Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: April ::
Re: Towards a New Dunciad
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0898  Saturday, 1 April 2002

[1]     From:   R.A. Cantrell <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 29 Mar 2002 10:46:22 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0880 Re: Towards a New Dunciad

[2]     From:   R.A. Cantrell <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 29 Mar 2002 10:49:21 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0880 Re: Towards a New Dunciad

[3]     From:   Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 31 Mar 2002 19:05:33 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0880 Re: Towards a New Dunciad


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R.A. Cantrell <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 29 Mar 2002 10:46:22 -0600
Subject: 13.0880 Re: Towards a New Dunciad
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0880 Re: Towards a New Dunciad

> PS - "The Masque of the Red Death" is a masterpiece, and I'll contend
> with anyone who thinks otherwise. (No, it's not Jonson, it's Corman
> "interpreting" Poe...)

I worked on several of Roger's epics in the 70's.

All the best,
R.A. Cantrell
<
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R.A. Cantrell <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 29 Mar 2002 10:49:21 -0600
Subject: 13.0880 Re: Towards a New Dunciad
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0880 Re: Towards a New Dunciad

> Unfortunately, most Shakespearean
> films offer little or nothing of enduring socio-cultural interest.

Should they? I didn't get the memo.

All the best,
R.A. Cantrell
<
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 31 Mar 2002 19:05:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 13.0880 Re: Towards a New Dunciad
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0880 Re: Towards a New Dunciad

David Bishop writes, "Charles Weinstein shows a touching faith that an
advanced degree in film studies makes one an expert on film, and in
literary studies an expert on literature. What then are his credentials
for judging Shakespeare films? Not that I care. My point is that for me
the only credentials he needs are to be found in the quality of his
thinking, on any subject. As for all the valuable work those amateurs
writing on film would be doing if only they would turn their attention
back to their legitimate field, I think I can safely do without most of
it."

I believe I have mentioned I was a motion picture projectionist for
several decades, among other duties in my lifetime here on the planet,
and have a relative fondness for the medium.  I have had a number of
famous actors and directors walk abruptly in my booth over the years, I
ran the rushes for the director and casting director of _Jaws_, I ran
the world's premiere of _Harold and Maude_ for Ruth Gordon, personally,
and all those memories make me remember all that movies meant to me when
I was young and tender.  I even recall getting up and walking out on the
last scene of _Easy Rider_ before it happened, knowing _what_ was going
to happen.  To this day I can't swim in the ocean [Jaws] nor ride on
motorcycles [ER].  Film is powerful, and so is stage drama.  And it
entertains.  Does CW _really_ know what the word _entertain_ means?

Now that I am an old bird, I look back on films I saw years ago through
the wrong end of a telescope.  Memory has a way of collapsing reality
for us, agreed?  Anyway, I cannot quite follow CW's point about film and
Shakespeare, at all.  By way of example, I think back on a unique black
and white film, quite artsy, in my distant past, one I am sure some of
you all remember as a ghostly remembrance of its past, and yet are quite
_glad_ it was put into celluloid.  It was _Last Year at Marienbad_.  God
help me if I spelled that wrong.

Here's my point: CW can categorize the arts however _he_ wishes.  I saw
the latest R&J By BL and in hindsight I _loved_ it.  It is now a _fond_
memory like that grainy LYaM.  But I know art would not be the same:
film, stage, whatever, but for the tantalizing film LYaM.  It was like
BL's R&J: a _new_ way of looking at entertainment.  Who knows how many
writers, directors, et al., have been _affected_ artistically by LYaM,
and it is part of their ID and they do _not_ know it, even as they do
new artistic endeavors.

After all, what is Shakespeare, but entertainment?  The cottage industry
which has developed around his plays and his memory is just that.  So
what.

CW cannot stop  billions upon billions of people from going out, paying
their saw bucks for tickets, gulping down soda and popcorn and saying,
"well, we had a nice time at the movies."  Entertained :)

Bill Arnold

_______________________________________________________________
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.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.