1997

Re: Tmp.; MND; Ant.

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0273.  Tuesday, 25 February 1997.

[1]     From:   Syd Kasten <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 07:55:00 +0200 (IST)
        Subj:   SHK 8.0267 Miranda and Prospero

[2]     From:   Scott Crozier <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 17:55:59 +1100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0102  Re: Current thoughts on MND

[3]     From:   Jack D. Spiro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Feb 97 17:07:18 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0268  Q: Tony & Cleo


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Syd Kasten <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 07:55:00 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Miranda and Prospero
Comment:        SHK 8.0267 Miranda and Prospero

David Lindley's review of the Shared Experience Tempest (SHK 8.0267
Miranda and Prospero) evoked enjoyable memories of a performance I saw
here in Jerusalem, one of the stops in their tour.  A facets of the
production he didn't mention was the integration of movement (Liz
Ranken, choreographer) into the exposition, which worked well enough for
me to suggest that Bernice Kliman might find something of interest in
viewing the ballet *Romeo and Juliet* danced to the music of Prokofiev.
Both the Kenneth Macmillan and John Cranko versions are quite dramatic.

A Verdi version of Shakespeare such as Othello, being a switch of
language as well as of genre, might be too far out, but no less
enjoyable to glean.

Best wishes
Syd Kasten

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Scott Crozier <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 17:55:59 +1100
Subject: 8.0102  Re: Current thoughts on MND
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0102  Re: Current thoughts on MND

Although this is a very late reply to the comment on MND (our server has
only just revived itself after a lot of reshaping) I would have thought
that rather than transposing Athens for the wood, in the 20th C. our
woods are the skyscrapers of the city and the dark alleys of concrete
and brick.  As urban populations, we don't know trees and out folklore
is more akin to the mythologies of the street than the rites of
midsummer.

Regards,
Scott Crozier

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jack D. Spiro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Feb 97 17:07:18 EST
Subject: 8.0268  Q: Tony & Cleo
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0268  Q: Tony & Cleo

Yes, I saw A&C in Washington. Is it the same company? I wasn't sure it
could be done, but it was done beautifully. But it was difficult to
believe in Cleopatra. I forgot the name of the actress, but I would not
have traveled from Brooklyn to Manhattan for her, much less from Rome to
Egypt. The rest of the cast was brilliant, and the production remained
loyal to the original.

Re: Gilligan's Island; Ideology

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0272.  Tuesday, 25 February 1997.

[1]     From:   Thomas Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Feb 1997 10:22:41 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0258  Re: Gilligan's Island

[2]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Feb 1997 22:11:46 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0265  Re: Ideology


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Feb 1997 10:22:41 -0500
Subject: 8.0258  Re: Gilligan's Island
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0258  Re: Gilligan's Island

Let it also be mentioned that Phil Silvers, character name "Harold
Hecuba" or "HH", denounces the performances as dreadful and then
proceeds to reenact the whole thing in high gear (with all the Stoppards
out?), playing all the roles him self until he finally collapses of
exhaustion.

Who says there's no such common culture any more?

Tom

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Feb 1997 22:11:46 -0500
Subject: 8.0265  Re: Ideology
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0265  Re: Ideology

Terry Hawkes writes:

>I'm scheduled to give a couple
>of talks in the USA in March and April. Details are available from the
>usual agencies. It's not a pretty sight, of course, and protective
>clothing is advised, but I'd be delighted meet - indeed, to scream at -
>any list-members who promise not to become hysterical at the prospect.
>You can't miss me. I'll be the one with the cloak and fangs.

You see, I was correct.  This is the advanced guard of the
Cultural-Materialist colonial invasion of the Americas.  They want to
bring us back into the Pale.  They want to stop us from reading
<italic>Moby-Dick</italic> and force us to read
<italic>Capital</italic>.  Let us say, "No in thunder."

Yours, Bill Godshalk

Re: Branagh's *Hamlet*

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0270.  Tuesday, 25 February 1997.

[1]     From:   Harvey Wheeler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Feb 97 19:49:40 UT
        Subj:   Branagh Request

[2]     From:   David Sauer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Feb 1997 18:53:21 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0075 Videos: Question and Response


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Harvey Wheeler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Feb 97 19:49:40 UT
Subject:        Branagh Request

This is about the Branagh Hamlet.

I don't want to impose on others... so, has anybody saved from this list
a representative collection of the (briefer) evaluations they'd be
willing to upload to me privately...?

More general question: Is there a consensus on the pedagogical
properties of the film?

I am wondering specifically about dividing it into eight or so special
segments and using it over an extended period along with the relevant
segments of the text.

Harvey Wheeler
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Sauer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Feb 1997 18:53:21 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 8.0075 Videos: Question and Response
Comment: Re:    SHK 8.0075 Videos: Question and Response

I am working on an article on Branagh's Hamlet, and what I am examining
are sequences I call "interpolations." But skimming through the MLA
bibliography, the word is not used as I am using it, and I don't know
what the film/adaptation term is for what I am trying to study. Can
someone supply me with a correct word with which I might search the MLA
or other data base, or examine theories of genre adaptation in order to
deepen my theoretical sense of this area.

The scenes I call interpolations are those which are added to the text
of the play. For example, there was great debate on this LIST over
whether Hamlet had sex with Ophelia. But what interests me is not
whether this occurred, but the term for the seven shots of them together
used in the film. A similar case is the shots of Priam and Hecuba
(Gielgud and Dench) given during the Player King's speech, or the cuts
of Old Hamlet having poison poured in his ear, shown several times. Is
there a term for these interpolations?

I'd appreciate any suggestions of places to look into the theory of such
additions to the text.

David K. Sauer
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Re: Rosalind & Celia

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0271.  Tuesday, 25 February 1997.

[1]     From:   Edward Gero <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Feb 1997 14:52:25 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0266  Re: Rosalind & Celia

[2]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 00:33:38 +0000 (GMT)
        Subj:   Rosalind & Celia


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edward Gero <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Feb 1997 14:52:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0266  Re: Rosalind & Celia
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0266  Re: Rosalind & Celia

> . .  . that inform some of these comments that challenge the Folger production.
>
> I guess I'll just have to see how McGinnis and company DO this-it COULD
> "get in the way" but it could also serve to emphasize the complexity of
> their relationship and allow US to take Celia less for granted as a
> simple sounding board for Ros.
>
> ------Chris Stroffolino

Just a point of information:

The production in question is being done by The Shakespeare Theatre
(formerly located at the Folger Library, but now a seperate entity
housed at the Lansburgh Building on 7th and E Streets NW) and the
actress in question is Kelly McGillis not McGinnis...

We actors are sticklers for detail especially when it comes to published
mentions.

Regards,
Edward Gero
Company Member
Shakespeare Theatre

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 00:33:38 +0000 (GMT)
Subject:        Rosalind & Celia

Mark Mann strongly dislikes the suggestion that Rosalind and Celia might
have erotic feelings towards each other:

> Hear Hear!! Please, please, PLEASE spare me the psychosocial
> revisionism...

Epizeuxis such as this often indicates a deep-seated terror of the ideas
being repudiated. Hmm.

> too often "innovations" of this sort are all about the
> director's inability a reckon with what he/she is given on the
> page...and indicates an ego-driven need to "top" what Shakespeare
> has given us...

Note the insistent yoking of psychological terms ('ego' 'drive') with
the archaic sexual language ('top'). The raw sexuality of this
repudiation bursts through in a frenzy of imagined sexual/textual
interpenetration of a 'Shakespeare' which is both a vulnerable body and
a vulnerable text.

> If you have a cause to flog, i.e.  homoeroticism between
> Rosalind and Celia, or Iago and Othello

It is imagined that only with violence ('flog') can the hated idea be
advanced by anyone. And note that this violence is again overtly sexual
(flagellation).

> then get on a soapbox and shout it to the commuters, but keep
> it off the stage

The antithesis of two kinds of 'platforms' is of interest here. The
'commuters' are obviously the 'computers' which, via SHAKSPER, have
disseminated the loathsome idea.

> ...or write a thesis to be read by your closest friends
> and family, who'll applaud your deep, deep insight and
> origionality

The repetitive thrust of 'deep', which drives 'in' the hated idea, leads
naturally to the parapraxis of 'origion'. This speaks clearly of the
'o-region' which it is feared will be penetrated.

Okay Mark, I'm convinced. There IS something in all this Psych 101
stuff!

Gabriel Egan

Re: Female Hamlets

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0269.  Tuesday, 25 February 1997.

[1]     From:   Eric Weil <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Feb 1997 10:46:25 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re:  Woman/Hamlet

[2]     From:   John Mills <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 24 Feb 1997 09:42:29 -0700 (MST)
        Subj:   Female Hamlets


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Eric Weil <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Feb 1997 10:46:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Re:  Woman/Hamlet

I don't recall where the person who started this thread resides, but
Peace College (a women's school) in Raleigh, NC is putting on an
all-female _Hamlet_ Wed. Feb. 26 through March 2.  Performances are at
8PM and tickets cost $2.  Call (919) 508-2350 for more information.

Eric Weil
Shaw U.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Mills <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 24 Feb 1997 09:42:29 -0700 (MST)
Subject:        Female Hamlets

Mrs. Siddons played it on at least one of her Benefit nights and was
favorably reviewed.  Siobahn McKenna did it off-Broadway in the late
fifties or early sixties.  Judith Anderson toured with it around 1970,
chiefly to University campuses; I saw it at SUNY Binghamton.  It was
essentially a concert performance, though with costumes and some stage
action.  She made no attempt to impersonate the character as a male, let
alone a youthful male.  But, superb actress that she was, she gave a
reading of the mind and heart of Hamlet which was comparable to the best
that I have seen.  John Mills

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.