1994

Q: PD Images, Clips

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0973.  Sunday, 4 December 1994.
 
From:           Michael Martin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 01 Dec 1994 00:42:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Looking for PD Shakespeare images, clips, etc.
 
Hi folks,
 
I'm new to this conference, so please redirect me if I'm somehow misposting
here.  I'm looking for public domain clips from Shakespeare plays, productions
in still, motion, or audio format.  Diagrams of the Globe and Rose theatres or
illustrations of costumes would be great too. All suggestions welcome.
 
Thanks,
Michael

Re: Falstaff's Age

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0972.  Sunday, 4 December 1994.
 
(1)     From:   David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 2 Dec 94 13:19:31 EST
        Subj:   [Falstaff's Age]
 
(2)     From:   E. L. Epstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 03 Dec 1994 11:05:15 EDT
        Subj:   RE: SHK 5.0966  Re: Falstaff's Age
 
(3)     From:   Shirley Kagan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 3 Dec 1994 12:53:26 -1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0966 Re: Falstaff's Age
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 2 Dec 94 13:19:31 EST
Subject:        [Falstaff's Age]
 
I join what I suppose will be a small chorus of SHAKSPERians posting to remind
E. L. Epstein that Falstaff himself admits to 50- plus: "his age some fifty,
or, by 'r lady, inclining to threescore" (1H4 2.4.418-19); later in the same
scene he concedes white hair as well.  But no more than those other pilgrims
passing through the sixth decade, Don Quixote and Goethe's Faust, does he seem
a "tottering oldster" to a 58-year-old guy with gray hair;  it's apparently his
vast belly and lively instinct for self- preservation, not his stiffening
joints, that disable him in the later stages of the Gadshill exploit and the
encounter with the Douglas; he's fit enough to lead his ragamuffins "where they
are peppered," to lug Hotspur's guts off the stage, and, in Part 2, to dismay
Sir John Coleville into surrendering. (Shades of Maurice Morgann!)
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           E. L. Epstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 03 Dec 1994 11:05:15 EDT
Subject: 5.0966  Re: Falstaff's Age
Comment:        RE: SHK 5.0966  Re: Falstaff's Age
 
Thank you Mr. Gero, for the information on Falstaff's age. So Falstaff also,
like Faust and Don Quixote, is in his late fifties or early sixties! S am I. I
don't know whether this makes me feel better or worse.E L Epstein
 
Thank you also Mr. Moore. I was wondering if the line would get a laugh. I
think it probably would then, if not now. E L Epstein
 
Thank you also, Messieurs Conner and Lawrence. I will check up on the possible
time problems with Falstaff's service with the Duke of Norfolk. E L Epstein
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Shirley Kagan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 3 Dec 1994 12:53:26 -1000
Subject: 5.0966 Re: Falstaff's Age
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0966 Re: Falstaff's Age
 
In *Merry Wives* Mistress Page speaks of Falstaff as "one that is well- nigh
worn to pieces with age" (II;ii; 21).  This is vague but helpful, especially
coming from a woman who is old enough to have a girl of marriagable age.
 
Shirley.

Shakespeare on WWW

From:   BOE::HMCOOK       "Hardy M. Cook"  2-DEC-1994 11:01:23.42
To:     MX%"This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it."
CC:     HMCOOK
Subj:   SHK 5.0968  Shakespeare on WWW
 
 
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0968.  Friday, 2 December 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Andreas Schlenger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 25 Nov 1994 16:47:14 +0200 (MESZ)
        Subj:   Shakespeare on WWW
 
(2)     From:   Peter Scott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 29 Nov 1994 06:06:09 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   WWW>Shakespeare Globe Centre
 
(3)     From:   Terrance Kearns <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 30 Nov 1994 09:58:59 CST6CDT
        Subj:   New WWW Shakespeare site
 
(4)     From:   Sarah Werner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 2 Dec 1994 08:09:59 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: new www-site
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Andreas Schlenger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 25 Nov 1994 16:47:14 +0200 (MESZ)
Subject:        Shakespeare on WWW
 
Since last week there is a new Shakespeare page available via WWW. It's called
the "International Shakespeare Globe Centre Germany - Info-Board at the
University of Cologne" (A long name, I know ;-)), the address is:
 
http://www.rrz.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/englisch/SHAKESPEARE/index.html
 
Its aim is to inform anyone who is interested, about activities concerning the
rebuilding of the Globe Theatre in London. This service is still very much in
the beginning, but it already offers a useful platform to Shakespeare-Sites on
the Internet, as well as some pictures. Although the few pieces of written
information are only available in German yet, an English version is planned and
in progress.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Scott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 29 Nov 1994 06:06:09 -0600 (CST)
Subject:        WWW>Shakespeare Globe Centre
 
[ Article crossposted from rec.arts.theatre.plays ]
[ Author was Andreas Schlenger ]
[ Posted on 28 Nov 1994 18:41:30 GMT ]
 
        INTERNATIONAL SHAKESPEARE GLOBE CENTRE GERMANY
           INFORMATION PAGES AT COLOGNE UNIVERSITY
 
If you are interested in the progress of the Globe Theatre reconstruction in
London or if you just like to know more about the idea behind the
"International Shakespeare Globe Centre", have a look at:
 
http://www.rrz.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/englisch/SHAKESPEARE/
 
Since this site is quite new, most of the information is still under
construction. But you can already have a look at some links to
Shakespeare-related sites on the Internet. Some photos and drawings with
relation to the "new Globe" are available as well.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terrance Kearns <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 30 Nov 1994 09:58:59 CST6CDT
Subject:        New WWW Shakespeare site
 
SHAKSPEReans will be interested in the new Web site devoted to Shakespeare at
Cologne University.  The URL follows:
 
http://www.rrz.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/englisch/SHAKESPEARE/
 
Regards,
Terrance Kearns
Dept. of English
University of Central Arkansas
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sarah Werner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 2 Dec 1994 08:09:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Re: new www-site
 
INTERNATIONAL SHAKESPEARE GLOBE CENTRE GERMANY
INFORMATION PAGES AT COLOGNE UNIVERSITY
 
If you are interested in the progress of the Globe Theatre reconstruction in
London or if you just like to know more about the idea behind the
"International Shakespeare Globe Centre", have a look at:
 
http://www.rrz.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/englisch/SHAKESPEARE/
 
Since this site is quite new, most of the information is still under
construction. But you can already have a look at some links to
Shakespeare-related sites on the Internet. Some photos and drawings with
relation to the "new Globe" are available as well.
 
I haven't tried this myself, but for those of you interested in the Globe
Centre it could be useful--
 
Sarah Werner
University of Pennsylvania

Re: *Pericles*

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0971.  Sunday, 4 December 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Kathleen Campbell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 02 Dec 94 11:34:13 EST
        Subj:   Re: Pericles
 
(2)     From:   Timothy Dayne Pinnow <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 2 Dec 1994 14:12:56 -0600
        Subj:   Pericles
 
(3)     From:   Matthew Henerson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 1 Dec 1994 12:01:51 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0960  *Pericles*
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kathleen Campbell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 02 Dec 94 11:34:13 EST
Subject:        Re: Pericles
 
Robert F. O'Conner asked about productions of *Pericles*
 
I directed the show about five years ago at George Mason University.  There
were several productions at Shakespeare festivals about the same time and there
have been a few other interesting productions.  I know Stratford, Ont. has done
several productions, and there have been several English ones as well. On the
whole it is rarely done, partially, I'm sure becase of the problems with the
script.  But I like the play and enjoyed working on it.  (I'm thinking of doing
*Cymbeline* next.)  We had a cast of 18 playing something close to a hundred
roles (counting every appearance by an actor, speaking or not, as a different
character), most of which are specified in the script.  I'll try to find my
file with more detail on other productions and give you some specific names and
dates.
 
Kathleen Campbell
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Timothy Dayne Pinnow <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 2 Dec 1994 14:12:56 -0600
Subject:        Pericles
 
In reply to Robert O'Connor's query about recent productions of *Pericles*, I
just finished directing it a few weeks ago.  I am including a draft of my
director's notes from the program for any who are interested.  I also have
heard of an Acting Company production of the play which was quite wonderful.
Seems to me the whole problem of the play is the creation of a concept that can
keep the whole story (and it is mighty expansive) in the realm of one
conceptual world. I hope this helps.
 
Director's Notes
 
Since the announcement of the our season last May, I have received two types of
responses to my selection of Pericles  for this season.  First, and most
numerous, is from the non-theatre community.  It goes something likes this,
"Shakespeare wrote it?!? I never heard of it."  The second is from the theatre
community and sounds something like, "Why would you choose that?!? It's awful."
The answer to both questions lies in the questions themselves.  But let me
tell you more of the story. . .
 
Last spring, after it was decided that I would direct Shakespeare this year, I
set about once again leafing through the plays wondering, "which one?"  I was
thinking about finding one with more numerous female roles, so I turned
immediately to the Romances.  The four Romances, The Tempest, Pericles,
Cymbeline,  and The Winter's Tale  are perhaps, as a group, the most difficult
to produce for a modern audience.  I've always felt this somewhat strange
considering they were some of his best ticket sellers during his lifetime.  But
they contain very fantastical events (reincarnations, being eaten by bears,
statues coming alive, etc.) and cover long spans of time and place.  Sort of an
Elizabethan Odyssey. Mythic in its proportions.  Difficult for a modern
audience to accept--we like our stories neat, tidy, and believable.
 
Still, I persisted.  I played Prospero once, so Tempest was out.  A Winter's
Tale  was recently produced at the Guthrie and I don't need that kind of
competition.  That left just two.  As I read this play, I kept being drawn to
three things.  The first is the sort of mythic across-time-and-space kind of
love story that exists between Thaisa and Pericles.  Pericles is an "everyman"
just trying to survive this thing called life.  Thaisa is so devoted that she
becomes a nun when she loses Pericles (actually, he loses her).  Second, there
is the reconciliation of Marina and Pericles.  A reconciliation that takes
place only because SHE is strong and alive enough for the both of them. In
fact, this reconciliation is far more important structurally and thematically
than is Pericles and Thaisa's.  I find her one of the most intriguing
characters Shakespeare ever drew--male or female.  Last, there is the narrator,
John Gower. Rather than just naming him "chorus" as is usual, Shakespeare has
used a real medieval poet to "sing a song of old."
 
So I had a play.  But given the second question from above, the question is,
"How do I make this thing work?"  First, there is the epic, fantastical nature
of the play.  To my mind, it is much like the film "The Princess Bride" of
recent memory.  It was fantastical, but we all believed and enjoyed it.  So I
had one piece to the puzzle and then, as I looked again at Gower's opening, I
saw a sign for Jesse James Days.  There it was.  The epic from "our" past.  My
students jokingly refer to it as ""The Princess Bride" meets "Dr. Quinn,
Medicine Woman."  Actually, maybe that's not too far off.  This show reflects
some of the romanticizing of our own past--the pioneer West.  And so, we find
ourselves back at the beginning--the answer:  BECAUSE you haven't heard of it,
and BECAUSE I want to try to make what most think is a bad play WORK.  Enjoy,
and cross your fingers--I'm out on a conceptual limb.
 
 
                                         Timothy Dayne Pinnow
                                         Dept. of Speech-Theater
                                         St. Olaf College
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Matthew Henerson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 1 Dec 1994 12:01:51 -0800
Subject: 5.0960  *Pericles*
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0960  *Pericles*
 
Dear everyone, and Robert O'Connor in particular,
 
I've never heard of the Australian company you mentioned, but I would love to
see them if I can get close enough.  Do you know either their touring schedule
or anybody who might know it?
 
About producions of Pericles, I know of several, although I don't know much
about how they were received.  The earliest that comes to mind in this century
is a 1948 production at the Straford Memorial Theater in 1948 with Paul
Scofield in the title role.  Scofield's performance has been preserved on
Caedemon's recording of the play which was done in the mid-sixties, and which
I've seen in several university libraries.  I also own it myself, and I would
be happy to tape it for you if you would like to hear it.
 
The SMT did the play again in 1959.  Tony Richardson (*Tom Jones*, *Look Back
in Anger*, *Hamlet* with Nicol Williamson) directed, and Richard Johnson played
Pericles.  Richardson had wanted Paul Robeson, who was playing Othello at
Stratford that same season, to play Gower as a Caribbean Sailor/Shantyman.
Robeson couldn't do it (I don't know why), but another black actor/singer did.
 
There was an RSC production in either the late 60's or early 70's starring Ian
Richardson, and another a few years ago with Nigel Terry (King Arthur in
*Excaliber*).  I've seen production photos of both, but I don't know anything
else about them.
 
Tho Old Vic left the play out of Michael Benthal's five-year plan in the 50's
because *Pericles* does not appear in the First Folio.  (I think that was why.)
 And Peter Hall left it out of the sequence of the Romances which he did in
1988 as his final project as Artistic Director of the National Theater of GB.
The National did it last year on the Olivier stage (I think), but I know
nothing about the production.
 
The Prospect Theater Company did the play in 1973 or 1974 with Derek Jacobi as
Pericles and Harold Innocent (Burgundy in Brannagh's *Henry V*) in drag as the
Bawd.  I get the impression from a poster for that production that it was in
modern dress.  There is also the BBC television production with Mike Gwyllim
(sp?) in the title role.
 
The Stratford Festival in Ontario, Canada did a production as part of a
Romances sequence in 1988.  (They left out *The Tempest*.)  A Stratford
regular, Nicholas Pennell (who payed Antiochus and Boult in '88), lists the
title role as one of his many Festival credits so they must have done the play
sometime in the 70's, but I don't know when. The Seattle Rep. did a production
last year with a black actor, Isaiah Whitlock, as Pericles, and the Oregon
Shakespeare festival at Ashland also used a black Pericles a few years ago.
The only production of the play I have ever seen was at the Colorado
Shakespeare Festival in 1993.  I was a member of that company, but did not
perform in this production.  The production was directed by Joel Fink, the
Festival's casting director.  The text was heavily cut, and it was beautifully
designed along what I guess you would call traditional lines: Grecian rather
than Jacobean.  I don't know what to say of the production as a whole.  The
cast were my friends, and I thought they were wonderful.  As I remember
reviewers tended to applaud the production while not knowing quite what to make
of the play.
 
I'm sorry to include so much, and at the same time say so little of substance.
But perhaps, if you're still curious, this will give you some idea as to where
to look for more in depth information.
 
Sincerely,
Matt Henerson

Authorship

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0970.  Sunday, 4 December 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Chris Fassler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 30 Nov 1994 09:53:14 -0500
        Subj:   Authorship and history
 
(2)     From:   Richard J Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> |
        Date:   Sunday, 4 Dec 1994 16:27:48 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0962  Authorship
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chris Fassler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 30 Nov 1994 09:53:14 -0500
Subject:        Authorship and history
 
Colleagues,
 
At the risk of further irritating those of us who are weary of the authorship
thread and of placing a further burden on Pat Buckridge to carry the Oxfordian
banner, I am compelled by a recent comment to ask for a clarification from
Buckridge:
 
> If the Oxford authorship had the effect of enhancing the value
> and interest of Shakespeare's work as *literature*, I don't think
> that would necessarily be a bad thing.
>
> If it did have this effect, by the way, it would not be because
> Oxford was not 'a man of the theatre', as is so often claimed
> (dubiously - but that's a separate argument).  It would be
> *because the Oxford authorship makes the plays so pregnant with
> historical meaning* [emphasis added] that their interest as
> historical artefacts might, at least for a while, rival their
> interest as playscripts for contemporary actors and directors to
> exercise their interpretive talents.
 
In the heat of the moment, Buckridge seems to have implied that only those
works of *literature* written by aristocrats can be "pregnant with historical
meaning"--or at least pregnant enough to be worthy of our scholarly interest.
 Surely this is not what he means, and surely he can more satisfactorily
*summarize* his view of historical meaning in light of the authorship
question.  Wouldn't the historical significance of Oxfordian authorship go
beyond the revelation of snippy, petty, ad hominem allusions, such as the
portrayal of Burghley as a vacuous old fart (Pollonius)?
 
Happy to return to the shadows,
 
--Chris Fassler
  Winthrop University
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard J Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> |
Date:           Sunday, 4 Dec 1994 16:27:48 -0800
Subject: 5.0962  Authorship
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0962  Authorship
 
Foster's study is flawed from the start because the assumption it is based on
is wrong.  He supposes that his results prove that the playwright, being an
actor, imprinted on his brain ceretain "rare words" that he himself had to
memorize and act out on the stage. These fresh new words, so the theory goes,
just naturally found a way into the next play that he wrote.
 
Now it's obvious that we don't know anything at all, nor have we any precedent
to believe that this is how the creative process works.
 
But that is a small jump.  The big jump Foster makes is to assume that the
actor from Stratford wrote the plays.  Foster is merely inventing that. There
is no proof that the man from Stratford wrote a single sentence in his whole
life.  When he was dead for seven years, he is first put up as the writer of
the plays, and not a moment before.
 
But yet Kathman says it is a good study, and can't imagine any other
"assumption" that fits.  Since we're taking a lot of liberty here, why not
imagine this:
 
       The parts in which those *rare words* occur were the parts
       played by an actor who always wanted some fresh words to
       say, and the playwright obliged.
 
I've had to invent this actor and imagine his temper, but it's more reasonable
than inventing a story that the man from Stratford could write plays, or write
anything more than his own name.  There's no proof of that at all, and even the
Stratfordians admit it.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.