Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1994 :: April ::
Re: Authors & Productions; Richard III; SSE Contest
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0303.  Sunday, 3 April 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Luc Borot <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 2 Apr 1994 15:39:31 +0100
        Subj:   Beckett
 
(2)     From:   Hilary Thimmesh <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 2 Apr 1994 11:44:05 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Richard III
 
(3)     From:   Ralph Cohen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 02 Apr 1994 17:12:36 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 4.0450  Re: SSE Contest
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Luc Borot <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 2 Apr 1994 15:39:31 +0100
Subject:        Beckett
 
Re: Authors and productions
 
In his posting identified above, John Cox said that Deborah Warner was having
trouble with Beckett's heirs about his short play *Footfalls* and that she
would be taking her production to France.
 
I'm glad this would give me an opportunity to see a new production by her, as I
loved her *Titus Andronicus* of the Swan Theatre a few years ago. Yet, let her
beware: last time the Comedie Franciase themselves wanted to put a Beckett play
(shortly before his death), the man himself denied them the right to produce it
in a way he did not approve of. It seems that the heirs would be taking the
same risks over here as in London.
 
I call this risk on their part, as this is a sort of power abuse concerning the
interpretation of a work of art. A legal case could be brought against them, as
a different reading of B's directions could be put forth and justified, with
greater competence in drama and theatre than the heirs could ever pretend to.
They are only depriving themselves of the opportunity to get more money from
the production of their ancestor's works. Even liberal economists would agree
with this, though they had never read or heard the word 'art'.
 
I think that French law on artistic property might provide information on this.
It is very respectful of the rights of creators, both as original creators and
as interpreters of original works. So there is a hope if my information on that
law is not wrong.
 
Yours,
        Luc
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hilary Thimmesh <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 2 Apr 1994 11:44:05 -0600 (CST)
Subject:        Richard III
 
Regarding "the good Richard III" Charles Ross has a helpful summary of
historical sources in his *Richard III* (California, 1981), including two that
are contemporary with Richard's reign--Dominic Mancini and the Croyland
Chronicle-- and thus escape suspicion of Tudor bias.  It would be nice to
report that they know nothing about all the nasty things the Tudor
establishment later alleged against Richard, but according to Ross even these
presumably impartial accounts present a troubling picture of the King, Croyland
in particular pointedly leaving things unsaid with a sort of
we-could-and-if-we-would air.  I still prefer Josephine Tey's Inspector Grant,
who concludes from his hospital bed that a man who had such a decent reputation
before he became king--and such a worried look on his face in his single
portrait--cannot have turned into a monster overnight. On the other hand, Grant
reasons, Henry Tudor proved himself cold-blooded about wholesale extermination
of possible Yorkist claimants to the throne once he had it for himself, so why
would he have hesitated to do in the two little princes and blame the deed on
his predecessor?  Never mind that history assumes on the basis of some evidence
that the princes had bid this world good-night sometime before Henry VII got
his hands on the keys to the Tower.  Tey lets us have a good Richard and a
villainous Henry, if nothing else an emotionally satisfying inversion of
Shakespeare's characterization of the two kings.
 
Hilary Thimmesh
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ralph Cohen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 02 Apr 1994 17:12:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 4.0450  Re: SSE Contest
Comment:        Re: SHK 4.0450  Re: SSE Contest
 
I'd like to announce the winner of our SSE Season-naming Contest.  Some of you
may remember that early in Fall we asked for a name that would cover *Othello,*
*Shrew,* and *Much Ado* as well as last year's trio -- *R&J,* *A&C,* and
*Dream* -- was covered by "Season of Love."  And the winner of the naming
contest for the 1994 season of the Shenandoah Shakespeare Express is... [drums,
trumpets]...Tad Davis with his suggestion of "Tongues Like Knives."
 
Tad receives an official "Tongues Like Knives" T-shirt on which he will find
his motto cleverly incorporated into a logo.  Others can sport this special
fashion statement for the low price of $15.  Write to SSE, Box 1485,
Harrisonburg, VA, 22801.
 
And thank you, Tad Davis.
 
Ralph Cohen
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.