2000

Cross-Cultural Casting

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0636  Friday, 31 March 2000.

From:           Roger Batt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 30 Mar 2000 17:07:22 +0200
Subject: 11.0532 Cross-Cultural Casting
Comment:        RE: SHK 11.0532 Cross-Cultural Casting

It is not really Cross-Cultural casting I suppose, but last summer I
directed HenryV for The Drama Group of Monaco here on the Cote d'Azur
and I did all the French Court scenes in French (I luckily had a
bilingual actor for Norfolk who could speak English in one court and
French in the other).  It seemed to work well, but then I was biased.

Roger

Re: The Button

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0635  Friday, 31 March 2000.

[1]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 30 Mar 2000 06:04:05 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0625 Re: The Button

[2]     From:   David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 30 Mar 2000 13:52:06 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0625 Re: The Button

[3]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 30 Mar 2000 11:21:30 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0625 Re: The Button


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 30 Mar 2000 06:04:05 +0100
Subject: 11.0625 Re: The Button
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0625 Re: The Button

> With respect to Professor Hawkes's reasonable but not conclusive
> suggestion that "Pray you, undo this button" refers to a button "on
> Cordelia's garment", couldn't it be Lear's garment?

There'sa swatch of disputed readings around this point -- "My poor fool
is hanged" -- Cordelia or the (literal) Fool?

Robin Hamilton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 30 Mar 2000 13:52:06 -0500
Subject: 11.0625 Re: The Button
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0625 Re: The Button

Call it my fantasy, but I hear Lear's request to undo this button,
probably of his cloak, as, unconsciously, a request to drop these
lendings-his body-and let his soul finally fly free. I think there was a
belief that at death the soul flies up, or is carried up, out of the
mouth, and that may be what Lear sees: Cordelia's soul leaving her mouth
and flying toward heaven.  Directing it, I would have him point to her
mouth, watch the invisible soul fly upward, and fall back dead. Her soul
flying upward to heaven would be proto-Christian: the foreshadowing of
the "good news" in the fact that despite Cordelia's horrible death her
soul is saved. Even if it were possible, though, I wouldn't make this
explicit by making the soul visible, like Tinkerbelle. The promise
remains only a hint, possibly a hallucination.

David

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 30 Mar 2000 11:21:30 -0800
Subject: 11.0625 Re: The Button
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0625 Re: The Button

Robin Hamilton draws attention to the importance of which button Lear
asks to be undone:

> But it IS significant ... If Lear is asking for his own button to be
> undone, he's asking for help, a New Reformed King Lear.  If it's
> Cordelia's, then he imagines she's still alive-an Old Deluded Lear.

Could we have it both ways?  Would trying to actually help another
person, and needing the help of another other person to do it, show that
he's moving away from the crass manipulation of the opening scenes?
Helping Cordelia to breathe is surely as much evidence of the "New
Reformed King Lear" as courteously conscripting a valet would be.

But I can only agree that it's a crux which isn't really solved by stage
directions.  A serious interpretation of the last scene would either
have to decide on characterological grounds, find a reading that works
in either case, or collapse into mere relativism and undecidability.

Cheers,
Se


Re: "Beyond Tradition"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0633  Thursday, 30 March 2000.

From:           Bill Gelber <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Mar 2000 23:02:50 EST
Subject: 11.0616 Re: "Beyond Tradition"
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0616 Re: "Beyond Tradition"

I don't have a copy of either but my theatre department at the
University of Texas at Austin did. I believe the book may still be
available.

Bill Gelber

Re: Titus Warning

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0634  Thursday, 30 March 2000.

From:           Ken Meaney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 30 Mar 2000 09:38:35 +0300
Subject: 11.0601 Re: Titus Warning
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0601 Re: Titus Warning

Mike Jensen doesn't say exactly which Titus movie he is talking about,
but I assume he means the one directed by Lorn Richley. Those intrigued
might like to visit the movie's web page at
http://www.richeyproductions.com/titus/ -- says it all, really.

Ken Meaney

Re: Two Noble Kinsmen

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0632  Thursday, 30 March 2000.

From:           Drew Whitehead <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 30 Mar 2000 09:52:25 +1000 (GMT+1000)
Subject: 11.0610 Re: Two Noble Kinsmen
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0610 Re: Two Noble Kinsmen

> I'm going to really stick my neck out for some flaming here, but maybe
> because the simplicity and silliness of the love/honor conflict seems
> more like early French classical drama than mature Shakespeare.  At
> least that's the effect it had on me in my one experience of seeing the
> show produced at Ashland.
>
> Ed Pixley

I have no wish to flame anybody Ed, but regardless what any of us may
think of the play as a piece of theatre (I have never seen it
performed), the fact remains that TNK is included in ALL the major and
most recent editions of Shakespeare's plays: The Arden, Oxford, Penguin,
Norton, Riverside, Folger, and  Cambridge.  It is also, by way of
paradox, included in the Arkangel Audio Series published by Penguin
based upon the Pelican Series.  So why no Pelican edition?  I am simply
curious.  Perhaps I should write to them directly.

Drew Whitehead

                        Our reasons are not prophets
                        When oft our fancies are
                        (The Two Noble Kinsmen 5.3)

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.