The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0561  Tuesday, 26 February 2002

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 25 Feb 2002 09:30:44 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0538 Re: Baz Luhrmann's R + J

[2]     From:   Fran Teague <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 25 Feb 2002 14:57:16 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0538 Re: Baz Luhrmann's R + J

[3]     From:   Janet Costa <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 25 Feb 2002 13:07:12 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0538 Re: Baz Luhrmann's R + J


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 25 Feb 2002 09:30:44 -0800
Subject: 13.0538 Re: Baz Luhrmann's R + J
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0538 Re: Baz Luhrmann's R + J

Martin,

To be honest, I don't read most of Mr. Small's posts anymore, so I
missed this statement and would have otherwise commented earlier:

>Sam Small commented, "...I know that the director [Baz Luhrmann]
>is ashamed and embarrassed about Shakespeare's poetry". I could not
>disagree more,

You then give cogent reasons for disagreeing.  Let me add another.

In an interview Luhrmann said, *One of [Shakespeare's] greatest assets
was in incredibly resonant, clever use of of language.*  (1)  *For us it
was about maintaining the integrity of the language.* (2)

I also read somewhere, sorry that I can't document it, that the studio
did not want to use Shakespeare's language.  It was Luhrmann who
insisted on keeping it.

I'm not sure what David Wallace meant by:

>As the film progresses, Luhrman introduces the motif of water (absent
>from the text)

Which text, the play or the screenplay?  Water is mentioned twice in
most standard editions.  I have not compared F or the five Qs.
Certainly David is correct that Luhrmann makes far more of water than
Shakespeare does in this play.

(1) Bauer, Eric, "An Interview with: Baz Luhrmann," *Creative
Screenwriting, vol. 5, # 1998: 33.  Since this magazine is difficult to
find, I'll engage in a bit of self promotion and mention that I have a
review of this special Shakespeare edition in the Fall 1999 issue of
*Shakespeare Bulletin.*

(2) Ibid 35.

Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Fran Teague <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 25 Feb 2002 14:57:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 13.0538 Re: Baz Luhrmann's R + J
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0538 Re: Baz Luhrmann's R + J

In a grad seminar on Drama, Performance, and Performativity, I recently
taught William Worthen's excellent essay by that name, which appeared in
PMLA 113 (1998): 1093-1107. His closing section is an analysis of the
Luhrman R + J using Joseph Roach's theoretical concepts. I strongly
recommend it to any serious student of performance theory.

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

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Janet Costa <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 25 Feb 2002 13:07:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 13.0538 Re: Baz Luhrmann's R + J
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0538 Re: Baz Luhrmann's R + J

I have seen Luhrmann