Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1995 :: March ::
Re: *TN* Video; *WT* Prods.; Non-Trad. Sh; *Mac*
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0188.  Thursday, 9 March 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Bradley S. Berens <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 08:36:15 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0180 Re: *TN* Video
 
(2)     From:   Milla Riggio <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 09 Mar 1995 08:08:58 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0182  Re: *WT* Performances
 
(3)     From:   David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 8 Mar 95 12:53:41 EST
        Subj:   [Non-Traditional Shakespeare]
 
(4)     From:   Scott Shepherd <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 19:08:07 -0500
        Subj:   *Mac* Murder
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bradley S. Berens <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 08:36:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 6.0180 Re: *TN* Video
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0180 Re: *TN* Video
 
For Juliet Youngren,
 
What Kenneth Rothwell and Matthew Henerson did not mention is that the Twelfth
Night video under discussion is
 
                AWFUL!
 
Also, it was played on the cable channel BRAVO a few years back, with lots of
commercials.  So it may be out there if there's a video-recording fiend
available.
 
Cheers,
Brad Berens
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Milla Riggio <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 09 Mar 1995 08:08:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 6.0182  Re: *WT* Performances
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0182  Re: *WT* Performances
 
About WT productions:
 
I'm surprised that noone has yet mentioned Ingmar Bergman's WT production. It
will be in Brooklyn at the end of May, but was, I believe, produced during the
1994 season, no?
 
We produced the play as a student show at Trinity College this last December
and had the feeling that the past few years have probably quadrupled the number
of productions of the play in the last 50 years. It has become much more
popular.
 
The history of nineteenth century productions is fascinating.  We prepared a
little historical essay, including notes on a show in which Time appeared
carrying an American Flag as a "subtle" indicator of "Manifest Destiny"; if
you're interested in a copy of the very short historical summary, let me know.
 
Best,
Milla Riggio
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 8 Mar 95 12:53:41 EST
Subject:        [Non-Traditional Shakespeare]
 
A delightful instance of abused Shakespeare is Maurice Baring's "The
Rehearsal," originally published in his collection of spoofs and whirligigs,
_Unreliable History_ (1934), and reprinted in Dwight MacDonald's anthology,
_Parodies_.  It's a short play imagining a runthrough of the Hibernian tragedy,
with predictable British rep. types--flustered stage manager, monstrously
egocentric Burbage, long-suffering Author; we've performed it with friends and
students in our living room and found it great fun.  Will Pat Buckridge be
happy to know that Baring dates the event 1595?
 
Persiflagistically,
Dave Evett
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Scott Shepherd <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995 19:08:07 -0500
Subject:        *Mac* Murder
 
Macbeth never assumes that killing Duncan will mean sure-fire coronation for
himself. He recognizes the Prince of Cumberland problem ("that is a step on
which I must fall down or else o'erleap"), but he never formulates any
o'erleaping strategy (not out of overconfidence, he's just not that
organized!), and as it turns out he doesn't have to: he gets lucky and the
remaining impediments remove themselves (temporarily). Like other evil schemers
in Shakespeare (Iago, R3), he flies by the seat of his pants.
 
One thing is clear after the witches' prophecy: for him to become king, the
present king has to get out of the picture. His imagination arrives at a
natural conclusion...
 
As for this question,
 
>If the Glamis prediction came true without him batting an
>eyelid, why does he then TAKE action, ie. kill, to secure the second
>prediction...?
 
it is the acknowledged crux of Act I--from Macbeth's own original resolution
 
>If chance will have me crowned, why chance may crown me
>Without my stir
 
to its final revision
 
>I am settled, and bend up
>Each corporal agent to this terrible feat
 
--and so its answer is not an explanation of motive but the unsimple entire
unfolding process of those soliloquies of indecision and those mysterious
confrontations with Lady Macbeth.
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.