2004

Identify This Quote?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1657  Monday, 6 September 2004

[1]     From:   Louise Lotz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 3 Sep 2004 13:41:36 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1641 Identify This Quote?

[2]     From:   Louise Lotz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 3 Sep 2004 14:08:32 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1641 Identify This Quote?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Louise Lotz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 3 Sep 2004 13:41:36 +0000
Subject: 15.1641 Identify This Quote?
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1641 Identify This Quote?

About J R Pope, it is on Bartleby - see 44999:

J. R. Pope (1909-1991), British poet. A Word of Encouragement (l. 1-3). . .

New Oxford Book of English Light Verse, The. Kingsley Amis, ed. (1978)
Oxford University Press.

http://www.bartleby.com/66/99/44999.html

Louise Lotz

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Louise Lotz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 3 Sep 2004 14:08:32 +0000
Subject: 15.1641 Identify This Quote?
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1641 Identify This Quote?

A 'Pope' offering a word of encouragement in the vein of the Bartleby
quote should be taken with a pinch of salt.  And so his name should also
definitely be taken in vain.  Not surprisingly, the quotation appears in
the Oxford Book of Light Verse, according to Bartleby.

Regards,
Louise Lotz

_______________________________________________________________
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 Globes Audience in the Future

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1656  Monday, 6 September 2004

From:           John Reed <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 4 Sep 2004 15:36:23 -0700
Subject:        Re: The Globes Audience in the Future

I don't much like theater, believing it compares unfavorably with
movies.  I'm in the mood for a longer post, and I've probably posted
some of this harangue before, but I can't remember exactly which parts,
so I'll apologize for being redundant (if anyone is keeping track), but
not for being heretical.

Someone (actually it was my brother) said he thought plays were somehow
"phony" - which I thought was a little surprising, since he has worked
as an actor.  But I don't think that's it.  Plays seem lacking in
poeticism by comparison.  I'm not sure how to elaborate on that: plays,
some of them, have poetry, of course, but it's not enough.  I think it
has to do with how all the story telling elements are handled
individually, and together, in order to create impact.  In a movie most
of the poeticism comes in from the combination of the moving image
(mainly the editing) with the sound (mainly the music).  Given an
identical "story" and moving from a cinematic version to a theatrical
version, the impact is reduced because the poeticism is reduced - often
it seems a (modern) play is basically a movie with no music and no
editing: in other words with most of the poeticism drained out of it.
Even if the play has poetry, the delivery of the poetry is either bad,
pseudorealistic, or ineffective, so the poeticism due to the poetry is
squelched, and there is not much left.  In order for the total impact of
a play to compare with that of even an ordinary movie the poeticism due
to the acting would have to be very much increased, and I don't think
modern actors or directors are even trying to do that, or if they are it
is buried underneath other imperatives that neutralize the attempt.

I have the feeling (even though, as has been pointed out, my feelings
are not important) that the acting on the original stage, the original
Globe stage was different, better, and more poeticistic than now.  Not
long ago I made a sort of pilgrimage to the New Globe stage, where I saw
an all female rendition of Much Ado About Nothing, which I disliked, of
course.  My objective was not to like the play, but just to see it - or
anything -- at that venue (so that my life could be somehow complete).
I foolishly purchased expensive seats and got stuck in the "Gentlemen's
Room" which is a kind of box area above the stage and to the left.  You
are looking down on the stage, and straight across it.  And if you are
in the second row (of two) your view is largely obstructed by the people
sitting in the first row.  It would have been much better to have been a
groundling.  But the most notable aspect of the play was experiencing
the responsiveness of the audience in general, but especially the
groundlings, which was at a much higher level than any other audience I
have been a part of - which is to say they oohed and aahed a lot.  I
(again) have the feeling that the original audiences were more
responsive yet, and probably went so far as to volunteer catcalls from
time to time.  I was planning on testing this idea myself by uttering
the phrase "Hey Beatrice, nice tits" at some point, and there was a
really good point near the end, but I decided not to.  I think it would
have been too much.  I saw an afternoon performance and couldn't help
noticing the sun, which was in the south, shone on the audience, leaving
the actors and the stage and the background, in shadow.  I think they
have it turned the wrong way.  If they had the stage on the north side
it would be better: because the sun wouldn't be in the eyes of the
audience, and, the actors, if they were at all forward on the stage,
would stand out more because they would be illuminated while the
background is in shadow.  So you'd have a better figure/ground
separation, but perhaps that's a minor point.

But as for the interaction between audience and actors, I don't think
(nor do I feel) that the architecture of the stage (or the wardrobe or
the lighting) has much to do with it.  Convention, convention,
convention, oh how convention is the better part of theater nowadays.
The one advantage theater has over movies is that it is live: the actors
(and sometimes the characters) are right there in front of the audience.
  I can't help feeling that were the characters to acknowledge the
audience that would go far towards maximizing the feeling of aliveness
(as it should be), rather than, as now - where the characters mostly go
out of their way to ignore the audience - it is minimized.  So I wonder
what proportion of the lines were delivered aside in the original
production.  I have the feeling it was pretty high, much higher than
nowadays, perhaps as high as 20 percent.  And if we want to deliver
aside lines aside, what about dialogue?  An interesting question (which
has probably never been proposed before) is what percentage of the
dialogue lines were delivered aside?  Zero percent?  Or could a
character switch from delivering dialogue to another character, and then
start talking to the audience as if the audience were that other
character.  I just have the littlest inconsequential feeling it happened
from time to time.  If it did happen (as it is a pregnant and unforced
conclusion) then the modern director actor writer has his work cut out
for him to identify just when it did happen...unless of course we want
to deliver a performance according to modern pseudorealistic norms, in
which case it doesn't matter.  It's so much easier that way, anyway.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Shakespeare in Love, the Sequel Opening in October

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1654  Monday, 6 September 2004

From:           Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 4 Sep 2004 03:49:55 -0400
Subject:        Shakespeare in Love, the Sequel Opening in October

This time the drama is Restoration and Claire Danes stars.  Taking up
where Shakespeare in Love Left, Stage Beauty gives us Charles II opening
the stage to (more dramatically authentic) women, but the reigning
(dramatically conventional and artificial) drag queen (Billy Crudup) is
then displaced.  (He still wants to play female rather than male roles).
  There are brief moments in the trailer which signal a performance of
Othello (focusing on Desdemona's death).  Apparently, the drag queen
makes a come back as a "black" man (Othello).

Stage Beauty (2004)
Directed by
Richard Eyre
Official website (and trailer): http://www.radiotimes.com/stagebeauty/
Synopsis
Stage-struck, star-struck, love-struck...

It's the 1660s, and actor Ned Kynaston (Billy Crudup) is sitting pretty;
the brightest star in Restoration theatre. Women are forbidden to appear
on stage, so the beautiful, brazen, bisexual Ned shines in all the great
female roles. Maria (Claire Danes), his loyal dresser, looks on with
admiration - and just a touch of envy.

But suddenly, Ned's world is turned upside-down. Charles II is keen to
spice up the theatre and see his persuasive young mistress Nell Gwyn
take some applause. So he changes the law, banning cross-dressing male
actors, and sending Ned's once-glittering career into freefall.

Reduced to doing drag turns in a seedy tavern, Ned is finally rescued by
Maria, who by now is starting to make a name for herself as an actress.

Having found each other, they find themselves, and a reinvented Ned
makes a triumphant return to the stage as Maria's leading man.

Billy Crudup and Claire Danes join a host of British stars in a
dramatically different period romance.

"Set in the 1660's at a time when in live theatre women's roles were
played by men, Edward 'Ned' Kynaston (Crudup) is England's most
celebrated leading lady, using his beauty and skill to make the great
female roles his own. But when Charles II is tired of seeing the same
old performers, the ruler allows real women to tread the boards and men
may no longer play women's parts. Ned becomes a virtual nobody,
virtually overnight and seems headed for suicide till his ex-dresser
turned actress Maria (Danes) takes it upon herself to make a man of him
again."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368658/
R, Comedy Drama, 1hr 50min. Opens in the U.S. on October 29, 2004

Side note:  Gabriel Byrne's character makes a reference to Lady Macbeth
(his wife) and to Goneril and Regan (his daughters-in law) in Vanity
Fair (dir. Mira Nair, 2004).

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Shakespeare-Politics References

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1655  Monday, 6 September 2004

[1]     From:   Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 3 Sep 2004 00:51:27 -0400
        Subj:   Now George Soros is Shylock, GOP says

[2]     From:   Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 5 Sep 2004 01:18:30 -0400
        Subj:   Now it's Niall Ferguson on George W. as Henry V


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 3 Sep 2004 00:51:27 -0400
Subject:        Now George Soros is Shylock, GOP says

One aspect of the ugly, offensive recent GOP smear of liberal
billionaire George Soros:

  "'No other single person represents the symbol and the substance of
globalism more than this Hungarian-born descendant of Shylock. He is the
embodiment of the Merchant from Venice,' wrote GOPAC, an organization
that helps elect GOP candidates, on its website last year.    In William
Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice," Shylock was the Jewish banker whose
venality would not stop him from cutting human flesh to repay loans."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090304L.shtml

http://www.hillnews.com/news/090104/soros.aspx

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 5 Sep 2004 01:18:30 -0400
Subject:        Now it's Niall Ferguson on George W. as Henry V

Last week it was Nicolas Kristoff in the NY Times. Now apologist for
empire Niall Ferguson discusses the comparison at great length in "The
Monarchy of George W. Bush" in the current issue of Vanity Fair
(September 2004), 382-89-411-14. (Reese Witherspoon is on the cover.)
Ferguson appears to be yet another member of the neocro-cons who has
lost faith in W. and his courtiers.

_______________________________________________________________
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 Model for Romeo and Juliet?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1653  Monday, 6 September 2004

From:           Natalie Bennett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 3 Sep 2004 23:18:59 +0100
Subject:        The Model for Romeo and Juliet?

I think I can probably guess what response this is going to draw, but
just in case I'm wrong, I wonder if there's anything in a theory that
Romeo and Juliet was inspired by the secret marriage in 1594 of Maria,
the daughter of George, Lord Audley, with Thomas Thynne.

This story, however, apparently has a (semi-)happy ending. She ended up
taking charge of Lonleat in Wiltshire in 1604 from her mother-in-law
Joan, who hated her, and oversaw it until her death in childbirth in 1611.

(My source for this is the entry on Maria in "The Europa Biographical
Dictionary of British Women", A Crawford et al., 1983, p. 395.)

This family really seems to have known how to get themselves into
trouble, since their brother, the Earl of Castlehaven, got himself
executed for sodomy.

Thanks!
Natalie

_______________________________________________________________
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.