (Brazil, 1980). Dir. Paulo Alfonso Grisolli. Cast: Fabio Junior (Romeu), Lucélia Santos (Julieta). Prod.: TV Globo. Mins.: 94. Henna (India, 1991). Dir. Randhir Kapoor. Cast: Rushi Kapoor (Chander), Zeba Bakhtiar (Henna). Prod.: information unavailable. Mins.: 170. Tromeo and Juliet (USA, 1996). Dir. Lloyd Kaufman. Cast: Will Keenan (Tromeo Que), Jane Jensen (Juliet Capulet), Valentine Miele (Murray Martini), Maximillian Shaun (Cappy Capulet), Sean Gunn (Sammy Capulet), Debbie Rochon (Ness), Flip Brown (Father Lawrence). Prod.: Troma Inc. Mins.: 107. William Shakespeare’s Romeo+Juliet (USA, 1996). Dir. Baz Luhrmann. Cast: Leonardo Di Caprio (Romeo), Claire Danes (Juliet), Brian Dennehy (Ted Montague), John Leguizamo (Tybalt), Pete Postlethwaite (Friar Laurence), Paul Sorvino (Capulet), Diane Venora (Gloria Capulet), Harold Perrineau (Mercutio), Paul Rudd (Dave Paris), Jesee Bradford (Balthasar), Dash Mihok (Benvolio), Miriam Margolyes (Nurse), Vondie Curtis-Hall (Captain Prince), Christine Pickles (Caroline Montague), M. Emmet Walsh (Apothecary), Edwin Moore (TV anchorwoman). Prod.: 20th Century Fox. Mins.: 120. Shakespeare in Love (USA/UK, 1998). Dir. John Madden. Cast: Joseph Fiennes (Will Shakespeare), Gwyneth Paltrow (Viola), Imelda Staunton (Nurse), Judi Dench (Queen Elizabeth). Prod.: Miramax Films/Universal Pictures/Bedford Falls Productions. Mins.: 123. Sud Side Stori (Italy, 2000). Dir. Roberta Torre. Cast: Forstine Ehobor (Romea), Roberto ‘Bobo’ Rondelli (Toni Giulietto), Eleonora Teriaca (Toni’s aunt), Rosa D’Alba (Toni’s aunt), Giuseppa Vella (Toni’s aunt), Amaka Ejindu (Mercutia), Kemi Toyin (Baldassarra), Little Tony, Mario Merola. Photography: Daniele Ciprì. Art direction: Filippo Pecoraino, Roberta Torre. Costumes: Alberto Spiazzi, Alessandro Lai, Claudio Cordaro. Music: Gino De Crescenzo in collaboration with Roberto Rondelli, Dennis Bovell. Prod.: Istituto Luce. Mins.: 87 Gnomeo and Juliet (Great Britain, USA, 2011). Dir. Kelly Asbury. Voices: James McAvoy (Gnomeo), Emily Blunt (Juliet), Ashley Jensen (Nanette), Michael Caine (Lord Redbrick), Matt Lucas (Benny), Jim Cummings (Featherstone), Maggie Smith (Lady Bluebury), Jason Statham (Tybalt), Ozzy Osbourne (Fawn), Stephen Merchant (Paris), Patrick Stewart (Bill Shakespeare), Julie Walters (Miss Montague), Hulk Hogan (Terrafirminator), Kelly Asbury (Red Good Gnomes), Richard Wilson (Mr Capulet). Prod.: Rocket Pictures, Starz Animation, Touchstone Pictures. Baker Bloodworth; David Furnish; Elton John; Steve Hamilton Shaw. Mins.: 84.

b) Other Films Angelesse (Italy, 1994). Dir. Roberta Torre. Aquila nera (Italy, 1946). Dir. Riccardo Freda. Due soldi di speranza (Italy, 1951). Dir. Renato Castellani. È primavera (Italy, 1950). Dir. Renato Castellani. Femmine folli (Italy, 1993). Dir. Roberta Torre. Hanna Schygulla (Italy, 1992). Dir. Roberta Torre. Il cielo sotto Palermo (Italy, 1995). Dir. Roberta Torre. I miserabili (Italy, 1947). Dir. Riccardo Freda. I vampiri (Italy, 1957). Dir. Riccardo Freda. 256

References L’orribile segreto del dr Hichcock (Italy, 1962). Dir. Robert Hampton (Riccardo Freda). Lo spettro (Italy, 1963). Dir. Robert Hampton (Riccardo Freda). Per qualche dollaro in più (Italy, 1965). Dir. Sergio Leone. Sotto il sole di roma (Italy, 1948). Dir. Renato Castellani. Spioni (Italy, 1995). Dir. Roberta Torre. Tano da morire (Italy, 1997). Dir. Roberta Torre. The Taming of the Shrew/La bisbetica domata (Italy/USA, 1966). Dir. Franco Zeffirelli.

257

Index Aaltonen, Sirkku, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 38, 44, 45, 96, 108, 117 Albertini, Edda, 131 Albrecht-Crane, Christa, 27 Alfieri, Vittorio, 67 Allegri, Eugenio, 161 Ambrosi, Paola, 24, 43 Ambrosini, Flavio, 116, 120 Anderman, Gunilla, 24, 43 Andrew, Dudley, 41 Antonelli, Stefano, 120, 121 Anzi, Anna, 98, 99, 109 Aquarone, Alberto, 65 Asbury, Kelly, 16 Attenborough, Michael, 121 Baines, Roger, 24 Baldini, Gabriele, 101, 103, 104 Bandello, Matteo, 55, 56, 57, 58, 74, 75, 79, 88, 91, 117, 134, 137, 141, 161, 168, 169, 175 Barba, Eugenio, 23 Barbarani, Berto, 161 Barbieri, Gaetano, 86 Baretti, Giuseppe, 64 Bassnett, Susan, 14, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 36, 37, 42, 43, 44, 92, 145, 161 Bastin, Georges L., 37 Bate, Jonathan, 18, 29, 84, 97, 116 Bazzoni, Giunio, 86 Beato Angelico, 166 Beckett, Samuel, 36 Beja, Morris, 35 Bellini, Vincenzo, 17, 81, 117, 206, 217 Bene, Carmelo, 117, 121, 217 Beretti, Filippo, 92 Berio di Salsa, Francesco, 67 Berlioz, Hector, 17, 120 Bernardi, Marco, 109, 113, 120, 121 Bernstein, Leonard, 111 Berry, Ralph, 91 Bertinetti, Paolo, 124 Best, Michael, 124 Betteloni, Vittorio, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 Bevington, David, 66, 83, 92 Bhabha, Homi, 201, 202 Bigliazzi, Silvia, 24, 43, 106 Binasco, Valerio, 115, 116, 120 Bisacca, Gianni, 119 Bloom, Lisa, 199



Boaistuau, Pierre, 58, 59 Boccaccio, Giovanni, 55 Boiardo, Matteo Maria, 166, 206 Boito, Arrigo, 12, 72, 73, 90 Boldieri, Gherardo, 75, 91 Bolt, Ranjit, 37 Bondanella, Peter, 206 Bonucci, Antonio, 66, 77 Boose, Linda, 35, 36, 49 Botticelli, 120, 166, 206 Boyd, Michael, 161 Bragaglia, Leonardo, 71, 72, 83, 89, 98, 110 Brecht, Bertolt, 21, 23 Brisset, Annie, 24, 37, 38, 45 Brode, Douglas, 36, 51, 164, 206, 208 Brognoligo, Gioachino, 56, 91 Brook, Peter, 218 Brooke, Arthur, 53, 58, 59, 60, 61 Brooke, Nicholas, 91 Brunetta, Gian Piero, 206 Bruni, Ferdinando, 110, 120 Bruni, Flavia, 145 Brusati, Franco, 142 Bullough, Geoffrey, 54, 58, 59, 91 Burnett, Mark Thornton, 17, 36, 41, 51 Burt, Richard, 35, 36, 49, 51 Burton, Richard, 185 Bussi, Elisa, 25 Cabot, Sebastian, 171 Calderwood, James L., 91 Caminer Turra, Elisabetta, 78 Cannella, Claudia, 116 Cappuzzo, Marcello, 99 Carcano, Giulio, 12, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 97 Caretti, Laura, 72, 73, 143 Carpaccio, 120, 166, 174, 206 Cartelli, Thomas, 36 Cartmell, Deborah, 32, 34, 36, 49 Carvalho Homem, Rui, 92 Castellani, Renato, 16, 28, 119, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 181, 186, 188, 189, 190, 205, 206, 215 Castiglione, Elisabetta, 142 Cattrysse, Patrick, 25, 26, 27, 29, 47, 48, 49, 50, 163, 205 Cavour, Camillo Benso, conte di, 68 Cayatte, André, 51

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet Cervi, Gino, 207 Charlton, Henry Buckley, 58, 91 Cherubini, Antonio, 79, 80, 92 Chiarini, Cino, 75, 91, 97, 98, 100, 102 Cimnaghi, Mario Roberto, 120 Cipriani, Maria Grazia, 117 Cirio, Rita, 143 Clemen, W. H., 91 Clough, Cecil, 91 Cobelli, Giancarlo, 113, 120, 121 Coelsch-Foisner, Sabine, 23, 24 Colaiacono, Paola, 99 Collins, Michael, 22, 80, 81, 82 Collison-Morley, Lacy, 64, 74, 77, 78 Conti, Antonio, 64 Corneille, Pierre, 11, 63, 64 Costa, Orazio, 113, 116, 120 Coursen, H. R., 206 Crinò, Anna Maria, 64, 65, 77, 86, 92 Cromwell, Oliver, 11 Cukor, George, 16, 164, 173, 174, 175, 176, 179, 181, 186, 189, 190, 206 Curino, Laura, 133 Cutchins, Dennis Ray, 27 D’Agostino, Nemi, 101 D’Amato, Enrico, 113, 120 D’Amico, Masolino, 43, 99, 105, 108, 109, 114, 120, 121, 123, 124, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 D’Amico, Silvio, 120, 123, 125, 126 D’Angelo, Carlo, 181, 208 D’hulst, Lieven, 18, 19, 24, 44, 73, 92, 214 Da Porto, Luigi, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 74, 75, 79, 88, 91, 134, 137, 141, 161, 165, 168, 169, 171, 174, 175, 206, 207, 215 Dalla Corte, Girolamo, 75, 80 Dallagiacoma, Angelo, 108, 109, 114, 120, 121 Damerini, Gino, 120, 125 Dante Alighieri, 55, 76 Davies, Anthony, 36, 164, 208 De Chiara, Ghigo, 129 De Marinis, Marco, 25 De Monticelli, Roberto, 112 De Sanctis, Francesco, 68 De Simone, Mario, 178 Deandrea, Pietro, 108, 109, 115, 120 Del Sapio Garbero, Maria, 92

260

Delabastita, Dirk, 18, 19, 24, 44, 65, 66, 67, 73, 92, 214 Della Casa, Stefano, 175, 176, 180, 207, 208 della Francesca, Piero, 166 Della Valle, Cesare, 82, 83, 89 Déprats, Jean-Michel, 97, 104 Derrida, Jacques, 33 Dexter, Rosemarie, 176, 208 Di Michele, Laura, 99 Dire Straits, 17, 118, 217 Dollimore, Jonathan, 29 Donaldson, Peter, 36, 187, 191, 192, 193, 208 Drakakis, John, 18 Ducis, Jean-François, 23, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82 Duranti, Riccardo, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 Duse, Eleonora, 13, 72, 89, 90 Dusi, Nicola, 25, 239 Eagleton, Terry, 29 Elam, Keir, 25, 99 Elton John, 16 Emanuel, Giovanni, 72 Enriquez, Franco, 110, 120 Espasa, Eva, 43 Estrada, Carlos, 208 Evans, G. Blakemore, 59, 60, 85, 91, 149, 161 Even-Zohar, Itamar, 20 Fabbri, Paolo, 25 Falconi, Armando, 122 Faldini, Franca, 175, 207 Farrell, Joseph, 37, 42, 43 Fassio, Fabio, 118 Favetto, Gianluca, 155 Fearon, Ray, 121 Fini, Leonor, 206 Fischer-Lichte, Erica, 25 Fofi, Goffredo, 175, 207 Fontana, Luca, 107 Foppa, Giuseppe Maria, 67, 79, 80, 81, 92 Foscolo, Ugo, 67 Freda, Riccardo, 29, 119, 163, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 188, 205, 207, 208 Füssli, Heinrich, 17 Garbinetti, Giulio, 168 Garibaldi, Giuseppe, 68 Garrick, David, 66, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, 123, 128, 174 Gassman, Vittorio, 207

Index Gatti, Hilary, 68, 72, 82, 83, 89, 92, 99 Gelli, Piero, 67, 79, 92 Gentzler, Edwin, 33 Gervasini, Mauro, 176, 178, 207, 208 Ghenzi, Sandro, 166, 167, 206 Ghirlandaio, 120 Giagnoni, Lucilla, 139, 161 Gibbons, Brian, 53, 56, 58, 59, 91, 206 Gielgud, John, 167, 170, 190, 207 Gillin, John, 22 Gounod, Charles, 17 Graf, Arturo, 63, 65 Gritti, Francesco, 66 Grosso Guidetti, Augusta, 100, 101 Groto, Luigi, 75, 88, 91 Gualerzi, Valerio, 202 Guerrieri, Gerardo, 66, 68, 72, 83, 112, 120 Guerrieri, Osvaldo, 133, 134 Hale, Terry, 24 Hall, Stuart, 200 Harvey, Laurence, 163, 167 Hatchuel, Sarah, 36 Hawkes, Terence, 29 Heine, Heinrich, 12 Henschel, Anne-Heide, 120, 121 Hermans, Theo, 17, 20, 21, 39 Heylen, Romy, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 65, 92, 216 Hitchcock, Alfred, 32 Hodgdon, Barbara, 29 Hoenselaars, Ton, 19, 63, 70, 92 Holbein, 166 Holderness, Graham, 29, 36, 39, 116, 190, 208 Holding, Peter, 17, 91, 191 Holmer, Joan Ozark, 183, 208 hooks, bell, 200 Howard, Leslie, 163 Howard, Tony, 17, 40, 51 Hugo, François-Victor, 69, 90 Hussey, Olivia, 182 Hutcheon, Linda, 27, 34, 41 Jackson, Russell, 35, 36, 40, 49, 112, 118, 164, 166, 170, 172, 185, 187, 188, 189, 206, 207, 208, 209 Jakobson, Roman, 11, 25, 29, 42 Janni, Joseph, 206 Jarro, 72, 90 Johns, Mervin, 167 Johnson, Ben, 11 Johnston, David, 24, 37, 43

Jorgens, Jack, 26, 36, 183, 185, 187, 190, 191, 193, 208, 209 Joyce, James, 36, 102 Kahn, Coppélia, 62, 161 Kapoor, Randhir, 17 Karpov, Nikolaj, 109, 114, 121, 123, 124 Kaufman, Lloyd, 51 Kennan, Patricia, 91 Kennedy, Dennis, 68, 108, 110, 111 Kidnie, Margaret Jane, 51 Klein, Holger, 23, 24 Kofler, Peter, 24, 43 Kowzan, Tadeusz, 25 Krebs, Katja, 24, 27, 37, 38 Kristeva, Julia, 38, 200 La Place, Pierre Antoine de, 63, 64, 65 Laera, Margherita, 24 Landy, Marcia, 206 Lanier, Douglas, 17 Laroque, François, 91 Latella, Antonio, 121 Lavia, Gabriele, 120 Le Tourneur, Pierre, 63, 64, 69, 80, 83, 92 Lefevere, André, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 Lehmann, Courtney, 17, 18, 29, 36, 40, 51, 59, 91, 186, 187, 188, 192, 193, 208 Leonardo da Vinci, 166 Leone, Sergio, 177, 181, 208 Leoni, Michele, 69, 83, 84, 85, 86, 89, 92 Leopardi, Giacomo, 104, 114 Levenson, Jill, 10, 17, 18, 29, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 66, 83, 85, 91, 92, 95, 118, 124, 127, 131, 158, 161, 182, 184, 208 Levin, Harry, 91 Levith, Murray, 62 Ligas, Pierluigi, 77, 78, 92 Little Tony, 195, 196, 203 Lizzani, Carlo, 206 Lo Savio, Gerolamo, 122 Locatelli, Angela, 61, 62, 68, 74, 99 Lodovici, Cesare Vico, 100, 103, 133, 134 Loehlin, James N., 17, 49, 66, 83, 92, 111, 112, 118, 122, 123, 124, 128, 148, 149, 161, 209, 217 Lombardo, Agostino, 42, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 73, 86, 99, 100, 101, 106, 107, 108, 109, 114, 115, 120, 122 Loney, Glenn, 184, 185, 190 Lorenzo il Magnifico, 166, 209

261

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet Luhrmann, Baz, 16, 49, 50, 113, 118, 142, 145, 151, 156, 194, 197, 204, 209, 216, 217 Madden, John, 16 Maestri, Maria Federica, 117 Mahood, Molly, 91, 95 Maltagliati, Evi, 131 Manvell, Roger, 36, 164, 208 Manzoni, Alessandro, 67, 68, 104, 172, 173, 175, 207 Marenco, Franco, 99 Marinetti, Cristina, 24 Marrapodi, Michele, 53, 59, 91, 99, 101, 109 Marsden, Jean, 29 Martina, Stefano, 202, 203 Martini, Stelio, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 206, 207 Mazzini, Giuseppe, 68 McCullough, Christopher, 116 McEnery, John, 186, 187 McFarlane, Brian, 32, 34, 49 Melchiori, Giorgio, 42, 91, 99, 101, 104, 105, 106, 109, 120 Mercier, Louis Sébastien, 63, 66, 67, 74, 77, 78, 79, 82 Merini, Giuseppe, 120 Merlo, Giuliano, 113, 120, 121 Merola, Mario, 203 Mesguich, Daniel, 216 Meynier, Geronimo, 176, 208 Micciché, Lino, 206 Minier, Màrta, 24, 37, 38 Minutella, Vincenza, 115 Miola, Robert, 91 Molière, 63 Monti, Vincenzo, 67 Moore, Olin H., 91 Morandini, Laura, Luisa and Morando, 175, 176, 207, 208 Morelli, Alamanno, 71 Moretti, Franco, 99 Morley, John, 91 Muir, Kenneth, 59, 91 Mullini, Roberta, 54, 58, 91, 99 Mulvey, Laura, 192, 199, 200, 209 Munday, Jeremy, 21, 46 Muscato, Leo, 118 Naremore, James, 32, 34 Nergaard, Siri, 25 Nicholls, Tom, 167 Nicolai, Rina, 165, 167, 170, 206 262

O’Flynn, Siobhan, 27, 34 Obertello, Alfredo, 106 Ojetti, Paola, 98, 108, 111, 120, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 150, 160, 161 Olivier, Laurence, 190, 193, 208 Omar, Hussein, 115 Otway, Thomas, 92 Ozincourt, 77 Pagnini, Marcello, 99 Painter, William, 53, 59, 61 Palazzi, Renato, 154 Palmese, Massimiliano, 120 Panici, Maurizio, 113, 120, 121, 248 Paolini, Marco, 133 Paravidino, Fausto, 116, 120 Pasternak Slater, Ann, 60, 87, 92, 95 Patroni Griffi, Giuseppe, 113, 114, 120 Pavis, Patrice, 25, 37 Paz, Octavio, 33 Pellizzari, Lorenzo, 207 Pepys, Samuel, 12 Perteghella, Manuela, 24, 37, 38 Petrarch, 60, 87 Petrone Fresco, Gaby, 63, 64, 65, 66, 92 Piccolo, Ottavia, 120 Pilkington, Ace G., 182, 183, 184, 186, 190, 208 Pisanello, 166 Pititto, Francesco, 117 Ponti, Marco, 45, 46, 108, 109, 115, 120 Porcheddu, Andrea, 116 Porter, Joseph, 187 Praz, Mario, 70, 99, 100, 101, 102 Proietti, Gigi, 109, 114, 121, 123 Prokofiev, Sergej, 17 Prunster, Nicole, 54, 56, 58, 91 Pugliatti, Paola, 99 Pulcinelli, Paolo, 143 Punzo, Armando, 118 Quasimodo, Salvatore, 98, 104, 105, 106, 108, 120, 133, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140 Rachmaninoff, Sergei, 177, 180 Racine, Jean, 11, 63 Raengo, Alessandra, 27, 32, 34 Raho, Umberto, 180, 208 Raimy, Victor, 22 Ramirez, Giuseppe, 66, 78, 92 Raw, Laurence, 27, 34 Reiß, Katharina, 21, 46 Ricordi, Franco, 113, 120, 121 Ristori, Adelaide, 12, 69, 71, 72, 83, 89

Index Robbins, Jerome, 16, 111 Roberts, Sasha, 60, 61, 62, 91, 92, 95, 96, 129, 145, 161 Robiony, Simonetta, 116 Robson, Flora, 167 Rocca, Gino, 126 Rodin, Auguste, 17 Rolli, Paolo, 64 Romani, Felice, 80, 81, 82, 92 Romano, Angelo, 55, 56, 91 Rossi, Ernesto, 12, 71, 88, 89, 91 Rossi, Paolo, 118, 217 Rossi, Sergio, 61, 62 Rossini, Gioacchino, 67 Rosso, Beppe, 119 Rostagno, Remo, 119 Rota, Nino, 186 Rotella, Luca, 197 Rothwell, Kenneth, 17, 36, 51, 164, 170, 171, 183, 206, 208, 209 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 63 Rowe, Catherine, 36 Ruffini, Franco, 25 Rusconi, Carlo, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 97, 101, 230 Rutelli, Romana, 61, 91, 99, 106, 108, 109, 120, 121 Sabbadini, Silvano, 99, 106 Saïs, Jean-Christophe, 109, 116, 123, 124, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 Sala, Rita, 134 Salernitano, Masuccio, 54, 57, 134 Salmon Kovarski, Laura, 25 Salvetti, Giuseppe, 120 Salvini, Guido, 69, 98, 110, 111, 120, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 160 Salvini, Tommaso, 71, 72, 83, 89 Sanders, Julie, 27, 34, 38, 41, 49 Scaparro, Maurizio, 109, 110, 114, 120, 123, 124, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 158, 160, 161 Scarlatti, Domenico, 67 Scevola, Luigi, 79, 80, 81, 83, 92 Schaffner, Christina, 21, 46 Schlegel, August Wilhelm, 12 Scragg, Leah, 53, 91 Sénéchal, Héloïse, 18, 29, 84, 97 Serpieri, Alessandro, 42, 91, 99, 105, 109, 120 Sevin, Adrien, 91 Shearer, Norma, 163

Shentall, Susan, 163, 167 Simoni, Renato, 98, 110, 120 Sinfield, Alan, 29 Sisley, Joy, 25 Snell-Hornby, Mary, 37, 43 Soler, Toni, 208 Sorlin, Pierre, 206 Sormani, Giacomo, 86 Soyinka, Wole, 21 Spence, Louise, 199 Spencer, T. J. B., 91, 160 Spinazzola, Vittorio, 165, 207 Squarzina, Luigi, 101 Stam, Robert, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34, 49, 199 Starks, Lisa, 36, 50 Steele, Barbara, 207 Styan, J. L., 105 Sutherland, James, 91 Tarasco, Roberto, 133 Taroff, Kurt, 24 Tate, Nahum, 12 Tatspaugh, Patricia, 168, 169, 194, 206, 208, 209 Taviano, Stefania, 9, 22, 23, 24, 37, 44 Taylor, Gary, 29 Tchaikovsky, Peter, 17, 180, 181 Tempera, Mariangela, 99, 208 Theobald, Lewis, 64 Tieck, Ludwig, 12 Tolstoy, Leo, 12 Tornqvist, Egil, 37 Torre, Roberta, 29, 51, 119, 163, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 209, 210, 216, 217 Toury, Gideon, 20 Truffaut, François, 32 Tsypin, George, 115 Uccello, Paolo, 166 Upton, Carole-Anne, 24, 46 Ustinov, Peter, 51 Vaccaj, Nicola, 80, 81, 92 Vacis, Gabriele, 45, 46, 109, 110, 114, 115, 117, 120, 123, 124, 133, 134, 160, 215, 216 Valentini, Domenico, 64 Van Watson, William, 187, 193, 208 Vanoye, Francis, 25 Vazzoler, Laura, 63, 64, 71, 72, 83, 90 Venuti, Lawrence, 23 Verdi, Giuseppe, 73, 92, 93 Vermeer, Hans, 21, 46 Verri, Alessandro, 64, 65 263

Reclaiming Romeo and Juliet Viganò, Salvatore, 79 Vincendeau, Ginette, 32, 34 Vittorini, Elio, 168 Volli, Ugo, 113, 143 Voltaire, 63, 65 Waites, Zoe, 121 Weiss, Piero, 93 Weisse, Christian Felix, 77 Wells, Stanley, 36, 60, 61, 83, 91, 96, 161 Whelehan, Imelda, 32, 34 White, Patricia, 199 Whiting, Leonard, 182, 193 Whittier, Gayle, 60, 95 Wiegman, Robin, 195, 198 Wilson, John Dover, 104 Wise, Robert, 16, 111 Wolf, Naomi, 203

264

Woolf, Virginia, 102 Wray, Ramona, 36, 41 Wyatt, Thomas, 92 Zacchi, Romana, 59, 60, 91 Zaniboni, Maria Cristina, 91 Zanovello, Silvana, 142 Zatlin, Phyllis, 24, 37, 43 Zeffirelli, Franco, 13, 16, 29, 49, 50, 111, 112, 113, 118, 119, 120, 142, 163, 172, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 205, 208, 209, 216, 217 Zeldin, Alexander, 109, 115 Zeno, Apostolo, 67 Zingarelli, Nicola, 67, 79, 92 Zuber, Ortrun, 43