2000

Re: "Beyond Tradition"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0616  Wednesday, 29 March 2000.

From:           Norman J. Myers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 28 Mar 2000 12:55:35 -0500
Subject: 11.065 Cross-Cultural and Colour-Blind Casting
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.065 Cross-Cultural and Colour-Blind Casting

>Both a video tape and a book exist called "Beyond Tradition" which deal
>with the subject of cross-cultural and color-blind casting. The video
>gives example scenes: e.g. "'Night Mother" with two black actresses,
>etc.

Any idea where it can be obtained?

Norman Myers

Re: What is truth in theatre?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0615  Wednesday, 29 March 2000.

[1]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 28 Mar 2000 18:03:42 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0604 What is truth in theatre?

[2]     From:   David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 28 Mar 2000 13:33:36 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0604 What is truth in theatre?

[3]     From:   Dale Lyles <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:46:11 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0604 What is truth in theatre?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 28 Mar 2000 18:03:42 +0100
Subject: 11.0604 What is truth in theatre?
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0604 What is truth in theatre?

Sarah Boswell writes

>My question to you all is whether you believe there is truth in theatre,
>what is it, where is it and what your opinion is on how to get it.

The entire theatrical experience is predicated on lying. I mean not that
trivial lie of persons pretending to be other persons but the much more
sinister deception which is the announcement that "The performance will
begin in 3 minutes". Knowing this to be false, one tosses off a
perfectly good drink in order to keep the front-of-house personnel in
the comfortable delusion that we believe their timekeeping.

None of this would still be happening if government had acceded to the
trades unionists' demand of shorter hours, made way back in 1972. (55
minutes by 1980, 50 minutes by the turn of the millennium.)

Gabriel Egan

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 28 Mar 2000 13:33:36 -0500
Subject: 11.0604 What is truth in theatre?
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0604 What is truth in theatre?

Hah-hah.  Bye-bye.

David "Pilate" Evett

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dale Lyles <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:46:11 EST
Subject: 11.0604 What is truth in theatre?
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0604 What is truth in theatre?

Dare I say that "all of the above" is the correct answer?

Dale Lyles
Newnan Community Theatre Company
http://shenandoah.peachnet.edu/nctc

Re: Elizabeth's Writings

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0613  Wednesday, 29 March 2000.

[1]     From:   Sarah Werner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 28 Mar 2000 11:29:37 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.064 Re: Queen Elizabeth

[2]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 28 Mar 2000 08:43:27 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 11.064 Re: Queen Elizabeth

[3]     From:   Kristen Olson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 28 Mar 2000 14:58:10 EST
        Subj:   Re: Elizabeth's Writings


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sarah Werner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 28 Mar 2000 11:29:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 11.064 Re: Queen Elizabeth
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.064 Re: Queen Elizabeth

While waiting for the new critical editions of her writings, some of
Elizabeth's poems, speeches, translations and letters can be found
online through Luminarium
(http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/elizabib.htm) and, if you or your
institution subscribes, through the Brown Women Writer's Project
(http://www.wwp.brown.edu/index.html)

Sarah Werner

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 28 Mar 2000 08:43:27 -0800
Subject: Re: Queen Elizabeth
Comment:        SHK 11.064 Re: Queen Elizabeth

I want to thank Frank Whingham and Jack Heller who graciously told me
about the forthcoming book on QE1's writings.  For anyone else
interested in details, using their clues I found it at Amazon, and the
essentials are:

Elizabeth I : Speeches, Letters, Verses, and Prayers by Elizabeth, Leah
S. Marcus (Editor), Janel M. Mueller (Editor), Mary Beth Rose $40.00
University of Chicago Press  To be published in July 2000.

With gratitude,
Mike Jensen

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kristen Olson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 28 Mar 2000 14:58:10 EST
Subject:        Re: Elizabeth's Writings

I was also at this MLA session-very exciting, truly.  (One of the times
I've wished most for early modern memory skills!)  The editors are Leah
Marcus, Janel Mueller, and Mary Beth Rose.  The title is something like
Collected Writings of EI, and it's due out from Chicago sometime this
summer.  From what I remember, the collection is intended as a
single-volume edition of Elizabeth's writing which will range from the
public speeches and well-known (to us) verse to comparatively "private"
letters.  Most notable is Elizabeth's correspondence with James, which
figures a kinship relation in fascinatingly mutable terms-an
illuminating counterpoint to the gender dynamics observable in the
speeches and elsewhere.  While the editors acknowledged that a truly
"comprehensive" collection would require multiple volumes, this edition
promises to be a provocative and wide-ranging collection notwithstanding
limitations of print space.

-Kristen Olson

Re: ADO Query

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0614  Wednesday, 29 March 2000.

[1]     From:   Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 28 Mar 2000 11:36:33 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0600 Re: ADO Query

[2]     From:   Karen Peterson-Kranz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Mar 2000 09:41:30 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0600 Re: ADO Query

[3]     From:   Veronique Booker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Mar 2000 11:38:26 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0600 Re: ADO Query


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 28 Mar 2000 11:36:33 -0500
Subject: 11.0600 Re: ADO Query
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0600 Re: ADO Query

David Evett is baffled:

>Clifford Stetner feels that Benedick's resolve to go get Beatrice's
>picture must be "clarified with props".  I confess myself baffled by
>this; the literal understanding of the line is surely within the reach
>of C20 spectators even if they do not know about the tradition of
>miniature paintings I referred to in an earlier post.  Does Mr. Stetner
>have no friends or relations who carry photos of their loved ones in
>their wallets?

Well, I confess I was thinking more of the Hamlet closet scene in a
general observation about Shakespeare's use of pictures, but it applies
here, too.  What is this discussion about except for the ambiguity of
the line if there is no prop to define it?   And do Mr. Evett's loved
ones not carry their wallets about them (he asked sarcastically)?

>I would also like to take exception to his smug insistence on "the
>superiority of the poet's art over the painter's, as there is little
>room in a miniature for more than one meaning at a time." Whether the
>visual arts afford exact analogues to verbal irony is a nice and very
>complex question.  But as I have argued in Literature and the Visual
>Arts in Tudor England (280 ff.), pictures, statues, even architecture
>can certainly convey more than one meaning at a time;

If you read smugness into my lines, God knows what you read into
Shakespeare's.  I make no claim for the one or the other, but in your
research you certainly discovered that the debate was popular in the
Renaissance among poets and painters alike.  Vision standing highest on
the Platonic ladder of the senses, visual artists claimed supereminence,
while defenders of poetry like Sidney claimed virtually divine status
for their art.

>and whether by the
>inclusion of symbolic items, or more subtly by the exaggeration or
>suppression of formal and gestural conventions within the framing
>tradition of early modern portraiture, even something as small as a
>miniature might inscribe for a sophisticated viewer a complex set of
>significations.

Painter: 'Tis common:

A thousand moral paintings I can show
That shall demonstrate these quick blows of Fortune's
More pregnantly than words. (TA I.i.90)

>In any case the remark comes oddly in connection with
>work written for the theater; it appears to privilege radio over the
>stage, and silent reading over both.

The dramatist may be making a claim to combine the best of both worlds.

Clifford

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen Peterson-Kranz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Mar 2000 09:41:30 +1000
Subject: 11.0600 Re: ADO Query
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0600 Re: ADO Query

>>I would be interested to know
>>whether there are other examples in the period of it being the woman's
>>image rather than the man's that is said to be painted or printed when a
>>child is 'got'.

I was so certain that someone else would cite the following, from
Twelfth Night, that I did not originally respond.  But no one did, so I
will:

    Vio.    Good madam, let me see your face.
    Oli.    Have you any commission from your lord to negotiate with my
face?  You are now out of your text; but we will draw the curtain, and
show
you the picture.  Look you, sir, such a one I was this present.
[Unveiling.]  Is't not well done?
    Vio.    Excellently done, if God did all.
    Oli.    'Tis in grain, sir, 'twill endure wind and weather.
    Vio.    'Tis beauty truly blent, whose red and white
Nature's own sweet and cunning hand laid on.
Lady, you are the cruell'st she alive
If you will lead these graces to the grave,
And leave the world no copy.        (I.v.230-243)('74 Riverside)

Cheers,
Karen Peterson-Kranz
University of Guam

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Veronique Booker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Mar 2000 11:38:26 EST
Subject: 11.0600 Re: ADO Query
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0600 Re: ADO Query

Greetings,

I've been reading this thread with great interest over the past couple
of days.  The discussion about sonnet 3 prompted me to join in.
Presently, I'm writing my masters thesis on Shakespeare's sonnets. In
one of my chapters I discuss this issue with painting... It seems, to me
at least, that the idea of "painting" can be a symbol of
artifice/falsehood-in some of the plays as well as in the sonnets. In
Hamlet, the mousetrap scene. Hamlet tells Ophelia, " I have heard of
your paintings, well enough. God hath given you one face, and you make
yourselves another..." (3.1.42).

And I find sonnet 3 problematic. Yes, it is the mothers image that is
repainted, but it seems only for the purpose of reproduction. But there
are two mothers in this sonnet! If we look at line 4, "Thou dost beguile
the world unbless some mother," we see that the mother in this case,
does not even have a name-she's just some woman who can reproduce the
young man's image.  However, Sonnet 83, "I never saw that you did
painting need..." seems to suggest that" painting represents a form of
artifice... The poet did not ornament young man via a painting because
it could not represent the young man's true being. And then the poet
mentions that he "thought" poetry would not properly represent the young
man as well. So in sonnet 83, both the speaker's poetry, and painting
fall short!

Just some thoughts here,,,
Veronique

Re: Romeo Must Die

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0612  Wednesday, 29 March 2000.

[1]     From:   Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 28 Mar 2000 11:28:55 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.060 Re: Romeo Must Die

[2]     From:   Peter Hyland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 28 Mar 2000 22:02:42 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.060 Re: Romeo Must Die


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 28 Mar 2000 11:28:55 -0500
Subject: 11.060 Re: Romeo Must Die
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.060 Re: Romeo Must Die

Karen Peterson-Kranz wrote:

>I definitely don't want to be snippy, especially in response to anything
>Tanya writes, since she and Poor Yorick provide such a valuable service
>to all of us, especially those like me who live in far-flung corners.
>But...

aw, shucks.  *blush*

>It simply isn't accurate, nor is it far, to suggest that the two
>Kurosawa films Tanya mentions, Ran and Throne of Blood, are part of the
>"martial arts" genre.  In many ways, to classify them simply as "samurai
>translations" is oversimplifying as well.  True, they use medieval Japan
>as their setting.  But these films go far beyond their genre.  You
>simply must see them; you may not agree with me that Throne of Blood is
>the finest interpretation (note: not a "version") of Macbeth on film,
>but both are essential viewing.

Samurai swordplay, is related to kung fu (or wushu, which is what Jet Li
does) in that they all developed from the same principles of movement
and philosophy (again, I am over simplifying, but I don't think this is
the place to get into the specifics of martial arts).  Certainly the
Kurosawa films transcend their genre, but that doesn't change the fact
that they are rooted in Japanese culture and gain as much of their power
from their local history as they do from the Shakespeare films they draw
from.  I appreciate Karen's enthusiasm (which I share), but I didn't
think this was the place to extrapolate on the virtues of Kurosawa's
films beyond the fact that they are related by proxy.

At any rate, I understood Jimmy's question to be related specifically to
the fighting technique involved, and since I am not aware of any other
Hong Kong films that relate to Shakespeare in any way (please, if anyone
knows of any, tell me!), I thought it would be appropriate to expand the
topic to include other Asian films.

My apologies if I offended in my haste to respond.  Please be assured
that no harm was intended, certainly not against our dearly beloved
Kurosawa-sama.

Moshiwake arimasen

Tanya

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Hyland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 28 Mar 2000 22:02:42 -0800
Subject: 11.060 Re: Romeo Must Die
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.060 Re: Romeo Must Die

While Karen Peterson-Kranz is right to say that Kurosawa's Ran and
Throne of Blood are not simply part of the "martial arts" genre, in
suggesting that Tanya Gough is oversimplifying, she oversimplifies
herself. Karen objected to Tanya's description of these films as "superb
examples of Samurai translations", implying that samurai films are
basically the same as martial arts films.  It might well be that that is
what they have become, but the historical samurai culture contains a
very complex mix of social, ethical, political and military
relationships. Kurosawa knew this even if simple-minded martial artists
don't, so Tanya's description is not so far off the mark.

Peter Hyland

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.