2005

TCM Shakespeare Film Festival

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.2046  Tuesday, 13 December 2005

From: 		Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Saturday, 10 Dec 2005 19:42:57 -0500
Subject: 	TCM Shakespeare Film Festival

Two stand-outs are the 1912 silent Cleopatra and the Stuart Burge 
Othello (out of print and only on vhs in the US). MND is only on vhs 
too, so this is a chance to TiVo it and make your own DVD.

Turner Movie Channel


December 14 Wednesday Shakespeare
6:00 AM
	
Silent Shakespeare (1908) A collection of seven silent shorts based on 
the plays of William Shakespeare, including King John (1899), King Lear 
(1910) and Richard III (1911). 89m.
7:30 AM
	
Cleopatra (1912) In this silent film, Cleopatra shakes the Roman Empire 
with her legendary affair with Marc Antony. Helen Gardner, Pearl 
Sindelar, Harley Knoles. D: Charles Gaskill. 88m.
9:00 AM
	
Othello (1922) In this silent film, a famed general is led astray by 
jealousy and an evil underling. Emil Jannings, Lya De Putti, Werner 
Krauss. D: Dimitri Buchowetzki. BW 80m.
10:30 AM
	
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1935) Shakespeare's classic about two pairs 
of lovers and an amateur actor who get mixed up with fairies. James 
Cagney, Dick Powell, Mickey Rooney. D: Max Reinhardt, William Dieterle. 
BW 143m. CC
1:00 PM
	
As You Like It (1936) Film version of Shakespeare's comedy of a young 
woman who disguises herself as a man to win the attention of the one she 
loves. Laurence Olivier, Elisabeth Bergner, Henry Ainley. D: Paul 
Czinner. BW 96m.
3:00 PM
	
Romeo And Juliet (1936) Shakespeare's classic tale of young lovers from 
feuding families. Norma Shearer, Leslie Howard, John Barrymore. D: 
George Cukor. BW 125m. CC DVS
5:30 PM
	
Julius Caesar (1953) An all-star adaptation of Shakespeare's classic 
about Julius Caesar's assassination and its aftermath. Marlon Brando, 
James Mason, John Gielgud. D: Joseph L. Mankiewicz. BW 121m. CC DVS
8:00 PM
	
Henry V (1944) Shakespeare's tale of the warrior king who learns the 
meaning of heroism during a daring invasion of France. Sir Laurence 
Olivier, Robert Newton, Leslie Banks. D: Sir Laurence Olivier C 137m.
10:30 PM
	
Hamlet (1948) The melancholy Dane flirts with insanity while trying to 
prove his uncle murdered his father. Laurence Olivier, Eileen Herlie, 
Jean Simmons. D: Laurence Olivier. BW 154m.
1:15 AM
	
Othello (1965) A famed general convinces himself that his wife is 
unfaithful. Laurence Olivier, Frank Finlay, Maggie Smith. D: Stuart 
Burge. C 166m. LBX
4:15 AM
	
Orson Welles: The Tragedy of Othello, The Moor of Venice (1952) The 
legendary Moor of Venice battles his growing suspicions that his wife is 
unfaithful. Orson Welles, Michael MacLiammoir, Suzanne Cloutier. D: 
Orson Welles. BW 93m.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Various Ramblings

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.2045  Tuesday, 13 December 2005

From: 		Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Subject: 	Various Ramblings

I did not edit SHAKSPER digests yesterday because I had three different 
appointments about my disability. I just spent an hour and a half 
deleting close to 1,700 spams, viruses, and other non-list related 
e-mails when I really should be grading papers so that I can start my 
holiday shopping. Instead, now I feel compelled to write yet another 
editor's message to the membership, which will take me an inordinate 
amount of time to be tactful.

In the past more than fifteen years, I have given a great deal of my 
life to delivering SHAKSPER to subscribers. I have explained that for 
the first years of its existence SHAKSPER was almost exclusively an 
academic list with scholars constituting 95% of its members. Then the 
Internet revolution got underway and Internet access is approaching 
universal in some parts of the world and now significant numbers of 
SHAKSPER members are enthusiasts. Clearly, some members are happy with 
SHAKSPER exactly as it is, but I am not. It hurts me every time I get 
notification that another young or established scholar is leaving the 
list. It hurts me when interesting scholarly postings are ignored and 
others that simply drive me crazy thrive. It bothers me that appropriate 
discourse for some appears to be ad hominem attacks on the poster, 
especially if they disagree with his politics.

Along these lines, I should have simply sent Richard Burt's pop 
Shakespeare citation and not have posted the inappropriate paranoid 
responses to it. I have received even more (one particularly 
over-the-top), but the only submission I am sending out is this one:

+++++
From: 		Arthur Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:09:48 +0800
Subject: 16.2041 Former Soldier Cites H5
Comment: 	RE: SHK 16.2041 Former Soldier Cites H5

I'm not alone, am I, in finding this post offensive and silly?  If 
you're not interested in pop Shakespeares, Tom, use the delete key. 
That's what I've been doing with 'Lions and Tigers and Wagers'.  I 
haven't felt the need to write in and insult the participants for having 
interests different from mine.

Arthur Lindley
+++++

I have been looking for solutions to my dilemma, but nothing seems to be 
adequate. Concerning my specific-purpose discussion groups proposal 
Michael Luskin write the following.

+++++
From: 		Michael B. Luskin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Fri, 9 Dec 2005 14:50:54 EST
Subject: 16.2022 Reminder
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.2022 Reminder

Or maybe this belongs to the SHK 16.2037  QuickTopic and Yahoo! Groups 
thread...  Or maybe we should start a yahoogroup to discuss yahoogroups.

I am the owner and moderator of five yahoogroups, and belong to several 
more.  On a few occasions, people on this list Hardy in particular, have 
complained about spam.  A fine place to harvest addresses is a 
yahoogroups listserv, and I SPEAK FROM EXPERIENCE.

Having a dozen listservs means that we have a dozen archives, and the 
yahoogroup archive search capability is rudimentary.

I have watched this thread unhappily.  The idea of going to many 
yahoogroups listservs to discuss this or that is distasteful. 
Furthermore, we will then have to know which listserv is meant for which 
particular point.  What if we miss the name of the yahoogroup, and don't 
know where things disappeared to?  Since we have several Hamlet 
discussions going on right now, does that mean we will have several 
listservs, one for each, how will we keep track of all of them?  And 
what if they start to spawn other discussions?  What if threads start to 
interweave?  What is the purpose of shaksper going to be? 
Announcements, quick points of information?

Talk about becoming unmanageable!

In addition, I don't know what it means for a thread to reach the end of 
its useful life.  When threads becomes too tedious or too contentious, I 
am quite capable of clicking delete, and everyone else is as well.

I think that we are spending too much time worrying about managing 
problems that don't have to be managed.  There are plenty of posts that 
are uninteresting, or too scholarly for me, and I simply don't read 
them.  What is the issue?

I think it would be far better if Hardy appointed a sub-editor for 
certain threads, if it becomes too difficult for him to manage them.  I 
don't see an enormous change in volume now, so it seems to me that the 
editor's time commitment should be the same, no matter what.

Michael B. Luskin
+++++

I never wanted to be anything more than an Internet Louis Marder. 
Certainly, I don't want to be an Internet Oprah, Jerry Springer, or Rush 
Limbaugh, which is what I sometime feel I have become.

In two weeks, SHAKSPER will enter its seventeenth year. I plan to take a 
break starting December 20 through New Year to spend some time with my 
family.

This message has taken me far too long to compose, so after I post an 
announcement from Richard Burt that is time-sensitive, I am going to 
call it a day for SHAKSPER and go to my pharmacy to pick up a refill of 
my pain medication.

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 Webpage <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.

CLOSED: Gertrude-Ophelia

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.2043  Friday, 9 December 2005

[1] 	From: 	Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 08 Dec 2005 13:59:33 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.2028 Gertrude-Ophelia Penultimate

[2] 	From: 	John Reed <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 09 Dec 2005 04:07:00 +0000
	Subj: 	Re: Gertrude-Ophelia

[3] 	From: 	John Reed <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 09 Dec 2005 04:43:47 +0000
	Subj: 	Re: Gertrude-Ophelia

[4] 	From: 	S. L Kasten <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 09 Dec 2005 17:04:41 +0200
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.2028 Gertrude-Ophelia Penultimate


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 08 Dec 2005 13:59:33 -0500
Subject: 16.2028 Gertrude-Ophelia Penultimate
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.2028 Gertrude-Ophelia Penultimate

 >DW shows lost passages in the Q2, nowhere is there mention of the
 >loss of an entire *scene*

I suspect that "lost passages" is intended to refer to Dover Wilson's 
contention that Hamlet was present in II.ii and overheard Claudius and 
Polonius plan to loose Ophelia upon him, even though the stage 
directions show no hint of that, thus explaining Hamlet's treatment of 
Ophelia in the Nunnery Scene.  To my mind, this working backwards to 
answer the question is nearly as great a sin as hypothesizing lost 
passages to clarify Gertrude's murder of Ophelia.  In fact, the text we 
have shows how Hamlet came to understand that Ophelia was spying on him. 
  Dowden came closest to this "Ha ha!" moment, but no one else seems to 
have noticed.  But this is a subject for another thread.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John Reed <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 09 Dec 2005 04:07:00 +0000
Subject: 	Re: Gertrude-Ophelia

Philip Tomposki:

 >The staging of the director and the performance of the actors
 >ultimately determine the interpretation.  But acknowledging that does
 >mean that you have license to construe the play in a way not supported
 >by the text.

Perhaps, but they (directors and actors) do that anyway, even more: they 
offer up versions that do not represent the text in rather gross 
fashion, by cutting out large chunks of it (that's *changing* the text, 
not just not supporting it), especially in Hamlet, as Eleanor Prosser 
has observed.  I could go on and on about this, but I won't (whew).

To Todd Lidh, your observations are apt, but I was just kidding, silly. 
  No one on this thread has been rude, unless it was myself, certainly 
not the divine Sara.  I apologize for giving the wrong impression, and 
for any other misconception in this area.  The tone of the discussion 
has been much less heated than I expected, and I want to thank Hardy, 
everyone who responded (as well as those who lurked) for their 
forbearance and patience with my heretical ideas.  I'm also sorry I 
couldn't respond to everyone on every point, due to lack of time and 
skill on my part.

One other minor matter.  It was reported that I wrote, "But to defile 
someone with temptation, that's the funniest thing there is."  I 
actually wrote, "But to defile someone with temptation, that's the 
funniest thing there is."  They both work, almost like some of the Q/F 
variants in Othello.  But I meant funniest, meaning "most fun."

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John Reed <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 09 Dec 2005 04:43:47 +0000
Subject: 	Re: Gertrude-Ophelia

Oh, wait; when I said I was only kidding I meant in relation to 
identifying the forum as a den of vipers and Sara being rude.  The rest 
of it -- Gertrude killing Ophelia -- I meant that.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		S. L Kasten <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 09 Dec 2005 17:04:41 +0200
Subject: 16.2028 Gertrude-Ophelia Penultimate
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.2028 Gertrude-Ophelia Penultimate

It is clear that there is not enough here for an indictment, let alone 
conviction.

But I still have a problem with "I will not speak with her": six 
stressed monosyllables, the emphatic "will not".  It could have been for 
example a more lyric, iambic "I do not wish to speak with her."

I see here no psychotophobia as suggested by one correspondent.  I see 
here no "sweets to the sweet" or "I hop'd thou shouldst have been my 
Hamlet's wife...".  I  see here no appropriate pity, as noted by the 
Gentleman  or whoever.

Had this line been in the performance on which Q1 was based it surely 
would not have been forgotten by the anonymous stenographer.  It is too 
strong.

Is it bardolatry to suggest that Shakespeare chose and ordered his words 
sparingly and meticulously.

What was S.'s intention if not to describe Gertrude's state of mind? 
Please don't insult him by saying it was a chance throw-away line with 
no purpose.

Best wishes,
Syd Kasten

_______________________________________________________________
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.

CLOSED: Living Characters

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.2044  Friday, 9 December 2005

[1] 	From: 	Chris Whatmore <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 8 Dec 2005 19:30:09 +0000
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 16.2013 Living Characters

[2] 	From: 	Elliott Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Thursday, 8 Dec 2005 20:04:37 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.2030 Living Characters Penultimate


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Chris Whatmore <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 8 Dec 2005 19:30:09 +0000
Subject: 16.2013 Living Characters
Comment: 	RE: SHK 16.2013 Living Characters

Returning (I think) to something like the original subject of this 
thread before the Friday deadline, there was an interesting passage  in 
Harold Pinter's Nobel acceptance speech - which, unusually for  him, 
included a number of personal observations on the creative  process of 
play writing:
"It's a strange moment, the moment of creating characters who up to that 
moment have had no existence. What follows is fitful, uncertain, even 
hallucinatory, although sometimes it can be an unstoppable avalanche. 
The author's position is an odd one. In a sense he is not welcomed by 
the characters. The characters resist him, they are not easy to live 
with, they are impossible to define. You certainly can't dictate to 
them. To a certain extent you play a never-ending game with them, cat 
and mouse, blind man's buff, hide and seek. But finally you find that 
you have people of flesh and blood on your hands, people with will and 
an individual sensibility of their own, made out of component parts you 
are unable to change, manipulate or distort.

So language in art remains a highly ambiguous transaction, a quicksand, 
a trampoline, a frozen pool which might give way under you, the author, 
at any time."

Surely it is this "ambiguous transaction" between "flesh and blood"  and 
"language in art" that is the very engine of Pinter's,  Shakespeare's or 
any dramatist's enterprise; to argue that one side  of the transaction 
is more important or more 'real' than the other  seems somehow to miss 
the point.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Elliott Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 8 Dec 2005 20:04:37 -0500
Subject: 16.2030 Living Characters Penultimate
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.2030 Living Characters Penultimate

Joseph Egert might be on to something when he asks "Is the relationship 
between Norway and Claudius a little too cozy?".

Is not this a theme in the Tempest?

Best,
Elliott H. Stone

_______________________________________________________________
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.

CLOSED: Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.2042  Friday, 9 December 2005

From: 		Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 8 Dec 2005 15:34:13 -0600
Subject: 16.2027 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...
Comment: 	RE: SHK 16.2027 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...

One last comment before this sinks beneath the waves.

I wrote: "I'm not sure just what these early London years are. What firm 
dates do we have for them?"

William L Davis responded: "I'm not sure we do have firm dates, at least 
as far as Shakespeare's arrival in London is concerned."

Just so. I think it very unwise to try to make firm judgments without 
firm facts to base them on. If you are merely speculating ("What if . . 
  ."), you should identify the process as such.

Even so, some of the infirm facts that provide the groundwork for your 
speculations would be helpful. According to your sources, when do we 
know absolutely that WS was in London, when probably there, and when 
possibly there?

Cheers,
don

_______________________________________________________________
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.