2000

Re: Exploitation of Actors

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1334  Friday, 30 June 2000.

From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 29 Jun 2000 11:44:30 PDT
Subject: 11.1317 Exploitation of Actors
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1317 Exploitation of Actors

First, I apologize for any confusion as to who is sending this post.
Yes, it is really me, Larry Weiss.  The comment to which this responds
did not arrive at my usual e-mail address, so I have to use this
alternative in order to quote exactly from Mr. Myers post.  I prefer not
to paraphrase as that would lose some of its flavor.

Jeff Myers originally asked
>
> > >Wasn't Shakespeare part of a management team that
> > >exploited actors (at least, non-shareholding actors)?

And I asked in turn
> >
> > Is "exploit" the currently PC term for "employ"?
>
to which he answers:

>Sadly, the two words have more often than not been synonymous, as almost
>anyone other than a Limbaugh-listening . . . would have realized after a
>few glimpses at the world.

Actually, the two words have different roots -- employ from the Latin
"implicare" and exploit from the Latin "explico, explicatum,
explicitum." A glance at a dictionary is often worth a lot more than "a
few glimpses" at the word (or did you really mean "world," Jeff).  Can
you cite any reputable dictionary or thesaurus that defines the two
words as synonyms?

Then Jeff asks,

>Does anyone doubt that at least some actors
>in Shakespeare's day were exploited through their employment as actors?
>About Shakespeare's role in such exploitation I am unsure, which is why
>I asked.

I find this chillingly familiar.  First of all, what evidence do you
have that anyone was "exploited"? (And what do you mean by exploitation,
anyway?) But even if there were some "exploitation," how can you justify
suggesting that Shakespeare (or anyone else for that matter)was guilty
of it when you admit being "unsure."  This sounds like:  "Does anyone
doubt that there are commies in the Department of the Army?  As for
Secretary Stevens role in this, I am unsure, but lets accuse him and
have a nice bunch of public hearings."

Help needed: Arden CD-ROM

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1333  Friday, 30 June 2000.

From:           Roger Gross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 29 Jun 2000 13:31:05 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:        Help needed: Arden CD-ROM

After searching for two years, I finally came up with the big bucks to
buy the Arden Shakespeare CD-ROM.  Now my problem is that I can't find a
place to buy it.

The web site gives an address and name for the supposed American
distributor, Primary Source Media, but they deny having any deal with
Arden (though they want one).

They redirected me to the Arden Publisher, Nelson in the UK.  They say
they have merged and no longer handle Arden.  Nelson redirected me to
Thomson Learning Europe.

Thomson says they no longer carry it and refer me back to the original
wrong source at Primary.

How do these people stay in business?

Can anyone help me find a source for the CD-ROM?

I lose my money very soon if I don't make a buy.

Thanks very much.

Roger Gross
University of Arkansas
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Re: Shakespeare as Bible

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1331  Friday, 30 June 2000.

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 29 Jun 2000 10:14:19 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1312 Re: Shakespeare as Bible

[2]     From:   Edmund M. Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 29 Jun 2000 22:57:21 +0000
        Subj:   Shakespeare as Bible

[3]     From:   Sophie Masson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 30 Jun 2000 08:27:55 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1312 Re: Shakespeare as Bible


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 29 Jun 2000 10:14:19 -0700
Subject: 11.1312 Re: Shakespeare as Bible
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1312 Re: Shakespeare as Bible

Hi, Mike.

I share your frustrations, expressed below:

>I can't escape the feeling this issue is being considered backwards,
>from the conclusion that Shakespeare's works are "special," and not from
>the beginning, i. e. how they came to be regarded as special.

I'm worried, though, that your suggested solution would tend towards
Anglocentrism, where the reason that Shakespeare becomes 'special' to
(say) the nineteenth-century English Romantics is universalized into a
reason that he's seen to be important generally.

More to the point, I'm worried about the tendency to reduce all
causation to 'effective' causation, as an Aristotelian might say, or to
what we might call 'historical explanations':  why, historically or
socially, something just happens to have come about.  To perhaps turn
historicity on itself, we might ask not "how [these works] came to be
regarded as special", but why and how have we lost the ability to
discuss big questions, about why they're special in the first place.

I recognize the risks in the procedure I'm advocating:  it often seems
that talking about why Shakespeare's works have power has a way of
degenerating into na


Re: Georgia's Tempest Production

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1332  Friday, 30 June 2000.

[1]     From:   Aimee Luzier <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 29 Jun 2000 13:25:33 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1316 Northern Georgia Tempest Production

[2]     From:   Fran Teague <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 29 Jun 2000 13:40:14 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1316 Georgia's Tempest Production


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Aimee Luzier <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 29 Jun 2000 13:25:33 EDT
Subject: 11.1316 Northern Georgia Tempest Production
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1316 Northern Georgia Tempest Production

Maybe I'm a purist, I am a "retired" actor after all, but I hope to
heaven that the technology failed in that production.  It's bad enough
that Lucas and co. think it's fine to replace human actors with
digitalized images and voiceovers in the movies, (they're so easy to
work with after all), but I hate the idea of applying it to theatre and
to Shakespearean plays in particular.  Yes, if Shakespeare were writing
now, he would probably make use of any existing technology to tell his
stories as effectively as he could.  But would he replace the actors
that he seems to have loved so much with puppets?  Also, theatre is a
different animal entirely than film.  The experience of theatre is that
of a one-time only experience with a particular group of people in the
audience (each audience has its own chemistry), a particular group of
actors on stage and a moment of community that happens live and will
never happen again in exactly the same way.  One trend I find very
disheartening in live theatre is when theatre tries to compete with film
by importing helicopters on the stage (for example).  By replacing
actors with what are essentially high-tech puppets, we reduce the
complexity and the potential engagement of audiences and play down to an
audience that we think is too passive to respond with their imaginations
(that most important word in theatre) to what is a communal fiction or
dream.  I'm sorry if I sound too heated on this subject, but I love
theatre and Shakespeare, and too many of these high-tech solutions are
just plain dehumanizing to put it bluntly.  Often, when people in charge
don't trust actors to tell the bloody story, they add in spectacle to
draw in the audience or dazzle the ignorant.  It's all-too-common in
film so let's for heaven's sake try to keep it out of the theatre, or at
least used to support the actors' efforts, not to replace them.  Thus
sayeth the prophet....

Aimee Luzier

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Fran Teague <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 29 Jun 2000 13:40:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 11.1316 Georgia's Tempest Production
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1316 Georgia's Tempest Production

Jack Heller asks about the University of Georgia Tempest that used
advanced technology (notably a motion capture suit for Ariel).  At the
moment the production website is down, but one of my colleagues has
posted his papers by his students who saw it. The URL is
http://www.english.uga.edu/3k/papers3frame.html

The production's director was David Saltz and you might write him
(This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.). And I am working on a short essay about it:
e-mail me off-list if you want to discuss it further.

Fran Teague <http://www.arches.uga.edu/~fteague>

Re: Berliner Ensemble's Ham.

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1330  Friday, 30 June 2000.

From:           Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 29 Jun 2000 12:56:34 -0400
Subject: 11.1319 Hamlet at the Berliner Ensemble
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1319 Hamlet at the Berliner Ensemble

How were Ophelia and Gertrude played by the same actor both present in
the mad scene played "straight?

Geralyn Horton, Playwright
Newton, Mass. 02460
<http://www.tiac.net/users/ghorton>

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.