Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1996 :: April ::
Re: RSC MND
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0272. Wednesday, 10 April 1996.

(1)     From:   Shirley Kagan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 9 Apr 1996 15:00:58 -1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0261 Re: RSC MND

(2)     From:   Scott Crozier <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 12:05:43 +1000
        Subj:   Re: RSC MND


(1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Shirley Kagan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 9 Apr 1996 15:00:58 -1000
Subject: 7.0261 Re: RSC MND
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0261 Re: RSC MND

Dear Stephanie Hughes,

You recently wrote the following:

>The test is always, does the business forward the action and the sense
>of the play for the majority of the audience? (Certainly one would leave
>out all sexual innuendo when staging Shakespeare for grammar schools.)
>Anything that causes the audience to pull back from the trance of
>"disbelief suspension" that makes an event of a play, is out of place
>and should be trashed.

1) I agree with your first observation entirely.  If "business" is not integral
to the concept of a production, it shouldn't be included.

2) Why should one leave out all sexual innuendo in productions for grammar
school aged children?

3) I'm stunned that you find no room for the elimination of "willing suspension
of disbelief" from 20th Century staging.  Not every production of every play
has to shatter the illusion of theatricality, but surely an audience's
self-awareness and its perception of a staged event as "theatre" is one of the
most important and wonderful advances made in recent generations!

Sincerely,
Shirley Kagan.

(2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Scott Crozier <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 12:05:43 +1000
Subject:        Re: RSC MND

In reply to a number of comments about the relationship between Oberon and
Puck, the point should be made that a familial relationship in 1595/6 doesn't
really translate all that well in 1996. Furthermore, Oberon's fetish for
voyeurism and ready disposal of his wife to an animal raises questions in my
mind at least about why he wants the Indian boy in the first place. So where
does Puck fit in to this? Surely he isn't a mere messanger. In a forest of
sexual licence and magic, I would think that Oberon and Puck had liberty to
relate how ever they pleased. Isn't the chaos of such a world something from
which the lovers are pleased to retreat at the end of Act 4?

Although everyone has a right to their views I was also shocked about the
censorship underlying the argument about grammar schools and staging.

Regards,
Scott Crozier
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.