2002

Passion in Pieces

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1918  Wednesday, 18 September 2002

From:           Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 17 Sep 2002 22:11:22 +0100
Subject:        Passion in Pieces

I gratefully take up Thomas Larque's invitation to speak a little about
my sonnet project as there is some news that fellow list members might
find of some interest.

In 1998 an American poet friend of mine - a full blood Indian, as it
happens - sent me Sonnet 116 by email.  Now I had looked at the Sonnets
and found them inscrutable.  Perhaps it was the act of reading on a
computer monitor, but somehow it all became clear.  Further dipping into
the series lit up several other lights and I soon had in my grasp John
Kerrigan's Sonnet collection (Penguin) and read it from cover to cover.

The idea of making short films based on each sonnet almost invented
itself as I thought of similar modern relationships - so I contacted two
actor friends Tim Block and Laura Whittard.  They were up for the leads
parts so I managed to get TV and film photographer Clive Gill for a
cheap day - and in the summer of 1999 off we went to Dino's Restaurant
in South Kensington, London to shoot Sonnet 138.  I wanted the visuals
to be very understated - just two people chatting in a restaurant but
with obvious erotic overtones.  I had Tim with a blue shirt and Laura
with a pink top - character identification with colour was the idea.
Tim's make up was light - anti-shine basically - but Laura's was quite
heavy to give the impression of a girl on the make, but with class.  Now
I am a man of ruthless preparation in shooting, but Clive and I just had
to film and wait for something to happen - with a little prompting.  We
got lots of footage which helped no end with the editing.

Editing film is a hard won art.  It has taken me well over two years of
part time labour to get it half right but I think what I have now is
pretty near.  I listened avidly to friends who would pop round to see
the latest edit and incorporated many of their suggestions.  I have no
shame in that - it's what directing is all about, in my view.

The soundtrack proved more problematical.  I had had several positive
ideas about how the reading should sound.  The image I had was of the
ghost of the Bard leaning in a dark corner of the room watching the same
relationship unfold before his eyes that he suffered all those years
ago.  I tried reading the thing myself with that in mind and people
seemed to like it.  I kept my southern English vowel sounds but was very
particular about sounding every consonant.  I paid little heed to the
meter - but a lot to the punctuation.  I believe that the when you speak
Shakespeare's poetry your voice changes.  It is the sound (if you let
it) of your soul resonating through your mouth.  A natural rhythm comes
from that, in my view, and not a slavish adherence to five iambs per
line.  But in any case, people will be the judge.  The music is by a
wonderful guitar musician called Piers Partridge.
Earlier this year I was surfing the net looking for a way to promote the
project when I discovered the constant stream of world wide film
festivals.  New Orleans caught my eye as I had spent a day there last
November.  I entered and I am pleased to report that Passion in Pieces
(three sonnet films) has been selected to be shown in the festival week
during October 10 - 17.  They had over 500 entries world-wide and only
70 were chosen.  It will actually be screened on Wednesday 16 of October
at 7pm in the Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans.  I have no idea
what could happen or what will happen - but I have everything crossed.

If Hardy would allow a beg?  I would dearly love to be at the Festival
week but it would cost more than I could afford - New Orleans is not a
cheap city.  If there were any charitable list members living in New
Orleans or very nearby that would allow me to crash on their
sofa/kitchen/dog kennel then I might be able to blag a discount plane
ticket and be able to come.  I am clean and reliable and occasionally
reasonable company and would be able to get you into some of the
after-screen parties which go on through the week.  I am eminently
contactable off-list.

My email address
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The New Orleans Film Festival
http://www.neworleansfilmfest.com

The In Competition list - (look under 'P')
http://www.neworleansfilmfest.com/films_2002.html

Passion in Pieces promotional site
http://www.passioninpieces.co.uk

_______________________________________________________________
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: Boyet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1917  Wednesday, 18 September 2002

[1]     From:   Peter Groves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 17 Sep 2002 21:51:05 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1905 Re: Boyet

[2]     From:   David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 17 Sep 2002 21:57:01 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1903 Boyet


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Groves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 17 Sep 2002 21:51:05 +0000
Subject: 13.1905 Re: Boyet
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1905 Re: Boyet

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

>Act Two contrasts the conflict over Aquitaine with the bold flirtations
>displayed by the King's courtiers and the Princess's ladies. Before the
>entrance of the men, all the ladies (and Boyet) converse in iambic
>pentameter. When the King enters, he greets the Princess in iambic
>pentameter. The Princess (peeved) responds in prose. The King persists
>in iambic pentameter and the Princess responds in kind.

A nice point: she initially breaches decorum to signal her displeasure
with *his* breach of decorum (in not inviting the ladies into the
palace).

Peter Groves

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 17 Sep 2002 21:57:01 -0400
Subject: 13.1903 Boyet
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1903 Boyet

The passage is, indeed, dactylic tetrameter; as usual in English
accentual dactylics, the example of Vergil and Ovid has authorized
frequent departures from strict adherence to the pattern.  But it's not
the only instance of that meter in the scene.  The rapidly changing
verse of the encounters among Maria, Katherine, Rosalind, and the
Princess (Arden/David 2.1.194-234), preceding Boyet's speech, flirts
with and sometimes achieves the meter (see.  esp. 194-95, 197-200,
215-230.

The whole scene is a musical/visual tour de force, a dramatic analog to
the suites of dances, with their changes of rhythm and mood, that were
popular with composers, musicians and dancers of the period (and have
maintained that popularity since).  Since many of the dances had rustic
origins, such an approach is appropriate to the bucolic setting of
*LLL*.  In a sensitive performance of the play the dance elements are
usually realized to some extent, as pairs of speakers move briefly to
center stage and then retire.  All very artificial, of course (in the
root sense: overtly making art out of life), just as the rusticity is
artificial, the courtship is artificial, the whole knot of the plot
artificial, since as the Princess and Boyet make clear earlier in the
scene the conflict between France and Navarre, which has generated the
Princess's embassy, will be resolved as soon as the documents arrive
(2.1.160-66).

No other play of the canon, of course, is so indebted to the
enthusiastic exploration of metrical variety that went on in English
non-dramatic poetry of the later sixteenth century--or so challenges
actors to find and maintain the meter from form to form, or signal the
frequent shifts to prose.

Inframetrically,
David Evett

_______________________________________________________________
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: C. S. Lewis on Punishment

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1915  Wednesday, 18 September 2002

From:           L. Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, September 18, 2002 17:10:44 -0500
Subject:        Re: C. S. Lewis on Punishment

Geralyn Horton writes,

>I was taught as a child that one did have the moral obligation to "turn
>oneself in" for  crimes, likewise to comply with parking regulations and
>feel guilty about as well as pay any fines levied for inadvertent
>noncompliance, etc.  "Owning up" was "character" and "conscience" as
>well as "citizenship"-- though virtue could also be evidenced by
>principled opposition to unjust laws or intrusive regulation.  In
>criminal matters the cost to fellow citizens (or classmates: confession
>was coerced in elementary and high school by punishing the whole class
>until the perp owned up) of investigating the crime and the harm to
>people wrongly suspected was also laid to the moral charge of the
>unconfessing criminal.etc.

In the perfect world into which Ms. Horton seems to have been born,
perhaps the unaccused guilty do turn themselves in to the authorities
and urge public correction (although, in such a world, crimes would not
be committed in the first place.) The rest of us, I fear, are not there
yet, and are not likely to be anytime soon, nor or we to be chastised
for seeking private reconciliation with conscience/God without public
confession.  Besides, who among us will cast the first stone?
Christianity (and I suppose many religions) accepts the imperfect world
and aims to improve it and to redeem the fallen by changing the
individual in his private relation to his conscience/his God.  For those
faiths that have the sacrament of Confession, the inviolable secrecy of
the Confessional is evidence of its understood privacy and the
separation of the public things of Caesar from the private things of
God.  (Ultimately very practical, the Roman Catholic Church early on did
away with public penance, although even when that was used, the
particular sin of the penitent was not known.)

Should we all run into the street announcing to the public occasions of
our mistreatment of our wives, our husbands, our children, our
relatives?  That we tasted a grape at the grocery store without paying
for it?

Let us stop this nonsense and realize that the very law protects privacy
in many ways - one, for instance, is not required to turn in his or her
errant spouse, nor or we required to incriminate ourselves. The law
wisely deals only with what can be publicly known, then applies its
justice sadly; it does not expect or demand that the unaccused guilty
turn themselves in to the law; it does not find any such further guilty
for having remained quiet about his guilt.  The law accepts the
imperfect world and deals with it sensibly.  Even more so, the
respectable religions.

       L. Swilley

_______________________________________________________________
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: Her C's . . .

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1916  Wednesday, 18 September 2002

From:           Michael Shurgot <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 17 Sep 2002 14:32:13 -0700
Subject: 13.1850 Re: Her C's . . .
Comment:        RE: SHK 13.1850 Re: Her C's . . .

Dear Colleagues:

Once more, I gather, into the breach, or wherever these remarks are
taking us. My point about Olivia's seven years of grieving is not that I
blame her for expressing understandable grief, but rather that 7 years
of announced mourning seems prima facie absurd. How does one know one
will, or can, mourn for seven whole years? Olivia expresses, of course,
recognizable human emotions (being, we must remember, a character in a
fairy tale about whom we know nothing except what is given in the
script[Did she cry often as a child? We don't/can't know]), but the
seven year plan seems like one of the many excesses ripe for picking in
this highly satirical play. Like Iago, Feste is nothing if not critical,
and he knows an easy target when he sees one.

I mean not to alarm, only to engage. What happens to the seven year plan
once Olivia is smitten, and why does she accept the substitution of
Sebastian for Cesario at the end with no other remark other than "Most
Wonderful"? How well does she know herself? Her own emotions? Does the
convention of love (or the plague, as she says) at first sight obviate
us as readers (or better, spectators) from thinking her rapid flip from
one emotion to another (and from one "husband" to another) as silly as
the initial seclusion? Are these signs of a cynicism about human
emotions in this play at the end of a festive period in which indulgence
of many kinds has simply outdone itself?

I appreciate the continuing interest and courteous responses.

Autumn Cheers,
Michael Shurgot

_______________________________________________________________
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: The Supernatural and Modernity

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1914  Wednesday, 18 September 2002

[1]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 17 Sep 2002 20:34:48 +0100
        Subj:   SHK 13.1906 The Supernatural and Modernity

[2]     From:   H. David Friedberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 17 Sep 2002 16:50:23 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1906 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 17 Sep 2002 20:34:48 +0100
Subject: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment:        SHK 13.1906 The Supernatural and Modernity

An orthodox ghost?

... the Popes, who may be most prodigiously impious, and worse then
Infidels; not onely erring in some particular points, concerning the
Faith, but overthrowing all, as he did, that PICUS MIRANDULA speaketh
off, who peremptorily denyed that there is any God... And that other hee
speaketh off, who denyed the immortality of the soule, though after his
death, appearing to one of them to whome in his life time hee had
uttered that his impious conceit, hee told him hee now found, to his
endlesse woe and misery, that soule hee thought mortall to be immortall,
and never to dye.

Richard Field, THE FIFTH BOOKE OF THE CHURCH... (London 1610), Chapter
51, "Of the assurance of finding out the Truth, which the Bishops
assembled in Generall Council have", p.404

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           H. David Friedberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 17 Sep 2002 16:50:23 -0400
Subject: 13.1906 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1906 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

I wonder how a thing can exist in the cosmos and NOT be relative to
something else in the cosmos. But I haven't studied physics since high
school, and perhaps I've missed something in Scientific American.

The odd thing about the Theory of Special Relativity is that the one
thing in the cosmos that is not relative to anything is the speed of
light

So it really is the Theory of non-Relativity

David

_______________________________________________________________
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.