2000

Re: Mary Arden's House

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2226  Monday, 4 December 2000

From:           Tim Richards <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 02 Dec 2000 12:53:49 +1100
Subject: 11.2203 Mary Arden's House
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2203 Mary Arden's House

At 10:29 30-11-00 -0500, David Kathman posted this article:

>Shakespeare tourists view wrong house -- for 200 years

My first reaction to this was bemusement. Why on earth *do* tourists
visit the house where Shakespeare's mother lived as a child? Would you
also make a pilgrimage to Einstein's mum's home, or Picasso's dad's
kindergarten?

There's a quasi-religious whiff about all this...

Tim Richards.

Re: "Invention in a noted weed"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2225  Monday, 4 December 2000

From:           William Sutton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 1 Dec 2000 16:10:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 11.2212 Re: "Invention in a noted weed"
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2212 Re: "Invention in a noted weed"

Nutmeg and cocaine sounds good but the case seems to be closed on these
sensationalist bozos. So the Arden cottage is not the Arden homestead,
that's news. How much more is in those archives?

LOL,
William Sutton

PS /nutted/ weed. Bind me in a nutshell, Hardy, I'm the king of infinite
space. ROTFLOL

[Editors' Note: Agreeing with Peter Holland that there is not much more
fruitful that can be about this subject, I have got to offer a
correction. The alleged cocaine in the pipe or pipes must have been coco
leaves. I do not believe that cocaine was processed until the turn of
the 20th century when it came to the attention of Freud. -HMC]

Re: Edward Bond's 'Bingo

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2223  Monday, 4 December 2000

[1]     From:   L. Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 1 Dec 2000 11:48:57 -0600
        Subj:   Edward Bond, His Works and His Pomps

[2]     From:   Herman Gollob <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 2 Dec 2000 16:02:54 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.2215 Edward Bond's 'Bingo'


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           L. Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 1 Dec 2000 11:48:57 -0600
Subject:        Edward Bond, His Works and His Pomps

Years ago, I attended the premiere of "Bingo" in London.  If I remember
correctly, it starred Gielgud as the unrelievedly despondent
Shakespeare, who sat for most of the performance in profile in a chair,
terminally dour.  Albert Finney was second in nervous command.  With
such a cast, one would suppose that the very telephone book could be
made an exciting piece, but Bond's work had not even that much
electricity.  It is, in fact, probably the worst, most boring play I
have ever seen.  I could not stay for the ending, but stood outside the
theater, waiting, rather than continue the pain of watching great actors
suffer, at it seemed, through the ugliness. However, the English critics
loved it (but then they also love early John Wayne movies), and Bond
scribbled on, regurgitating another piece a while later.  I cannot
remember the name of  *that*, but, thinking at the time that I had
better give him another chance, I attended *that* one.  It starred
Glenda Jackson, whom the Costume Department had dressed as a purple flag
caught in a windstorm.  That part was memorable as unintended comedy,
the play otherwise was not, an opinion I was gratified to hear confirmed
by several in the upper galleries who began to repeat Ms. Jackson's
lines and those of other actors in loud, mocking yells.

That Mr. Bond and his plays have not been set adrift is nothing if not
miraculous, his continuing favorable reception as mysterious as the
commercial success of that sublimely ugliest of all pieces of jewelry,
the Rolex watch.

L. Swilley

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Herman Gollob <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 2 Dec 2000 16:02:54 -0500
Subject: 11.2215 Edward Bond's 'Bingo'
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2215 Edward Bond's 'Bingo'

>I'm currently teaching some classes on Edward Bond's 'Bingo', a play
>about Shakespeare from the 1970s. It's a thought-provoking play, and I
>was wondering if any list members would like to offer their views on it.
>What do you think about Bond's representation of Shakespeare as a
>selfish capitalist who repents and eventually commits suicide? And how
>about Shakespeare's death-bed speech, "Was anything done?", and its
>implied dismissal of his plays?
>
>Any comments would be appreciated.
>
>David Nicol
>UCE, Birmingham

Dear Mr. Nicol,

I saw BINGO at Stratford in 1995 and thought it a shallow tendentious
Marxist screed.  A far more powerful portrait of a Shakespeare in
torment is Edward Arlington Robinson's shattering narrative poem, BEN
JONSON ENTERTAINS A MAN FROM STRATFORD (in fact, the only redeemable
feature of BINGO is the Ben Jonson cameo, and that's mostly caricature.

Herman Gollob

Genre in Early Modern England

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2224  Monday, 4 December 2000

From:           Chris Clark <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 01 Dec 2000 23:38:23 GMT
Subject:        Genre in Early Modern England

Hi,

I'm analysing generic instability in the plays of Elizabethan/Jacobean
England. Does anyone recommend any essays/books/articles on this
subject?

I'm particularly focusing on the History Plays and the contemporary
understanding of the word "history." I consulted Raymond Williams'
Keywords, so often a great help, but his discussion does not go into
very much detail on the word in this period. I've got a number of
Chronicles out - what I'm looking for really is audience analysis and
preferably even diaries/journals/accounts - perhaps comparing the
(mainly Puritan) critics of the theatre with its defenders might be an
idea. Can anyone offer me some advice to give me a handle when
discussing this question?

Cheers,
Chris Clark
King's College London

Re: Hecate

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2222  Monday, 4 December 2000

From:           Laura Graser <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 1 Dec 2000 09:27:44 -0800
Subject: 11.2211 Re: Hecate
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2211 Re: Hecate

Last spring (2000) Tygres Heart Shakespeare Company, in Portland,
Oregon, did a wonderful Macbeth, with Hecate played by Nannette
Gatchel.  Directed by our AD, Nancy N. Doherty.

It was set c. 1000 AD.  The three witches (a young woman, an old woman,
and a middle-aged man) were played as student-witches, with day jobs (as
it were) in Dunsinane Castle.  Hecate was their boss, who appears to
chide them when they messed up--the idea being that they got in over
their heads and told Macbeth too much, and now look what he's gone and
done.

The witches were dressed as the servants they were; Hecate was in a silk
ball gown, with extended arms.  She appeared on an overhead walkway
during the two scenes when she is chiding her students.  She appeared
again, briefly, during Banquo's murder, perhaps helping Fleance escape.

I'm making it sound cute, which it wasn't.  I found Hecate's scenes very
effective.

Laura Graser, Portland, Or.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.