Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1998 :: September ::
Re: JC; Cibber; Lear; Synopses; Titus
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0897  Friday, 25 September 1998.

[1]     From:   Louis Swilley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 24 Sep 1998 08:10:17 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0883  Re: Julius Caesar and Stoicism

[2]     From:   Peter Holland <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 24 Sep 1998 17:20:26 GMT
        Subj:   Re: Cibber's Richard III

[3]     From:   Andrew Walker White <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 24 Sep 1998 13:35:54 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0892  Holm *Lear* on PBS

[4]     From:   Billy Houck <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 24 Sep 1998 14:01:06 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0893  Re: Synopses

[5]     From:   Karen Coley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 25 Sep 1998 13:28:18 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   Andronicus


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Louis Swilley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 24 Sep 1998 08:10:17 -0500
Subject: 9.0883  Re: Julius Caesar and Stoicism
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0883  Re: Julius Caesar and Stoicism

Yvonne Bruce wrote:

>Why should we
>believe Antony's soliloquy any more than his funeral oration? The issue,
>perhaps, is not whether Antony (or anyone) has been fooled, but that all
>take part in this kind of ritual, communal fooling.

This is strange and wonderful - certainly stranger and more wonderful
than can be realized by director or actor in performance (which was the
matter at hand).

Are we to believe that the skeptical, self-serving, cruel ("This many
then shall die.") Antony is performing a "ritual" in his soliloquy, a "a
communal fooling" - although none but he is present to witness it?  What
would be the point?  (We have not here an internal argument between two
minds as we have in Brutus' earlier soul-searching soliloquy; there are
no questions-to-self here, this is straight-forward stuff.).

Whatever we may offer in discussion of a play in its larger cultural or
historical context, in performance, a drama cannot take refuge in
historical or philosophical circumstances from which it was drawn, nor
ask the audience to bring with them information without which part or
all of the play cannot be appreciated ("Oh, well, he was a Stoic, and
you know how *they* were.").  The performance must make even the most
exotic thought *felt* as proper and necessary in the character, who must
be presented as deeply like the members of the present audience, in
their capacity to place themselves, as it were, in that character's
circumstances and frame of mind. If the audience cannot find itself in
the character  in that way, either the writer, the director or the actor
- or all three - have failed.

And that is why every production of "Julius Caesar" I have seen, and
every production I have read about, has failed.  The directors and
actors have not faced those requirements of a great performance; they
have merely draped themselves in togas, yelled out, "Caesar!" and
"Brutus!" and said to the audience, "Don'chaknow?!".

No.  We don't.  *Show* us the human beings, not the historical icons.

     L. Swilley

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Holland <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 24 Sep 1998 17:20:26 GMT
Subject:        Re: Cibber's Richard III

Sorry to go back to a recent discussion but the line 'Off with his head.
So much for Buckingham.' which, as others have identified, comes from
Colley Cibber's Richard III (The Tragical History of King Richard III
(1700)), is printed in the first edition of Cibber's play in italic. The
significance of this is that Cibber's preface states that 'I have caus'd
those [lines] that are intirely Shakespear's to be printed in this
Italick Character'. The line obviously is not 'intirely Shakespear's'
but Cibber's choice of font leaves open the possibility that the line
was part of the stage tradition of performance of the play before 1700.
It is certainly a line that stayed part of the performance tradition
long after Cibber's adaptation stopped being the primary performing text
of the play.

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Andrew Walker White <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 24 Sep 1998 13:35:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 9.0892  Holm *Lear* on PBS
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0892  Holm *Lear* on PBS

This will be a great way of celebrating my, um, second 39th birthday (in
the grand tradition of Jack Benny).  Holm's work is amazing in its
intensity and variety.  I recommend "Big Night" to anyone who hasn't
seen him on screen lately.

Cheers,
Andy White

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Billy Houck <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 24 Sep 1998 14:01:06 EDT
Subject: 9.0893  Re: Synopses
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0893  Re: Synopses

>*Shakespeare Made Easy* (with facing texts in
>original and 20th century English).

I have here in front of me a Perfection Form Company edition of Romeo
and Juliet in parallel text form, copyright 1985, edited by Janie B.
Yates-Glandorf, Ph.D.

 On the left hand side, it says:
"Wherefore art thou, Romeo?"
On the right hand side, it "translates" the line:
"Where are you, Romeo?"

The edition is run through with this type of thoughtless error. Avoid it
at all costs.

Billy Houck
Arroyo Grande High School

[5]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen Coley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 25 Sep 1998 13:28:18 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:        Andronicus

Can anyone confirm or deny rumors of a new Titus Andronicus to be filmed
in Rome?  Someone said Anthony Hopkins and Canadian actor Tom McCamus
were supposed to be in it.

Karen Coley
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.