Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1998 :: October ::
Re: Branagh; Dollimore; INDEX; Q1 Ham.; Titus's
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0983  Monday, 12 October 1998.

[1]     From:   Linda Hobbet <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 11 Oct 1998 00:05:40 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0976  Re: New Shakespeare Films by Branagh

[2]     From:   Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 9 Oct 1998 16:37:43 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0978  Re: Maguire, et. al; Berger: Dollimore

[3]     From:   Tom Berger <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 11 Oct 1998  8:50 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0978  Re: Maguire, et. al; Berger: Dollimore

[4]     From:   Peter Groves <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 12 Oct 1998 19:22:34 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0978  Re: Hamlet, Q1

[5]     From:   Stanley Wells <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 12 Oct 1998 11:28:47 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0978  Re: Maguire, et. al; Berger: Dollimore


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Linda Hobbet <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 11 Oct 1998 00:05:40 -0700
Subject: 9.0976  Re: New Shakespeare Films by Branagh
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0976  Re: New Shakespeare Films by Branagh

Sean wrote:
>>> But I do actually think there's rather a difference between a director
making someone else look good, and casting himself then making himself
look
good. <<<

Do you mean to say an actor should not cast/direct himself.  I can't
agree.  Throughout the history of cinema, great films have been created
by artists whose passion for a particular vision dictated they direct
themselves.  Chaplin, Orson Welles, Olivier, and others come to mind.
It seems a particular tradition with Shakespearean films (Welles,
Olivier, and Branagh).

Once the casting decision has been made, it is the director's job to
bring the character vividly to life, whoever the actor is. To do less is
cheating the character and the audience.  I'm not sure if you mean to
accuse Branagh of displaying his acting ability, or of making himself
look physically attractive, but I don't believe he does either
inappropriately. Branagh does not show off to the detriment of his own
character or of other characters or actors.  What's more, he is more
than willing to make himself look physically ordinary (Andrew in Peter's
Friends, Mike in Dead Again) when it serves the character he is
portraying.

Linda Hobbet

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 9 Oct 1998 16:37:43 -0400
Subject: 9.0978  Re: Maguire, et. al; Berger: Dollimore
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0978  Re: Maguire, et. al; Berger: Dollimore

Karen Peterson-Kranz

> I think, Gabriel, you may be oversimplifying Dollimore's argument.
> Since I too struggle, and am struggling, with *Radical Treagedy* I
> hesitate to speak for Dollimore, but I suspect the problem with your
> summary is in the choice of "circumstances."  There are some
> significant differences between contingent, often material,
> factors in the construction of subjectivities, and circumstantial
> factors.

Are these significant differences are...?

Gabriel Egan

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Berger <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 11 Oct 1998  8:50 -0500
Subject: 9.0978  Re: Maguire, et. al; Berger: Dollimore
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0978  Re: Maguire, et. al; Berger: Dollimore

AN INDEX OF CHARACTERS IN EARLY MODERN ENGLISH DRAMA is forthcoming,
some might say imminent, from Cambridge U Press.  I think it's going to
run around $70.00, not priced exactly for the solitary scholar.

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Groves <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 12 Oct 1998 19:22:34 +1000
Subject: 9.0978  Re: Hamlet, Q1
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0978  Re: Hamlet, Q1

> Well, perhaps I'm missing something but why, without doubt or argument,
> is it automatically Q2 Hamlet and not Q1?

I would have thought anyone who needed to ask such a question might
indeed be missing quite a lot.  Consider, for example, what's missing
from this well-known speech as it appears in Q1,  apart (that is) from
sense and scansion :

                To be, or not to be, I there's the point,
                To Die, to sleepe, is that all? I all:
                No, to sleepe, to dreame, I mary there it goes,
                For in that dreame of death, when wee awake,
                And borne before an euerlasting Iudge,
                From whence no passenger euer retur'nd,
                The vndiscouered country, at whose sight
                The happy smile, and the accursed damn'd.
                But for this, the ioyfull hope of this,
                Whol'd beare the scornes and flattery of the world,
                Scorned by the right rich, the rich curssed of the
poore?
                The widow being oppressed, the orphan wrong'd,
                The taste of hunger, or a tirants raigne,
                And thousand more calamities besides,
                To grunt and sweate vnder this weary life,
                When that he may his full Quietus make,
                With a bare bodkin, who would this indure,
                But for a hope of something after death?
               Which pusles the braine, and doth confound the sence,
               Which makes vs rather beare those euilles we haue,
               Than flie to  others that we know not of.
                I that, O this conscience makes cowardes of vs all,
               Lady in thy orizons, be all my sinnes remembred.

Peter Groves,
Department of English,
Monash University,
Melbourne

[5]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stanley Wells <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 12 Oct 1998 11:28:47 +0000
Subject: 9.0978  Re: Maguire, et. al; Berger: Dollimore
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0978  Re: Maguire, et. al; Berger: Dollimore

In response to William P. Williams's remark about the chariot in 'Titus
Andronicus', if Antony Sher and Greg Doran (with whom I talked about
Titus before they put it on, though I don't think this point arose) or
anyone else wants to know how the chariot got into my edition of the
play in the Oxford (not New Oxford) edition, they would find an
explanation in my book 'Re-Editing Shakespeare for the Modern Reader'
(OUP, 1984), p. 90. To summarize: the chariot is referred to by Titus as
something that is 'in sight':

 . . . here in sight of Rome to Saturnine,
King and Commander of our common weale,
The wide worlds Emperour, doe I consecrate
My sword, my Chariot, and my Prisoners,
Presents well worthy Romes imperious Lord:
Receiue them then, the tribute that I owe,
Mine honours Ensignes humbled at thy feete. (1.1.246-52)

In my edition the chariot is not dogmatically stated to be present - it
is enclosed in the half-brackets that, for want of anything better, we
use for conjectured action - but as Professor Williams knows, the
directions of the early texts are often deficient. Since, in Marlowe's
play, Tamburlaine - a role that Antony Sher took with thrilling effect -
unquestionably enters in a chariot (Part 2, 4. 4), it seems to me
entirely plausible that Titus should do so too.

Stanley Wells
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.