2002

Re: Classical Acting: Signs of Decline

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0564  Tuesday, 26 February 2002

[1]     From:   P. D. Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Feb 2002 18:08:55 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0536 Re: Classical Acting: Signs of Decline

[2]     From:   Peter Hyland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Feb 2002 11:44:38 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0536 Re: Classical Acting: Signs of Decline

[3]     From:   Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Feb 2002 21:39:26 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0536 Re: Classical Acting: Signs of Decline


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           P. D. Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Feb 2002 18:08:55 -0000
Subject: 13.0536 Re: Classical Acting: Signs of Decline
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0536 Re: Classical Acting: Signs of Decline

I am not quite sure why Charles Weinstein quotes my comment in the
Cambridge Companion. I stated there a 'common assumption that the great
age of verse-speaking belongs irretrievably in the past


Re: Courtly Love in Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0563  Tuesday, 26 February 2002

[1]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Feb 2002 17:59:06 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0544 Re: Courtly Love in Shakespeare

[2]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Feb 2002 20:46:54 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0544 Re: Courtly Love in Shakespeare

[3]     From:   Tue S


Re: Baz Luhrmann's R + J

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0561  Tuesday, 26 February 2002

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email 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 email 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 email 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 email 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 email 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 email 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


Re: Hamlet (Once More)

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0562  Tuesday, 26 February 2002

[1]     From:   Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Feb 2002 12:51:09 -0500
        Subj:   Hamlet (Once More)

[2]     From:   Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Feb 2002 19:10:22 -0500
        Subj:   A Correction


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Feb 2002 12:51:09 -0500
Subject:        Hamlet (Once More)

Brandon Toropov defines Hamlet's state of mind at the end of the play as
embracing the following sentiment:

"The point being, as I understand it: "God is, by definition, fully
present in *every* action and *every* phenomenon -- now what, precisely,
do you imagine is under your narrow personal control?"

Isn't the action of revenge under his control? I can imagine a Hamlet
who waits for means, motive, and opportunity (as I think Hamlet does),
but once they are all furnished, Hamlet himself must, finally, act.

He does, of course, killing Claudius at play's end. Does he do so
because he is finally convinced that it is God's Will?  If so, what
convinces him?

--Ed Taft

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Feb 2002 19:10:22 -0500
Subject:        A Correction

I need to alert Edmund Taft and readers of the list that it was Bill
Godshalk who wrote this, not me. I only wrote a response to it.

Paul E. Doniger

>>Pasul (sic) Doniger writes,

>>"To my ear, this sounds as if Hamlet has given up plotting and is waiting
>> for a divinity to shape the outcome or his death. God will provide. The
> >way you find out what God wants is by waiting."

>"They also serve who only stand and wait": this is an attractive way to
>look at the end of Hamlet, and I agree with it, in part.  But there's a
>rub. Wait for what?  What sign or event tells Hamlet that it is time to
>act and that he is acting according to God's Will?

>What happens that convinces Hamlet at the end of the play that he can
>effect revenge?  Or [leading question] is his killing of Claudius
>justified on other grounds by play's end?

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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: Somebody Else and EDITOR'S NOTE

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0560  Tuesday, 26 February 2002

[1]     From:   Richard Sherrington <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Feb 2002 13:24:05 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0542 Re: Somebody Else Named Shakespeare Did

[2]     From:   Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 25 Feb 2002 19:40:04 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0542 Re: Somebody Else Named Shakespeare Did

[3]     From:   Whitt Brantley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 10:21:33 EST
        Subj:   RE: SHK 13.0532 Somebody Else Named Shak...


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Sherrington <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Feb 2002 13:24:05 -0400
Subject: 13.0542 Re: Somebody Else Named Shakespeare Did
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0542 Re: Somebody Else Named Shakespeare Did

I believe the remark was made by the Canadian humorist, Steven Leacock.

Richard

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 25 Feb 2002 19:40:04 -0500
Subject: 13.0542 Re: Somebody Else Named Shakespeare Did
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0542 Re: Somebody Else Named Shakespeare Did

> Jack,
>
> I don't know who originally said it, but I remember Dr. Doris Falk, my
> professor at Douglass College in the early sixties, said, "If
> Shakespeare didn't write the plays, then a man of the same name did." I
> find this squabble over authorship a bit surreal. The plays can stand on
> their own. Until we discover more compelling and concrete evidence about
> the man named Shakespeare, we'll never be sure who the author really
> is.  Does it matter?  My honors English 12 students did a web quest on
> the authorship question and couldn't understand what the flap was about.
>
> Ruth Ross

But isn't history the study of who did what?  And how can one study the
creative process if one doesn't know who wrote what?  And, finally,
isn't it morally appropriate that those making contributions to our
culture get credit for it?  Perhaps not all authors are selfish, but
many--I among them--are at least partly motivated by a desire to get
credit with posterity; we don't want to think that whatever credit we
earn can be ripped from us while some honors English 12 class looks on
without concern.

                                                   --Bob Grumman

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Whitt Brantley
 <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 10:21:33 EST
Subject: 13.0532 Somebody Else Named Shak...
Comment:        RE: SHK 13.0532 Somebody Else Named Shak...

I think this topic is taboo on this list.   The fact is, most people
don't think another man could have written the works.

But, this kind of thinking can be in itself, dangerous.  Example, I was
engaged in conversation at a local pub, having a pint after work.  The
authorship question arose.

What?  Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare?  That's like saying the holocaust
never happened!

That's what he said.  A learned and intelligent man compared the
Shakespeare mystery to the holocaust.  This is because, like most
people, it's never occurred to him that NOTHING exists in handwriting
concerning Shakespeare except the sigs.

He's assumes like most, that there be a few old manuscripts lying around
somewhere.

My guess is, like many people. He would have a hard time accepting the
truth.

You see, if Shakespeare is proven to be a cover-up of some sort, I think
it would force people to question history.  To question in our Orwellian
society, what is truth?  What is the truth...

People can only remain blind as long as they don't realize they are
blind. This is the case.

Who am I to say:  you?re in for it.  Shakespeare was not the man from
Stratford, and I can prove it.  I would much rather let the debate rage
on for years between the candidates because it makes for nice
roundtables and copper pints at the pub.

DeVere, Shakespeare, Marlowe, BACON...?

For this and more, I direct you to a newsgroup concerning itself with
this issue.

humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

I suggest you read some of the archive before you submit a question.

This is not a website to get advice on your homework.  However, if you
want to see a serious discussion (I say that lightly) of a great mystery
try this newsgroup.  You will meet some VERY interesting loons and
scholars!  Myself, a member of the loons, who have more fun!

A few of you on this list are members, I think.

Anyway, do we really want to KNOW if someone else wrote the plays?  I
think it is too much for people to handle, because it means something
deeper than the knowing itself.

It's an issue of blind trust.  Knowing who Shakespeare really
was...means having to know who you  really are...

Regards,
Whitt Brantley
(who may or may not have written this)

[Editor?s Note: A bit of history: Many years ago, I banned authorship as
a topic for discussion on this list. My reasons were simple ? I believed
the issue to be moot and I just didn?t want to waste my time editing the
endless exchanges between scholars and true believers. For this reason,
a group of Oxfordians founded humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare Now
that I am wholly responsible for bringing SHAKSPER to its members and
for paying all of the bills for it out of my own pocket, I feel somewhat
freer to allow scholars to point out when egregious errors are being
perpetrated as with the NY Times thread. This thread, on the other hand,
was begun as a request for the source of a quotation. Whitt Brantley has
used this thread to advance another agenda. I have let him have his
piece, but this is the end. My point is twofold: 1) if you are
interested in authorship visit Dave Kathman?s and Terry Ross?s The
Shakespeare Authorship Page <http://shakespeareauthorship.com/> and 2)
if you are interested in endless and non-productive debate join
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare Also, all messages to me about my
position on this matter will be summarily deleted without being read. I
just do not have the time for them. ?Hardy]

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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.