2001

Re: Portrait

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2630  Tuesday, 20 November 2001

[1]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Nov 2001 17:35:23 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2623 Portrait

[2]     From:   Virginia Byrne <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Nov 2001 14:19:44 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2623 Portrait


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Nov 2001 17:35:23 -0000
Subject: 12.2623 Portrait
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2623 Portrait

There was a little article in History Today for October 2001 regarding
this portrait in Canada. Unfortunately I have leant my copy out and I
don't recall exactly what was written. I got the impression that it was
yet another waste of time, however (except for its owner, who seems to
be making a tidy sum out of it). You could try the website:
www.historytoday.com.

martin

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Virginia Byrne <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Nov 2001 14:19:44 EST
Subject: 12.2623 Portrait
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2623 Portrait

Check out this month's VANITY FAIR...copy of the Sanders portrait as
well as an article on it.

Virginia Byrne

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: "most wonderful"--Twelfth Night

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2629  Tuesday, 20 November 2001

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Nov 2001 08:22:20 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2621 Re: "most wonderful"--Twelfth

[2]     From:   Melissa D. Aaron <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Nov 2001 09:12:33 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2621 Re: "most wonderful"--Twelfth Night


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Nov 2001 08:22:20 -0800
Subject: 12.2621 Re: "most wonderful"--Twelfth Night
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2621 Re: "most wonderful"--Twelfth Night

M. Yawney wrote,

>For the joke of a twin play to work, it is important that the twins do
>NOT look too much alike. The audience must be able to tell them apart.
>If they look too much alike, the audience will share the other
>character's confusion, rather than standing outside it and finding it
>funny.

Actually, experience suggests otherwise.  Several productions have had
the same actor playing one or both twins, which requires some slight of
hand for the last scene.  Perhaps this was done most famously by Des
Barrit at the RSC a decade ago, in Ian Judge's production.  The audience
was able to figure it out.

All the best,
Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Melissa D. Aaron <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Nov 2001 09:12:33 -0800
Subject: 12.2621 Re: "most wonderful"--Twelfth Night
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2621 Re: "most wonderful"--Twelfth Night

>If we (the hypothetical Globe audience) are meant to believe that a boy
>is a girl simply because of a dress and a wig, then what need we one
>pair of twins if they wear identical clothing and wigs? Reason not the
>need.
>
>If it would have been difficult to find one pair of twins, how could
>they find two for Comedy of Errors?  The answer has to be the same as it
>is for many of Shakespeare's plays: costuming. Julia (Two Gents), Viola,
>Rosalind and Celia, as well as Imogen are a few examples of telegraphing
>to the audience that costume changes will signify deception to the
>play's characters regarding the subject's gender or identity.  The humor
>in Comedy of Errors derives from the fact that we are not made aware of
>the deception and fall into the trap of the device. Twins may have been
>used, but were certainly not necessary.

I've been meaning to mention for a while a remark made by an Italian
17th century actor:  I'm almost certainly it was Giambattista Andreini.
He mentions a play in which he and his father had to play identical
twins.  While there may have been some family resemblance, there was
also a large age gap.  He specifically says that identical costuming was
used to convey the idea of identical appearance.

Melissa D. Aaron
Cal Poly Pomona

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Laertes

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2627  Tuesday, 20 November 2001

From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Nov 2001 08:11:12 -0800
Subject: 12.2619 Re: Laertes
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2619 Re: Laertes

Stephen,

I wonder if you can remember any of J. M. Nosworthy's other reasons for
suggesting that

>the text of Hamlet betrays evidence of being specifically revised for a
>tour which the company knew would include the university towns of Oxford
>and Cambridge. In consequence the play adopts a positive, sometimes
>flattering image of students and student life.

My first thought when reading this was to see if all three versions of
*Hamlet* have references to Wittenberg, and Hamlet calling Horatio his
fellow student.  All three do. References are from Bernice W. Kliman and
Paul Bertram's ever useful *Three Text Hamlet,* New York: AMS Press,
1991.

Wittenberg: Line 301
Student: Line 365

Am I wrong in thinking that for Nosworthy's suggestion to be correct, at
least as I understood your retelling of it, that he would have to
postulate a now lost 4th version of the play which has
contaminated/influenced the other three?  Possible, of course, but it
seems needlessly complicated.  Until I haue sounder proofs (Q1), and
grounds more relatiue (Q2 & F), I'll be slow to accept this theory of
the text.

All the best,
Mike Jensen

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Richard II

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2628  Tuesday, 20 November 2001

[1]     From:   R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Nov 2001 10:18:25 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2624 Re: Richard II

[2]     From:   Karen Peterson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Nov 2001 09:16:38 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2624 Re: Richard II

[3]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Nov 2001 17:38:21 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2624 Re: Richard II

[4]     From:   Stephen Dobbin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 20 Nov 2001 09:18:13 +0000 (GMT)
        Subj:   Richard II


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Nov 2001 10:18:25 -0600
Subject: 12.2624 Re: Richard II
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2624 Re: Richard II

> I agree, RII just doesn't seem to get the respect it deserves.  Even
> during Stratford's "This England, the Histories" last year RII was
> delegated to the smallest theater.

Ralph Feines R II at the BAM a few years back was pretty good

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen Peterson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Nov 2001 09:16:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 12.2624 Re: Richard II
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2624 Re: Richard II

> ...RII just doesn't seem to get the respect it
> deserves.  Even
> during Stratford's "This England, the Histories"
> last year RII was
> delegated to the smallest theater.

I guess I'm responding here in defense of The Other Place, the future of
which seems a bit unclear at the moment.

To my sorrow, I was unable to get tickets to see RII there in 1999.
Everyone I spoke to who did see that production reported that it was
wondrous.  I don't know what factors the RSC considered in deciding to
do RII at The Other Place, but audience members reported that the small
theatre was ideal for the "cerebral" nature of the play on which Jim
comments later in his post.  Perhaps it was, in fact, an indication of
*respect* for the play that it was assigned a venue in which its
subtleties could be best appreciated.

Cheers,
Karen Peterson

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Nov 2001 17:38:21 -0000
Subject: 12.2624 Re: Richard II
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2624 Re: Richard II

Ralph Feines was good in a generally well-handled performance of RII in
a disused film studio for the Almeida Theatre Company in London last
year. Not so hot as Coriolanus, unfortunately. Great venue, though,
regardless...

martin

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephen Dobbin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 20 Nov 2001 09:18:13 +0000 (GMT)
Subject:        Richard II

Jim Slager may not be correct in interpreting  the fact that 'Richard II
was delegated (relegated?) to Stratford's smallest theatre'  as a sign
of the play not getting the respect it deserves.

When I was stage managing at Stratford in the eighties, directors fought
tooth and nail for the chance of staging Shakespeare in the Other Place
and actors fought very hard to be in those productions.

The chance of performing verse on an intimate rather than a heroic
scale; the opportunity to perform Shakespeare in a space where all your
energy and concentration could go into words rather than into the
technique of projecting into a huge auditorium; the immediacy of
audience feedback (and adjusting your performance to that feedback) when
the audience are sitting two feet away from where you are working; all
these were irresistible to actors and directors. (Only the designers
complained: I seem to remember that the 1980 MoV with Patrick Stewart as
Shylock and the McKellan/Dench Macbeth were each done on a total design,
costume and prop budget of 


Re: MND Tops Survey

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2626  Tuesday, 20 November 2001

[1]     From:   Billy Houck <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Nov 2001 10:58:22 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2618 Re: MND Tops Survey

[2]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Nov 2001 08:37:01 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2618 Re: MND Tops Survey

[3]     From:   Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Nov 2001 12:53:48 -0500
        Subj:   Re: R&J as focus of their play (was Re: MND Tops Survey)

[4]     From:   Roger Schmeeckle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Nov 2001 11:16:18 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2618 Re: MND Tops Survey

[5]     From:   Tom Sellari <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 20 Nov 2001 13:51:14 +0800 (CST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2618 Re: MND Tops Survey

[6]     From:   Judy Lewis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 19 Nov 2001 21:01:46 +1300
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2607 Re: MND Tops Survey


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Billy Houck <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Nov 2001 10:58:22 EST
Subject: 12.2618 Re: MND Tops Survey
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2618 Re: MND Tops Survey

Sam Small writes,

<< It is fairly obvious why R&J is not read/performed much in schools in
the US.   >>

Sam-

It is fairly obvious you haven't read the previous posts. Romeo and
Juliet IS widely taught in American High Schools. It is also widely
performed, though not as widely as MND at this time.

While I agree with you that is a play about warring families, one can
hardly blame teachers for thinking it is a play about young people,
since they are the title characters.

Billy Houck

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Nov 2001 08:37:01 -0800
Subject: 12.2618 Re: MND Tops Survey
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2618 Re: MND Tops Survey

Oh, dear.

In Monday's post Mr. Small began his message:

>It is fairly obvious why R&J is not read/performed much in schools in
>the US.

Perhaps he did not carefully read Billy Houck post from Friday?

>It is quite popular, but not in the top 10 this year.  I'm doing it with
>my students this spring. It was in the top 10 for a couple of years
>following the Baz Luhrman film.

And quit knocking *You're a Good Man, Charley Brown* whoever's doing
it.  My parents took me to the long running San Francisco production
when I was very short, and I loved it!  (I permit myself one asinine,
but true, comment a day, and that was it.)

Mike Jensen

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Nov 2001 12:53:48 -0500
Subject: 12.2618 R&J as focus of their play (was Re: MND Tops
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2618 R&J as focus of their play (was Re: MND Tops
Survey)

Sam Small opines:  "- R&J are poor victims invented for counterpoint.
In short it is a play about the evils of civil war meant to be seen by
the middle-aged."

So it may appear to you, sir.  But to others it is indeed a play about
adolescence, specifically about the virtually innate tendency of
adolescents to impetuous headlong action.

Indeed, the counterpoint between Friar Lawrence's repeated warnings
"they stumble that run fast" and the way the adults fall into the
lovers' behavioral trap of rash and thoughtless action is to many
critics AND students the center of the play.

Though playing "what if" is a heinous game in reading literature, R&J's
biggest problem to a good high school teacher is the temptation to play
that game: what if each of the characters had paused, waited, thought,
etc.

The crisis of the play occurs when Romeo, seeing Tybalt return after
killing Mercutio, throws away his "respective lenity" which had led him
to deflect all of Tybalt's attempts to draw him into a duel, choosing
instead to have "fire-eyed fury be my conduct now."  From that moment
the catastasis is about as high-velocity as in any tragedy by
Shakespeare.

I can assure the members of SHAKSPER that in 35 years of teaching Romeo
and Juliet to 15 and 16 year olds, they never once saw it as a play
about civil war among middle-aged farts... and they well understood the
significance of the Prince's explanation of the feud as "bred of an airy
word" not worthy of being recorded for posterity.

Further, the community is NOT at war with itself; the feud is only
between two families; the general community of Venice is not a part of
the strife.  Given the lack of stage directions, the shouts of the
populace, "Down with the Capulets! Down with the Montagues!" can as
easily be seen/directed as the whole of the community expressing
hostility toward the feud as seen/directed as the townspeople joining
in.  There is no place anywhere in the play where anyone other than a
member of one of the two families or one of their intimates being
involved in fighting either by word or sword.

I am not particularly enamored either of Romeo or Juliet (though she at
least attempts to "direct [her own] sail" while Romeo trusts to Fate to
do so for him).  But this play is definitely about them, their impetuous
succumbing to their adolescent emotions, and the consequences thereto as
magnified by the adolescent impetuousness of those purported elders who
should be guiding and even perhaps restraining them.

Mari Bonomi

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Roger Schmeeckle <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Nov 2001 11:16:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 12.2618 Re: MND Tops Survey
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2618 Re: MND Tops Survey

> For what it's worth - I teach literature to 32 home educated students in
> a rural area of the northwest USA.  I run through a five-year cycle to
.............

What, no Lear?  Excellent material for teen-agers because of its
intergenerational conflict.

    Roger Schmeeckle

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Sellari <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 20 Nov 2001 13:51:14 +0800 (CST)
Subject: 12.2618 Re: MND Tops Survey
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2618 Re: MND Tops Survey

On Monday, 19 Nov 2001, Sam Small wrote,

> The whole point of the play is the warring
> between the families - R&J are poor victims invented for counterpoint.
> In short it is a play about the evils of civil war meant to be seen by
> the middle-aged.

Hence the title, of course.

Tom Sellari

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judy Lewis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 19 Nov 2001 21:01:46 +1300
Subject: 12.2607 Re: MND Tops Survey
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2607 Re: MND Tops Survey

Stuart Manger writes,

> I have to say that I am amazed that 'R and J' is nowhere in that list of
> high school top ten dramas.
>
> Is it because it is so tragic for the young that schools will not do it
> or what? Is it lack of confidence in the play? Their own acting? It
> simply seems so perfect for a 14-18 yr old age range!

When I have directed Shakespeare in schools, I have always selected the
plays that offer the largest number of parts that can be reasonably made
available for girls to play.  Romeo and Juliet has 3 female roles only,
although Juliet is one of S's finest.

But MND has opportunities for far more - Puck, the fairies etc.  Others
I have directed are Much Ado and As You Like It, for much the same
reason.  In the latter, for example, M. Le Beau became Mme Le Beau, in a
glorious Elizabethan dress with ruff.

Judy Lewis

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.