1999

Shakespeare Assn of America

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1828  Tuesday, 26 October 1999.

From:           Jerry Bangham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Oct 1999 17:57:31 -0500
Subject:        Shakespeare Assn of America

>Forwarded from the Theatre History list - Contact Prof. Patterson at his
>e-mail address or post to the list and I'll make sure he gets the
>information

Can anyone please supply me with the e-mail address for the Shakespeare
Association of America?

Searching the net yields only an extinct URL in Toronto.

Thank you in advance.

Prof Michael Patterson [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]
Department of Performing Arts
De Montfort University
Leicester LE1 9BH

Editor's Note: I'll just go ahead answer this one: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. -Hardy]

Re: Old Bill

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1827  Tuesday, 26 October 1999.

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Oct 1999 13:04:15 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1815 Re: Old Bill

[2]     From:   Judith Matthews Craig <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Oct 1999 19:57:43 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1815 Re: Old Bill


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Oct 1999 13:04:15 -0700
Subject: 10.1815 Re: Old Bill
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1815 Re: Old Bill

Terence Hawkes writes:

>His visit raises the much more complex question of the social and
>political use to which both plays and Bard are currently put in
>Britain.  The events indicated a clear opposition between dissidence on
>the one hand (from which it was felt that  Mr. Jiang Zemin should
>shielded by vigorous police action)  and non-dissidence on the other (to
>which it was assumed he could he could be safely exposed by a visit to
>the new Globe Theatre).

I'm wondering how much these assumptions proved to be correct.  After
all, a number of people commented on the irony of showing Julius Caesar,
and there were, a correspondent to this list informs us, protests at the
Globe.

Could we see other things to which Mr. Zemin was subjected on his
travels in a similar light?  He had lunch with Chirac, so is a French
dining room assumed to be an anti-dissident setting?  What about a TGV?
And of course he visited my university campus, where protesters were
pepper-strayed by the mounted police.  Were Canadian universities, like
the Globe, incorrectly assumed to be non-dissident settings?

I suppose we could say that any setting ceases to be a locus of
dissidence if it's heavily secured.  Both the French presidential dining
room and the Globe qualify, in which case, we're no longer discussing
the perception of Shakespeare as dissident or anti-dissident, any more
than we're discussing the perception of Roquefort as dissident or
anti-dissident.  The readiness is all.

Cheers,
Se


Re: Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1825  Tuesday, 26 October 1999.

[1]     From:   Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Oct 1999 15:13:07 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1821 Re: Hamlet

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Oct 1999 12:53:39 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1821 Re: Hamlet

[3]     From:   David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Oct 1999 17:02:49 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1821 Re: Hamlet

[4]     From:   Karen Peterson-Kranz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 26 Oct 1999 21:20:19 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1821 Re: Hamlet


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Oct 1999 15:13:07 EDT
Subject: 10.1821 Re: Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1821 Re: Hamlet

Perry Herzfeld writes:

>Just on the matter of Hamlet, although slightly unrelated, I have just
>been re-reading Bradley's descriptions of Gertrude.  I cannot help but
>be totally struck at the, well, 1950-ness of it all.  Gertrude "loved to
>be happy, like a sheep in the sun and ... it pleases her to see others
>happy, like more sheep in the sun."  Surely such a reading of Gertrude
>is totally unfair to her character.  We need not go as far as to say
>that she is a seductive temptress (i.e., the Olivier version), but I
>think that there is a much stronger case to be made for Gertrude as a
>period woman, fulfilling the supportive role that she is expected to
>play.  How can Bradley be so incisive at times, and yet support this
>"sheep-theory" which clearly does not square with moments such as where
>Gertrude defends Claudius from Laertes' fury?  Thank goodness we have
>moved on a little.

On the contrary, Perry, I see Gertrude (as compared, say, to
Clytaemnestra) as one of the flattest females in the Shakespearean
canon, conspicuous by her lack of anything approaching a personality,
and incapable of Lady Macbeth's mad zeal or Kate's spunk or Beatrice's
fire.  She is a non-entity, an ungrieving widow and an oblivious mother,
whose emotional repertoire seems to be bounded by lust (and a lukewarm
lust at that).  Her sole function in the play appears to be to serve as
a foil to her son, and to be the casual victim of Claudius' campaign to
annihilate the competition, much as the equally ineffectual Polonius is
the casual victim of Hamlet's momentary vengeance on what he thinks is
Claudius.

But at least Polonius lives and breathes, before we nose him under the
stairs.

I dislike Gertrude intensely as a human being more than as a woman for
her inertia, which is worse than her son's inaction, and for being more
kine than kith where he and his banishment are concerned.  Alas, poor
Hamlet-perhaps after all it was something in's blood?

Cheers,
Carol Barton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Oct 1999 12:53:39 -0700
Subject: 10.1821 Re: Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1821 Re: Hamlet

Perry Hezfeld writes:

>Just on the matter of Hamlet, although slightly unrelated, I have just
>been re-reading Bradley's descriptions of Gertrude.  I cannot help but
>be totally struck at the, well, 1950-ness of it all.  Gertrude "loved to
>be happy, like a sheep in the sun and ... it pleases her to see others
>happy, like more sheep in the sun."

I'm wondering, actually, what Bradley's turn of the century background
might add to the description.  A lot of people lived closer to the land
than in the 1950s, since urbanization has been ongoing for the last
century.  In fact, I sometimes wonder how ethereal sheep seemed in
pastoral imagery up to the recent past.  Farmers are certainly aware
that they mate, defecate and have young.

Could Bradley's description make Gertrude rather sensual, in an oddly
innocent and unself-conscious way?  This would actually place her
somewhere between a helpless waif and the "seductive temptress" you find
in the Olivier version.  I think this reading would be compatible both
with the folio and Q2 character, who is incapable of understanding that
her first husband was assassinated, and the Q1 character, who's
devastated to find out.

Cheers,
Se


Re: Productions of Much Ado

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1826  Tuesday, 26 October 1999.

From:           David Skeele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Oct 1999 16:24:33 -0300
Subject: 10.1781 Re: Long Wharf Theatre Production of Much Ado
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1781 Re: Long Wharf Theatre Production of Much Ado

>I did not see the Long Wharf production, but I saw the current
>production (which was very good) of Much Ado at The Repertory Theatre of
>St. Louis, and it seems to have a mild conceptual similarity with the
>production you describe. Like the Long Wharf production, the St. Louis
>Much Ado was set in 1918 at the close of WW1.
>
>A FASCINATING choice was made with Don John here: when he enters with
>the rest of the soldiers in 1.1, he is wearing military dress from WW1,
>covered by a brown leather trench coat. He stands off to the side,
>keeping his arms crossed and inside his trench coat. When Leonato
>approaches him with "Let me bid you welcome...," he holds out his hand
>to shake Don John's hand. Don John replies with his "I thank you," and
>then extends his arm, which reveals a bandage covering an amputated
>limb, obviously a war wound.

In reading about these various MUCH ADOs set in the periods succeeding
actual historical wars, I am curious-has anyone ever done or seen a
production in which the battle described was actually one BETWEEN Don
Pedro and Don John?  I was in a production (directed by SHAKSPERean Paul
Nelsen) in which this choice was made, and it opened up many interesting
possibilities.  In particular, it made the choice to forgive Don John at
the beginning particularly poignant, since instead of having committed
some vague, nameless sin against Don Pedro, Don John was actually the
source of all the bloodshed.  I never hear of anyone else making this
connection, however.

   David Skeele

P.S. to Mike Jensen: I believe that "civilised" is an accepted British
spelling of the word.

Re: Shakespeare on Audio

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1824  Tuesday, 26 October 1999.

[1]     From:   Melissa Kolar <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Oct 99 14:13:07 DT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1798 Q: Shakespeare on Audio

[2]     From:   Mary Jane Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Oct 1999 14:13:20 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1812 Re: Shakespeare on Audio

[3]     From:   Marion Aston <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Oct 1999 22:05:14 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1812 Re: Shakespeare on Audio

[4]     From:   An Sonjae <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 26 Oct 1999 09:10:18 +0900
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1812 Re: Shakespeare on Audio


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Melissa Kolar <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Oct 99 14:13:07 DT
Subject: 10.1798 Q: Shakespeare on Audio
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1798 Q: Shakespeare on Audio

>I want to buy some audio cassettes of some plays.  Does anyone have any
>suggestions?  Is it better to get the full-cast productions or the
>one-reader versions?  Are there any particularly great or bad versions?

The Caedmon Audio, full-cast productions have worked well for me.  You
might check the latest CLEARVUE/eav calalogue for information.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mary Jane Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Oct 1999 14:13:20 -0500
Subject: 10.1812 Re: Shakespeare on Audio
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1812 Re: Shakespeare on Audio

The CBC and Stratford collaborated in a superb Tempest with William Hutt
as Prospero ( before this last  summer's triumph). I have no other
details having heard it on the radio but I think  it is for sale.

Mary Jane

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marion Aston <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Oct 1999 22:05:14 +0100
Subject: 10.1812 Re: Shakespeare on Audio
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1812 Re: Shakespeare on Audio

First of all I would like to take exception with Perry Herzfeld.  So -
Kenneth Branagh is arrogant and annoying - has he me him?  Or what other
kind of observation does he base this statement on.

Regarding audio productions - apart from the excellent Renaissance
Theatre recordings that have already been mentioned, there were the
recent BBC recordings on Radio 3 (I appreciate this is primarily of
interest for UK people, but they will probably become available
elsewhere).  So far we have had Hamlet - starring Michael Sheen as
Hamlet, Juliet Stevenson as Gertrude and Kenneth Cranham as Claudius.
Julius Ceasar with Nick Farrell and Jonathan Firth,; Romeo and Juliet
(can't remember who starred, because I forgot to record it) and A
Midsummer Nights Dream.  I am told that all these are now available to
buy - they have certainly been advertised by the RSC.

Marion

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           An Sonjae <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 26 Oct 1999 09:10:18 +0900
Subject: 10.1812 Re: Shakespeare on Audio
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1812 Re: Shakespeare on Audio

If you are going to use the tape in class, it is rather important to
have a 'full text' version or the students will keep losing their
place.  This is my problem with the Argo Old Vic (Derek Jacobi) version,
which also re-locates a whole section of text in Act 4 for no clear
reason.  Unfortunately it is often hard to know if a given version is
full-text or not. Certainly the Marlowe Company versions (Argo) usually
were, and I believe that the Caedmon (now HarperCollins) versions were.
It is also sometimes hard to distinguish versions when ordering from
Amazon.com or the Internet Bookshop, they do not give full information.
The Renaissance Theatre (Random Century / Branagh) version (originally a
BBC broadcasting version) suffers from too many background noises
(especially unnecessary running water and twittering birds) and lengthy
music (so annoying in the classroom when you cannot remember how long it
lasts and if you ought to speed forward but for how long?). Film
versions(video) are also usually radically cut, so that students cannot
follow the dialogue in their texts. Korean students often find the sound
of videos difficult to hear and the response is very different if they
are watching a version with Korean subtitles (alas?).

An Sonjae (Brother Anthony)
Sogang University, Seoul

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.