Comparsion Of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus And Its Film Adaptation By Ralph Fiennes

Although Ralph Fiennes’ film adaptation of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus sticks largely to the facts as reported in the original story, it differs noticeably from Plutarch’s Life of Coriolanus in terms of how the play tends to compress some events in order to increase the dramatization. Furthermore, while both works place a large emphasis on the role played by various female characters, it is the film adaption in which the women are depicted to be more telling and influential to the plot.

Shakespeare often omits pieces or compresses several events into a single day in his play. He does this primarily for the increased dramatic effect towards the audience. While Plutarch recounts the fight between Coriolanus and Aufidius, Shakespeare retells it as a bloody duel to place emphasis on and develop the personal rivalry between the two, one which ends up playing a significant role in the climax of the story. Moreover, he jumps immediately from the battle with the Volscians to the granting of the cognomen for Marcius. No time is even granted to discuss the derivation of the name. Plutarch, on the other hand, slows down and wants the reader to explicitly think about its meaning. He goes on a detour to emphasize Latin words like “euergetes” and “philadelphus” in order to indicate the good qualities and brotherly friend that characterize Coriolanus. Shakespeare omits such details and invokes compression to maintain the speed and pace of the drama.

Fiennes’ adaptation also makes use of some original work, particularly in the candidature of Coriolanus. Again, Shakespeare wastes little to no time in advancing the plot here. Coriolanus’ candidature immediately follows his return from war. Much of these scenes are conveyed in an ominous tone to bolster the play. However, in Plutarch’s account, he separates these two events from one another, and, instead, divulges into what Shakespeare would likely categorize as minor episodes, not adding anything to the progression of the plot nor the drama. Plutarch discusses the period of a second rebellion due to famine, the colonization of Velitres, and attacks on the Antiates. This is significant because, according to Plutarch, the tribunes used the evidence of the raid on the Antiates to fight against Coriolanus’ candidature. Marcius allegedly divided up the booty from the raid amongst the men who joined him rather than giving it to the public treasury.

More indication of some small yet notable differences between the two works includes the period during Coriolanus’ banishment and his return to attack Rome. Plutarch attests that Coriolanus departed “without taking anything or asking for anything” save for “three or four of his clients”. In the film adaptation, however, he is depicted to be alone and friendless, that is until he meets and joins forces with his old rival, Aufidius, to wage war against Rome once again. The clients help to nurture Coriolanus’ solitude, so it is only fitting that in the play, his contempt against Rome and manliness nature grow even stronger while departed and on the move alone. Furthermore, when Coriolanus is close to attacking Rome, Plutarch recounts that Marcius gave Rome three additional days to comply with his demands as general of the Volscian army. Rome responded to this by sending the whole order of priests to visit him. Shakespeare, on the other hand, completely omits the sending of the priests. This key omission illustrates how Plutarch’s version places a strong foundation on the emphasis of divinely inspired motives and people.

Although it can be argued either way, much evidence points to a greater importance of women in Fiennes’ adaptation of Shakespeare than in Plutarch. In the beginning, when Coriolanus is away at war, Volumnia, the mother, has a small yet warming talk with Virgilia, the wife, in which she wishes her to “sing, or express [herself] in a more comfortable sort” of way in her husband’s absence (Shakespeare 1. 3. 1-2). This scene is entirely Shakespeare’s own creation, save for the names coming from Plutarch. It serves to develop the characters of the two main women in the story, giving the audience greater detail about them. Plutarch, however, does indeed devote time to mentioning Volumnia’s strong influence and impact on Coriolanus’ motives, actions, and character development. Rather than including the response by various groups to the banishment of Coriolanus as Plutarch did, in the play, Volumnia and Virgilia’s fury is greatly expressed in their confrontation and skirmish with the tribunes of the plebs. One might say that Plutarch places a greater importance on women because of the inclusion of characters like Valeria, a Roman noblewoman and close friend to Volumnia and Virgilia, and by painting the women who beseeched Coriolanus’ mother and wife as divinely inspired. However, it is the women of the play who are shown to have a greater impact on Coriolanus and, ultimately, the fate of Rome.

In both works, the women play a central role in saving Rome, but they differ in terms of the extent of their influence on Coriolanus and motives for pleading with him. While Coriolanus’ mother and wife’s speeches in Fiennes’ adaptation of Shakespeare remain nearly identical to that of Plutarch, it is clear that the play invokes more emotion and connection from both Coriolanus and the audience. Unending family love and lasting patriotism for Rome are essentially what Volumnia uses to influence Coriolanus in ending his mad fight. Plainly put, the play makes many of these scenes feel much more personal than in Plutarch’s original recount. In retrospect, it can be said that Shakespeare, like any great playwright, did this simply to strengthen the drama at its uttermost peak. Coriolanus, though, loses much of his accrued manliness when he succumbs to the pleas of his mother and wife; he repeatedly sobs “O my mother” and exclaims that she has “won a happy victory to Rome”. The powerful nature mothers tend to have greatly humbles Marcius in his boldest moment and brings him down to his roots, saving his family and his home but sacrificing himself in the process.

Some historians question the existence of such a man like Coriolanus in ancient times and regard the original story merely as a legend. When one examines how the story is told, it makes sense to view it as simply a story written to teach about unfavorable Roman traits, particularly those of disloyalty and ingratitude. This theory becomes even more logical when one considers that Plutarch is known to be more concerned with ethics and philosophical takes on life and the careers of great men, illuminating, in tandem, common moral virtues and failings of them, as he did exactly with Coriolanus. However, whether he is regarded as a fantasy politician or not, both Plutarch and Shakespeare certainly paint Coriolanus’ character noticeably different from one another, and it is largely the women of the play who perform a critical role in shaping that character.