Article contents
The First Shakespeare Film: A Reconsideration and Reconstruction of Tree's King John
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 October 2010
Extract
In his seminal studies of Shakespeare on film—one appearing in an earlier number of this publication—Robert Hamilton Ball traced Beerbohm Tree's involvement with four film projects that spanned his twenty-year career (1897–1917) at His Majesty's Theatre: the opening shipwreck from his 1904 revival of The Tempest, captured on film at His Majesty's in 1905 by Charles Urban; a five-scene version of Henry VIII based on his 1910 production featuring him as Cardinal Wolsey and filmed in February 1911 at William Barker's Ealing studio; a 1916 Macbeth, bearing no direct resemblance to his 1911 stage version, filmed in California by D.W. Griffith with Tree playing the title role; and, though allegedly not as extensive as the others but certainly the most important historically, a brief segment from his King John revival filmed in 1899 on the Adelphi embankment—Tree's initial cinematographic venture and the very first record of Shakespeare on film. Although little is known about the exact nature of these films because the primary sources—the films themselves—are lost, Ball, working from the knowledge that the films were, in the main, transcriptions of either the stage revivals or Tree's roles, reconstructed their contents by culling mostly from theatrical documents such as reviews and programs and augmenting these with rare descriptions or photographs from the films whenever available.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society for Theatre Research 1991
References
1 “The Shakespeare Film as Record: Sir Tree, Herbert Beerbohm,” Shakespeare Quarterly, 3 (July 1952), 227–236Google Scholar; “Tree's King John Film: An Addendum,” Shakespeare Quarterly, 24 (Autumn 1973), 455–459; “Pioneers and All: The Beginnings of Shakespeare Film,” Theatre Survey, 1 (1960), 18–42; and Shakespeare on Silent Film (New York: Theatre Art Books, 1968). Unless otherwise noted, all references to Ball's studies are taken from his book.
2 Opening night program and souvenir program from the 60th performance (13 November 1899), housed at the New York Public library, where Ball relied for all primary documents from Tree's revival. Other copies of these programs, in addition to the bulk of all extant documents from Tree's revivals, are housed at the University of Bristol Theatre Collection's Beerbohm Tree Archive, hereafter referred to as UBTA.
3 The first exhibition of a motion picture projected on to a screen took place at the Olympia in March 1896 and was the project of R.W. Paul, one of Britain's First and most notable film producers; Manvell and Row, 23.
4 The Motion Picture Studio Directory, 2nd edition, London, 21 October 1916. Ball consulted other directories and trade journals, but these placed the date at either 1896 (perhaps relying on the interviews as their source) or in 1916, the year of Tree's Macbeth.
5 Row, Rachel and Manvell, Roger, The History of the British Film (London: Unwin, 1973), I: 30.Google Scholar
6 These details, strikingly reminiscent of Edison's 1893 Black Maria studio in New Jersey, are recounted by Row and Manvell from a letter by F. W. Baker. Studio built about 1897 at the back of the old Tivoli, Strand…. The studio revolved on the cup and ball principle (an old stage device). The ball being bolted to the cement bed, the cup fixed to the centre of the floor and well black-leaded, at each corner was a detachable wheel which ran on a flat circular plate flush with the ground. This enabled the Studio to turn in any direction for the best light. The glass part of the Studio was put together in sections, easily taken apart. (30)
7 The British Mutoscope and Biograph Company did not move from this studio until 1903–1904 when it relocated to an indoor studio (Row and Manvell, 31).
8 Ball attributed this comment as intended to describe only Henry VIII.
9 Tree's scene divisions, as played on opening night, compare to the folio thus: Act One: 1.1 (1.1); 1.2 (2.1); 1.3 (3.1); 1.4 (3.2); Battle Tableau; 13 (3.3); Act Two: 2.1 (3.4); 2.2 (4.1); 2.3 (4.2); 2.4 (4.3); Act Three: The Magna Charte; 3.1 (5.1); 3.2 (5.2); 3.3 (5.3); 3.4 (5.6); 33 (5.7). As indicated by the final promptbook, Tree, sometime after the premiere, reduced the last act to play as follows: Magna Charta Tableau; 3.1 (5.1); 3.2 (5.2, 5.4); 33 (5.7). Lineation from Wilson, John Dover, King John (1936; rpt. Mass: Cambridge University Press, 1954).Google Scholar
10 At the time of Ball's research, Tree's promptbooks were housed at the Enthoven Collection and were not readily accessible; these documents from Tree's King John, housed at UBTA since 1974, include the following: two rehearsal copies (Shattuck 49, 50), three stage manager's copies (51–53), a Final promptbook (54), and numerous production papers including fly plots, property plots, supers' plots and programs.
11 Shakespeare Quarterly (July 1952), 236.
12 Tree began rehearsals for Dream in October, and the play premiered in January 1900.
13 Row and Manvell, 16; Perry, George, The Great Picure Show (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1985), 231.Google Scholar
14 Row and Manvell, 30.
15 This often duplicated photo can be found in Macgowan, Kenneth, Behind the Scenes (New York: Delacorte, 1965), 135.Google Scholar
16 Macgown, 89.
17 In 1898, the American producers Klaw and Erlanger made a twenty-four scene film of the Passion Play at Oberammergau (actually not recorded on location but at a roof-top studio), and other two-reel Alms followed in the same year by other producers (Macgowan, 89).
18 Row and Manvell, 48.
19 Sporting Times, 23 September 1899.
20 Licensed Victuallers' Gazette, 22 September 1899.
21 Pall Mall Gazette, 21 September 1899.
22 The Star, 21 September 1899.
23 All promptbook notes are marked by single quotations, and unless otherwise noted parenthetically (e.g., KJ 51), promptbook quotations are culled from the final book (Shattuck 54).
24 Standard, 21 September 1899.
25 Pall Mall Gazette, 21 September 1899.
26 Graphic, 23 September 1899.
27 Graphie, 23 September 1899.
28 Lady's Pictorial, 30 September 1899; Daily News, 21 September 1899.
29 Bristol Times, 21 September 1899.
30 Saturday Review, 30 September 1899.
31 Daily Chronicle, 21 September 1899.
32 Sunday Times, 24 September 1899.
33 Saturday Review, 30 September 1899.
34 To-Day, 28 September 1899.
35 Sunday Times, 24 September 1899.
36 Research for this essay was funded by a grant from the University of Missouri-St. Louis.
- 1
- Cited by