1990

1.0007 Project Gutenberg Announcement (107)

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 7. Monday, 30 Jul 1990.
 
Date:         Mon July 30, 1990
From:         Michael S. Hart <HART@UIUCVMD>
Subject:      Project Gutenberg
 
Project Gutenberg is not officially connected with the University of
Illinois, at which the server resides, nor with any other institution,
though we do have a working unofficial relationship with many.
 
Besides the information included below, Project Gutenberg has expressed
a great interest in the creation and distribution of electronic texts -
etexts, especially of Shakespeare.  We currently have been involved for
several years in the creation and distribution of several editions, and
are working on several more.  By the time this gets posted, we hope and
pray to have donated copies of the complete works FOR EVERY STUDENT AND
THEATER GROUP MEMBER EVER TO ATTEND THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS.
 
The purpose of Project Gutenberg is to encourage the creation and
distribution of English language electronic texts.  We prefer the
texts to be made available in pure ASCII formats so they would be
most easily converted to use in various hardware and software.  A
file of this nature will also be made available in various markup
formats as it is used in various environments.  However we accept
files in ANY format, and will do our best to provide them in all.
 
We assist in the selection of hardware and software as well as in
their installation and use.  We also assist in scanning, spelling
checkers, proofreading, etc.  Our goal is to provide a collection
of 10,000 of the most used books by the year 2000, and to reduce,
and we do mean reduce, the effective costs to the user to a price
of approximately one cent per book, plus the cost of media and of
shipping and handling.  Thus we hope the entire cost of libraries
of this nature will be about $100 plus the price of the disks and
CDROMS and mailing.  Currently the price of making CDROMS is said
to be about $2,000 for mastering and then $5 per copy.  I have it
on fairly good authority that these prices are negotiable, and as
actual cost, the price per CDROM is about $2.
 
To create such a library would take less than one out of ten of a
conservatively estimated 100,000 libraries in the U.S. alone:  if
each created one full text.  If all the libraries co-operated, it
would be less than 10% of a volume per library.  If there were 10
members of each library creating electronic texts, then each only
has to do 1% of a single book to create a truly public library of
10,000 books which would each be usable on any of the 100 million
computers available today.
 
So far most electronic text work has been carried out by private,
semi-private or incorporated individuals, with several library or
college collections being created, but being made mostly from the
works entered by individuals on their own time and expense.  This
labor has largely been either a labor of love, or a labor made by
those who see future libraries as computer searchable collections
which can be transmitted via disks, phone lines or other media at
a fraction of the cost in money, time and paper as in present day
paper media.  These electronic books will not have to be rebound,
reprinted, reshelved, etc.  They will not have to be reserved and
restricted to use by one patron at a time.  All materials will be
available to all patrons from all locations at all times.
 
The use of this type of library will benefit even more greatly in
the presence of librarians, as the amount of information shall be
so much greater than that available in present day libraries that
the patron will benefit even more greatly than today from assists
in their pursuit of knowledge.
 
Therefore, we call on all interested parties to get involved with
the creation and distribution of electronic texts, whether it's a
commitment to typing, scanning, proofreading, collecting, or what
ever your pleasure might be.
 
Please do not hesitate to send any e-texts you might find to this
address.  If you prefer sending disks, a mailing address follows.
 
We hope to be thanking you soon for your participation.
The easiest way for you to find out about Project Gutenberg is
to via subscription to the GUTNBERG listserver.  You can do it
by sending the following message to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.:
 
SUB GUTNBERG YOUR NAME
 
Your name must have at least two words.  Please do not use the
long extensions describing your position as it delays mailers,
at least on some occasions.  Your bitnet address is preferred,
but internet addresses usually work, and I can usually figure,
with the help of our consultants, how to get mail to the odder
addresses we receive.
 
Please don't hesitate to ask for specific information so it is
included in the GUTNBERG mailings.  Please send these question
messages separately from your subscription message.
 
Michael S. Hart, Director, Project Gutenberg
National Clearinghouse for Machine Readable Texts
 
BITNET:  HART@UIUCVMD      INTERNET:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
(THE GUTNBERG SERVER IS LOCATED AT This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)
(Internet address is This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. - the server
only recognizes subscription commands, others routed to me)

1.0006 Modern Interpretations, Branagh (151)

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 6. Monday, 30 Jul 1990.
 
 
(1)   Date:   Mon, 30 Jul 90 03:20:00 EDT                    (64 lines)
      From:   This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
      Subject: Modern Productions
 
(2)   Date:         Mon, 30 Jul 90 11:10:25 EDT              (67 lines)
      From:         Ken Steele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
      Subject:      Branagh's Lear and MSND
 
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:   Mon, 30 Jul 90 03:20:00 EDT
From:   This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject: Modern Productions
 
     Certainly one cannot complain about adapting Shakespeare to the
modern stage if it works.  But I do not think we can make comparisons
between "modern" and "traditional" productions.  The 19th Century's
most popular productions involved what Michael Booth calls spectacular
theatre, and the style of acting was entirely different from what we
are used to.
 
     Henry Irving was considered the greatest Shakespearian
actor of his day, but a recording of him doing Wolsey's final speech
in *Henry VIII* had me rolling on the floor.  An American journalist
transcribed Irving's treatment of some lines in *The Merchant of
Venice* as follows:
 
          Wa thane, ett no eperes
          Ah! um! yo ned m'elp.
          Ough! ough! Gaw too thane! Ha! um!
          Yo com'n say
          Ah! Shilock! Um! ouch! we wode hev moanies!
          (as qtd. in Ellen Terry, *The Story of My Life*.
            London: Hutchinson & Co., 1908.  p. 273)
 
But to most Victorian theatre-goers (both English and American),
Irving's style of acting and production was perfectly acceptable--
even laudable.  Irving was the first actor to be knighted.
 
     What I find interesting about contemporary productions of
Shakespeare is how the theatre has changed its perception of
Shakespeare's works completely.  Now instead of seeing his plays as
great temples of moral and cultural virtue, they are works for the
"common people."  Now the idea is to "popularize" Shakespeare, and
make him "accessable" to the masses.  And so I get to see *The Comedy of
Errors* performed at Lincoln Center as schtick with the Flying
Karamatzov Brothers, *The Taming of the Shrew* converted into the
"Wild Bunch," and *A Midsummer Night's Dream* placed into "The Road
Warrior."  And how often do we see the comedies as opposed to the
tragedies?  Would the ratio today be the same as the 16th, 17th, 18th,
or 19th Centuries?
 
     But I am not complaining about modern productions.  I saw Kenneth
Brannagh's productions of *Lear* and *Dream* when the Renaissance
Theatre Company came to Toronto, and felt that they were very good.
Emma Thompson's Fool was outstanding, and I feel her's will be
considered one of the great interpretations of that role.  And I
did not agree with the Toronto critics, who for the most part panned
both productions.  For me, they were acting like snobs and saying,
"We will not be taken in by this British company, because we are
sophisticated Torontonians."  They missed the point.  Brannagh's
interpretation of both plays, while seeking to be popular, employed
a style that was "faithful" to the plays.
 
     My feeling is that we can compare styles, but to do so is more an
exercise in theatrical and cultural history than one about
Shakespeare.  We can criticize and praise different productions, but
we can never really talk about the "definitive" or even "traditional"
productions any more than one can talk about the "definitive
interpretation of the text.
 
Stephen Matsuba
York University
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------71----
Date:         Mon, 30 Jul 90 11:10:25 EDT
From:         Ken Steele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject:      Branagh's Lear and MSND
 
 
Well, perhaps this is somewhat tangential to the essential subject, but
tangents are the foundation of most conversation.  I don't believe that
Toronto critics (and New York critics, and Los Angeles critics...) were
being snobbish when panning Branagh's Lear and MSND.  I found them both
to be surprisingly *flat* productions: the cast was either tired or
uninspired, and the audience soon caught this boredom from them.
Ethna Roddy's Cordelia was truly awful; more than one noted Shakespearean
has remarked to me that this was the only Cordelia they had ever seen
whom they were actually glad to see die.  I agree, Emma Thompson's fool
was intriguing, and deserves the applause given it by almost every
critic.  Perhaps Branagh's Edgar and Quince would have been impressive,
too, but understudies took both roles when I saw the productions.
 
The staging for Branagh's Lear was expressive, but the endeavour to
design a set for both MSND *and* Lear resulted in a set which was
ideally suited for neither.  Of course, twinned plays always create
interesting resonances: I noted in particular that Snug carries a
joint-stool around CONSTANTLY in MSND, but that in Lear's mock trial
scene, the joint stool is purely a figment of his imagination.  But the
double feature at Stratford Ontario last year, combining the Comedy of
Errors and Titus Andronicus in a single evening, did considerably more
interesting things with the interconnections, I though, although they
did justice to neither play in such abbreviated versions.
 
Branagh's rain effect for the storm sequence was impressive -- a
custom-designed sprinkler system created a semi-circular curtain of
water cascading down into the ditch around the set -- but it was more
spectacle than drama.  More effective, for me, was the version of
the storm on the heath presented on Toronto's Harbourfront by
Theatresports, who staged a mock-King Lear in the duck pond wearing
hip-waders.  Lear and the Fool don goggles for the storm sequence,
in which other actors hurl buckets of water from either side.
But moving water does not assure moving drama.
 
The workmen in Branagh's MSND were wonderful, of course -- the modern
dress and tools brought their characters to life, and they ran away
with the show (even Bottom was a disappointment compared to his peers).
Perhaps the most hilarious moment of the play, though, was as Snug
reverently approached Theseus and Hippolyta, and began handing out his
business card to the members of the royal audience.
 
Something I have noticed, though, is the phenomenal difference an
audience can make to a production.  Last year I saw David Williams'
Shoemaker's Holiday twice at Stratford (Ontario, as always): the first
time I saw it with a herd of Renaissance scholars, who applauded
enthusiastically and added their energy to that of the players.  I
was convinced that this was the most successful play of the season.
The second time, with my wife, I was mortally disappointed as the
audience failed to grasp the jokes, sourly resisted applause, and
the actors waned in enthusiasm as a result.  Very different play,
although only a few weeks had passed and the performance had not been
altered.  My point is that perhaps the Branagh production seemed
equally remarkable during some of its performances, but I was not there
during one.
 
Branagh's cinematic Henry V, of course, is an amazing triumph which
ranks him as Olivier's successor.  Perhaps my expectations were too high
for his stage productions -- or perhaps his true talent lies in directing
film rather than stage productions.
 
Ken Steele
University of Toronto

1.0004 Modern Interpretations (91)

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 4. Friday, 27 Jul 1990.
 
 
(1)   Date:         Thu, 26 Jul 90 20:15:21 EDT              (34 lines)
      From:         Willard McCarty <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
      Subject:      old plays in modern mode
 
(2)   Date:         Fri, 27 Jul 90 05:51:12 EDT              (35 lines)
      From:         Ken Steele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
      Subject:      Modern Productions
 
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 26 Jul 90 20:15:21 EDT
From:         Willard McCarty <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject:      old plays in modern mode
 
I recall hearing about a production of Euripides' Bacchae in Toronto
during the early 1970s in which the Maenads and Bacchantes were played as
hippies, Pentheus as a fascist dictator. According to my informant
the followers of Dionysus had long hair, wore outrageous clothing, smoked
joints, and so forth. It was hugely successful, I am told. Of course it
did great violence to Euripides' play, which is nothing at all like that,
and had it been, it most certainly would never have survived to our day.
But does anyone say that it is WRONG to try such things?
 
Or take Pasolini's version of Euripides' Medea, very different than what
it is based on. I happen also to think that Pasolini didn't manage to
bring it off, but that's neither here nor there. Or perhaps it is. Perhaps
the only criterion is whether or not the thing works.
 
As my wife (an artist) is constantly reminding me, artists are notorious
thieves, often with no respect whatever for the scholarly virtue of
faithfulness to time and place. They take what they can use. On the
other hand, I have observed how some of the greatest of these thieves
(e.g. Ovid) manage to remain extraordinarily faithful to their material,
although not in an antiquarian's sense. I get the feeling with Ovid, for
example, that he reaches the timeless and brings it into his own time.
 
So, can we expand and refine the criteria by which we tell whether some
new production, say of Shakespeare, is successful by comparing it with a
good traditional one? Can a new production by comparison with the old
open our eyes to what is good, or what we think is good, about the old
one?
 
Willard McCarty
 
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------39----
Date:         Fri, 27 Jul 90 05:51:12 EDT
From:         Ken Steele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject:      Modern Productions
 
I think I would agree with Willard McCarty when he suggests that the
most important criterion for a modern production's legitimacy is its
success on-stage; if modern embellishments are faithful to the central
theme and are drawn from the play's own imagery, they can be powerful
and effective.  (I hope I pointed out some of the ways that the
French/English clash was suggested by Shakespeare's own language and how
certain situations truly gained in the translation.)
 
Almost immediately, however, I start to see complications on the
horizon.  Certain plays seem to demand greater fidelity to the author's
purpose than others.  The Comedy of Errors, for example, has been
successfully performed in New York as a combination
Vaudeville/Juggling/Acrobatics display, and in Toronto on a stage
covered with sand with the actors all in bathing suits.  Perhaps
the distinction I am making is simply generic, and I am simply observing
that more liberties can be taken with comedies than with tragedies.
Akuro Kurosawa's *RAN* is a very effective version of King Lear, though,
despite its considerable transformation of the original play.  Perhaps
something essential is retained nonetheless.  Although I did not have the
opportunity to see Mabou Mines' King Lear when it showed here in Toronto
(and I understand it also showed in New York), it sounds rather more
radical, swapping the gender of every major character and turning it
into a matriarchal tragedy.  From the few still photos I've seen,
though, it looks more like a transvestite performance of a comedy than a
tragedy (did anyone see this production?  Am I right?).  Just how far
can a director alter a Shakespearean play to make it more "relevant" and
"modern" without transforming it into something completely different,
like Tom Stoppard's *Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead* or
Anne-Marie MacDonald's *Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet)* (both
of which, incidentally, I enjoyed very much!) (and both of which,
perhaps significantly, are comedies).
 
                                                 Ken Steele

1.0005 Modern Interpretations (25)

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 5. Sunday, 29 Jul 1990.
 
Date: 28 July 1990, 07:21:25 EDT
From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB
 
Following Willard and Ken, I think modernizing Shakespeare should depend
on what works.  I first saw *Lear* in a Canadian production in Eskimo
dress, and it worked very well--furs on Lear emphasizing his massiveness
and slit tunics on Goneril and Regan emphazising their evil sexuality.
I had the pleasure of interviewing Jonathan Miller this last spring,
and he still has no problems with *Merchant of Venice* in 19th c. dress or
with Bob Hoskins as a cockney Iago (Miller quoted Hoskins as saying
"Well, oim a villain, ain't I?").  Miller did feel that there were
extremes of bad taste represented in some productions.  One
fictionalized production in a forgettable movie cast Richard III as an
offensively gay king, but I can imagine a well-done version of the same
general idea, with Richard's relationship with Buckingham being
emphasized, as well as his disgust with Anne.  Roy Flannagan

1.0003 Canadian Performance of "Romeo & Juliette" (64)

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 3. Thursday, 26 Jul 1990.
 
Date:         Thu, 26 Jul 90 16:55:45 EDT
From:         Ken Steele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject:      Romeo & Juliette
 
 
     Rather than generating *heated* discussion by persecuting
any Baconians who might be in our midst, I'll try to initiate an
*illuminating* dialogue through recourse to my usual approach,
describing a recent Shakespearean production I've seen.
 
     "Romeo & Juliette" [sic] played at the DuMaurier World
Stage Festival on Toronto's Harbourfront last month.  Nightcap
Productions (Saskatchewan) set the play on the Canadian prairie,
transforming the Montague/Capulet feud into a clash of English
and French cultures.  A la *West Side Story*, the drunken
masquers attend the Capulet (pron. "Capulay") barbeque, where
Paris in his business suit stands out from the rest of the country
"hicks."  Rapier duels are fought with baseball bats and tire
irons, the balcony scenes take place over the tailgate of an
ancient Fargo pickup truck, Romeo turns a pitchfork on himself
in desperation, and the "Apothecary" is a drug pusher.  This sort
of modernization is familiar to everyone, I'm sure, but to what
extent does it enhance the experience of Shakespeare's play and
to what extent bury it?
 
     The bilingual feud was strikingly appropriate in the midst
of Canada's Meech Lake crisis, and will be still more so this
summer at the Stratford (Ontario) Festival now that Meech Lake
has failed.  The juxtaposition of French and English lines was
fascinating for the audience, from the French soliloquies of
Juliette to the closing lines,
 
                 "For never was story of more woe,
                 Que celle de Juliette et son Romeo."
 
Romeo's wooing of Juliette is the more touching because he
attempts to use her language, swearing "par la lune," and his
attempts to communicate with Tybalt are all the more vain when
he tries to express himself in halting French.  Mercutio's lines
about the French, "Signior Romeo, / <bon jour!> there's a
French salutation to your French / slop" (2.4.43) suddenly gain
new relevance, too.
 
     Shakespeare uses snatches of French in many of his plays,
so the technique of combining languages is perhaps not totally
alien to its conception.  To some extent every production is a
"translation," of course, but has anyone seen similar things done
with Shakespeare's language in other productions?  How does
this compare with the experience of seeing a foreign production
which is completely in translation?  Does anyone feel it unjust
to foist modern (or Canadian) political implications on a
Renaissance play?  Or can it *be* a Renaissance play when
performed in 1990?

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.