2002

Re: Accents

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1082  Saturday, 20 April 2002

From:           Lise Olson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 19 Apr 2002 10:56:21 +0100
Subject: 13.1065 Re: Accents
Comment:        RE: SHK 13.1065 Re: Accents

I have been a lurker on this list for quite a while, but feel I must
weigh in on this one, Mr. Bloom.

Non-U accents (voice professionals prefer the non subjective term
'regional accents' to describe what they are--non neutral accents
associated with specific regions) are used in contemporary Shakespeare
productions not only for 'concept' but also for accessibility. Most
people in the UK do not speak in RP (the neutral accent that you refer
to). That accent calls attention to itself in places such as Liverpool,
Cardiff, Birmingham, Sheffield, Glasgow (as well as many other places).
The accent that is perceived as neutral in those places IS the regional
accent. Unless you wish to limit Shakespearean productions to those
speaking RP (except for the occasional 'comedic' characters --but that
is your point, is it not ? ) please think again about your idealised
aural vision of Shakespeare. Better yet, keep it on the page--then you
can hear it in whatever accent you desire. Putting it on the stage would
mean that live actors and directors might mangle your singular view of
how the plays should sound.

I have been training actors to perform Shakespeare for over 20 years.
They are working actors, primarily because they have the ability to
perform in the multitude of accents that are required/requested by
casting and theatre directors. A variety of accents does not always
'confuse' or 'sound weird'---often it enhances, enriches and extends the
theatrical experience.

Lise Olson
Lecturer  in Acting/Voice/Shakespeare
Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts
Associate Editor, IDEA  http://www.ukans.edu/~idea

_______________________________________________________________
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: Best Shakespeare Biography

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1081  Saturday, 20 April 2002

[1]     From:   Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Apr 2002 20:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1071 Re: Best Shakespeare Biography

[2]     From:   Susan Brock <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 19 Apr 2002 17:09:06 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 13.1071 Re: Best Shakespeare Biography


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Apr 2002 20:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 13.1071 Re: Best Shakespeare Biography
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1071 Re: Best Shakespeare Biography

Takashi Kozuka writes, "I hope Bill found Hardy's list very useful.  A
similar list is available on the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust's website
http://www.shakespeare.org.uk Have you decided which one you are going
to get?"

[Editor


Tennyson as Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1079  Saturday, 20 April 2002

From:           John Velz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Apr 2002 14:13:40 -0500
Subject:        Tennyson as Shakespeare

A *New York Times* story (Th, Apr. 18, A1 cont. on A18) on the scandal
of pedophilia in the Boston Roman Catholic Archdiocese contains this
paragraph that made me laugh aloud:  "In one letter, Father [John B.]
McCormack [then a staffer in the Boston Archdiocese, now Bishop of
Manchester, N.H.], who was a seminary classmate of Father [Paul R.]
Shanley's [a notable pedophile then in the Boston Archdiocese], wrote:
"Sensing the loneliness that comes with leaving a parish where you and
the parishioners have meant much to each other, the only thing I can
think of are the words of Shakespeare -- 'Better to have loved and lost
than never to have loved at all.'"

Rev. McCormack was remembering Tennyson's *In Memoriam*:

    And this I know, whate'er befall,
    I feel it when I sorrow most,
    'Tis better to have loved and lost,
    Than never to have loved at all.

Interestingly, T. is grieving in *In Memoriam* for the death of a male
friend.

Attributively yours,
John

_______________________________________________________________
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: Belmont on the Brenta

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1080  Saturday, 20 April 2002

[1]     From:   Michael W. Shurgot <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Apr 2002 14:17:55 -0700
        Subj:   RE: SHK 13.1070 Re: Belmont on the Brenta

[2]     From:   Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 19 Apr 2002 20:59:18 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1070 Re: Belmont on the Brenta


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael W. Shurgot <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Apr 2002 14:17:55 -0700
Subject: 13.1070 Re: Belmont on the Brenta
Comment:        RE: SHK 13.1070 Re: Belmont on the Brenta

Dear Colleagues:

Bill Godshalk raises a fascinating question: Why did Shakespeare select
the structure that he did [for Merchant?] I guess I would answer by
saying that the confrontation (wrongly termed a trial) in Act IV needs
the crucial piece of information that Shylock will not take the loot he
is offered, and the only way to get that piece of info. to Portia is to
have Jessica carry it there. "I have heard him say...." Hence, the
structure is built around having time for Jessica to sail to Belmont
from Genoa or wherever she spent the last of her papa's money. (I have
always assumed that she and hubby arrive broke and depending on Portia's
rumored largess ["richly left," etc.  with lots to spare] and hoping
that they would inherit Shylock's gold when he is destroyed back in
Venice, which surely Jessica knows [hopes?] will happen.) So, the
structure does not depend on Bassanio's motives, but rather on giving
the audience enough info. about what is happening back on the Rialto,
getting Bassanio and Gratiano to Belmont (spending money on their
leisurely way no doubt), and then getting Jessica to Belmont as well.
Once Portia has been "won,' and her money is Bassanio's, and hence his
friends', and Antonio is in jail, then everybody has to rush back to
Venice.  Bassanio's possibly having a pastoral, idyllic jaunt in Belmont
is not the point; or rather, it might have been only if the urgency of
Antonio's being locked up and in Shylock's hands were not the impetus to
return by catamaran to Venice.

Again, I think spectators in a theatre understand all this, once they
hear Jessica speak.

Cheers,
-Michael

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 19 Apr 2002 20:59:18 -0400
Subject: 13.1070 Re: Belmont on the Brenta
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1070 Re: Belmont on the Brenta

> >One could argue I suppose that Shakespeare's structure itself could tell
> >us something about Bassanio's priorities and motives, but this seems an
> >unnecessary investigation into a purely formal element in a theatre
> >where both time and space are conventionally infinitely malleable.

Time and space are malleable, but certainly not infinitely so. The
inconsistencies that appear here and elsewhere in Sh only work because
almost nobody notices them without close reading of the text for which
they ostensibly were not designed. They are a contrast to other cases in
which the consistency of time and space is obsessive beyond what casual
auditors are likely to remark. Why calculate in WT, for instance, the
accurate round trip travel time from Sicily to Delphi in a play famous
for its reference to nonexistent coastlines when neither reference is
likely to call attention to itself in a first viewing? If elements of
time and space are material to the text, why are they not consistent,
and if immaterial, why devote lines of dialogue to them? Why not one
thousand ducats for one month?

Even after many readings, the time lag in MOV admittedly was news to me,
and I consider myself a careful reader (although I'm not sure that three
months hanging around Belmont is absolutely disqualified by the
dialogue).  Consistency of narrative unities can only be malleable so
far as they continue to seem consistent to the audience and do not
interfere with the suspension of disbelief in the represented world. At
least I'm sure it's so for Shakespeare. Exceptions? Non Shakespearean
examples?

While I'm on the subject: 1) was the identity of the "holy hermit" in
Portia and Nerissa's company once discussed on the list? Was there a
consensus? 2) Is the servant at the end of 2.9 supposed to be describing
Gratiano? If so, why not describe the arrival of Bassanio himself?

Servant
     Madam, there is alighted at your gate
     A young Venetian, one that comes before
     To signify the approaching of his lord;
     From whom he bringeth sensible regreets,
     To wit, besides commends and courteous breath,
     Gifts of rich value. Yet I have not seen
     So likely an ambassador of love:
     A day in April never came so sweet,
     To show how costly summer was at hand,
     As this fore-spurrer comes before his lord.
PORTIA
     No more, I pray thee: I am half afeard
     Thou wilt say anon he is some kin to thee,
     Thou spend'st such high-day wit in praising him.
     Come, come, Nerissa; for I long to see
     Quick Cupid's post that comes so mannerly.
NERISSA
     Bassanio, lord Love, if thy will it be!

Clifford

_______________________________________________________________
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: DC Romeo and Juliet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1078  Saturday, 20 April 2002

[1]     From:   Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Apr 2002 11:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1069 Re: DC Romeo and Juliet

[2]     From:   Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Apr 2002 20:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1060 DC Romeo and Juliet


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Apr 2002 11:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 13.1069 Re: DC Romeo and Juliet
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1069 Re: DC Romeo and Juliet

>If you're asking
>about the portrayal of couple with tender and/or
>erotic interest, then
>my vote goes for Antony and Cleopatra. An audacious
>play, not discussed
>enough here.
>
>Jack Heller

Absolutely. Bravo Jack. Antony and Cleo is my vote for most underrated
play in the Shakespeare canon.

Brian Willis

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 18 Apr 2002 20:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 13.1060 DC Romeo and Juliet (and a little about the
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1060 DC Romeo and Juliet (and a little about the
Dunciad thread)

Jimmy Jung writes, "In particular, with the roles of Hamlet and Romeo,
there are those lines and moments that we all know too well.  When the
'light is breaking through the yonder window', or the Prince is 'to
being and not to being,' my chest tightens with the familiarity, I'm
yanked out of the story.  It is a circumstance that is only magnified
when a 'classically trained' actor, who knows 'how to speak
Shakespeare,' takes on 'The Greatest Speeches in English Drama'...I
would even recommend to Mr. Weinstein 'Romeo Must Die,' with a big ole'
bowl of popcorn (but mostly for the fight scenes)."

JJ writes so many wonderful lines I wished to have quote them all, but
he did bring into my mind with those above the ghastly image of a
"classically trained" actor, William F. Buckley, Jr., with his bulging
eyes and flickering tongue, and oh! his well-mannered Englishings, and I
wonder which Shakespeare role Mr. Weinstein would cast _Will B_ in?
Guesses, anyone?

Bill Arnold

_______________________________________________________________
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.