Abstract
This paper examines the way the BBC adapted Chaucer’s Miller’s Tale for their 2003 telefilm series of six selected Canterbury Tales. Focusing in particular on the two “bottom scenes”, it will be demonstrated how the BBC translate and adapt these scenes to suit the tastes of the early evening TV spectators by eliminating the most explicit passages found in the medieval source.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anglicus, B. (1975). On the properties of things. John Trevisa’s translation of Bartholomæus Anglicus de proprietatibus rerum. A critical text. In M. C. Seymour (Ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Augustinus, A. (1993). Sancti aurelii augustini episcopi de civitate dei libri XXII. In B. Dombart & A. Kalb (Eds.). (5th ed.). Stuttgart: Teubner.
BBC Press Package on the Miller’s Tale. (2003). http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/08_august/06/millerstale.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2013.
Bédier, J. (1925). Les fabliaux. Quatrième édition revue et corrigée. Paris: Champion.
Benson, L. D. (1981). The order of the Canterbury Tales. Studies in the Age of Chaucer, 3, 77–120.
Blandeau, A. (2006). Pasolini, Chaucer and Boccaccio. Two medieval texts and their translation to film. McFarland: Jefferson.
Bloch, R. H. (1986). The scandal of the fabliaux. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Camille, M. (2006). Dr. Witkowski’s anus: French doctors, German homosexuals and the obscene in medieval church art. In N. McDonald (Ed.), Medieval obscenities (pp. 17–38). York: York Medieval Press.
Caviness, M. H. (1998). Obscenity and alterity. Images that shock and offend us/them, now/then? In J. M. Ziolkowski (Ed.), Obscenity: Social control and artistic creation in the European Middle Ages (pp. 155–175). Brill: Leiden, Boston and Köln.
Chaucer, G. (1987). The Riverside Chaucer. In L. D. Benson (Ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Coren, G. (2003). A kick in the vernaculars. Times online. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/film/article2424975.ece. Accessed 12 April 2013.
Dinshaw, C. (1999). Getting medieval: Sexualities and communities, pre- and postmodern. Durham: Duke University Press.
Ellis, S. (2000). Chaucer at large: The poet and the modern imagination. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Farrell, T. J. (1989). Privacy and the boundaries of fabliau in The Miller’s Tale. English Literary History, 56, 773–795.
Forni, K. (2008). Popular Chaucer: The BBC’s Canterbury Tales. Parergon, 25(1), 171–189.
Green, M. (1976). The dialectic of adaptation: The Canterbury Tales of Pier Paolo Pasolini. Literature/Film Quarterly, 4, 46–53.
Hanning, R. (1992). Telling the private parts: ‘Pryvetee’ and poetry in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. In J. M. Dean & Ch. K. Zacher (Eds.), The idea of medieval literature (pp. 108–125). London and Toronto: Associated University Press.
Harty, K. J. (2005). Chaucer in performance. In S. Ellis (Ed.), Chaucer: An Oxford guide (pp. 560–575). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harty, K. J. (2007). Chaucer for a new millennium. In D. W. Marshall (Ed.), Mass market medieval. Essays on the Middle Ages in popular culture (pp. 13–27). McFarland: Jefferson.
Hunt, L. (Ed.). (1993). The invention of pornography. Obscenity and the invention of modernity 1500–1800. New York: Zone Books.
Knapp, P. (1990). Chaucer and the social contest. New York: Routledge.
Kolve, V. A. (1984). Chaucer and the imagery of narrative. The first five Canterbury Tales. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Kurath, H., et al. (Eds.) (1954–2001). Middle English Dictionary. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
MacKay, J., de Emmony, A, Munden M. & Jarrold J. (2004). BBC Canterbury Tales. A modern re-telling of 6 timeless stories. imc vision.
Mazo Karras, R. (1998). Leccherous songys. Medieval sexuality in word and deed. In J. M. Ziolkowski (Ed.), Obscenity: Social control and artistic creation in the European Middle Ages (pp. 233–245). Leiden, Boston and Köln: Brill.
McDonald, N. (2006). Introduction. In N. McDonald (Ed.), Medieval obscenities (pp. 1–16). York: York Medieval Press.
Minnis, A. (2006). From coilles to bel chose: Discourses of obscenity in Jean de Meun and Chaucer. In N. McDonald (Ed.), Medieval obscenities (pp. 156–178). York: York Medieval Press.
Morgan, G. (2010). Obscenity and fastidiousness in The Miller's Tale. English Studies 91(5), 492–518.
Moulton, I. F. (2000). Before pornography. Erotic writing in early modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Myerson, J. (2003). Tales of the unexpected. The Observer online. http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2003/aug/31/features.review87. Accessed 12 April 2013.
Nykrog, P. (1973). Les fabliaux (Nouvelle ed.). Librairie Droz: Genève.
Pasolini, P. P. (1972). Canterbury Tales (i Racconti di Canterbury). Alberto Grimaldi Productions.
Paton, M. (2003). Soap for the Wife of Bath. Times online. www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/article2393274.ece. Accessed 12 April 2013.
Patterson, L. (1991). Chaucer and the subject of history. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Ross, T. E. (1972). Chaucer’s bawdy. New York: D. P. Dutton.
Rupp, K. (2009). Rethinking (generic) textual identity in The Miller’s Tale. In I. Ghose & D. Renevey (Eds.), The construction of textual identity in medieval and early modern literature (pp. 33–45). SPELL 22. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Williams, D. (1981). Radical therapy in the Miller’s Tale. Chaucer Review, 15, 227–235.
Ziolkowski, I. (Ed.). (1998). Obscenity: Social control and artistic creation in the European Middle Ages. Leiden, Boston and Köln: Brill.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rupp, K. Getting Modern on Alisoun’s Ass: The BBC and Chaucer’s Miller’s Tale . Neophilologus 98, 343–352 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11061-013-9360-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11061-013-9360-6