1997

Re: Branagh's *Hamlet*

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0023.  Wednesday, 8 January 1997.

From:           Andrew Walker White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 Jan 1997 12:10:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Anecdote

I was talking to a friend who attended one of the seminars conducted by Kenneth
Branagh and Sir Derek Jacobi, when they had their preview showing in
Washington, D.C.  Mr. Jacobi (or is it Sir Derek?  We colonials have no clue
about these things ...) recounted that while filming the play-within-the-play
scene, Branagh went through around 8 takes on his reactions alone:  "do it
angry", "do it bored", "do it mystified", etc.

When Jacobi asked Branagh which take he would use, he got 'I'm the Director
here, I'll decide which one to use', something to that effect.

Since the film won't be opening officially for another few weeks, I'd rather
hear what Branagh's final choice was.  But I thought this amusing little story
would serve as a good springboard for discussion. Pennington in his new book
argues that Claudius' reaction to the play should be a blank, showing no guilt
or awareness of guilt whatsoever. This argument is not new to me, but I have
real problems with it.

I'll withhold my arguments for now, but was wondering what sorts of reactions
seem justified, given the text, in our member's opinions?  (My only comment
being that I felt Alan Bates' interpretation was by far the best).

Cheers, Happy Twelfth Night

Andy White
URbana, IL

Re: Ideology Once Again

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0022.  Wednesday, 8 January 1997.

From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 06 Jan 1997 11:47:16 -0500
Subject: 8.0020  Re: Ideology Once Again
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0020  Re: Ideology Once Again

Gabriel Egan clarifies:

>If I write that "speaking is a practice through which individuals are worked
>into a 'lived relation' to a language", would you also have to ask who gets
>worked into, who determines the practicer, and who determines the worked upon?
>
>You might not like Kavanagh's definition, but its components are no more
>complex than my sample definition of speaking. (I don't think I'd defend
>either definition--but they are clear.)

Thanks for clarifying that point for me.  I have a habit of separating
"practicer" from the person or persons practiced upon. But what you are saying,
for example, is that the practice of living links those who practice living to
the project of living.  As far as ideology is concerned, there is no way to
separate the dancer from the dance.

But how would <italic>you</italic>, Gabriel, define <italic>ideology</italic>?
You tantalize us.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

Re: Ideology Once Again

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0020.  Monday, 6 January 1997.

From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 04 Jan 1997 22:47:11 -0800
Subject: 8.0010  Ideology Once Again
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0010  Ideology Once Again

Bill Godshalk writes

>[Kavanagh] gives a brief historical sketch, and concludes with this definition:
>"'ideology' designates the indispensable practice--including the 'systems of
>representation' that are its products and support--through which individuals of
>different class, race, and sex are worked into a particular 'lived relation' to
>a sociohistorical project."
>
>To which I say, "Wow!"  But isn't there a little problem of agency here? Who
>does the "practicing," and who gets "worked into" the "project"? And who
>determines who shall be the practicer and who the worked upon?

Everybody does the "practicing". Nobody get "worked into" the "project" but
rather everybody get "worked into" the "'lived relation'" to the "project" (as
Kavanagh wrote). As for who determines the boundaries of the sets "practicers"
and "worked upons", these are not determined by any person but rather by the
definition. If you find a collection of individuals in a given lived relation
to a given sociohistorical project, Kavanagh's definition tells you that the
practices, including systems of representation, which are indispensable to them
being in that given lived relation should be called ideology.

If I write that "speaking is a practice through which individuals are worked
into a 'lived relation' to a language", would you also have to ask who gets
worked into, who determines the practicer, and who determines the worked upon?

You might not like Kavanagh's definition, but its components are no more
complex than my sample definition of speaking. (I don't think I'd defend either
definition--but they are clear.)

Gabriel Egan

Q: Kenny Meadows and Illustrated Shakespeare

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0021.  Wednesday, 8 January 1997.

From:           Laurie Osborne <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 Jan 1997 09:06:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Kenny Meadows and Illustrated Shakespeare

Since the inquiry about Charles Knight's Pictorial edition yielded such
interesting and useful responses, I thought I would ask if anyone knows of any
criticism or analysis of the large illustrated Works of Shakspeare, illustrated
by Kenny Meadows &c.&c. from roughly the same period. My interest in this
edition and Knight's edition stems from work I am doing to expand a web essay
written for last year's SAA. That essay on Hypertext criticism of Shakespeare
(http://www.colby.edu/personal/leosborn/open.html) includes a section on
illustrated texts which I would like to expand.

Many thanks,
Laurie

Re: Film Suggestions for Shakespeare Magazine

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0019.  Monday, 6 January 1997.

(1)     From:   Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 4 Jan 1997 14:05:28 -0500
        Subj:   Film Suggestions

(2)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 04 Jan 1997 12:17:21 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0012  Re: Film Suggestions for Shakespeare Magazine

(3)     From:   Chris Stroffolino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 5 Jan 1997 02:45:18 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0009 Re: Film Suggestions

(4)     From:   Rinda Frye <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 5 Jan 97  19:39:21 EST
        Subj:   Weissmuller's Lear


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 4 Jan 1997 14:05:28 -0500
Subject:        Film Suggestions

Sylvester Stallone as Jacques. Or Gabriel Egan.

T. Hawkes

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 04 Jan 1997 12:17:21 -0500
Subject: 8.0012  Re: Film Suggestions for Shakespeare Magazine
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0012  Re: Film Suggestions for Shakespeare Magazine

Terence Hawkes suggests:

>For Cordelia, Rock Hudson.

And I say, a good Renaissance suggestion. Rock sure did look good in a dress, a
masterly mistress.

Yours, in the silly season, Bill Godshalk

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chris Stroffolino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 5 Jan 1997 02:45:18 -0500
Subject: 8.0009 Re: Film Suggestions
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0009 Re: Film Suggestions

Dear Jim (Schaefer)---

I have not yet seen Godard's KING LEAR in which woody plays "the
fool"----(allegedly a very cameo). Have you?

(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Rinda Frye <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 5 Jan 97  19:39:21 EST
Subject:        Weissmuller's Lear

What a grand idea--Johnny Weissmuller as Lear.  But I think Maureen O'Sullivan
should be Cordelia, with Boy and Cheetah acting out their sibling rivalry as
Goneril and Regan (not to mention the thrill of cross-gender casting).  And the
and the rest of the cast could be filled out from the teaming hords of
anonymous natives and elephants on their ways to lost graveyards.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.