1999

Ninagawa's King Lear

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2084  Monday, 29 November 1999.

From:           Lucia Anna Setari <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 24 Nov 1999 13:29:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Ninagawa's King Lear
Comment:        Re: SHK Ninagawa's King Lear

Has any of you seen the Ninagawa's production of King Lear at the
Barbican Theatre in London?

I'd like to know some comments.

Lucia Anna S.

Re: Burgundy and France

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2083  Monday, 29 November 1999.

From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 24 Nov 1999 16:18:36 -0500
Subject: 10.2069 Re: Burgundy and France
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.2069 Re: Burgundy and France

Mike Jensen writes:

>I have the impression that not everyone who has posted really grasps
>Wells' editorial approach.  It is not a secret.  While preparing the
>Oxford Collected Works, Wells wrote a book titled _Re-Editing
>Shakespeare for the Modern Reader,_ published in 1984.  Therein he
>discusses his approach to editing early modern texts.

Apparently Mike wants us to discuss Wellsian editorial theory and
practice in general rather than in particular.  If so, Mike, where would
you like to begin?  With the Falstaff/Oldcastle controversy?  Of course,
this would bring us right back to name changing.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

Re: Strip-club Macbeth

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2081  Thursday, 29 November 1999.

From:           David Skeele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 24 Nov 1999 11:59:10 -0400
Subject:        Re: Strip-club Macbeth

Has the "strip-club" Macbeth already been discussed?  I would like to
know more about it.

Pruriently,
David Skeele

Re: Luhrman's R+J

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2082  Monday, 29 November 1999.

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 24 Nov 1999 10:18:56 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.2071 Re: Luhrman's R+J

[2]     From:   Mark Neidorff <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 24 Nov 1999 16:56:09 -0500
        Subj:   Re: R+J

[3]     From:   Alexander Houck <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 24 Nov 1999 16:50:40 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.2071 Re: Luhrman's R+J

[4]     From:   Judy Lewis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 27 Nov 1999 17:48:41 +1300
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.2059 Re: Luhrman's R+J


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 24 Nov 1999 10:18:56 -0800
Subject: 10.2071 Re: Luhrman's R+J
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.2071 Re: Luhrman's R+J

Vince Locke writes:

>What did me in was
>the bizarre MTV/John Woo/West Side Story direction and editing, the
>comical freeze frames when new characters entered while their names and
>relationships to R+J flashed on the screen, and the stupid accents.

I'm not sure if these identifications were designed to be comical.  I
seem to recall a similar device being used in The Good, the Bad and the
Ugly and other rather good spaghetti westerns.  I rather enjoyed it, but
then again, I like John Woo, but I can see how the business of the
opening scenes or the film as a whole could be annoying.  I'd just like
to point out how the quietness of certain scenes between Romeo and
Juliet seem to contrast with the crazed energy of their setting.

Cheers,
Se


Re: Gertrude

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2080  Thursday, 29 November 1999.

From:           Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 24 Nov 1999 10:37:21 -0500
Subject: 10.1982 Re: Gertrude
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1982 Re: Gertrude

I always assumed that Gertrude was relating these details second hand.
While she would surely have rushed to Ophelia's aid had she witnessed
the events herself, one of her maids or a local peasant might not be so
presumptuous.  I envision one peasant watching the gruesome events
unfold, while another runs to the castle for help.  By the time the
palace guards arrive, or Gertrude herself, Ophelia has already been
dragged under, and so only the peasant remains, perhaps brought before
the queen to give witness.  This would be in the manner of the Clown in
Winter's Tale who describes to his father the simultaneous deaths of
Antigonus by the bear and the crew of his ship by a storm, both of which
he had to be positioned to witness, but with neither of which he could
intercede.

It is interesting that the one scene in Hamlet whose representation has
attracted the most visual artists is the invisible death of Ophelia.
Gertrude's verbal painting thereby puts Shakespeare into the rivalry
between poet and painter that was so much a part of Renaissance
aesthetic discourse.

And if Gertrude's word pictures are a demonstration of the superiority
of the poet over the painter, then the paradox of witnessing the
unwitnessed not only does not violate a reasonable suspension of
disbelief, it is a testament to the poet's transcendental power.

Clifford Stetner

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.