“Shakespeare in love” / In love with Shakespeare: metatextual potential of John Madden’s fictional biopic
Keywords:
metatext, metafragment, metatextual potential, allusion, paratext.
Abstract
The paper focuses on the specificity of metatextual potential of John Madden’s fictional biopic “Shakespeare in Love” (1998), viewed as a complex metatextualintermedial construct. The metatextual resources of the film are being analysed on three key levels: intratextual (metatextual fragments), intertextual (allusions to the other works of the canon) and extratextual (text as an intersemiotic metatext). On the intratextual level four main forms of metatextual commentary are singled out: a) the paratextual commentary; b) the leitmotif; c) the self-referential fragments; d) the allusions to the present-day realia. In relation to the intertextual level of the film’s metatextual potential references to Shakespeare’s works are discussed as a metatext which offers an explanation of the sources of Shakespeare’s inspiration. Within the extratextual level, “Shakespeare in Love” is viewed as an intersemiotic metatext which comments upon two major semantic fields: the figure of Shakespeare and the epoch of the English Renaissance. The authors also put forward the suggestions for the practical application of the research results.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Brahms, C. & Simon, S.J. (1999). No Bed for Bacon. London: Black Swan, 256 p.
Bu, J. (2014). Towards a pragmatic analysis of metadiscourse in academic lectures: From relevance to adaptation. Discourse Studies, 16 (4), pp. 449-472. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24441991.
Charles, A. (2012). The Meta-Utopian Metatext: The Deconstructive Dreams of Ulysses and Finnegans Wake. Utopian Studies, No. 23(2), pp. 472-503. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5325/utopianstudies.23.2.0472
Cherniak, Yu.I. (2010). The interdisciplinary dimensions of the problem of the discourse typology and the literary studies analytics. Bulletin of Zaporizhzhia National University, No. 1, pp. 94-100. Retrieved from http://web.znu.edu.ua/herald/issues/2010/fil_2010_1/094-100.pdf.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang Pub. Inc., 294 p.
Fokkema, A. (1999). The Author: Postmodernism’s Stock Character. The Author as Character: Representing Historical Writers in Western Literature. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, pp. 39–51.
Franssen, P., & Hoenselaars, T. (1999). Introduction. The Author as Character: Defining a Genre. The Author as Character: Representing Historical Writers in Western Literature. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, pp. 11–35.
Geal, R. (2014). Suturing the Action to the Word: Shakespearean Enunciation and Cinema's “Reality Effect” in “Shakespeare in Love” and “Anonymous”. Literature/Film Quarterly, No. 42(2), pp. 438-450. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43798978.
Gillies, J. (2003). Shakespeare and the geography of difference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 258 p.
Holderness, G. (2011). Nine Lives of William Shakespeare. London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 255 p.
Hunt, M. (2007). Looking for Hamlet. N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan, 230 p.
Jokić, N. (2017). Metadiscourse in ELF spoken discourse of Erasmus students in Austria. AAA: ArbeitenAusAnglistik Und Amerikanistik, No. 42(2), pp. 211-223. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26379472.
Jonson, B. (2015). On Shakespeare. English Essays: Sidney to Macaulay. The Harvard Classics. Retrieved from http://www.bartleby.com/27/2.html.
Kamaralli, A. (2011). Rehearsal in Films of the Early Modern Theatre: The Erotic Art of Making Shakespeare. Shakespeare Bulletin, No. 29(1), pp. 27-41. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44657257.
Lazarenko, D.M. (2009). The category of metatext in the terminological paradigm of the modern literary studies. State and Regions. Series: Humanitarian Sciences, No. 3–4, pp. 21–26.
Lazarenko, D.M. (2010). The notion of metatext as a linguistic category in the intellectual space of the modern philology. New Philology. Zaporizhzhia: Zaporizhzhia National University, No. 39, pp.102–110.
Lotman, Yu. M. (1992). The semiotics of culture and the notion of text. Tallinn: Aleksandra, pp. 129–132. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-0405260352.
Madden, J. (Director). (1998). Shakespeare in love [Motion picture]. United States: Universal Pictures.
Marinesko, V. (2015). The Strategies of Reconsidering Shakespeare’s Biography in the Novel “My Name Is Will” by J. Winfield. State and Regions. Series: Humanitarian Sciences, No. 2 (41), pp. 26-30.
Marko, G. (2017). Power and status by definition: Preliminary theoretical considerations on a study of defining as a metadiscursive strategy in lay-to-lay interaction. AAA: ArbeitenAusAnglistik Und Amerikanistik, No. 42(2), pp. 243-279. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26379474.
Norman, M., & Stoppard, T. (2001) Shakespeare In Love. Retrieved from https://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Shakespeare-in-Love.html.
Peer, W. V., & Chesnokova, A. (2018). Reading And Rereading: Insights Into Literary Evaluation. Advanced Education, No. 9, pp. 39-46. Retrieved from https://doi.org/ 10.20535/2410-8286.125730.
Penz, H. (2017). Metadiscourse in multi-party conflict talk. AAA: ArbeitenAusAnglistik Und Amerikanistik, No. 42(2), pp. 301-323. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26379476
Perfilieva, N.P. (2006). Metatext in the aspect of text categories. Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 285 p.
Resnik, P. (2017). Metadiscourse in spoken interaction in ESL: A multilingual perspective. AAA: ArbeitenAusAnglistik Und Amerikanistik, No. 42(2), pp.189-210. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26379471.
Ryabtseva, N.K. (2005). Language and natural intellect. Moscow: Academia, 640 p.
Shaymiev, V.A. (1996). Metatext and some of its features. SPb: Russian State Pedagogical University Bulletin, pp. 79 – 84.
Scherling, J. (2017). Pragmatics of power: On the intricacies of metadiscourse in the Labour leadership debates 2015 and 2016. AAA: ArbeitenAusAnglistik Und Amerikanistik, No. 42(2), pp. 281-300. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26379475.
Sokolov, Ye.G. (2002). The terror of meta-principles. SPb.: Saint-Petersburg Philosophical Society Bulletin, pp.18-21. Retrieved from http://anthropology.ru/ru/text/sokolov-eg/terror-meta-principialnosti.
Taylor, G. (1990). Reinventing Shakespeare: A cultural history, from the Restoration to the present. London: Hogarth Press, 226 p.
Torkut, N.M. (2013). Roland Emmerich’s “Anonymous” in the context of the anti-Stratfordian debate. State and Regions. Series: Humanitarian Sciences. No. 1, pp. 4-10. Retrieved from http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/drgn_2013_1_3.
Turunen, N. (1999). Metatext as a global system and the issues of constructing text in the speech development manuals. Stereotypes and art in the text: interuniversity collection of scientific papers. Perm: Perm university, pp. 310-320.
Vande Kopple, W.J. (1985). Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, No. 36(1), pp. 82-93.
Wierzbicka, A. (1978). Metatext in the text. New in Foreign Linguistics, No. 8, pp. 402-421. Retrieved from http://destructioen.narod.ru/vegbicka_metatekst.htm.
Bu, J. (2014). Towards a pragmatic analysis of metadiscourse in academic lectures: From relevance to adaptation. Discourse Studies, 16 (4), pp. 449-472. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24441991.
Charles, A. (2012). The Meta-Utopian Metatext: The Deconstructive Dreams of Ulysses and Finnegans Wake. Utopian Studies, No. 23(2), pp. 472-503. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5325/utopianstudies.23.2.0472
Cherniak, Yu.I. (2010). The interdisciplinary dimensions of the problem of the discourse typology and the literary studies analytics. Bulletin of Zaporizhzhia National University, No. 1, pp. 94-100. Retrieved from http://web.znu.edu.ua/herald/issues/2010/fil_2010_1/094-100.pdf.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang Pub. Inc., 294 p.
Fokkema, A. (1999). The Author: Postmodernism’s Stock Character. The Author as Character: Representing Historical Writers in Western Literature. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, pp. 39–51.
Franssen, P., & Hoenselaars, T. (1999). Introduction. The Author as Character: Defining a Genre. The Author as Character: Representing Historical Writers in Western Literature. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, pp. 11–35.
Geal, R. (2014). Suturing the Action to the Word: Shakespearean Enunciation and Cinema's “Reality Effect” in “Shakespeare in Love” and “Anonymous”. Literature/Film Quarterly, No. 42(2), pp. 438-450. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43798978.
Gillies, J. (2003). Shakespeare and the geography of difference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 258 p.
Holderness, G. (2011). Nine Lives of William Shakespeare. London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 255 p.
Hunt, M. (2007). Looking for Hamlet. N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan, 230 p.
Jokić, N. (2017). Metadiscourse in ELF spoken discourse of Erasmus students in Austria. AAA: ArbeitenAusAnglistik Und Amerikanistik, No. 42(2), pp. 211-223. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26379472.
Jonson, B. (2015). On Shakespeare. English Essays: Sidney to Macaulay. The Harvard Classics. Retrieved from http://www.bartleby.com/27/2.html.
Kamaralli, A. (2011). Rehearsal in Films of the Early Modern Theatre: The Erotic Art of Making Shakespeare. Shakespeare Bulletin, No. 29(1), pp. 27-41. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44657257.
Lazarenko, D.M. (2009). The category of metatext in the terminological paradigm of the modern literary studies. State and Regions. Series: Humanitarian Sciences, No. 3–4, pp. 21–26.
Lazarenko, D.M. (2010). The notion of metatext as a linguistic category in the intellectual space of the modern philology. New Philology. Zaporizhzhia: Zaporizhzhia National University, No. 39, pp.102–110.
Lotman, Yu. M. (1992). The semiotics of culture and the notion of text. Tallinn: Aleksandra, pp. 129–132. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-0405260352.
Madden, J. (Director). (1998). Shakespeare in love [Motion picture]. United States: Universal Pictures.
Marinesko, V. (2015). The Strategies of Reconsidering Shakespeare’s Biography in the Novel “My Name Is Will” by J. Winfield. State and Regions. Series: Humanitarian Sciences, No. 2 (41), pp. 26-30.
Marko, G. (2017). Power and status by definition: Preliminary theoretical considerations on a study of defining as a metadiscursive strategy in lay-to-lay interaction. AAA: ArbeitenAusAnglistik Und Amerikanistik, No. 42(2), pp. 243-279. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26379474.
Norman, M., & Stoppard, T. (2001) Shakespeare In Love. Retrieved from https://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Shakespeare-in-Love.html.
Peer, W. V., & Chesnokova, A. (2018). Reading And Rereading: Insights Into Literary Evaluation. Advanced Education, No. 9, pp. 39-46. Retrieved from https://doi.org/ 10.20535/2410-8286.125730.
Penz, H. (2017). Metadiscourse in multi-party conflict talk. AAA: ArbeitenAusAnglistik Und Amerikanistik, No. 42(2), pp. 301-323. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26379476
Perfilieva, N.P. (2006). Metatext in the aspect of text categories. Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 285 p.
Resnik, P. (2017). Metadiscourse in spoken interaction in ESL: A multilingual perspective. AAA: ArbeitenAusAnglistik Und Amerikanistik, No. 42(2), pp.189-210. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26379471.
Ryabtseva, N.K. (2005). Language and natural intellect. Moscow: Academia, 640 p.
Shaymiev, V.A. (1996). Metatext and some of its features. SPb: Russian State Pedagogical University Bulletin, pp. 79 – 84.
Scherling, J. (2017). Pragmatics of power: On the intricacies of metadiscourse in the Labour leadership debates 2015 and 2016. AAA: ArbeitenAusAnglistik Und Amerikanistik, No. 42(2), pp. 281-300. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26379475.
Sokolov, Ye.G. (2002). The terror of meta-principles. SPb.: Saint-Petersburg Philosophical Society Bulletin, pp.18-21. Retrieved from http://anthropology.ru/ru/text/sokolov-eg/terror-meta-principialnosti.
Taylor, G. (1990). Reinventing Shakespeare: A cultural history, from the Restoration to the present. London: Hogarth Press, 226 p.
Torkut, N.M. (2013). Roland Emmerich’s “Anonymous” in the context of the anti-Stratfordian debate. State and Regions. Series: Humanitarian Sciences. No. 1, pp. 4-10. Retrieved from http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/drgn_2013_1_3.
Turunen, N. (1999). Metatext as a global system and the issues of constructing text in the speech development manuals. Stereotypes and art in the text: interuniversity collection of scientific papers. Perm: Perm university, pp. 310-320.
Vande Kopple, W.J. (1985). Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, No. 36(1), pp. 82-93.
Wierzbicka, A. (1978). Metatext in the text. New in Foreign Linguistics, No. 8, pp. 402-421. Retrieved from http://destructioen.narod.ru/vegbicka_metatekst.htm.
Published
2021-07-30
How to Cite
Marinesko, V., Lazarenko, D., Torkut, N., & Gutaruk, N. (2021). “Shakespeare in love” / In love with Shakespeare: metatextual potential of John Madden’s fictional biopic. Amazonia Investiga, 10(42), 103-112. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.42.06.10
Issue
Section
Articles
.gif)
