2000

Re: Demenia

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1345  Tuesday, 4 July 2000.

From:           Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 01 Jul 2000 18:15:52 -0400
Subject: 11.1301 Senile Dementia, Living Art
Comment:        RE: SHK 11.1301 Senile Dementia, Living Art

> the mid-20th century interest in organic form, structuralism, and the like
> is not now fashionable

But see Helen Vendler's reading of the Sonnets (quite fashionable) whose
antipoststructuralism often takes the form of an aestheticist
structuralism.

Clifford Stetner
CUNY Graduate Center
http://phoenix.liu.edu/~cstetner/cds.htm

Falstaff as Chaucer

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1344  Tuesday, 4 July 2000.

From:           Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 01 Jul 2000 18:09:25 -0400
Subject:        Falstaff as Chaucer

To add to my earlier attempt to align Falstaff with Chaucer: have you
ever noticed the Canterbury Tales allusions in Henry IV (e.g. the
pilgrimage to Canterbury to be robbed by Falstaff; the Franklin from
Kent, ditto; the reference to the hostess as Dame Partlet?

Clifford Stetner
CUNY Graduate Center
http://phoenix.liu.edu/~cstetner/cds.htm

Re: Antony Sher's Macbeth

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1342  Tuesday, 4 July 2000.

[1]     From:   Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 30 Jun 2000 21:27:42 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1325 Re: Antony Sher's Macbeth

[2]     From:   Arthur D L Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 1 Jul 2000 10:42:37 +0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1325 Re: Antony Sher's Macbeth


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 30 Jun 2000 21:27:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 11.1325 Re: Antony Sher's Macbeth
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1325 Re: Antony Sher's Macbeth

Reply to Mike Jensen:

Be sickened if you like; but re-read what I wrote and tell me what
doesn't amount to fair comment, however impious.  By the way, I did not
request an "apology" from Sher; nor do I want one (although a refund
would be nice).  I would simply prefer to see him play the Porter rather
than Macbeth, Autolycus rather than Leontes, and the other character
roles in which he could be truly outstanding rather than the tragic
leads in which he can only disappoint.  I did enjoy his Richard (though
it was hardly in the same league as Olivier's); but then Richard can be
played as a character part, a specimen of the comic grotesque, which is
precisely how Sher played him.  The same approach and the same qualities
will not work for Macbeth.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Arthur D L Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 1 Jul 2000 10:42:37 +0800
Subject: 11.1325 Re: Antony Sher's Macbeth
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1325 Re: Antony Sher's Macbeth

I wasn't able to see Sher's Macbeth, but I did see his Tamburlaine at
the RSC a few years ago.  Being short and gay certainly didn't prevent
him from excelling in that role and I doubt it would have done so in the
Scottish play.  By the way, I've been watching his work for years and
have never noticed any of the mannerisms which supposedly identify gay
actors to Mr Weinstein.

On a related issue, Abigail Quart might be pleased to know, if she
doesn't already, that many London productions, including RSC and RNT,
are videotaped and archived at the Theatre Museum.  It's usually a good
idea to make a reservation to see them, which can be done through their
web site: <http://theatremuseum.vam.ac.uk/>.

Arthur Lindley

Re: The Almereyda *Hamlet*

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1343  Tuesday, 4 July 2000.

From:           Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 1 Jul 2000 18:01:09 -0400
Subject: 11.1206 Re: The Almereyda *Hamlet*
Comment:        RE: SHK 11.1206 Re: The Almereyda *Hamlet*

I would like to make very brief comments about this movie.   I guess it
is supposed to be pomo to show the ghost of old Hamlet illuminated from
behind by a Pepsi machine, and I'm sure some will argue that, if such a
thing as product placement had been available to Shakespeare, he would
have leapt at the opportunity, but I couldn't help associating Pepsi
with the very corporate villains against whom I was supposed to by
sympathizing in the plot, and so I felt that giving them a place of such
honor weakened the dramatic force of the tragedy.

Clifford Stetner
CUNY Graduate Center
http://phoenix.liu.edu/~cstetner/cds.htm

Re: The Shakespeare Channel

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1341  Tuesday, 4 July 2000.

From:           Pervez Rizvi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday,30 Jun 2000 23:58:59 +0100
Subject: 11.1326 Re: The Shakespeare Channel
Comment:        RE: SHK 11.1326 Re: The Shakespeare Channel

This started as a serious off-list conversation. Having read on this
list that the RSC keep a video archive of all their productions, I
wondered why they don't sell it to TV stations. Mike informed me that,
while the quality of the tapes is good enough for archive purposes, it
is not good enough for TV; moreover, the RSC's previous experiments with
TV productions have not been commercially successful.

With that noted, I think we may still be optimistic. The TV business is
changing. When digital TV was launched in Britain almost two years ago,
we were told that, thanks to the digital technology, in the future there
would be room for thousands of channels for all tastes. Discounting the
hype, there is still truth in this. When a TV company is in business,
broadcasting hundreds of channels, the marginal cost of adding a new one
must be low. The physical infrastructure, the running costs, admin and
marketing etc. are already covered by the existing subscriber base, so
the main cost is buying in the programmes. Given the number of
Shakespeare-friendly theatre companies around, it should be possible one
of these days for a TV company to do a deal that allows them to record
good performances without paying unfeasible royalties. When I look at
some of the channels broadcasting on cable and digital satellite in
Britain (to say nothing of the US), it's obvious that if only the
programmes are cheap enough, a channel is viable even without a large
audience.

If we speculate a little further, we can imagine a convergence of the
internet with TV to the extent that the concept of a 'channel'
dissolves: what you get is a very large number of programmes that you
can download and watch when you like, as we already do with web sites.

So let's be optimistic that Abigail will get her collection of
Beatrices.  Mike and I both have fond memories of the great
Jacobi/Cusack Much Ado of 1982, the only production I've ever gone to
see more than once (in this case, 4 times).

Coming back to today, with reference to Skip Nicholson's complaint: Mike
and I had no intention of upsetting anyone by this. Even if we have not
added much to the public stock of harmless pleasure, I hope no one's
offended. If we offend, it is with our good will....

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.