2004

Shakespeare on DVD and Video

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1307  Wednesday, 18 June 2004

From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 17 Jun 2004 07:54:47 -0400
Subject: Shakespeare on DVD and Video
Comment:        SHK 15.1293 Shakespeare on DVD and Video

From:   Matt Henerson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 >I believe Chamberlain's "Hamlet" was broadcast.  It certainly exists in
 >LP record form.  But I don't think anybody ever filmed his "Richard II."

Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 >You probably saw it in the theater, because I saw him do it in Los
 >Angeles not long after, and have never forgotten the crucifix image at
 >the end. I don't know where it had been before then.

Dear Matt and Frank,

Thanks. I guess I must have seen it at the Kennedy Center. Now, I need
to figure out how the production was staged in black and white to match
my memory of the last scene. I clearly remember the Brook Dream at the
Kennedy Center from around the same period; don't know why I thought I
saw this one on television. Oh, well, sometimes I cannot tell if I am a
Chinese philosopher or a butterfly either.

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.

Bloomsday

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1306  Wednesday, 18 June 2004

From:           Lucia A. Setari <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 17 Jun 2004 14:35:21 +0100 (BST)
Subject: 15.1292 Bloomsday
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1292 Bloomsday

From:           Peter Bridgman

 >Just a few other connections...
 >
 >Chapter 9 of Ulysses is largely a discussion of
 >Hamlet.  The
 >Stephen/Hamlet parallels run through the book.

... and Bloom/Shakespeare parallels, too.  Not for nothing
Stephen/Hamlet is presented as the "son" of Bloom/Shakespeare. And, at
the most exciting ending of the Second Chapter, in Bloom's eyes the
image of Stephen generates or conjures that of Bloom's lost child, Rudy,
who appears as if he were not the little baby of eleven months he was
when he died, but a boy of eleven - the same age Shakespeare's  son,
Hamnet, was when he died.

Lucia A. Setari

_______________________________________________________________
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 and Football

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1304  Wednesday, 18 June 2004

From:           Susanne Greenhalgh <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 Jun 2004 09:54:36 +0100
Subject:        Shakespeare and Football

The Guardian Guide to Euro 2004 ascribes characters from stage and
screen to the various national teams.  No surprise that England is
Hamlet, accompanied by a composite of Olivier with skull, torso dressed
in the England strip.  The text reads:

A king in waiting perhaps, and easy to predict a glorious future, but
there are always problems.  Haunted by ghosts of the past, events can
quickly spiral out of control, and with every failure come the usual
allegations of madness and indiscipline.  Once the poison starts flowing
you feel a tragic end coming on.

Have list members come across any other noteworthy Shakespeare
references in media coverage of football (including American football)?

Susanne Greenhalgh

_______________________________________________________________
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.

News from the Screaming Squires

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1305  Wednesday, 18 June 2004

From:           Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 17 Jun 2004 19:43:31 +0000
Subject:        News from the Screaming Squires

Rosalyn Gregory fulminates against TV adaptations of "classic" texts.
(Isis (Trinity Term) vol.2, 2004.) She refers to novels but much of what
she says applies to plays.

"[...] validity lies in recognising when an explicit description defines
an aspect of character.[...]" The "sturdy" Kate Winsler was hardly (in
Jude the Obscure) too convincing as Sue Bridehead an "emancipated bundle
of nerves". She (Gregory) considers that adaptation is always a remove
from the original but that on occasions of late it has denied that the
reader is capable of any imaginative connection between it and the
original. These changes sometimes are so gross however that they lead to
ignorance in the unwary. She cites the tale of the producer of a Pride
and Prejudice having to explain to an American publicist that Jane
Austen would be unavailable for book signings. (Which reminded me of the
scene in Four Weddings and a Funeral where a British character tells an
American lady that while he doesn't know Oscar Wilde personally he does
have the fax number of his agent. A tedious clich


History Channel

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1303  Wednesday, 18 June 2004

From:           Nancy Charlton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 18 Jun 2004 00:59:46 -0700
Subject:        History Channel

I started this post on May 3 and never finished it, so I'll spruce it up
now and send it along. This series is sure to be shown again, and it's
worth watching. I wrote:

I'm at the moment watching (or more accurately, have the TV tuned to)
The History Channel, a so far non-doctrinaire documentary on the Battle
of Agincourt. This is one of a series called "Battle Detectives;" there
are also episodes on Spanish Armada, Trafalgar, and Little Big Horn.
(What would WS have made of George Armstrong Custer?)

This is fascinating. A computer simulation shows that however sharp,
however non-resistant, the iron English bodkin arrowheads were, they
simply buckled when they hit French steel armour. The archaeologists who
made this study conclude that no way could the longbows been the
decisive factor in the victory. The question, then, is really not how
did the English win but how did the French lose. A burnt manuscript page
of the French battle plan was found, and it indicated a strategy
something like that in "Zulu" but not all the cavalry showed up, and
those who did lost horses to the arrows, making them "pavement to the
abject rear." The French were on the lookout for the banners of those
who would bring in the biggest ransoms. They ignored the English
longbowmen, who weren't worth much monetarily, but when the infantries
closed these longbowmen stabbed with their arrows and clobbered with
maces and hammers.

Another computer simulation replicates the weather of the day of the
battle. It seems that a heavily armoured knight would have had the
equivalent of 37 lb of sugar attached to each leg because it had rained
so hard and the mud was both slick and sticky. The cloth-clad archers
were not thus trammeled. Moreover, the English lines were at a place
where the plain narrows to a point and the French, as it were, were
decoyed into a narrow funnel--not only narrow, but sloping sharply
downward. Another computer simulation, using software for prediction of
crowd behavior, shows how quickly the French were made sitting ducks,
even though they outnumbered the English 3 to 1. Then we all know what
happened. The implication is that despite the loss of ransoms of the
prisoners, Henry ordered the slaughter of the prisoners lest they start
fighting their captors.

Now the Armada. Critical was the radical redesigning of ships. More
computer modeling shows the Spanish ships rode lower, were sleeker  and
better rigged than were the galleons of the English navy. "

Here I stopped in my original post. The film went into a lot of detail
about how superior the English guns were but the Spanish ships were able
to maneuver out of range. The other main point I recall is that it was
not so much divine providence that caused the Spanish ships to go off
course as it was that they didn't know about the gulf stream.

History Channel does tend to focus on military lore--but, alas, so does
most of Western civilisation!

Nancy Charlton

_______________________________________________________________
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.