2004

Lear

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1270  Tuesday, 15 June 2004

[1]     From:   Edward Brown <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 14 Jun 2004 08:23:26 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.1252 Lear

[2]     From:   Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 14 Jun 2004 08:24:03 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1252 Lear

[3]     From:   Markus Marti <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 14 Jun 2004 15:29:04 +0200
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1252 Lear

[4]     From:   Bruce W. Richman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 14 Jun 2004 08:49:04 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.1252 Lear

[5]     From:   Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 14 Jun 2004 08:02:24 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1252 Lear

[6]     From:   John-Paul Spiro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 14 Jun 2004 11:28:52 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.1252 Lear

[7]     From:   Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 14 Jun 2004 16:46:51 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1252 Lear

[8]     From:   Alfredo Michel Modenessi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 14 Jun 2004 10:53:55 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1252 Lear

[9]     From:   Thomas Pendleton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 14 Jun 2004 17:02:56 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.1252 Lear

[10]     From:  Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, June 15, 2004
        Subj:   SHK 15.1252 Lear


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edward Brown <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 14 Jun 2004 08:23:26 -0500
Subject: 15.1252 Lear
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1252 Lear

I think the Richard Eyre/Masterpiece Theatre with Ian Holm as Lear is
very fine.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 14 Jun 2004 08:24:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 15.1252 Lear
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1252 Lear

Would Kurosawa's Ran count?

Jack Heller

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Markus Marti <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 14 Jun 2004 15:29:04 +0200
Subject: 15.1252 Lear
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1252 Lear

No joke, the best:

Grigori Kozintsev, "Korol Lir", original Russian with English subtitles;
music by Shostakovich (U.S.S.R., 1969)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064553/

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bruce W. Richman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 14 Jun 2004 08:49:04 -0500
Subject: 15.1252 Lear
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1252 Lear

Peter Brook's film, released in the early 70s and starring Paul
Scofield, exasperated me at the time for its textual cuts. I saw it in a
New York theater with a good sound system when it was first released,
and recall that Scofield muttered and spit, rather than raged, his
lines, which sometimes made them difficult to hear, particularly because
a vicious wind howled behind him during much of the performance.
Nevertheless, you're probably familiar enough with the lines to amplify
your hearing satisfactorily, and textual abridgments are a lamentable
but inescapable fact of life nowadays, Branagh's Hamlet notwithstanding.
  Filmed beautifully in black and white during a Danish winter, the
cinematography is as bleakly terrifying as the text itself. The early
medieval scenic details, like the knights at their mess, were accurate,
powerful, and consistently supportive of the play's view of an
unrelentingly harsh and bitter world.  The blinding and storm scenes in
particular have remained vivid in my visual memory for more than thirty
years, which I credit to the film maker's skill. Though it has some
shortcomings, this is the best Lear I've seen, on stage or on film.

Bruce W. Richman
Dept. of Psychiatry
University of Missouri School of Medicine

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 14 Jun 2004 08:02:24 -0700
Subject: 15.1252 Lear
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1252 Lear

 >Would anyone like to recommend the best movie version of King Lear
 >available on DVD or VHS?

Kurosawa's 'Ran'.

Colin Cox

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John-Paul Spiro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 14 Jun 2004 11:28:52 -0400
Subject: 15.1252 Lear
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1252 Lear

Peter Brook's 1970 "King Lear" with Paul Scofield is the best movie
version.  It's a great film--brilliantly photographed, acted, directed.
  It is a very dark interpretation of the play, though, and it cuts much
of the text.  You should watch it along with Kozintzev's 1971 "King
Lear" with J


Merchant Game?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1269  Tuesday, 15 June 2004

From:           Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 14 Jun 2004 16:57:23 +0100
Subject: 15.1257 Merchant Game?
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1257 Merchant Game?

Graham Hall writes...

 >(My synopsis) A visiting Venetian was shocked to find a common game
 >involving young men throwing young women to the ground and only letting
 >them up after a kiss. Apparently they kissed a lot.

That's the problem with your Venetian tourist - no sense of fun.
Casanova was similarly shocked when he discovered English aristos openly
copulating in St James Park.

Peter Bridgman

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Gunpowder, Treason and Plot interviews and more

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1267  Tuesday, 15 June 2004

From:           Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 14 Jun 2004 16:38:34 +0100
Subject: 15.1251 Gunpowder, Treason and Plot interviews and more
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1251 Gunpowder, Treason and Plot interviews and more

 >There are interviews with two historians who consulted (apparently) on
 >Gunpowder, Treason, and Plot.

I wonder which historian came up with the idea of swapping over the
characters of James I and Robert Cecil - thus making Cecil tall,
handsome and affable, and James bitter and twisted, with a splayed foot.

And which historian suggested James should promise religious toleration
for Catholics in return for a blow-job?

Peter Bridgman

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Rhetorical Figure

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1268  Tuesday, 15 June 2004

From:           Susan St. John <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 14 Jun 2004 09:05:14 -0700
Subject: 15.1258 Rhetorical Figure
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1258 Rhetorical Figure

I thought the original query was not "what is a litote?" (although I
didn't know and had to look it up), but rather, "what is the rhetorical
figure that is sort of opposite to a litote?"  Where the negative is
re-emphasized by the repetition of 'no' or 'not' after the statement.

Something like:  I wouldn't do it, no, not I.

And I was similarly curious about the addition of a pronoun for
emphasis...I can't come up with any actual quotes at the moment, but
it's something like:
I could do it, I

or as I heard yesterday in a British film ("Little Voice" with Michael
Caine)

you never listen, you
or
I've got it all now, me

Does that bit of rhetoric have a name as well??

Susan.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Digital Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1266  Tuesday, 15 June 2004

From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 14 Jun 2004 16:15:29 +0100
Subject: 15.1255 Shaksper - Doubt me not
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1255 Shaksper - Doubt me not

Graham Hall asks "Do we?" in response to Louis Thompson's assertion that
"we all applaud the new digital Shakespeare".

Hall might be implying that, far from being good or neutral, a digital
Shakespeare is positively a bad thing. If so, or if anyone agrees with
that position and wants to debate it, I'd take the opposite line and
assert that it's positively a good thing.

Those wanting to engage in such a debate might be interested in an essay
in the current issue of the Times Literary Supplement (11 June, No.
5280) called "PG tips" by Paul Duguid. The 'PG' referred to is 'Project
Gutenberg', which provides free 'plain vanilla' (that is, untagged)
etexts of many printed books, with an emphasis on the literary. (The
title of the essay is also a pun on the name of a popular tea sold in
Britain and elsewhere.)

Duguid points out the flaws in the PG version of Laurence Sterne's
_Tristram Shandy_ and worries that the new medium might undo "a century
of worthwhile editorial work". I'd say that _Tristram Shandy_ is an
exceptional case that particularly suits Duguid's argument since, as he
amply demonstrates, it's intensely concerned with its own medium of
dissemination. Most books aren't so self-referential and their digital
surrogates, losing nothing in the conversion, are considerably more
useful than the print versions. This is especially true of Shakespeare's
plays.  These are, of course, self-referential, but refer to themselves
as performances not books.

Incidentally, this final point provides, to those who want it, a
potential line of argument against Lukas Erne's claim that Shakespeare
looked to books as a medium of dissemination for his plays. Were that
so, we should expect to find evidence for it in the self-referentially
of the plays.

In fact, the first play ever to use the word 'title-page' in its
dialogue was the Wilkins and Shakespeare collaboration _Pericles_,
which, in the form of the 1609 quarto printed by William White for Henry
Gosson, was also the first title-page to call its dramatic contents a
'play'.* Anyone who wishes to challenge these assertions would be well
advised to consult the records of the electronic Short Title Catalogue
and the etexts of Chadwyck-Healey's Literature Online database, and not
to try doing the task using their paper equivalents unless they have
many years to spare on the work.

Q.E.D.

Gabriel Egan

* At least, it was the first since the Tudor interludes.

_______________________________________________________________
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.