2002

Re: Stage Screen . . . Radio

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0682  Wednesday, 6 March 2002

From:           Drew Whitehead <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 06 Mar 2002 08:53:30 +1000
Subject: 13.0643 Stage Screen . . . Radio
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0643 Stage Screen . . . Radio

John Velz's humorous comment about radio Shakespeare invites me to query
why it is that audio Shakespeare is not reviewed and discussed
critically in the same way that film, video and live performances are?
I enjoy audio Shakespeare not the least because I can listen to it in my
car (arguably the perfect place to enjoy Shakespeare) and find it
curious that the latest venture by Penguin - the Arkangel Shakespeare -
can pass in critical silence.

Drew Whitehead

_______________________________________________________________
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: Classical Acting: Decline

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0681  Wednesday, 6 March 2002

[1]     From:   Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 Mar 2002 14:58:03 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0654 Re: Classical Acting: Decline

[2]     From:   Arthur Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 6 Mar 2002 09:33:01 +0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0654 Re: Classical Acting: Decline


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Mar 2002 14:58:03 -0600
Subject: 13.0654 Re: Classical Acting: Decline
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0654 Re: Classical Acting: Decline

Without trying to defend other aspects Mr.Weinstein's point, I have to
agree with him over some things. Chaucer is so good that we trouble to
learn Middle English (and a fair amount of late Medieval history) just
so we can savor him. And even if there weren't Chaucer, there would
still be the Pearl-poet and Langland, both writers of unquestioned
greatness, not to mention some lesser lights, such as Gower. But after
Chaucer the quality of writing in English drops rapidly (except in
Scotland where he more or less lives on). I can stomach Skelton only in
small quantities. Wyatt occasionally wrote excellently, and Surreyeven
less often, and then there's another dry spell until the explosion on
the scene of Sidney and Spenser and some dozens of poets. And after them
--

Now I will gladly retract what I've just said, which I know is a
terrible clich


Re: Olivier

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0679  Wednesday, 6 March 2002

From:           Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Mar 2002 18:32:43 -0000
Subject: 13.0627 Re: Olivier
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0627 Re: Olivier

Brian Willis makes a spirited defence of cinema as a Shakespeare medium
whilst admitting to its all too obvious faults.  He says quite
stridently that Shakespeare was plot driven.

"Beautiful poetry yes, but also some of the best sources and plots were
drawn upon. Richard III thrills us . . . "

Shakespeare called himself a poet - not a storyteller or dramatist.  We
would be the poorer if the latter were true.  I don't believe he was
remotely interested in plot.  Hence only three of his plays had original
plots - and someone probably told him those.

"Again, NO ONE watches soaps for the great dialogue.  It's the plot. Who
sleeps with who? Who is going to kill who? Much like a Shakespearean
comedy.  Except Shakespeare's dialogue is far better."

I think Brian is beginning to erode his own point.  The word is
"dialogue" - but in the case of Shakespeare it is poetry.  If I can
crudely distil the Bard - he is all about the poetry of being human.
This has nothing to do with plot, counter plot and surprising twists.
The plot of many plays were crude and sometimes clumsy - as in the
untidy ends of The Tempest.  Richard III's plot is not intricate - lots
of characters don't mean complex.  When the two little princes have a
scene to themselves being very cute we just know that the next scene
contains their murder.  Such a crude set-up would be red-lined at any
second rate creative writing school any where.

Film is most certainly not always visual, as Brian asserts.  I won't
bore with obvious lists but Kramer vs. Kramer, Accidental Tourist, Dead
Poets Society, etc. are not remembered for their lavish set designs.  I
say again that television is by far the best medium for the dramatic
reciting of dramatic poetry - Shakespeare.

I ask Brian.  If you were showing an intelligent, artistic adult a
version of Romeo & Juliet for the first and only time, would you show
Luhrmann's effort? I think not and rest my case.

Martin Steward has nudged me into finding a copy of Greenaway's
Prospero's Books.  I'm sure I'll hate it, but who knows, it might be
wonderful.

SAM SMALL

_______________________________________________________________
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: Inconsistencies

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0680  Wednesday, 6 March 2002

[1]     From:   Brandon Toropov <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday 5 Mar 2002 10:56:54 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0647 Re: Inconsistencies

[2]     From:   Roger D. Gross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday 5 Mar 2002 15:29:25 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0647 Re: Inconsistencies


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brandon Toropov <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday 5 Mar 2002 10:56:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 13.0647 Re: Inconsistencies
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0647 Re: Inconsistencies

Larry Weiss writes:

> > The banished Kent, who has "raz'd" his
> "likeness" (shaved off his beard)
> > in order to establish a disguise, later
> confronts Osric with a memorable
> > torrent of verbal abuse, and challenges him
> to draw.  The cowardly Osric
> > refuses to unsheath his sword, <snip>
> > It's certainly true that there are a whole
> lot of these kinds of
> > problems in KING LEAR; they suggest to me
> that WS may have made a habit
> > of writing "in the heat," without going back
> and checking important
> > details
>
> Like transposing Osric from Hamlet to Lear.
> Obviously, you meant
> Oswald.
>

Clearly, I need a better outline to work from.

:)

Brandon

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Roger D. Gross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday 5 Mar 2002 15:29:25 -0600
Subject: 13.0647 Re: Inconsistencies
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0647 Re: Inconsistencies

Brandon (I think) said:

> >The banished Kent, who has "raz'd" his "likeness" (shaved off his beard)
> >in order to establish a disguise, later confronts Osric with a memorable
> >torrent of verbal abuse, and challenges him to draw.  The cowardly Osric
> >refuses to unsheath his sword, and later, in a craven lie constructed to
> >impress Cornwall and Regan, explains that he has spared his would-be
> >assailant's life "at suit of his grey beard."

This one is easily resolved:  "raz'd"  doesn't mean "razored", doesn't
suggest shaving his beard at all.  Of the four meanings of the term
found in Schmidt's SHAKESPEARE LEXICON, none means "shaved".  The
closest would be #4:  "to erase, to blot out" and that meaning is
attributed to the use in LEAR which you quote.  He finds that meaning at
four other sites.  His other meanings are:  "to strike on the surface",
"to level with the ground" (which is our common meaning) and "to
destroy, to make away with".

All we can say about Kent, I think, is that he has somehow made himself
unrecognizable.

I also believe that David Wilson's argument is conclusive:  a working
(adult) actor would surely not shave for a role, particularly in a
repertory system such as the Globe's.

Roger Gross
U. of Arkansas

_______________________________________________________________
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: Doesn't Anyone Have Any Ideas?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0678  Wednesday, 6 March 2002

[1]     From:   Charles Whitney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday 5 Mar 2002 10:19:08 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0644 Doesn't Anyone Have Any Ideas?

[2]     From:   Roger D. Gross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday 5 Mar 2002 13:24:37 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0644 Doesn't Anyone Have Any Ideas?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Charles Whitney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday 5 Mar 2002 10:19:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 13.0644 Doesn't Anyone Have Any Ideas?
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0644 Doesn't Anyone Have Any Ideas?

That poem never did much for me, but I'm open to instruction.  There are
three new dedicatory verses in the Second Folio--Milton's, the long
interesting one labeled "I.M.S." and the effigies one you mention.  For
Douglas Lanier they all seek to recover a sense of the living person
Shakespeare.  See "Encrytpions," _Reading and Writing in Shakespeare_,
ed David Bergeron, Associated University Presses, 1996.  I do not know
of any attributions of "Upon the Effigies," but "I.M.S.", if that refers
to a name, may have been Jasper Mayne.

Regards,
Charles

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Roger D. Gross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday 5 Mar 2002 13:24:37 -0600
Subject: 13.0644 Doesn't Anyone Have Any Ideas?
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0644 Doesn't Anyone Have Any Ideas?

> A few weeks back you kindly posted my inquiry about the Second Folio:
> did anyone know any attributions to the new dedicatory verses in the
> 1632 ed? (the 'Effigies' poem, NOT the Milton).
>
> To my amazement, there have been no takers on or off line: is it such a
> boring little poem that no-one ever thought about it before?  Or am I
> missing something so obvious that everyone out there knows but me?
>
> Does anyone know ANYTHING about it?

Re. poem in Second Folio, "Shakespeare, an Illustrated Dictionary" has
this:

Milton, John...English poet; his first published poem was his sonnet 'An
Epitaph on the Admirable Dramatic Poet, W. Shakespeare', printed
anonymously in the Second Folio* (1632)".

Roger Gross
U. of Arkansas

_______________________________________________________________
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.