Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: March ::
Variation in EME Performance
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0469  Monday, 14 March 2005

[1]     From:   Edmund Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 11 Mar 2005 09:56:58 -0500
        Subj:   Variation in EME Performance

[2]     From:   Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 11 Mar 2005 17:50:48 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0459 Variation in EME Performance


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edmund Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 11 Mar 2005 09:56:58 -0500
Subject:        Variation in EME Performance

John Briggs writes:

"I suggested (although I seem to remember being shouted down) that
Shakespeare might have 'directed' his own plays."

Why would anyone object to John's suggestion? Who else would have
directed Shakespeare's plays but the author? Perhaps the disagreement is
about what "directing" consisted of at the time? It may have been far
less detailed than today. On the other hand, it may have been quite
extensive. We just don't know.

Ed Taft

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 11 Mar 2005 17:50:48 -0000
Subject: 16.0459 Variation in EME Performance
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0459 Variation in EME Performance

David Evett wrote

 >We do think that when companies toured the hinterlands
 >they got by with fewer actors (hence cutting of texts and
 >increased doubling of roles) . . .

Cutting of texts does not enable one to use fewer actors. Cutting of
whole roles might do that, but cuts within roles wouldn't*. Indeed, as
Scott McMillin showed, cutting of texts in general makes doubling
harder. Increased doubling is enabled by inserting extra lines to cover
an actor's going off and getting ready to come back in a new role.

Gabriel Egan

* And yet, cutting within roles is the only kind of cutting that
preserves cues. Cutting whole roles would require rewriting of actors'
parts (= cue-scripts) to reflect the changed cues.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail 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.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.