2002

Re: Twelfth Night at Middle Temple Hall

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0302  Thursday, 31 January 2002

From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 30 Jan 2002 22:38:00 -0500
Subject: 13.0278 Re: Twelfth Night at Middle Temple Hall
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0278 Re: Twelfth Night at Middle Temple Hall

> Why don't they just get rid of Rylance? He ruins every performance he's
> in.

I thought his Cleopatra was excellent; and I enjoyed his Hamlet and
Henry V.

> Bring back the company that I saw at the Globe who performed having
> learned only their 'parts' and were thoroughly entertaining as well as
> being in the spirit of the original Globe's rough hewn theatricality.

It


Re: High School and College Productions

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0301  Thursday, 31 January 2002

From:           Alan J. Sanders <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 30 Jan 2002 15:21:41 -0500
Subject: 13.0265 Re: High School and College Productions
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0265 Re: High School and College Productions

Jay:

My apologies if: 1) I misunderstood your original note which read to me
as a question of how do some people manage to put on an entire
production in the same time-frame in which you stage the condensed
versions (allowing the students the time they need to dedicate to their
other classes and academic interests); and 2) I inferring in the
slightest that you were trying to dumb-down your texts or your
productions.

I meant to convey my understanding of your situation and provide a
thoughtful discussion about how I see a similar problem occurring in the
American public schools (my frame of reference is the South simply
because I have lived in the Atlanta area for the last 15 years).  Many
educators have lamented about their students being pulled in so many
directions and the educators themselves are being encouraged to only
'teach the subjects over which the student body will be tested.'  What I
have seen from this trend is the sense that students are force-fed
information designed to allow them to excel on a standardized test
which, in turn, provides more funding to the school from the state and
federal government.  This leads many students to believe that they only
need to know certain things and that anything outside of that scope is
not worth pursuing.  I don't like that!  Not in the least!

My comment about the 4-6 month prep time was meant for you (or the
instructor).  Again, this was not intended to reflect a negative
criticism.  I believe anyone on this list is more knowledgeable about
Shakespeare than most people today, and certainly more than me.  Part of
the reason I subscribed to this list was to enjoy the thoughtful
discussion over so many different topics centered around the Bard.
However, as a director, I must inundate myself with whatever text I am
about to direct.  Even shows I think I know like the back of my hand
still requires months of preparation -- I simply never know what
question will pop out of the next actors mouth.  What I have seen,
however, is if I have done my prep work before the first day of
reads/rehearsals, I can convey the totality of the project to my
actors.  They are given the big picture and they understand that they
will play a fundamental part within that framework.  I don't want them
to rest on their laurels either.  I expect a lot from them.  And they
now know it.

I suppose a subconscious reason for responding as I did may have been
more to validate my own approach than to become an inadvertent criticism
of another's.  Please accept my apology as no offense was ever
intended.  I have gone to your site at the college am really interested
in keeping this dialogue alive.  As Shakespeare comments about peers
within the same profession, "Let us do as lawyers do, strive mightily,
but eat and drink as friends" . . . or something to that effect! :-)

Sincerely,
Alan J. Sanders

_______________________________________________________________
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: Critical Principles

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0299  Thursday, 31 January 2002

[1]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 30 Jan 2002 18:31:53 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0237 Re: Critical Principles

[2]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 30 Jan 2002 18:16:52 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0259 Re: Critical Principles


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 30 Jan 2002 18:31:53 -0000
Subject: 13.0237 Re: Critical Principles
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0237 Re: Critical Principles

> From:           Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

> I take it that what we are talking about is the collection of
> mannerisms, generally called "swishy," that are so closely allied with
> homosexuality that anyone displaying them is assumed to be so oriented.

If it comes to swishy (I presume this is the same as Brit-speak
"limp-wristed"?_) -- ages ago, I heard Kenneth Williams on _Just A
Minute_, run an entire sixty seconds on Renaissance Platonism.

Unnerving -- you had this overlay of KW doing the swishy voice, but
bloody hell, off the top of his head, he was running a treatise on
Renaissance Platonism.

Hm ... REALLY unnerving.

Robin
(Who is too young to remember _Around the Horn_.)

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 30 Jan 2002 18:16:52 -0000
Subject: 13.0259 Re: Critical Principles
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0259 Re: Critical Principles

Jimmy Jung wrote that "The Shakespeare Theater, here in Washington, cast
a woman as both Falstaff and as Jonson's Volpone - quite a hurdle, but
accomplished quite deftly". I've often thought that Falstaff and Volpone
are quite similar characters, actually. But am I being disingenuous now?
Perhaps Jimmy meant that it was "quite a gurdle"...

m

_______________________________________________________________
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: Authenticity

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0300  Thursday, 31 January 2002

[1]     From:   Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 30 Jan 2002 11:31:37 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0272 Re: Authenticity

[2]     From:   Brandon Toropov <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 30 Jan 2002 15:40:25 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0272 Re: Authenticity


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 30 Jan 2002 11:31:37 -0800
Subject: 13.0272 Re: Authenticity
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0272 Re: Authenticity

Brian Willis wrote,

>recent scholarship has suggested that putting up
>plays were truly a COMPANY effort for COMPANY profit.

Can you point us to that scholarship?

Thanks,
Steve
http://princehamlet.com

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brandon Toropov <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 30 Jan 2002 15:40:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 13.0272 Re: Authenticity
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0272 Re: Authenticity

To clarify:

Radio = no scenery, and thus = no maddeningly wrong moments like ART's
production of HENRY V a few years back, which foisted elaborate,
flamboyant puppet-horses on the paying customers. This in a play, mind
you, that specifically instructs the audience to IMAGINE horses that
WOULD NOT (or so the author assured us) be appearing onstage.

Over the years, I have watched lighting, sound, and set designers fling
hundreds of equally inane ideas at their audiences -- ideas that fought
openly or implicitly with language that was clearly designed, at key
points in the script, to evoke a series of mental pictures, language
meant to do most of the "heavy lifting" we now assign set designers. The
speeches evoking these mental pictures, I believe, were DESIGNED TO BE
the theatrical happening when they were spoken. Not the lights. Not the
set. (Director's interior monologue: "The text mentions moonlight; we
must therefore show the audience moonlight." Grr.)

So. Given these more or less constant missteps, I have in fact often
wondered (and I'm pretty sure that's what I said, 'wondered,') whether
or not radio was the best contemporary medium in which to present
Shakespeare, inasmuch as many stage directors, lighting designers, and
set designers simply refuse to accommodate their work to the demands of
the text.  Radio folk can't do precisely this kind of damage to the
experience.

But -- all that wondering took place about productions I saw in theaters
other than the New Globe.

Having now seen good work there, I've condluded that a theater like the
New Globe is in fact the ideal setting. Lacking such a theater in
Boston, though, I'm pretty much forced back to square one, which is
ongoing resentment at directors, lighting designers, sound designers,
and anyone else who insists on distracting my visual cortex with horses
that shouldn't be there, or reflections of water that my mind was meant
to supply on its own, or some grad student's best approximation at what
a morn in russet mantle clad is "supposed to" look like. This problem
certainly shows up in the movies, too, of course.

Remember the silly moment in Branagh's HAMLET where he tries to show us
a sunset that matches that "russet mantle" line? Didn't it give you a
sense of the limitations of the medium of film? It did me. At any rate,
such moments seem to me irretrievably *inauthentic.*

Moral: For better or for worse, we're visual organisms, we poor audience
members, and many productions of Shakespeare offer a far more
distracting visual stage environment than Shakespeare ever planned for
us. Stage productions that repeatedly make this mistake for two and a
half hours or so -- and I have to say that includes most that I've seen
-- would surely have disturbed a man resentful enough of unnecessary and
superfluous theatrical distractions to pronounce judgment on such
distractions in the speech to the players.

This was my point.

Clearer?

BT

_______________________________________________________________
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: Movie Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0298  Thursday, 31 January 2002

[1]     From:   Kevin De Ornellas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 30 Jan 2002 17:29:08 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0270 Re: Movie Question

[2]     From:   David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 30 Jan 2002 17:36:59 GMT0BST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0270 Re: Movie Question

[3]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 30 Jan 2002 18:04:07 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0270 Re: Movie Question


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kevin De Ornellas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 30 Jan 2002 17:29:08 +0000
Subject: 13.0270 Re: Movie Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0270 Re: Movie Question

>The whole episode, in fact, seems to be edited to show how
>scholars have no exclusive claim on the text.

I think that this is an astute reading of the Jones 'Anne' moment by
S


Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.