Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: March ::
Re: Time Placement
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0620  Monday, 4 March 2002

[1]     From:   Karen Peterson <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 1 Mar 2002 08:11:05 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0606 Time Placement

[2]     From:   Arthur Lindley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 2 Mar 2002 10:46:02 +0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0606 Time Placement

[3]     From:   Martin Steward <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 2 Mar 2002 10:24:53 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0606 Time Placement

[4]     From:   Brandon Toropov <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 2 Mar 2002 09:51:56 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0606 Time Placement


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen Peterson <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 1 Mar 2002 08:11:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 13.0606 Time Placement
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0606 Time Placement

> What would have become of WS if he had been born in
> 1950?

In his late teens, after completing his secondary education with
competency, although not with the distinction necessary to win him a
place at uni, he would have migrated from the Midlands to London.  After
knocking about the theatre world and doing some bit parts for TV, he
would have become a writer for the BBC adapting "classics" into costume
drama.  Then, having received a more lucrative offer from ITV or Channel
4, along with the opportunity to do more innovative work, he moves into
"hard-hitting contemporary" dramas.  He wins some awards, and can buy a
pretty nice house back in Stratford, but no one's stopping him on the
street for his autograph.  Along the way he publishes a couple of
critically well-received "slim volumes" of verse.  They do not sell well
(slim volumes rarely do) and are now out of print.

Cheers,
Karen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Arthur Lindley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 2 Mar 2002 10:46:02 +0800
Subject: 13.0606 Time Placement
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0606 Time Placement

He would eventually have written a screenplay called Stoppard in Love?

Arthur Lindley

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 2 Mar 2002 10:24:53 -0000
Subject: 13.0606 Time Placement
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0606 Time Placement

"What would have become of WS if he had been born in 1950?" Jim Slager
wonders. Well, it's obvious, isn't it? Either a) the producer of
historical drama films in the Merchant-Ivory mould or b) an advertising
copywriter.

m

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brandon Toropov <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 2 Mar 2002 09:51:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 13.0606 Time Placement
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0606 Time Placement

> What would have become of WS if he had been born in
> 1950?
>
> Regards,
> Jim Slager

One common answer is that he would have been a commercially successful
screenwriter, but I have my doubts. The screenwriting form is
historically unfriendly to writers who rely on extended speeches.
Examples of major-studio green-light decisions that overcome this
prejudice are rare, I think, and include entries (such as the woefully
underrated MAGNOLIA) that never broke through as "mainstream" smasheroos
... probably because they required that modern movie audience pay
attention to ideas not presented in bite-sized chunks.

(Please forgive the following side note: One idiotic reviewer of
MAGNOLIA attacked its script's two paterfamilias cancer victims, arguing
that this repetition was, by definition, a sign of sloppy and
unimaginative writing. Presumably the similarity of the Lear and Gloster
plots would have earned the same criticism.)

My bet: Today, Shakesepare would be writing and producing greate playes
-- and, prhappes, attractyng noteyce for inconstantt spellynge that
woold challynge even ye sleekest spelle-checke softeware.

Brandon

_______________________________________________________________
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 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.
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.