1992

The SHAKSPER Fileserver

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 3, No. 134. Monday, 15 June 1992.
 
From:		Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Monday, June 15, 1992
Subject:	The SHAKSPER Fileserver
 
 
I'd like to take a moment to remind all SHAKSPEReans of the materials
available on the Fileserver.
 
When you joined SHAKSPER, you received the New Member Package (NEWMEMBR
PACKAGE).  This package includes the SHAKSPER log for the current month
and logs for the two previous months, an index of the previous discussions
on SHAKSPER (DISCUSS INDEX), the Conference Guide (SHAKSPER GUIDE), a
descriptive list of the files on the Fileserver (SHAKSPER FILES), a list
of the current members of the Conference (SHAKSPER MEMBERS), and the
SHAKSPER Biography files.  Most of these files are updated monthly and
continue to supply useful information for the members.  These files may
be retrieved separately or as a complete package (See below).
 
Other files on the Fileserver relate to Network Resources of Interest (such
as information on accessing CHOICE book review or the Shakespeare-on-Disk
textbase at Dartmouth), Network Conferences, Reference Files, Scholarly
Papers, Public Domain Shakespeare Files, a PC_Shakespeare Hypertext Demo,
Information and Sample Texts from the Oxford Text Archives, and the monthly
logbooks.
 
SHAKSPEReans can retrieve any of the above files from the SHAKSPER Fileserver
by issuing the interactive command, "TELL LISTSERV AT UTORONTO GET <filename>
<filetype> SHAKSPER."  If your network link does not support the interactive
"TELL" command (i.e. if you are not directly on Bitnet), or if Listserv re
jects your request, then send a one-line mail message (without a subject line)
to LISTSERV@utoronto, reading "GET <filename> <filetype> SHAKSPER."
 
For an updated version of the file list, send the command "GET SHAKSPER FILES
SHAKSPER" in the same fashion.  For further information, consult the
appropriate section of your SHAKSPER GUIDE, or contact the editor,
<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> or <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>.
 
Let me also remind all members of the Conference that your papers are always
welcome for posting on the Fileserver.  SHAKSPEReans are invited to submit
conference papers, journal articles (as electronic offprints), draft papers
for comment, abstracts, and book reviews for the appropriate areas of the
Fileserver.  On many electronic conferences, papers placed on the Fileserver
are starting points for discussions by members.
 
If you have anything to submit for the Fileserver or if you have any
suggestions for items you would like to see available through the Fileserver,
please contact me.
 
                                        Hardy M. Cook
                                        This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Rs: Shakespearean Gardens

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 3, No. 133. Monday, 15 June 1992.
 
(1)	From: 	Peter Donaldson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, June 15, 1992, 10:53:25 EDT
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 3.0132 Q: Shakespearean Gardens
 
(2)	From: 	John Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, June 15, 1992, 11:44 EST
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 3.0132  Q: Shakespearean Gardens
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
From: 		Peter Donaldson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, June 15, 1992, 10:53:25 EDT
Subject: 3.0132 Q: Shakespearean Gardens
Comment: 	Re: SHK 3.0132 Q: Shakespearean Gardens
 
Reply to Zip Kellogg
 
There is a Shakespeare Garden in San Francisco -- Golden Gate Park?
 
Peter Donaldson
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
From: 		John Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, June 15, 1992, 11:44 EST
Subject: 3.0132  Q: Shakespearean Gardens
Comment: 	Re: SHK 3.0132  Q: Shakespearean Gardens
 
In response to Zip Kellogg's inquiry about Shakespearean gardens, I know
of one at the Huntington Library, in San Marino, California, but I do not
know of a list or directory that would include all of them.
 
Cheers,
 
John D. Cox
COX@HOPE

Ken Steele Appreciation (Continued)

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 3, No. 131. Thursday, 11 June 1992.
 
From: 		Steve Urkowitz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, June 10, 1992, 22:28:20 EDT
Subject: 3.0121  Ken Steele Appreciation
Comment: 	Re: SHK 3.0121  Ken Steele Appreciation
 
I'd like to add my applause to Hardy Cook's appreciation of Ken Steele's
fathering, mothering, and nurturing of this SHAKSPER forum.  Maybe "you
are what you eat," but also "you are what you talk about," and Ken has
created a way for a lot of us to talk about what we love and study and
teach and experience -- this Shakespearean community.  Leeds Barroll and
Ann Jennalee Cook and others invented the Shakespeare Association of
America, really not very many years ago, but before I was thinking
about those things.  And I was around when Bernard Beckerman brought
together a group of NYC metropolitan area Shakespeareans to form the
New York Shakespeare Society which has spawned the Columbia University
Seminar on Shakespeare and the *Shakespeare Bulletin*.  And then Ken
Steele  . . . We've all been blessed by the kindness of these
extraordinarily generous folk.  They set models for us that that
funny guy from Stratford would have smiled on.  As my poppa would say,
"Ya done good, Ken."
			As ever, Steve Urkowitz
                               	 Surcc@Cunyvm

Q: Shakespearean Gardens

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 3, No. 132. Friday, 12 June 1992.
 
From: 		Zip Kellogg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, June 11, 1992, 18:05:49 -0400
Subject: 	Locations of various Shak botanical/flower gardens....
 
Can anyone direct me to a listing or directory of Shakespearean
flower gardens that are maintained here and there around the world?
There is one, for example, in Central Park in New York City and
another, I believe, in Brooklyn, NY. I've heard of still others
and am wondering if there's a list of all of them.
 
Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.
 
			Zip Kellogg,
			U. of Southern Maine, Portland

Adapting Shakespeare to Film and Video

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 3, No. 130. Tuesday, 9 June 1992.
 
From:		Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Tuesday, June 9, 1992
Subject:	Adpating Shakespeare to Film and Television
 
One of the issues that has arisen during the recent discussions of
Branagh's *Henry V* concerns adapting Shakespeare to film and video.  I
have argued in several places that film and television constitute two
different media for Shakespearean productions -- that realizing Shakespeare
for television alters the dynamics of television as a cinematic subgenre.
 
My interest involves Shakespearean productions conceived for film and
television: Branagh's *Henry V* was made for the cinema, while Jane
Howell's plays of first tetralogy were made for television.  Watching
Branagh's *Henry V* on video is, then, another issue altogether.
 
What I argue is that in a highly visual medium like film, images can often
be in competition with Shakespeare's language.  Those who direct
Shakespeare's plays for cinema *generally* accept that this competition
exists and substitute visual equivalents, paring down the verbal texts,
generally by a half.  This does not mean that one cannot have a satisfying
experience with a filmed version of a Shakespeare play.  Quite the
contrary, many Shakespeare films are true to the *spirit* of the plays from
which they were derived.  In this regard, my favorite Shakespeare film
remains Welles' *Falstaff: Chimes at Midnight*, clearly more of a
"Shakespeare film" than "filmed Shakespeare."
 
Television inherently creates an intimacy between the viewer and the actors
-- the subtleties of individual performances are generally evident.  Thus,
aesthetic choices that call further attention to them can become obtrusive.
Furthermore, because of the differences in image quality and the relation
of the audience to the screen, in television the spoken word carries more
weight than it does in the cinema.  This difference is an especially
important one when considering a Shakespeare play in which language is
paramount.
 
I have, therefore, made a distinction between visuals styles of productions
of Shakespeare on television that resemble cinematic strategies (montage
techniques) and visual styles that acknowledge the importance of the spoken
word, creating a televisual analog to the theatrical experience -- one in
which Shakespeare's language is not sacrificed to the images (depth-of-
field techniques).  Jane Howell's work for the BBC TV Shakespeare falls
into this latter category.
 
Jane Howell, in these four productions, launches an all-out assault on the
assumption that televised Shakespeare must use "realistic" film techniques
and naturalistic production designs.  She consistently favors strategies
subversive to representationalism.
 
The handling of soliloquies and asides manifests these differences among
televisual approaches.  Although direct address to the audience is common
in theatre, direct address by looking right into the camera is seldom used
in narrative film since this strategy destroys the illusion of the
transparency of the film image.  In Welles's *Chimes at Midnight*, for
example, characters never look straight into the camera during asides and
soliloquies.  Welles even transforms Falstaff's catechism on honor into a
direct address to Hal to prevent the possible artificiality of having a
character looking into the camera.  In television, especially televised
theatre that strives for presentationalism rather than representationalism,
destroying the illusion of transparency by techniques such as direct
address to the camera is not only appropriate but part of the very quality
of television that makes it so intimate -- its ability to establish a
direct partnership between the actor on the screen and the often solitary
spectator before the television set.  What is significant is that a
television director can, as Jane Howell has demonstrated, successfully use
techniques that a film director would not even consider using to adapt
Shakespeare to television.
 
                                Hardy M. Cook
                                Bowie State University

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.