2004

Shakespeare Apocrypha

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0950  Monday, 26 April 2004

[1]     From:   David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 23 Apr 2004 12:49:56 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0940 Shakespeare Apocrypha

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 23 Apr 2004 22:52:29 -0700
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.0940 Shakespeare Apocrypha


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 23 Apr 2004 12:49:56 -0400
Subject: 15.0940 Shakespeare Apocrypha
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0940 Shakespeare Apocrypha

I hate to bother Ward Elliott for info that's probably available
elsewhere, but it's hard for me to get to the library these days.  While
his last post explained about *Henry V* it didn't about *Timon*,
substantial parts of which some have attributed to Middleton or some
other writers.  If I thought this question of authorship were reasonably
settled I might change a footnote.

David Evett

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 23 Apr 2004 22:52:29 -0700
Subject: 15.0940 Shakespeare Apocrypha
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.0940 Shakespeare Apocrypha

Why Timon?  I'm planning on reviewing it soon, and it would be
interesting to discover that (say) too much of it is in Greek.

Yrs,
SKL.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Merchant of Venice Trailer

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0949  Monday, 26 April 2004

From:           Edward Brown <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 23 Apr 2004 10:19:11 -0500
Subject: 15.0934 Merchant of Venice Trailer
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.0934 Merchant of Venice Trailer

Linking to trailer has been disabled.

_______________________________________________________________
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 Tucker Method

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0947  Monday, 26 April 2004

[1]     From:   Alan J. Sanders <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 23 Apr 2004 07:50:35 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0935 The Tucker Method

[2]     From:   Scott Sharplin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 23 Apr 2004 08:56:01 -0600 (MDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0935 The Tucker Method

[3]     From:   Cornelius Novelli <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 23 Apr 2004 12:44:47 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0935 The Tucker Method


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Alan J. Sanders <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 23 Apr 2004 07:50:35 -0400
Subject: 15.0935 The Tucker Method
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0935 The Tucker Method

I had the privilege of taking a workshop from Mr. Tucker several years
ago as he was promoting his Original Shakespeare Company.  He was quite
entertaining as a speaker and his analysis of the text from an 'actors'
point of view was compelling.  However, after all of the quips and
exercises and general discussion, I was left with one unshakeable
thought-would a "modern" audience accept an unrehearsed play?

I think the concept is fascinating and a 'true theatre goer' might enjoy
watching a cast perform using this methodology, but the typical,
non-seasoned theatre goer likely has expectations on the level of
performance they are wanting to see-especially at today's ticket prices.
  This is only my gut feel, but I think this concept might leave some
disappointed at a less-than-polished feel.  This is simply my opinion as
both an actor and a director.  I like the exercise, but I don't think I
would risk including it in a season-not when every show (typically) is a
struggle just to pull in enough revenue to keep the theatre alive.

Regards,
Alan

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Scott Sharplin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 23 Apr 2004 08:56:01 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: 15.0935 The Tucker Method
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0935 The Tucker Method

I have directed about a dozen Shakespeare plays over the years, so I had
a particular interest in Patrick Tucker's theory/practice of unrehearsed
performance.  I must admit that I have never tried it, nor have I seen
productions which have tried it. It's still theory to me.

Tucker's approach isn't completely unrehearsed. The more of his book you
read, the more you realize that he's stretched the notion somewhat. He
does what he calls "verse nursing" (what anyone else in the theatre
would call "text work") with individual actors, and makes directoral
choices where he deems necessary. His major innovations are to free the
actors from blocking (he believes the clues for blocking are all in the
text), and to keep the actors separated until the last possible moment.

I find it hard to believe that even a company as busy as the King's Men
would not have found time to rehearse their plays. I do agree with him
that their rehearsal periods were not nearly as long as ours (anywhere
from three weeks to six months), and I also agree that blocking (ie.
placing actors in specific places on stage) was not a high priority on
the Globe stage. The way that stage is designed, there are limited
blocking options, and the company probably had fixed conventions for
recurring stage motifs (eg. court scenes, battles, etc.).

As far as keeping the actors apart...I suspect that it would lend a
spontaneous energy to the proceedings, but it really is
counter-intuitive to any actor working in theatre today. If that's truly
how the plays were rehearsed, it suggests a dramatic paradigm which is
completely incompatible with our own. I find that a bit depressing,
because it means that we will never really perform Shakespeare as
Shakespeare intended it.

Scott Sharplin

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Cornelius Novelli <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 23 Apr 2004 12:44:47 -0400
Subject: 15.0935 The Tucker Method
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0935 The Tucker Method

I have tried the "unrehearsed" approach on various scenes with highly
successful results.  The students are not necessarily drama or lit majors.

We work out basic blocking and props, etc., and then each actor prepares
separately by concentrating on his or her role and the cue lines.  The
aim is not to prepare as little as we can, but as much as we can in a
limited time (and usually the limited time is a reality).

The method has worked for scenes like the Box Hedge in TWELFTH NIGHT,
Tavern Scene in HENRY IV, Play-Within-a-Play in HAMLET.  I can see that
professional actors might be able to do really intricate things, working
in semi-improv fashion.   -- Neil Novelli

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Stylometrics

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0948  Monday, 26 April 2004

[1]     From:   R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 23 Apr 2004 08:26:47 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0938 Stylometrics

[2]     From:   Michael Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 23 Apr 2004 08:04:39 -1000
        Subj:   Stylometrics

[3]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 24 Apr 2004 17:21:29 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0938 Stylometrics


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 23 Apr 2004 08:26:47 -0500
Subject: 15.0938 Stylometrics
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0938 Stylometrics

Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> writes,

 >Dear All,
 >
 >I have been meaning to 'answer' this one for ages so apologies for
 >lateness of my reply.

Bravo, well done, stout lad, etc.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 23 Apr 2004 08:04:39 -1000
Subject:        Stylometrics

There could hardly be a more graphic illustration of the theoretical
limitations besetting stylometrics than the exclusion of Henry V from
Shakespeare's 'base-line plays' because 'so much of it is in French.'
(SHK 15.0940 Shakespeare Apocrypha.) In fact there's one short scene, a
few mangled words by Pistol and couple of expletives by the French lords
before Agincourt. By the same token one might as well exclude Hamlet
because so much of it is in philosophy, Lear because so much of it is in
rant, Romeo and Juliet because so much of it is expressed in antitheses,
almost all the comedies because so many are in verbal play and puns, and
so forth.

What's the reason for the exclusion of Timon? I almost fear to ask.

--Michael Egan

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 24 Apr 2004 17:21:29 +0100
Subject: 15.0938 Stylometrics
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0938 Stylometrics

I'm intrigued to know what Marcus Dahl meant by the following comment:

 >It is not like the publishing industry stops printing
 >works of 'Shakespeare' or people stop wanting to
 >know who wrote which plays when. Terence Hawkes
 >and the post-modernists are in the minority I am afraid. Most
 >people want to know - or at least know that they cannot
 >know (remember Godel everyone?).

Presumably that's Kurt Godel being alluded to, and what's curious is
that he's being used here in what seems an attack on postmodernism.
Usually one sees Godel's 'incompleteness theorem' being used to support
postmodernist thinking, and I'm trying to work out what Dahl meant by
the allusion. I don't want to rush off to Wales with the misconception
that Godel's work can be summarized with the platitude 'we can't know
everything'.

Gabriel Egan

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Film about Mary, Queen of Scots and James VI/I

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0946  Monday, 26 April 2004

From:           Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 25 Apr 2004 08:53:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Film about Mary, Queen of Scots and James VI/I

There's a new DVD (and video) of a BBC film called Gunpowder, Treason,
and Plot.  It has very high production values and is in two episodes.
Each episode is 2 hours long. The first is about Mary, and is indebted
both to the Hepburn and Redgrave versions.  It ends with Mary's
imprisonment and capture by her brother James.  The second episode
focuses on James VI about ten years before he becomes James I and ends
with the gunpowder plot.  Mary's portrait plays a prominent role. Robert
Carlyle plays James I and is really excellent. Catherine McCormack plays
Elizabeth (we see her only briefly).  Mary and Elizabeth don't meet.

  The film is only loosely based on historical "fact."  In the second
part, it becomes a quiet transparent allegory of 9/11 with James a mad,
power grabbing version of W Bush.  (in James's case, the oedipal
fixation  is on his mommy rather than his daddy).  It's kind of an
interesting antidote and demystifying bookend to the Shekar Kepur
Elizabeth film (which is relentlessly anti-Catholic).   The recent
Spartacus on tv worked similarly (with the villain Crassus quoting
Bush).  The Catholic rebels mostly look very bad, but they are given
some justification (James's broken promise of toleration).

The DVD is region 2, so you need an all region DVD player to play it if
you live outside the UK or Europe.

I bought mine from amazon.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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.