Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: September ::
Re: Royal Blood
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2182  Monday, 17 September 2001

[1]     From:   Dave Kathman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 14 Sep 2001 11:55:59 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2173 Re: Royal Blood

[2]     From:   John Ramsay <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 14 Sep 2001 13:04:52 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2162 Royal Blood: The Rise and Fall of Kings

[3]     From:   Jim Slager <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 14 Sep 2001 11:12:38 -0700
        Subj:   Re: Royal Blood


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dave Kathman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 14 Sep 2001 11:55:59 -0400
Subject: 12.2173 Re: Royal Blood
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2173 Re: Royal Blood

Mike Jensen wrote, about Pacific Repertory Theater:

> Jim,
>
> I don't usually comment on shows I have not seen, but I'll tell you the
> four reasons why I chose not to see them.
>
> 1) The company has a terrible reputation.  I checked them out with some
> people who live closer than I, and was warned off.
>
> 2) The show prior to the histories received good reviews for the
> imported actors who originated the production, but savaged everyone
> regularly involved in the Pacific Rep.
>
> 3) They make the bizarre claim that *Thomas of Wookstock* will be the
> next play added to the Shakespearean canon.   No one who knows canon,
> texts, etc., believes this.  I wrote questioning this and their date for
> Richard II, which they got wrong.  The woman who responded basically
> said, "OK, Smarty, why do you think the date of Richard is later?" and
> ignored my comments about *Woodstock.*  This gives me the impression
> they have a screw lose, though of course ignorance, or even arrogance
> about dating and textual matters does not make them a bad theatre
> company.  They continue to advertise that *Woodstock* will soon be added
> to the canon.
>
> 4) I have been receiving their mailings for a few years now, and there
> is something unpolished about the way the present themselves.  It need
> not follow that unpolished marketing translates into unpolished
> productions, but I have not wanted to drive 95 minutes to find out for
> sure, especially in light of reasons 1 and 2.

The people in charge of Pacific Repertory Theater are Oxfordians, and
have bought into many of the fantasies promoted by that crowd.  They
used to have an Oxfordian essay on their web site by the company's
founder, Stephen Moorer, in which he made all the usual discredited
Oxfordian claims and displayed depressing ignorance about many
historical matters.  That essay has been taken down now, but it sounds
like Oxfordianism continues to infect the company.  It's really a shame.

Dave Kathman

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Ramsay <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 14 Sep 2001 13:04:52 -0400
Subject: 12.2162 Royal Blood: The Rise and Fall of Kings
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2162 Royal Blood: The Rise and Fall of Kings

BBC did Shakespeare's English history plays as a series in the late 60's
- early 70's. Called it either 'Age of Kings' or 'The Hollow Crown'. May
have included Marlowe's Edward III.

Stratford Ontario may have done the same over several seasons about the
same time.

We were in Carmel a couple of months ago. It would make for a very nice
summer trip for a Shakespeare fan. Plenty of other things to see apart
from the plays.

John Steinbeck territory is a short drive north. Big Sur aka Jack
Kerouac territory only a few miles south.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jim Slager <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 14 Sep 2001 11:12:38 -0700
Subject:        Re: Royal Blood

Al and Mike,

Thanks for your replies.  I was suspicious that these productions were
too good to be true.  First of all, why did the world seem to be
ignoring them?  Secondly, their website is flaky: sometimes sending me
off to a "Crazy Drunk Guy," sometimes not working at all, and always
proving difficult to get meaningful information.  I appreciate Mike's
"impression they have a screw lose."

But I think that I will drive that 95 miles (Mike and I must live close
by) to find out for sure.  I've been so interested in the Histories
lately that I just have to follow through.

I'll post my comments afterward and even let everyone know how they end
Thomas of Woodstock.

Regards,
Jim Slager

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail 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.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.