2003

Is this Gdansk I see before me?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1704  Friday, 29 August 2003

From:           Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 28 Aug 2003 19:24:50 -0400
Subject:        Is this Gdansk I see before me?

Is this Gdansk I see before me?

Italy and Poland are the latest countries to want a playhouse devoted to
the bard, writes Sophie Arie.

Shakespeare may have been dead for nearly 400 years but temples of
Shakespeare worship are still being built in Europe. In the past month
an Italian version of London's Globe theatre has sprung up in the Villa
Borghese park in the heart of Rome.

The 2m euro (


Re: Psalm 46

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1703  Friday, 29 August 2003

From:           Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 28 Aug 2003 08:14:45 -0700
Subject: 14.1697 Re: Psalm 46
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1697 Re: Psalm 46

I thank Bill Arnold for reprinting my entire argument and for his
valiant attempt to establish a connection between my cousin and me.  I
just now noticed that Bill and our perpetual topic have the same first
name, William, but in his posts on this thread, Bill has determinedly
avoided that coincidence.  I believe mischief's afoot.

Al Magary

PS--Hardy, can't you make those cute AOL smiley icons available to us?

[Editor's Note: No. -Hardy]

_______________________________________________________________
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: Tillyard (Again)

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1700  Friday, 29 August 2003

[1]     From:   Hugh Grady <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Aug 2003 10:00:26 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.1695 Re: Tillyard (Again)

[2]     From:   D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Aug 2003 09:19:05 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1695 Re: Tillyard (Again)


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hugh Grady <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 28 Aug 2003 10:00:26 -0400
Subject: 14.1695 Re: Tillyard (Again)
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.1695 Re: Tillyard (Again)

Clifford Stetner is right of course that Shakespeare was not a
nineteenth-century revolutionary socialist. I plead poetic license.

Cheers,
Hugh Grady

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 28 Aug 2003 09:19:05 -0500
Subject: 14.1695 Re: Tillyard (Again)
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1695 Re: Tillyard (Again)

Clifford Stetner writes

>Marx was a Shakespearean ahead of his time, but Shakespeare, although he
>held the bourgeoisie in contempt, spent too much time sucking up to the
>aristos to be called a Marxist.

I don't wish to be a knee-jerk bardolator, but it strikes me that this
has much to do with which side of the French Revolution you happened to
live on.

I imagine that, had he lived in the time of Wordsworth and Coleridge, he
would likely have been a kind of ideal combination of both. But he would
not, I think, have been a playwright, and would have spent no time
"sucking up to the aristos."

(This might make an interesting parlor game: trying to decide what
writers from other eras would have to be pasted together to make the
Shakespeare of that time. On the other hand, it might be self-indulgent
and stupid. Maybe I should withdraw it. No, too late.)

Cheers,
don

_______________________________________________________________
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.

The Image of Woman

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1702  Friday, 29 August 2003

From:           Evelyn Gajowski <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 28 Aug 2003 10:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 14.1693 The Image of Woman
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1693 The Image of Woman

Of interest may be Carolyn E. Brown's essay, "Bianca and Petruchio: 'The
Veriest Shrew[s] of All,'" which deals with the issues being discussed
and *Shrew's* true shrews in *Re-Visions of Shakespeare: Essays in Honor
of Robert Ornstein*, forthcoming from Delaware and edited by yours
truly.

Evelyn Gajowski
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
_______________________________________________________________
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.

Thirteenth Night

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1699  Friday, 29 August 2003

[1]     From:   Marc Honea <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Aug 2003 09:34:07 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1692 Thirteenth Night

[2]     From:   D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Aug 2003 08:58:44 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1692 Thirteenth Night

[3]     From:   Marc Honea <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Aug 2003 12:14:14 -0400
        Subj:   Fw: SHK 14.1692 Thirteenth Night

[4]     From:   Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Aug 2003 10:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1692 Thirteenth Night


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marc Honea <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 28 Aug 2003 09:34:07 -0400
Subject: 14.1692 Thirteenth Night
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1692 Thirteenth Night

As a theatre person and a jazz musician I must throw my towel into the
ring as well  (is that an appropriate sports metaphor, my Auburn tiger
enthusiast?).

In a classic jazz ensemble one hopes to experience a group of players
who know "the changes" of whatever tune has been called.  One also hopes
the tune has been living and growing in the soul, memory and muscles of
the players for many years.  If one is extremely fortunate one will hear
players who have played together, "trading choruses," often and in
mutual appreciation of all inventive variations offered.

Sounds like the Lord Chamberlain's Men to me...The rewards of playing
are the same for actor and audience...and playwright.  Jazz and
Shakespeare:  a ripe field for analogical indulgence.

PS: Sorry group.  The word frequently should appear after played
together in my last spontaneous emission.  Perhaps those who doubt the
jazz/Shakespeare connection can smile in satisfaction at a boggled
spontaneous riff.  Sorry.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 28 Aug 2003 08:58:44 -0500
Subject: 14.1692 Thirteenth Night
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1692 Thirteenth Night

Lott W. Brantley offers this opinion

>Actually, I agree with the post about acting being jazz-like. I have
>worked with actors who are set like concrete each night in the
>interpretations of their roles and I can tell you,  consistency is the
>death of an actor.  (Acting 101)  In my opinion, rigidity suppresses
>inspiration.  An actor should be flexible in his performance and ready
>to accept those human moments that will eventually occur with focus and
>listening.

Well, you go to your church and I'll go to mine.

However, sneers of the "Acting 101" and "Community theatre directors"
sort aside, actors who go sailing off into flights of inspiration are
the death of good plays. Of course there is always certain amount of
latitude in interpretation, especially in soliloquies or in two-person
scenes where the actors know each other (professionally) quite well, but
you have to be very, very careful.

If I have a line (as I currently do) that begins "Please don't scream at
me," then the actress I'm working with had better have just been
screaming.  Otherwise the line sounds stupid.

Likewise, with stage movement you have to know not only where you're
going but why or you'll get yourself into all kinds of tangles. The more
people there are on stage the more important it is that everybody knows
what the other people are up to. As an actor, you can make adjustments
if somebody starts wheeling around out of position, but you aren't going
to like it -- and neither is the director. If he or she has carefully
built up a stage picture that keeps the scene from looking either
unbalanced or static, then a lot of unauthorized movement by the actors
is going to mess it up thoroughly.

As to the stage directions: these are written by the author and are part
of the play, part of the vision that he or she developed in the writing.
As with any performance art, you can and should offer an interpretation,
but when you start re-writing then you're getting into deep water
indeed.  Playwrights don't like it, and with good reason.

An old adage: "If you want to write, write. If you want to act, act. But
don't confuse the two."

Cheers,
 don

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marc Honea <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 28 Aug 2003 12:14:14 -0400
Subject: 14.1692 Thirteenth Night
Comment:        Fw: SHK 14.1692 Thirteenth Night

Again on jazz/Shakespeare.  Clearly improvisation involves existential
risk.  In this case I have fumbled while laboring in our treasure trove
of political and sports clich


Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.