Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: June ::
Responses
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0943  Friday, 4 June 1999.

[1]     From:   Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 3 Jun 1999 10:48:27 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0934 Elizabeth and the Status of Players

[2]     From:   Lisa M. Rodriguez <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 04 Jun 1999 03:33:19 +0200
        Subj:   Arkangel Shakespeare

[3]     From:   Tal Carawan, Jr. <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 03 Jun 1999 15:09:04 -0400
        Subj:   That #$&* castle in Richard II!

[4]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 03 Jun 1999 09:02:26 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0937 Assorted Responses


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 3 Jun 1999 10:48:27 +0100
Subject: 10.0934 Elizabeth and the Status of Players
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0934 Elizabeth and the Status of Players

>Robin  Hamilton makes a useful distinction between the legal
>and moral status of the actors.

-- and a third element would be the (London) City Fathers' dislike of
having playhouses on their territory, because it encouraged the Prentice
Boys to take time off work.  So we have a witches' brew of
moral/social/legal elements.

Also "Puritan" in my earlier post WAS sloppy -- Milton, after all,
writes +Comus+ -- but maybe Masques were different?

Robin Hamilton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Lisa M. Rodriguez <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 04 Jun 1999 03:33:19 +0200
Subject:        Arkangel Shakespeare

Drew Whitehead wrote:

>I keep comparing them to plays that I
>have heard that have been made for solely for radio and consistently
>they don't live up to my expectations.  I fear a repetition of the BBC
>Shakespeare.  Am I being too hard?

I recently purchased Richard II and King John, and unfortunately, I
found them to be a disappointment.  Surely some of the problem is due to
casting choices, with some roles being played by actors who simply sound
far too young or far too old for the characterization selected.  An
excess of spittle accompanying the articulation of even quietly spoken
lines certainly detracted from many scenes in RII.  In general, I found
both tapes lacking in the artistic complexity and compelling drive of
the performances in the Caedmon tapes that I've heard.

I would be curious to hear Pericles, since I don't know of any other
cassette recording that is easily available, but I hesitate to spend
that sort of money on a set of tapes that I won't listen to more than
once or twice.  Has anyone heard the Arkangel Pericles?

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tal Carawan, Jr. <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 03 Jun 1999 15:09:04 -0400
Subject:        That #$&* castle in Richard II!

Thanks all for the input...and Robin, that was helpful to mention your
living in "Luffburrow" as it adds one more possibility for the second
syllable alone in Richard II's Barloughly Castle!  So we have

lock
log
luff
low
leck

As my audition is Saturday morning, I'm committed to how I've been
reading it-

Bar-lock-lee, or sometimes it comes out Bar-log-lee...

So long as I nail the rest of it, I could probably say it any old way
(unless one of the auditors comes from Loughborough!  Thank you for the
input...if I get round to obtaining one of the videos, I'll pass along
what was said, if they dared say it.  But it's full speed ahead, and now
I can focus on the bard's song (from another play) which I must also
sing.  No questions on that one, having done it on stage multiple times!

Tal Carawan, Jr.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 03 Jun 1999 09:02:26 -0700
Subject: 10.0937 Assorted Responses
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0937 Assorted Responses

Lisa Hopkins wrote:

>A footnote to the RSC Midsummer Night's Dream strand: on Saturday, I
>duly took my six-year old son to the production.  He thought it was very
>funny and magical (as did we) and wasn't remotely bothered by any of the
>'sex scenes'.  Actually, if I hadn't seen all the fuss in the papers, I
>don't think it would ever have occurred to me that anyone might find the
>production offensive.

With respect to Lisa Hopkins, and I have quite a lot, there is a bit of
hip rolling as the bed containing Bottom and Titania rises from the
floor.  Puck places the hand of Demetrius over the breast of Helena as
they lie sleeping.  Some people find these things offensive.

Talk about your teapot tempests!  I saw the production a week ago today
(as I write).  It is perhaps a hair more scatological than Adrian
Noble's production of three years ago, but just a hair.  I am stunned
that Dream has such controversy when Othello in the same theater has
simulated oral sex, and between men.  Heavens!  Tales From Ovid at the
Swan is chock full of male nudity post intermission, and Valpone, also
in the Swan, opens with the title character in bed with his dwarf,
hermaphrodite, and eunuch, though everyone is clothed.

I was offended by none of it, but all seem to me to be likelier sources
of controversy than Dream, but Dream got in the papers.  Don't people
drive you nuts?

Mike Jensen
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.