September
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 584. Friday, 24 Sept. 1993. (1) From: Andrew R. Murphy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 24 Sep 1993 10:44:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: Olivier's RICHARD III (2) From: Nick Clary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 24 Sep 1993 10:48:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: Video Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew R. Murphy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 24 Sep 1993 10:44:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Olivier's RICHARD III I'm a student of Shakespeare who needs some help on a research topic. I'm interested in comparing Olivier's performance in the film version of RICHARD III with that of the myth of the vampire. I got this idea from the scene in which Richard and Lady Anne kiss for the first time. As she departs, she touches her throat, and as the camera switches to Richard, his pale complexion has become more colorful. I'd also like to make a broader comparison of the film as fitting into the horror genre. This is for a research paper on performance aspects, so any help would be greatly appreciated. Andrew R. MurphyThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Clary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 24 Sep 1993 10:48:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Video Shakespeare I have heard good things about a modernized version of ROMEO AND JULIET that was performed at the Chicago Art Institute in the fall of 1988. Does anyone know whether there was a video made of this production and, if so, where it can be purchased? Nick ClaryThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 583. Friday, 24 Sept. 1993. (1) From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, September 24, 1993 Subj: Shakespeare and Politics (2) From: Stephen Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 24 SEP 93 13:49:04 BST Subj: A Concluding word (3) From: Dennis Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 24 Sep 1993 09:55 EST Subj: Re: SHK 4.0580 Re: Shakespeare, Politics, etc. (4) From: John Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 24 Sep 1993 08:58:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 4.0580 Re: Shakespeare, Politics, etc. (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, September 24, 1993 Subject: Shakespeare and Politics SHAKSPEReans, The emerging consensus seems to be that my intervention into the recent discussions involving Shakespeare, Politics, The Globe, and Wanamaker was uncalled for. My attempt was not in any manner related to the subjects under discussion, and I took the step with great trepidation. I was concerned, rather, with the tone of many of the comments. I will, of course, continue to circulate digests of submissions related to these issues and hope that my intervention will not become a topic itself and that the subjects of the discourse will be the issue, not the discourse itself. Apologetically, Hardy M. Cook (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 24 SEP 93 13:49:04 BST Subject: A Concluding word Near the beginning of the recent discussion on Wanamaker's Globe I offered a brief description of the building work as I observed it one month ago on the South Bank. (A photo of the new section appeared in The (London) Times on Wed, 22 Sep 1993, p. 18; though I am no advocate of that journal, it does get spread about.) Also, I am no particular advocate for Wanamaker's project, though John Drakakis suggested that I might be 'besotted' in reply to my brief note. In fact, several month's ago I recall letters complaining that I was making points inimical to Wanamaker's project. Assailed from both sides, ah well. I did not reply sooner because I was away during the week after I sent the first message and because an alteration of machines here in early September meant that I missed some SHAKSPER files, and, hence, probably, part of the discussion. Stephen Miller UDLE031 @ BAY.CC.KCL.AC.UK (revised address) (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dennis Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 24 Sep 1993 09:55 EST Subject: 4.0580 Re: Shakespeare, Politics, etc. Comment: Re: SHK 4.0580 Re: Shakespeare, Politics, etc. I want to register support of Edward Pechter recent note. I think the editor's attempt to end the discussion of Shakespeare and Politics is a weak decision and should not be accepted by the subscribers. It is itself, in the most direct way, a political decision - and demonstrates precisely why arguments, even angry arguments, about our political positions are necessary if we are to understand Shakespeare as a cultural force. It's clear from some of the postings that some subscribers have not thought very deeply about Shakespeare in the material world, whereas others have done so and have much to say that is worth listening to. If what some subscribers say is offensive to others, isn't that the point of conferring? To discover where we draw the line? Dennis Kennedy University of Pittsburgh (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 24 Sep 1993 08:58:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: 4.0580 Re: Shakespeare, Politics, etc. Comment: Re: SHK 4.0580 Re: Shakespeare, Politics, etc. Hardy, I agree with Ed Pechter about the Wanamaker Globe and the discussion it has generated. I'm interested not only in the cross-cultural differ- ences but in differences within the same culture. One of our British colleagues just told another one to "put up or shut up." This is almost as good as Commons Question Time. I say, "Let 'er roll!" John Cox
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 582. Friday, 24 Sept. 1993. From: Herbert Donow <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 23 Sep 93 15:44:47 CST Subject: Shrew Has the variorum edition of Taming of the Shrew been completed? Who is or will be the editor? Herb Donow Southern Illinois University
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 581. Friday, 24 Sept. 1993. (1) From: Ellen Edgerton <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN Date: Thursday, 23 Sep 1993 08:52 ET Subj: Denzel Washington and race-blind casting (2) From: Timothy Bowden <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 23 Sep 93 06:49:43 PST Subj: Re: Denzel Washington, Race, and Casting (3) From: Celine Gura <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Date: Thursday, 23 Sep 1993 09:57:02 Subj: Re: Denzel Washington, Race, and Casting (4) From: David Richman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 23 Sep 1993 15:40:58 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Denzel Washington, Race, and Casting (5) From: William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 23 Sep 1993 16:21:29 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Keanu Reeves (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ellen Edgerton <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN> Date: Thursday, 23 Sep 1993 08:52 ET Subject: Denzel Washington and race-blind casting Just wanted to add one more thing, in response to Nina Walker's comments on this subject: The Royal Shakespeare Company first cast a black performer in a lead role in 1985 -- Josette Simon, who played Rosaline in *Love's Labour's Lost*. If I'm not mistaken, one of her costars in that production was Kenneth Branagh, who played the King of Navarre. If so, he certainly would have had an opportunity to observe the pros and cons of race-blind casting in that production. Ellen Edgerton Syracuse UniversityThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Timothy Bowden <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 23 Sep 93 06:49:43 PST Subject: Re: Denzel Washington, Race, and Casting > From: Nina Walker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > > ---------to the best of my recollection Branaugh's casting is a first > in film. Thus it takes on an added significance. It's a breakthrough, I > hope, albeit a little discussed one. Any truth to the rumor Shakespeare in the Park is mounting in New York a production featuring a Harlem street troup of black actors and actresses of _Othello_ with Tom Hanks in the title role? (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Celine Gura <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 23 Sep 1993 09:57:02 Subject: Re: Denzel Washington, Race, and Casting I think we are spending way too much time arguing over the casting and missing a significant point to the creation of this film. About the only contact most American high school students have with Shakespeare is in the classroom with a reading of Romeo and Juliet and if they are lucky the also get to see the one of several movie versions of it. The general public is not too interested in Shakespeare and about the only place you here conversation regarding the bard is in Universities. I applaud Branagh for his wide variety in actors because they represent and attract several different stratas of society that would not normally be interested in Shakespeare. Given I can not stand Keanu and think he really stinks as an actor. "Canoe" as a group of my friends and I call him here is very attractive and addresses the teenage crowd who probably would not go to a movie if they were told it was Shakespeare but tell them that Keanu is in it and they would grealty consider it. Denzel speaks to the African Americans and I would say everyone. He is a brillant actor and has broadened his audience with the great performance of Malcom X. He addresses the African Americans who would normally shun away from Shakespeare and shows that it is not just a "white thang" while also becoming a role model for young African American Actors and Actresses who aspire to play significant roles in the movies. Just a little side note- this is not Denzel's first dab at Shakespeare he has done Othello on the stage in his earlier years. I also think Michael usually known for his comedic roles addresses the older adults who are not interested in Shakespeare. His most recent role was in Batman who is a character from a lot of the baby boomers childhood. By casting these actors Branagh is breaking the form that has been imposed on Shakespeare over the years. That Shakespeare's plays are not for the normal public to understand. You ask a complete stranger on the streets to name a play by Shakespeare and if they can answer it certainly won't be Much Ado. IF you do get an answer besides "Who?" it would probably be Romeo and Juliet. Shakespeare wrote for the general public and should still be for the general public. Hats off to Branagh for his attempt to make Shakespeare part of everyone's life through the screen. I hope he continues to do screen versions of Shakespeare. Celine Gura Media Acquisitions Coordinator Rush University (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Richman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 23 Sep 1993 15:40:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Denzel Washington, Race, and Casting One of the things I admired most about the *Much Ado* film, about which I admired many things, was Washington's performance. For me, he was appropriately authoritative and wry. His scene with Beatrice "Will you have me lady?"-- a difficult and delicate one--could not, in my view, have been done better. Of course, he and Branaugh broke important new ground in the area of "color-blind" casting. But he also belonged in that film. I'm not sure that Don John or Claudio did. David Richman University of New Hampshire (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 23 Sep 1993 16:21:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Keanu Reeves I realize that Keanu Reeves has taken a good deal of negative criticism for his interpretation of Don John. However, I found his Don John right on target: young, petulant and not very dangerous. Were he dangerous, Don Pedro would hardly give him the run of the house. Nor did I think the American actors were perceptibly inferior to the Brits. Come on! Give us yanks a break. Yours, Bill Godshalk
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 580. Friday, 24 Sept. 1993. From: Edward Pechter <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 23 Sep 1993 09:13:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Shakespeare, Politics, etc. (Next to the Last Words) On the Simpsons last night, Marge starts a protest about tv cartoon violence. Itchy and Scratchy become loving friends. Everybody stops watching tv & starts playing creatively. Then the coalition of concerned parents mounts a protest because Michelangelo's David is coming to Springfield, with full frontal nudity. Marge is perplexed. She drops her protest. People go back to watching mindless violence on tv. The show ends with Marge and Homer looking at David. Marge is sad. Don't worry, says Homer, with his jerky grin. All the schoolkids will come see the statue anyway, because the school will make them. (This is what's called an open ending.) I blather on about the Simpsons by way of registering a protest about Hardy's intervention. How can we be sure the politics discussion has run its limits? Sure, it's repetitive, and there have been longeurs, but to my mind it's nothing compared with the endless expense of sensibility on Branagh's Much Ado (I can't even figure why that one got started, let alone won't end). I keep getting things out it that I find interesting and useful. For instance, that the same issues look so different from Britain & N America we probably shouldn't even be calling them the same issues. (I remember John Lavagnino [sic?] as having been the person who made that point the most clearly, but others have implied it as well.) That seems to me an interesting point, even a Theoretically Interesting Point (what are the implications for the Lear texts, say, or for how we create meaning by Shakespeare, say?). But would we have gotten there if the discussion hadn't been allowed to keep going? You never know enough until you know too much--something like that. Ditto on "flaming." Well, I'm going back to lurking in my tent now and reading John Stuart Mill and John Locke & all those other nasty bourgeois liberals.