We Happy Few…
I can’t decide why this bothers me so much, so please forgive the rambling that follows.
I’ve been working on an article documenting the plagiarism use of one of Shakespeare’s most famous speeches in pop culture–particularly in modern media–for some time now, and while finding it in film doesn’t surprise me, finding it a video game commercial does. Recently a Sony PS3 commercial hacked and slashed the St. Crispin’s Day speech and used it to promote some of their fighting based video games. Actually, it irks me quite a bit. This may be the academic snob in me, but I just don’t understand the thought process behind using the St. Crispin’s day speech from Henry V to promote video games, even if they are “war games.” How many viewers know where that speech even originates? Does that even matter? I’m torn.
Watch the video above and then, if you’re curious, go watch Aragorn’s speech at the Black gate in Lord of the Rings, Benitez in the rain in Renaissance Man, William Wallace’s speech from Braveheart, Dilios’ final speech at the end of 300, or Mr. Fabian’s performance of the speech in Tombstone. I could spend the rest of the night listing allusions to the St. Crispin’s Day speech (notably from multiple episodes of Buffy) and adaptations of it, but I’m pretty sure you can recognize the elements of this speech when you hear it. Take any motion picture with a major battle scene and I’m willing to bet this speech will appear in one form or another. In fact, it’s hard to find a modern motion picture featuring a battle scene that doesn’t feature it in one form or another.
It’s a rousing speech, to be sure. One might argue that it’s the single greatest “locker room” speech ever written. But the use of that speech in a commercial for video games rubs me the wrong way. The fact that Sony used it speaks to the notion of Shakespeare’s place as a cultural icon (I have a list of books and articles about this phenomenon that you can read if interested), and while I could bore you to tears with why this is important, and why using his image and half understood lines from plays to try and bridge a chasm between generations, classes, and intellectual hierarchies (perceived or actual) is problematic, I’ll save that for the article. When it’s finished, you can read it if you so choose and comment away. I just don’t know which side of the line I fall on. I can see the logic of using Shakespeare (and this speech in particular) to garner interest and connect to people. In one respect, it’s marketing genius. Companies have used Shakespeare in this way for ages. On the other hand, I find it trite and almost insulting. To be fair, I have the same response when I’m watching a film and I see a thinly veiled version of that speech rendered, as I did with the second and third Lord of the Rings films. I have nothing against using effective material, but I do have a problem with using that material without giving the origins proper credit. I have actually had people who watched Braveheart first, and then Henry V, say to me, “Shakespeare totally stole that from Mel Gibson’s movie.” Aside from the temporal impossibility of that statement, the problem is clear. If you don’t know where something comes from, how can you truly appreciate it? And who says you have to know where it comes from to be able to appreciate it anyway?
My trouble is in figuring out why it bothers me so. When I see something like this, I have to fight the urge to tell everyone I see, “You know that is an adaptation of X” or “You know that’s from Shakespeare, right?” Most often, the response is, “uhm, okay. So?” And every fiber of my being becomes frayed. Maybe it’s my need to see past the surface in everything and wanting others to do the same. Maybe it’s rooted in my habitual criticism of art. It bothers me greatly when an artist creates something based on someone else’s work and takes credit as though they were divinely inspired and developed those ideas on their own. It feels false. It feels like they’re trying to pull one over on the public, and when people applaud those creations without understanding the influences and origins, it bothers me even more.
It just upsets me to know that somewhere there are people who will hear that PS3 commercial and forever think that Sony created those words. They may never know that it was one of Shakespeare’s greatest speeches, and they may never care. I think it goes beyond my mere passion for literature, too. There’s something… else. So why does it bother me so much? Excellent question. If you figure that out, let me know.
Write Well,
Dawn
June 24th, 2008 at 5:34 am
Well, respectfully, I take a different position. First, it’s not an ad for fighting games. There are three games mentioned (Little Big Planet, Metal Gear Solid, and Gran Turismo), only one of which is a fighting game. One is actually car racing.
Second, where’s the “hack and slash”? As far as I can tell there are only two edits - the removal of the words “St. Crispin’s Day”, which is out of context for the commercial, and they also snip a line in the middle about “be he ne’er so vile, this will gentle his condition” which is at best an editorial call. Surely you’d admit that every single production of Shakespeare you’ve ever seen has made directorial choices about what to keep and what to cut? When Kenneth Brannagh did a full text Hamlet it was heralded as the first of its kind, meaning that everybody prior to him had been hacking and slashing.
(I also think that “plagiarism” charges are a bit unfounded. HBO did a very popular war series called Band of Brothers, you’ll have to enlighten me about whether they gave credit for the phrase to our man Will.)
Lastly, I disagree with the “they’ll never know or care.” I can truthfully report that since the commercial came out, the page on my site where we discuss it has become one of my most popular. Plenty of people are heading to google and typing in things like “We happy few ps3 commercial” or “that fought with us upon this day” and arriving at Shakespeare sites all over the net….and actually learning about Shakespeare. They do actually care. (Could they be searching for the online version of the commercial? Perhaps, but their searches indicate that it is curiosity about the speech that motivates them. They could just as easily be typing things like “new ps3 commercial june 2008″ and arriving at the same destinations.)
So, it’s not as bad as you think. We actually see it as a win, for the exact opposite reasons you state - how many videogame geeks will see that commercial, get curious about the cool quote, find out that it was indeed Shakespeare, and then be motivated to learn more about him? So far my evidence says a good number will do just that.
http://www.shakespearegeek.com
June 24th, 2008 at 7:32 am
There will always be the intelligent among us that will take notice and think it a wonderful speech, and take heed to Shakespeare’s creativity. However, there will always be the stone-cold ignorant that will always notice things from the face without any care to study or inquiry towards the initial source. It merely sums to common ignorance. I personally feel it’s far more refreshing to heed the smart ones and to hell with the idiots.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Duane:
First, thanks for the comment!
As I said, I don’t know quite where I stand on all of this. It’s true, the commercial only features one “fighting” game, which, again, makes me question the logic behind using the St. Crispin’s Day speech in that commercial at all. As you know, that speech isn’t about building a little world and solving puzzles with fuzzy creatures. It’s not about racing, either, though I can see where that stretch could be made.
The “hack and slash” was as much tongue in cheek as it was sincere. Of course productions of Shakespeare have been edited—that’s the job of the dramaturg, producer, and the director. Some are worse than others, admittedly. In terms of Kenneth Brannagh’s production of Hamlet—it was an anomaly. And, in fact, he added two words (“My Lord.”) to the script for cinematic purposes, so even he didn’t hold completely true to the agreed upon text. It’s a common occurrence. But the Henry V speech is not 30 seconds long. Granted, a commercial isn’t going to include the full three or so minutes of the full speech, and they shouldn’t. It’s a commercial for a specific product (in this case, products), and they’re only going to use what they see as applicable, just like a film or stage production director. But any time you alter the text—be it one line or 300—you are altering the meaning of the original text. I highly doubt Sony was concerned with this, particularly because they have no vested interest in conveying anything other than a rousing sound bite to garner interest in their product.
The “Plagiarism charges,” as you put it, are more aimed at the other “adaptations” and “borrowings” that I mentioned than this particular commercial. I’m more concerned with the flagrant use of the Bard’s words without proper credit (check out any of the ones I listed, notably LoTR, Braveheart, Master and Commander, etc. for examples), and what that means on a social and cultural level, than I am with uses like this, though they too have their place in considering the issue. I don’t know if Band of Brothers gave proper credit for the derivation of the name, however. What Dreams May Come did the same thing, and, again, I could give you a healthy list of similar occurrences. I’ve been meaning to look into that, so if I find anything I’ll be sure to let you know.
I’m curious about the lines of discussion on your site about the commercial and the speech. Are they more focused on the game? Are they discussing a sudden interest in picking up Henry V and all the history that goes along with it because of a few rousing lines? I’ll have to check it out! You claim they care, but about what? As you pointed out, it’s just as likely that they were searching for the commercial itself with no interest in the origins of the speech. Unless there’s a discussion forum, there’s really no way to know. I hope you’re right. I hope it does lead folks to Shakespeare and learning more about his work and history. I doubt it will, but I’m a cynic. :)
June 24th, 2008 at 9:03 am
I wish I could say that they’re sticking around, but I just don’t have the statistics. My “bounce rate” for that page, the rate at which people visit just that page and then leave, is pretty much on par with the rest of the site. So it’s not like they are any more likely to leave after they get their info than anyone else was. I wish I could say there was more commentary, but there’s only a few. I’ve got a handful of regular readers who I think tend to dominate the discussion and scare away the new folk. Feel free to come by and dive in, though! Bring your friends! :)
http://blog.shakespearegeek.com/2008/06/henry-v-playstation-iii-same-diff.html
I’m a big believer in “Shakespeare references as pop culture”, it’s the reason I started my blog to begin with. Given the choice between someone with no exposure to Shakespeare and someone who “knows it without knowing where it came from”, I’ll take the latter every time. I do my part the other way, of course — my 4 and 6yr olds can tell you the plot of several Shakespeare plays, and recite most of Sonnet 18. They have no problem with it, because I’m starting them out with a love for the stuff, rather than fear.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I have an alternative hypothesis. What if the pre-war/locker room speech genre is older and more pervasive than Shakespeare? The Bard has certainly had a profound impact on English language, literature, and culture, but he’s neither omnipresent nor omnipotent. The St. Crispin’s day speech may be the oldest or best troop-rallying speech you know, but that doesn’t mean every such speech thereafter must be compared to it or give credit to it. I posit that Shakespeare merely added to a genre that is as old as human speech. Give him credit for making a memorable contribution, but let’s stop prostrating ourselves before the altar of his supposed literary greatness, castigating sinners who dare write something similar to his works, and excommunicating heretics who dare suggest that he’s anything less than the greatest writer to use the English language, if not the greatest writer of any language at any time in history.
In case it isn’t obvious, the above refers to the pop culture references listed or alluded to. The PS3 commercial is a different matter because it is a direct quote. It’s tacky, but it’s not plagiarism. I see no evidence that Sony purports to offer the speech as their own composition. It’s a performance of a very old work that, by your own admission, has entered the public consciousness. Were it not for ridiculous laws and rulings made in Disney’s favor, Sony would not even be guilty of copyright infringement if the speech had been written within the last 100 years, let alone 400 years years ago. You’re certainly free to be annoyed at a tacky use of classic literature, but don’t call it plagiarism, and don’t compare it to speeches in LotR, BtVS, Braveheart, etc.
BTW, I’ve seen folks get similarly annoyed at perceived bastardizations or plagiarism of Star Wars. Most claims are unfounded, though, because Lucas borrowed and stole from a long history of stories about heroes, mentors, monster-slaying, coming of age, etc. Star Wars merely represents the currently most popular example of a well-populated genre that goes back at least as far as Beowulf.
June 29th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Hey Dawn, I respectfully disagree with you on the issue of reusing material — especially public domain material like all of Shakespeare’s works.
People have borrowed from and adapted others’ works throughout history. What are legends, fairy tales, and epic poems but the remixed versions of older stories? Shakespeare himself stole plots, characters, and themes from prior works. It’s part of how literature is created, and how it evolves.
Maybe the speeches and themes of Lord of the Rings are derived from older works; the same is true of the Star Wars series. There are lots of other novels and films that have done the same. It’s the best versions that we treasure and remember in the long run, which I’d suggest is why Shakespeare’s telling of the history of Henry IV is better known than anyone else’s.
As to the question of whether a marketing piece is a worthwhile place to quote Shakespeare: Why not? I’d rather see a commercial that attempts to copy Shakespeare or to ride on his coattails than yet another Spuds McKensie-style ad.
June 29th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Corrections and augmentations to my comment:
I hadn’t read Eric’s comment closely enough. He said much the same as I did, and very thoughtfully too. Nice to share a point of view with him.
I meant Henry V, not IV. Having trouble keeping my Henrys straight it seems.
The current New Yorker has an interesting review of a currently-running production of Hamlet that mentions in passing that there had been an earlier version of that story before Shakespeare took it on and improved upon it. Sort of fits in with our discussion here.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Eric and Cindy:
I want to give your responses the proper attention they deserve, so I’ll be replying in a post soon. Keep your eyes peeled, and thanks for the conversation!