Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: March ::
Re: LA Times Review of M for M
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0475  Thursday, 13 March 2003

[1]     From:   Martin Steward <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 12 Mar 2003 16:34:35 -0000
        Subj:   SHK 14.0470 LA Times Review of M for M

[2]     From:   Nancy Charlton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 12 Mar 2003 11:15:16 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0470 LA Times Review of M for M


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Mar 2003 16:34:35 -0000
Subject: LA Times Review of M for M
Comment:        SHK 14.0470 LA Times Review of M for M

So the LA Times reviewer thinks Measure was a "1623 study of political
and sexual hypocrisy", does he?

Oh dear. Shakespeare's "genius" truly knew no bounds!

martin

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Nancy Charlton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 12 Mar 2003 11:15:16 -0800
Subject: 14.0470 LA Times Review of M for M
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0470 LA Times Review of M for M

This review almost but not quite would persuade one to hop on a plane
and go to LA for this performance--provided it could combine a foray to
the Huntington to see the Elizabeth exhibit and the gardens including
the immense lily.

There were two minor things about this review that were bothersome to
me.

First: "... Although the Folio listings identify this 1623 study ..." A
quibble perhaps, but the Folio was 1623 and MM is said to have first
been performed in 1604.

Second: The reviewer, after stating what seemed to him as imbalances
among the actors, dismisses it with this: "These disparate forces will
likely develop more cohesive layers in continued performance; such is
the nature of repertory theater."

Granted that 99% of my experience of theater has been as part of the
audience, I don't quite know what to make of this. Does he mean that all
repertory companies must settle into their performances, and if so why
would that not apply to, say, the RSC as well? Or, why is this
peculiarly true of repertory theater? Is this a kindly or is it a
disparaging comment?

Thanks much for the link.

Nancy Charlton

_______________________________________________________________
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.