2000

Knock Knock

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0298  Saturday, 12 February 2000.

From:           "Skip Nicholson" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 11 Feb 2000 16:20:03 -0800
Subject:        Knock Knock

A colleague has asked two questions about Macbeth, and after quickly
answering no to both, I paused to realize that I don't really know. Do
others? Related to those questions come a couple others:: Is Seyton or
the Seyton family name historical? Do most now see the Porter as
Shakespearean?  The Arden 2 cites some doubt. Thanks for any help with
this.

Cheers,
Skip Nicholson
South Pasadena (CA) HS
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

ACMRS Calendar of Events

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0297  Saturday, 12 February 2000.

From:           T. Scott Clapp <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 11 Feb 2000 10:42:56 -0700
Subject:        ACMRS Calendar of Events

Please accept my apologies for any cross-posting that may occur.

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to take this opportunity to announce that the ACMRS Spring
2000 Calendar of Events and Newsletter have been posted on our website
at http://www.asu.edu/clas/acmrs and are now available for viewing. In
addition, the final version of our conference program has also been
posted.  All documents are available in portable document format (pdf)
which requires the free plug-in software Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Some of the highlights of this semester's programming include:

The 6th Annual ACMRS Conference: Fear and Its Representations in the
Middle Ages and the Renaissance (see
http://www.asu.edu/clas/acmrs/conf.html for more info).

A Special Spring Public Symposium: "A Life's Work": Donald Jackson and
the Saint John's Bible (see
http://www.asu.edu/clas/acmrs/Spring_Symposium_2000.html for more info).

>http://www.asu.edu/clas/acmrs/Armistead.html for more info).

As always, thank you for your continued support of ACMRS.

Sincerely,
T. Scott Clapp
Program Coordinator

Re: Taymor on Titus

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0295  Saturday, 12 February 2000.

[1]     From:   Matt Kozusko <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 10 Feb 2000 09:54:27 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0281 Re: Taymor on Titus

[2]     From:   Andrea Vandeyck <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 10 Feb 2000 10:35:30 -0800
        Subj:   Re: Taymor on Titus

[3]     From:   Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, February 12, 2000
        Subj:   Titus Opens in DC


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Matt Kozusko <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 10 Feb 2000 09:54:27 -0600
Subject: 11.0281 Re: Taymor on Titus
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0281 Re: Taymor on Titus

Certainly worth seeing at any reasonable cost, even for the casual fan.
Some of the cast preferred to act right over their lines, as if the
words were stage business intended to occupy performers as they snarled
and swooned, rather than the stuff of the drama itself.  But much of it
came off nicely.  No dramatic departures, no intolerable diversions.
Only a tactful handful of 20th-century updatings that, for instance,
brought Chiron and Demetrius burstingly to life in the ADHD era.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Andrea Vandeyck <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 10 Feb 2000 10:35:30 -0800
Subject:        Re: Taymor on Titus

In response to Nicole Imbracsio's comments on Titus, I agree there were
problems with the film, but I think the declaration that the movie is
"horrible" is harsh.  My problem with the film mainly lie with the
inconsistencies and superfluous moments.  Using Lucius as a frame into
and out of the film is a very good idea; the problem is Taymor drops him
and then suddenly brings him back close to the end, jarring the
audience.  She does the same with the images of hewn limbs; they appear
throughout the early scenes, cluttering Rome, and then the imagery
stops, leaving the audience abandoned.

While the scene where Lavinia is discovered worked for my in its
understatement, moments such as moving Tamora and Titus to opposite
sides of the screen with images of fire spouting between them is
superfluous and unnecessary, as Nicole Imbracsio indicated.  Taymor does
get caught up with cinematography at odd moments and these disorient the
audience.

Overall, I thought Titus was a good though inconsistent film.  To
Taymor's credit, she did not indulge in moments of gore; Titus can
easily be reduced to a horror movie of violence and death.  The film is
visually stunning and, I believe, worthwhile to see.

This film will, undoubtedly, produce controversy.  I look forward to
hearing what others think.

Andrea Vandeyck

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, February 12, 2000
Subject:        Titus Opens in DC

Taymor's Titus just opened in Washington, D.C. The Washington Post
reviews can be found at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-02/11/013l-021100-idx.html
and
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-02/11/075l-021100-idx.html

Query on R&J Prologue

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0296  Saturday, 12 February 2000.

From:           Marilyn A. Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 10 Feb 2000 08:57:41 -0500
Subject:        Query on R&J Prologue

My Honors students have raised a question for which I have no clear
answer and so am turning to my brilliant and articulate listmates for
help.

I remember my college professor telling us that Shakespeare almost
definitely did not write the Prologue to Act II and probably not the
Prologue to Act I.

>From what source might he have obtained such an opinion?

Further, it makes sense to me on a number of levels.  The second
prologue is intrusive; there is NO prologue for Acts 3-5; act and scene
divisions are editorial and arbitrary at any rate.

On a more thematic level, within the play ONLY Romeo professes a belief
in stars, fate, Fortune.  Every other character recognizes the primacy
of human action.  And yet the Prologue asserts that the pair are
"star-crossed lovers"  "whose misadventured, piteous overthrows" lead to
the end of the feud with their own lives.  The play does NOT to me seem
to support Fortune as the culprit; it seems much more to me a tragedy of
character, albeit not a very profound one in comparison to the later
plays.

Hence the question: if Shakespeare DID write the Prologue, is he
asserting that Fate is indeed the Prime Mover of this tragedy?

I welcome a thorough discussion; I have thoughts on the 1.4 line about
"he that hath the steerage of my course" for example.  But I look
forward to others' thoughts.

Marilyn A. Bonomi

Re: Rghts to Images

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0294  Saturday, 12 February 2000.

[1]     From:   Nora Kreimer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 10 Feb 2000 12:01:38 -0300
        Subj:   RE: SHK 11.0288 Rights to ImagesRe:

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 10 Feb 2000 12:31:28 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0288 Rights to Images


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Nora Kreimer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 10 Feb 2000 12:01:38 -0300
Subject: 11.0288 Rights to Images
Comment:        RE: SHK 11.0288 Rights to Images

The MLA has info concerning the use of material downloaded from the WEB,
which includes graphics. My students acknowledge sources as prescribed
and thus, we disclaim all possible accusations of trangression.
Webmaterial us public, so long as acknowledgement is provided. There are
cases, though, as the Alhambra in Spain where no access to large images
is provided. I presume that in such cases special permission should be
granted.

Regards,
Nyke

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 10 Feb 2000 12:31:28 -0500
Subject: 11.0288 Rights to Images
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0288 Rights to Images

Brother Anthony wrote

> I assume that reproductions of paintings and objects in American museums
> are subject to similar restrictions? It's not copyright as applied to
> published texts, it's rights to images of property. So long as something
> belongs to someone (person or institution) its image is protected.

Not so. A similar issue is being discussed on the copyright law list
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., if anyone is interested.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.