1998

CFP ACMRS Conference

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0864  Monday, 21 September 1998.

From:           T. Scott Clapp <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 Sep 1998 09:31:13 -0700
Subject:        CFP ACMRS Conference

As always, please accept my apologies for any cross-postings that may
occur.

        5TH ANNUAL ACMRS INTERDISCIPLINARY CONFERENCE

"Material Culture and Cultural Materialisms in the Middle Ages and the
Renaissance"

CALL FOR PAPERS **DEADLINE October 1, 1998**

The Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies (ACMRS) at
Arizona State University invites session and paper proposals for its
fifth annual interdisciplinary conference on February 18-20, 1999.
ACMRS welcomes papers that explore any topic related to the study and
teaching of the Middle Ages and Renaissance and especially those that
focus on this year's theme of material culture.  The latter may address,
for example, specific artifacts and artistic commodities or the
relationship between people's material world and the society around
them. Jonathan J. G. Alexander (Institute of Fine Arts, New York
University) will deliver the plenary address entitled, "Adam Delving,
Eve Spinning: Images of Work in the Middle Ages and the Early
Renaissance."

PUBLICATION OPPORTUNITIES
Selected papers related to the conference theme are considered for
publication in the fifth volume of the "Arizona Studies in the Middle
Ages and the Renaissance" series, published by Brepols Publishers
(Belgium).  Papers dealing with any facet of the Mediterranean region
will be considered for publication in the journal _Mediterranean
Studies_, sponsored by the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, the
Medieval and Renaissance Collegium (MARC) at the University of Michigan,
and ACMRS at Arizona State University.

ART EXHIBITION
This year's conference will feature several events in conjunction with
the exhibition "Copper as Canvas: Two Centuries of Masterpiece Paintings
on Copper, 1575-1775" at the Phoenix Art Museum. ACMRS will host the
opening reception of the conference at the Museum, which will include a
special viewing of the show. The exhibition will highlight the
brilliantly colored, highly detailed paintings made on copper sheets by
some of this period's most accomplished artists including Rembrandt,
Frans Hals, El Greco, Claude Lorrain, Murillo, Jan Brueghel I, Guercino,
and Guido Reni. Paintings on copper from Spain's New World Colonies,
particularly Mexico and Peru, by Lius Ju


Re: Editorial/Interpretational Practices

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0863  Monday, 21 September 1998.

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 Sep 1998 09:44:37 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0859  Re: Editorial/Interpretational Practices

[2]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 Sep 1998 15:04:18 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0859  Re: Editorial/Interpretational Practices

[3]     From:   Drew Alan Mason <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 21 Sep 1998 17:58:13 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0859  Re: Editorial/Interpretational Practices

[4]     From:   Dale Lyles <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 19 Sep 1998 16:39:10 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0855  Re: Editorial/Interpretational Practices


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 Sep 1998 09:44:37 -0700
Subject: 9.0859  Re: Editorial/Interpretational Practices
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0859  Re: Editorial/Interpretational Practices

Aren't we getting a little doctrinaire in our rejection of "original
Shakespeare"?  I don't agree that we can get back to some primal text,
or even that the early texts get us into a sacred proximity with it.
Such a position opens up the nasty question of what to do with
unresolved differences between different early texts, for instance.

That said, Q1 and F1 are obviously in a different category from (say)
Tate's _Lear_ (which I just read, BTW), or Kurosawa's _Ran_, or a
videotape of Cameron's _Titanic_, relabelled "Lear."  Surely early texts
have some sort of precedence, usually ascribed to proximity with the
"original", even if such a thing is frankly irrecoverable in absolute
purity, and may not even have existed.  In any case, they can be
distinguished from our whims by their relationship, however complex,
with the "author" (Foucault notwithstanding).

This doesn't, just to repeat myself, mean that there's an interdiction
of creativity in appropriating said texts, especially in performance, to
our own time and place.  Lepage may have set his MND in a mud pool, and
I would have liked to have seen it, but he didn't just produce his own
version of _Peter Pan_ and pass it off as Shakespeare.

Cheers,
Sean

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 Sep 1998 15:04:18 -0400
Subject: 9.0859  Re: Editorial/Interpretational Practices
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0859  Re: Editorial/Interpretational Practices

Don Rowan writes

> It may be naive or simplistic to read into the text at least
> "something" of the author's intentions, but surely this is preferable to
> the gymnastics of many soi-disant modern critics who use the plays as
> stalking horses to demonstrate their own private agendas, critics who
> scorn any smidgen of common sense and in support of their own pet
> theories persist in reading against the grain of the text.

"Something" of the author's intentions' and 'the gymnastics of many
soi-disant modern critics' do not have to be antithetical. We've long
been aware that boy actors played female roles, but this 'fact' is
transformed into something rich and absorbing by Queer Theory.
Saussurian linguistics has been around long enough that 'sign',
'signifier', and 'signified' can be bandied about in undergraduate
Shakespeare courses without the instructor being held up as a mad
literary theorist. When students respond to a new theoretical
perspective by invoking common sense and characterize the new
interpretation as part of a critic's private agenda, I sense that they
are reacting to having their mental boundaries pushed back, and that's
good education. Of course, they are still free to reject the offered
theory.

Empirical study of Shakespeare-to which Don Rowan has made an enormous
contribution-is not commonsense, and theories are not 'pets'.
('Monsters' might be a better metaphor.) Like any other text, history
has to read against the grain to show the vibrant lived experiences of
conflict and accommodation which underlie the smooth exterior.

Gabriel Egan

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Drew Alan Mason <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 21 Sep 1998 17:58:13 +1000
Subject: 9.0859  Re: Editorial/Interpretational Practices
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0859  Re: Editorial/Interpretational Practices

I agree with Scott Crozier completely!

I just staged an As You Like It recently that served as a comparison
between the confining corporate world of today, and the freedom of the
country life.  We used contemporary country songs during the show,
danced the Achy Breaky, and had a slickly black-dressed Duke Fred (as a
Bill Gates-Robert DeNiro in Devils Advocate type).  The production
served fairly well, I think, to show the comparisons of these two areas
of life, and also how Rosalind, Celia, Touchstone, Orlando and Oliver,
gradually free themselves of the oppressive corporate lifestyle in favor
of the freedom of the life of the country folk.  I think this very much
speaks to a contemporary audience where doublets, hose, and gowns would
certainly have no relation to life today.

Drew Mason

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dale Lyles <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 19 Sep 1998 16:39:10 EDT
Subject: 9.0855  Re: Editorial/Interpretational Practices
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0855  Re: Editorial/Interpretational Practices

Here at the Newnan Community Theatre Company, we are working towards
next weekend's world premiere of *Lying in State*, David C. Hyer's new
comedy about a dead politician.

Shameless plugs aside, I can speak firsthand about "the playwright's
text" and its relationship to the performers.  First of all, this is the
fourth version of the play we've seen since we first read it through two
years ago.  Two weeks before we were to begin rehearsal, Dave sent us a
new Act II, similar in its outline but differing in its details.

We have spent the last four weeks hammering out a performance from
Dave's text.  We have rearranged lines, dropped lines, rewritten lines.
Many of these were done while he was here for the first readthrough;
others will come as a pleasant surprise to him next Friday.  We have
created business which essentially define the text and the characters in
ways which Dave never thought of.  We have flip-flopped scenes and lines
from the various versions at our disposal.

Now: is the script which we read with such delight two years ago the
"original" text?  Or is what you will see next Friday night and until
October 10 ($8 gen. admission) the original text?  Does the playwright
take what we have done with it and resubmit it to his agent as the
official version?

If we take these kinds of "liberties" with a playwright who will be
sitting in the second row, you can imagine the "liberties" we take with
Shakespeare.  As I tell my casts, "The best thing about interpreting
Shakespeare is that he's dead and we're not."

That's what theatre is all about.

Dale Lyles
Newnan Community Theatre Company
<http://shenandoah.peachnet.edu/nctc/>

Re: Malvolio's "madness"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0861  Friday, 18 September 1998.

[1]     From:   Ed Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 17 Sep 1998 10:38:35 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: Malvolio SHK 9.0848

[2]     From:   Roy Flannagan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 17 Sep 1998 11:23:13 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0856  Re: Malvolio's "madness"

[3]     From:   Richard Bovard <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 17 Sep 1998 11:17:13 -0500
        Subj:   Malvolio's madness


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 17 Sep 1998 10:38:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SHK 9.0848
Comment:        Re: Malvolio SHK 9.0848

Louis Swilley's observation that there are loose ends at the conclusion
of *Twelfth Night* is certainly correct. Maybe Malvolio will be
entreated to a peace, but it is more likely that he will take out his
frustrations on the wholly innocent captain, who is in jail, and whom
Shakespeare takes pains to establish (in 1.2) as a good guy. Antonio is
certainly left out of the happy ending too and it looks like he will be
forever the victim of unrequited love.  Olivia is none too happy with
the antics of Sir Toby and Feste, and Maria's plot to social climb looks
like it will unravel, etc., etc.

In this sense, the ending of *TN* resembles that of *MV,* where Shylock
and Antonio (possibly) seem like outcasts at the end. Why would
Shake-speare do this?  One classic answer (by Anne Barton) is that
Shakespeare recognized the limits of comedy as a genre. A happy marraige
or two doesn't solve all the world's woes. Another possible answer might
be that Shake-speare does not yet believe "there's place and means for
every man alive." That is, he still thinks that some people must be left
out of the social order for it to function effectively.  I think he
changes his mind about that in *All's Well,* which follows almost
immediately after *TN.*

The funny thing, for me anyway, is that in production I hardly notice
the problems at the end of *TN.* But when I read the play, they jump out
at me and just about spoil the ending.

Ed Taft

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Roy Flannagan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 17 Sep 1998 11:23:13 -0400
Subject: 9.0856  Re: Malvolio's "madness"
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0856  Re: Malvolio's "madness"

I should correct myself: Malvolio is called mad, and imprisoned, but he
denies he is mad, much as the old man in Monty Python and the Holy Grail
(plague scene) keeps saying "But I'm not dead yet."  He is certainly mad
(angry) at his departure, unrepentantly vowing revenge in his last
words.

Roy Flannagan

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Bovard <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 17 Sep 1998 11:17:13 -0500
Subject:        Malvolio's madness

Malvolio is sick of self-love, as I recall.  As others have mentioned,
this may simply be a matter of pride, narcissistic delusion.  However,
other characters in   the play suffer from the same malady (Orsino, for
example).

And since Malvolio threatens revenge at the end of the play, he is
obviously not cured of self-centeredness (i.e., wounded pride).  But,
then, such a cure may not be available to others either.  After all,
Orsino embraces Viola as his fancy's queen.

Re: Kurosawa; Holinshed; Wishbone; AYL; MND; NY

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0862  Friday, 18 September 1998.

[1]     From:   Peter S. Donaldson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 17 Sep 1998 10:51:42 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0851  Re: Kurosawa

[2]     From:   Bradley Berens <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 17 Sep 1998 09:54:05 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0858  Re: Holinshed

[3]     From:   Nancy Charlton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 17 Sep 1998 13:10:55 -0700
        Subj: " Tempest" on Kid's TV

[4]     From:   Henry Griffy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 Sep 1998 02:31:48 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 9.0853  *As You Like It* Productions

[5]     From:   Robert Burke <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Fridayy, 18 Sep 1998 07:49:24 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0669  Midsummer Study Guide Update

[6]     From:   Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 18 Sep 1998 18:01:58 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0857  Re: Shakespeare in New York


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter S. Donaldson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 17 Sep 1998 10:51:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 9.0851  Re: Kurosawa
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0851  Re: Kurosawa

I agree with Mike Jensen that High and Low is one of Kurosawa's great
films, and is too little known and appreciated (though the 87 people who
cast votes on the International Movie Database http://us.imdb.com gave
it a very favorable 8.8 rating).     It is also an adaptation (of the
novel "King's Ransom" by Ed McBain).  The English title refers to social
class, urban topography and camera angles!  My sharpest "auteurist"
friends thinks the camera jumps around too much inside Kingo Gondo's
apartment, but there are reasons for this! (I hopelessly argued).

I will miss Kurosawa, but am no worshipper, preferring Ozu and Mizoguchi
(Sansho the Bailiff, Ugetsu, Princess Yang Kwei Fei).  Ran is a serious
film, of course, but seems to me at times to be leaning on Kurosawa's
status as "artist" a bit heavily.  At the time of its US premier at the
New York film festival, Kurosawa was letting it be known that the film
"had nothing to do with Shakespeare," and some of this got into Vincent
Canby's review.  I was in the audience, as my brother had traded
something he wouldn't specify for two tickets (are anecdotes entirely
discredited yet?  I'm afraid none of Frobisher's crew appear in this
one), and the dean of humanities paid for the shuttle flight.  Richard
Roud announced that Kurosawa would answer questions, but  he warned the
audience that the director had declared himself on the matter of the
film's relation to Shakespeare already.  I wanted to be polite but I had
to ask about Ran's relation to Brook and Kosintsev or face the
possibility that this was not a research trip at all!  (there were
already doubters).  Such was the mystique of the event that there were a
few catcalls when i spoke and the translator was asked not to translate
the question.  I rephrased in the subjunctive {"yes but if it WERE a
Shakespeare adaptation would Mr.  Kurosawa have been influenced at all
by.....}.  This passed muster, and the translated answer was "Brook:
didn't see it.  Kosintsev: wasn't influenced by it."   I also recall the
superb session on Kurosawa in Tokyo in 1991, with Jack Jorgens, Ken
Rothwell, Kathy Howlett and others.  The papers were excellent, and Jack
Jorgens began a dialogue concerning the divergent meanings K's films
have here and in Japan that ought to be resumed.


[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bradley Berens <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 17 Sep 1998 09:54:05 -0700
Subject: 9.0858  Re: Holinshed
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0858  Re: Holinshed

Greetings all,

Thirty years ago Stephen Booth wrote a useful book specifically about
how Shakespearean's should and shouldn't use Holinshed.  For those of
you who know Stephen, it is vintage high-Booth-opinionation, but still
quite useful.  I, for example, found it particularly helpful when
studying for my comps.  Unfortunately, it was a limited edition from the
Book Club of California.   Here is the citation from the Berkeley
library.  Best of luck finding a copy, but if your library has one it is
worth a look.

       Booth, Stephen.
       The book called Holinshed's Chronicles; an account of its
         inception, purpose, contributors, contents, publicatio...
       [San Francisco] Book Club of California, 1968.
       Publication (Book Club of California) ; no.
130.

        Best,
        Brad Berens

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Nancy Charlton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 17 Sep 1998 13:10:55 -0700
Subject: "      Tempest" on Kid's TV

Thinking back to the wonderful thread on Shakespeare and children, I
wonder whether any of you caught "Wishbone" on PBS last Friday.  In this
episode, the kids in the story are putting on a production of "The
Tempest" and the precocious terrier Wishbone gets to be a most unlikely
but most charming Ariel.  I didn't see the whole thing, just happened
upon it while going through the channels, so am not sure of what the
outer plot was about.  In my estimation, few programs make "moral"
points as gracefully and effectively as does "Wishbone," and this one
seemed to be no exception.

The producers used animation most constructively, as in whisking Ariel
through the air, making people appear and disappear, in Prospero's
magic, particularly in drawing the faery ring of fire.  Professional
actors played a much-condensed version of the play, but managed to work
in all the great speeches (I think of them as arias, as in opera).
Caliban was downplayed greatly, I would surmise because the PC problems
would be just too much to cope with in a 30-minute production.

Anyway, it was children's TV at its best -- and didn't do too badly by
Shakespeare either.

Nancy Charlton
Portland OR

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Henry Griffy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 Sep 1998 02:31:48 -0500
Subject: 9.0853  *As You Like It* Productions
Comment:        RE: SHK 9.0853  *As You Like It* Productions

Last semester, in the course of preparing a presentation about AYLI
web-resources, I came across a page describing (w/ photos) a 50's-era
doo-wop style production.  I imagine they encountered many of the same
issues you have/are/will.  The page is located at
http://www.cwru.edu/artsci/thtr/website/AsYou.htm

Henry Griffy

PS.  Best of luck.  The 60s seems like a fecund source of useful
analogues for themes like the pros & cons of being in & out of power, as
well as the motif of alienated (though privileged) offspring.

[5]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robert Burke <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Fridayy, 18 Sep 1998 07:49:24 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 8.0669  Midsummer Study Guide Update
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0669  Midsummer Study Guide Update

If it is not too late, may one request a program now?  The address:

        Robert R. Burke
        1100 Rockhurst Road
        Kansas City, Missouri 64110

Thanks.

[6]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 Sep 1998 18:01:58 -0400
Subject: 9.0857  Re: Shakespeare in New York
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0857  Re: Shakespeare in New York

Edna Boris said her kids had never seen a play performed, let alone a
Shakespeare play. Owing to a death in the family, I recently found the
letter I wrote my grandmother describing the first time I saw, and
loved, a Shakespeare play: it was Twelfth Night in Stratford,
Connecticut, a junior high school outing. I laughed at nearly
400-year-old jokes! That's a revelation to a 12 year old. I guess I
wished the same experience for Ms.  Boris' students.

Much Ado was written in Shakespeare's golden time. Pericles, are we
really sure it's his? Totally, absolutely positive? Was he not feeling
well that month?

For those of us who have seen them all, or nearly all-what a treat to
get a look at Pericles. For newbies?

Re: Shakespeare Films

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0860  Friday, 18 September 1998.

[1]     From:   Kenneth S. Rothwell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 17 Sep 1998 09:07:45 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0854  Re: Helpmann's Tempest and Sh. Films

[2]     From:   Christine Mack Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 17 Sep 1998 11:47:45 CST6CDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0854  Shakespeare in Love

[3]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 17 Sep 1998 09:47:14 -0700
        Subj:   SHK 9.0854  Re: Helpmann's Tempest and Sh. Films -Reply


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kenneth S. Rothwell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 17 Sep 1998 09:07:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 9.0854  Re: Helpmann's Tempest and Sh. Films
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0854  Re: Helpmann's Tempest and Sh. Films

Dear Colleagues,

Little wonder that there is so much mystery about the Wellesian
Shakespeare oeuvre. No one besides Michelangelo started and stopped more
projects. So far as his abandoned Shakespeare films are concerned (which
include MV, Lr.[a movie, not the Brook TV version] and a possible role
in the 1970 Burge/Snell JC as Brutus), I have found very useful an
article by Jonathan Rosenbaum, "The Invisible Orson Welles: A First
Inventory," Sight and Sound 55.3 (Summer 1968), 164-71. Therein
Rosenbaum describes the disappearance of the MV film and the role of
Welles's friend, Oja Kodar, in apparently rescuing parts of it.  Some
footage may remain embedded in a Kodar film Jaded (1989).  Lack of
financing, a familiar enough scenario for Welles, sabotaged the making
of King Lear, which he had hoped to make into a new kind of Shakespeare
film. Ken Rothwell

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Christine Mack Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 17 Sep 1998 11:47:45 CST6CDT
Subject: 9.0854  Shakespeare in Love
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0854  Shakespeare in Love

Just a small correction to Bill Kemp's post about _Shakespeare in Love_:
it's Joseph Fiennes who's playing Shakespeare in the film; he's Ralph
Fiennes's younger brother and has done quite a bit of stage work with
the RSC.

Chris Gordon

[Editor's Note: MEA CULPA! The fault dear Chris is not with Bill but
with Hardy. I take full responsibility for changing Bill Kemp's Joseph
to Ralph. This was a case of unwarranted editorial intervention. Thanks
for setting the record straight. -Hardy]

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 17 Sep 1998 09:47:14 -0700
Subject: Re: Helpmann's Tempest and Sh. Films -Reply
Comment:        SHK 9.0854  Re: Helpmann's Tempest and Sh. Films -Reply

The esteemed Hugh Davis and I have clashing memories.  The Orson Welles'
Lear available in catalogs is a TV production directed by Peter Brook!
It was broadcast on Omnibus many, many years ago.  It is not test
footage for a film.  Mr. Welles did want to film Lear, and the last
portion of his life was given to raising backing for it.  Backing never
materialized.  He did leave several scripts for the film, each tailored
to suit different backers.  Wouldn't a comparison of these make for
interesting reading?  Anyone know how to get access to them?

I'm certain that the film taken from Welles' hotel was footage of
Merchant.  What I am not certain about is the length, the year he made
it, and if Welles considered the film finished.  I think I remember 45
minutes, that it was finished, and I haven't a clue about the year, but
those memories are far murkier than the others.

Curious things, memories.

Mike Jensen

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.