Cover not available
To be specified published In:
English Text Construction
Vol. 10:1 (2017) ► pp.59–77
article

Travelling through the centuries

The intertextual relationship between Shakespeare in Love, Molière and Young Goethe in Love

| University of Granada |
The paper analyses the influence of John Madden’s biopic Shakespeare in Love (GB/USA, 1998) on Molière (FR, 2007) and Young Goethe in Love (GER, 2010) by having a closer look at the intertextual relationship between the films. For this, it considers external and internal connections, referring to intertexts for the promotion and marketing as well as the use of content-based conventions for biopics on writers, literary sources and anachronisms. The analysis reveals that, although the French and German films take Shakespeare in Love as a source of inspiration, they rewrite the approach and transform it for an individual representation of their national subjects. This double effect points to a different, alternative strategy for adapting the literary life of the canonical author.
Keywords: biopics, film adaptation, film biography, intertextuality, writers
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Intertextuality
  • 3.Promoting the biopic
  • 4.Conventions for Brit-lit biopics
  • 5.Intertextuality in the films studied
    • 5.1 Shakespeare in Love
    • 5.2 Molière
    • 5.3 Young Goethe in Love
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 15 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.10.1.04ste
References (27)
References
Agger, Gunhild. 1999. Intertextuality revisited: Dialogues and negotiations in media studies. Canadian Aesthetics Journal 41. 〈[URL]〉 (Last accessed on 5 November 2016).Google Scholar
Aragay, Mireia. 2005. Introduction – Reflection to refraction: Adaptation studies then and now. In Books in Motion: Adaptation, Intertextuality, Authorship, Mireia Aragay (ed.). Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 11–34.Google Scholar
Aragay, Mireia & Gemma López. 2005. Inf(l)ecting Pride and Prejudice: Dialogism, intertextuality, and adaptation. In Books in Motion: Adaptation, Intertextuality, Authorship, Mireia Aragay (ed). Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 201–219.Google Scholar
Cano López, Marina & María García-Periago. 2008. Becoming Shakespeare and Jane Austen in love: An intertextual dialogue between two biopics. Jane Austen Society of North America 29 (1). 〈[URL]〉 (Last accessed on 5 November 2016).Google Scholar
Carretero González, Margarita & María Elena Rodríguez Martín. 2012. Life through a lens: Writers and the biopic. In Many-Coated Men: Studies in Honour of José Antonio Díaz López and Ian Maccandless, Celia Wallhead & Isabel María Andrés Cuevas (eds). Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada, 21–27.Google Scholar
Elliott, Kamilla. 2003. Rethinking the Novel/Film Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Franssen, Paul J. C. M. 2014. Shakespeare’s life on film and television: Shakespeare in Love and A Waste of Shame . In Adaptation, Intermediality and the British Celebrity Biopic, Maddalena Pennacchia & Márta Minier (eds). Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate, 101–113.Google Scholar
Freeman Loftis, Sonya. 2011. A less than original screenplay: Bernard Shaw’s influence on Shakespeare in Love . South Atlantic Review 76 (3): 111–127.Google Scholar
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. 2001. Faust. Trans. Walter Arndt. Cyrus Hamlin (ed.). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Higson, Andrew. 2013. Brit-lit biopics, 1990–2010. In The Writer on Film: Screening Literary Authorship, Judith Buchanan (ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian, 106–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiménez Aguilar, Elisa. 2013. With tears and a journey: Recreating Shakespeare’s life on screen. Master dissertation, University of Granada. 〈[URL]〉 (Last accessed on 5 November 2016).Google Scholar
Kiefer, Klaus H. 2013. Weltliteratur zu Pferde - Philipp Stölzls Film ‘Goethe!’. Goethezeitportal 11. 〈[URL]〉 (Last accessed on 5 November 2016).
Klett, Elizabeth. 2001. Shakespeare in Love and the end(s) of history. In Retrovisions: Reinventing the Past in Film and Fiction, Deborah Cartmell, Ian Q. Hunter & Irmela Whelehan (eds). London: Pluto Press, 25–40.Google Scholar
Lanier, Douglas. 2007. William Shakespeare, filmmaker. In The Cambridge Companion to Literature on Screen, Deborah Cartmell (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 61–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Courtney. 2002. Shakespeare Remains. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Stephen J. 1998. Shakespearean Intertextuality. London: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Madden, John. 1998. Shakespeare in Love. Universal Pictures, Bedford Falls Productions, Miramax.Google Scholar
Moine, Raphaëlle. 2014. The contemporary French biopic in national and international contexts. In The Biopic in Contemporary Film Culture, Tom Brown & Belén Vidal (eds). New York and London: Routledge, 52–67.Google Scholar
Oßwald, Dieter. 2010. Goethe in Love: Gespräch mit Philipp Stölzl über seinen Film. Thüringer Allgemeine Zeitung. 〈[URL]〉 (Last acccessed on 5 November 2016).Google Scholar
Pardo García, Pedro Javier. 2005. Beyond adaptation: Frankenstein’s postmodern progeny. In Books in Motion: Adaptation, Intertextuality, Authorship, Mireia Aragay (ed.). Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 223–242.Google Scholar
Peacock, Noel. 2012. Molière au panthéon cinématographique: du «Verfremdungseffekt» à Shakespeare in Love . In Les Ombres de Molière, Martial Poirson (ed.). Paris: Armand Colin, 471–487.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Martín, María Elena. 2013. Psycho (1960) revisited: Intertextuality and refraction. In Peeping Through the Holes: Twenty-first Century Essays on Psycho, E.M. Olivares Merino & J.A. Olivares Merino (eds). Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 167–189.Google Scholar
Shachar, Hila. 2013. Authorial histories: The historical film and the literary biopic. In A Companion to the Historical Film, Robert A. Rosenstone & Constantin Parvulesu (eds). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 199–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stam, Robert. 2000. Beyond fidelity: The dialogics of adaptation. In Film Adaptation, James Naremore (ed.). London: The Athlone Press, 1–18.Google Scholar
Stölzl, Philipp. 2010. Goethe! Warner Bros. Pictures Germany.Google Scholar
Tirard, Laurent. 2007. Molière. Fidélités Productions.Google Scholar
Todd, F. Davis & Kenneth Womack. 2004. Reading (and writing) the ethics of authorship: Shakespeare in Love as postmodern metanarrative. Literature/Film quarterly 32 (2): 153–162.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

المجلي, حسام عبدالله
2023. الفن داخل الفن: صناعة المسرح في السينما بين اشتراطات الفن وإكراهات الإنتاج: دراسة موازنة بين فيلمي "شكسبير عاشقًا" و"توبسي ترفي" . مجلة الآداب للدراسات اللغوية والأدبية 5:3 ► pp. 616 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.