Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1997 :: June ::
Re: New Globe Theatre
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0638.  Thursday, 5 June 1997.

[1]     From:   Valentin Gerlier <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 04 Jun 1997 10:35:16
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0626  Re: New Globe Theatre I

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 4 Jun 1997 14:29:12 -0700
        Subj:   RE: SHK 8.0631  Re: New Globe Theatre


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Valentin Gerlier <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 04 Jun 1997 10:35:16
Subject: 8.0626  Re: New Globe Theatre I
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0626  Re: New Globe Theatre I

What seems important in all this is still the amount of genuine work,
passionate interest, Creativity and Insight into the works of
Shakespeare. The words, and the acting of them still matter most than
the venue and the costumes. (By the way, are tickets very expensive?)

My sense is: if the Globe helps, why not? If it becomes just another
mindless industry, then, too bad. We still have the works of the Poet;
those can be misused but not changed.

Ever yours,
Valentin
<
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 4 Jun 1997 14:29:12 -0700
Subject: 8.0631  Re: New Globe Theatre
Comment:        RE: SHK 8.0631  Re: New Globe Theatre

From:           Terence Hawkes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >

>Sean Lawrence thinks that the new Globe represents a 'peculiarly British
>sort of nostalgia'. It doesn't. The whole project has an unmistakable
>and entirely captivating American flavour.

I have no idea what you mean by an "unmistakable and entirely
captivating American flavour."  Ross Perot giving all the choruses in
Henry V, sprinkled with strained and folksy metaphors, perhaps?  Maybe
you call all consumerism and tourism "American" in order to avoid any
imbrication in it?

Being neither American nor British I would say that I'm in a peculiarly
good position to judge what the descriptions of the Globe I have read
remind me of the most.  As far as I know, no American production spends
time dying period underwear in urine, at least not on purpose.  This
sort of fascination with the past as sensual and tactile reminds me far
more of small Merchant-Ivory-costume-drama (where the point seems to be
what wonderful natural fabrics everyone once wore) than of (say) _The
Crucible_ (where the point seems to be the merits of civil
disobedience), and it reminds me more of National Heritage properties
than of the few American monuments I've seen.

I think the comparison with Disneyland has already been thoroughly
discredited.  There's something quite different in the past as a set of
simplistic, self-consciously superficial commonplaces (EPCOT Centre) and
the past as sensuality:  one produces country music, and the other
produces bodice-rippers.  America has an export industry in the former,
and Britain in the latter.  Why does America appropriate the past as a
set of values, if only those of Kenny Roger's Gambler, while Britain
appropriates it as fancy dress?  Does it have something to do with the
bourgeois worshippers of the Almighty Quid and the the left-wing total
relativists ganging up to destroy any real values?  Does it have to do
with the fact that Britain has blamed its values for all its historical
sins and seeks some sort of contrition by avoiding any values
whatsoever?

On its completion, the British government hastened to award its
instigator the title of 'Commander of the British Empire'. I don't think
he ever saw the joke.

Do you always label evidence which discredits your argument as 'joke'?

Cheers,
Sean
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.