The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0353 Tuesday, 25 April 2006
[1] From: Cary DiPietro <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 25 Apr 2006 02:28:24 +0900
Subj: RE: SHK 17.0343 Stratford
[2] From: Gabriel Egan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 24 Apr 2006 20:10:20 +0100
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0343 Stratford
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Cary DiPietro <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 25 Apr 2006 02:28:24 +0900
Subject: 17.0343 Stratford
Comment: RE: SHK 17.0343 Stratford
Shouldn't we be drawing a distinction here between the inevitable
hyperbole of marketing agencies and PR reps, and the theatrical venture
as an aesthetic act? Sure, we might bemoan the commodity fetishism of a
theatrical industry taken to its logical conclusion - both new (never
done before) and superlative (what will they do next?) - the crass
materialism of it all mystified (and not very well) by a universalizing
humanism. But it's also very cool theatre. Cynics stay home - I'd love
to be in Stratford this year.
That aside, the continued momentum of the Shakespeare industry,
especially for those of us yet to retire, is surely rather comforting -
at least we'll all have jobs (for the next few years at any rate).
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gabriel Egan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 24 Apr 2006 20:10:20 +0100
Subject: 17.0343 Stratford
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0343 Stratford
Carol Barton wrote of
>. . . the tackiness of the general Stratfordian "ambience,"
>Terence--where they have been showing a home as
>Mary Arden's that's actually down the road from the
>Arden house, and reporting all sorts of misinformation
>of other kinds as "fact" to unsuspecting tourists.
That won't do as a critique of Stratford, because there's no one 'they'
at work here. The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust certainly were showing
the wrong building as Mary Arden's house, but it was an honest mistake
and moreover the same Trust did much to disseminate the new knowledge
when it was uncovered. A mark of the Trust's careful custodianship is
the fact that in the 1960s it had bought the house that turned out to be
the right one, merely because it was nearby and typical of the period. A
more cynical approach is easily imagined. There are criticisms to be
made of the Trust, but this isn't one of them.
I'd like to hear what other "misinformation" Barton thinks the Trust is
peddling. I'd accept that the private tour guides in Stratford say many
silly things, but I've no doubt the ones in Florence and Sidney do too.
>For something I wanted all my life to see, the
>birthplace was a huge disappointment. I wouldn't
>have been surprised to learn that the swans were
>mechanical, or the Arden artificially replicated. This
>[the complete works season] promises to be more
>of the same.
It seems implied here that the birthplace is a fake and that Barton was
disappointed when she realized that it was. If so, evidence is required.
If not-if Barton was just disappointed that a 16th-century house isn't
as she expected-then I'd suggest that this was a valuable learning
experience. Indeed, that she'd all her life wanted to see the place that
Shakespeare was born was probably the root of the problem: the house
itself doesn't explain very much at all about the writing, so the
experience was bound to be deflating. The attraction of the birthplace
does tell us quite a bit about the Shakespeare industry, but Barton
doesn't seem to want to engage with the narrative of commerce's
intersection with culture that it exemplifies. Rather, her world has
turned to trash and even the poor swans are now under suspicion. ("The
Arden" Shakespeare is of course "artificially replicated", as all
editions are; if Barton means something else then I'm afraid it's not
clear what. The forest, perhaps?)
The claims about Shakespeare made by directors are often to be
discounted; these people's specific professional concerns seldom help to
enhance their capacities for wider cultural criticism. But Barton's
'they' just doesn't exist: the RSC isn't the Birthplace Trust isn't the
replica Globe isn't the Stratford tourist industry. These institutions
and fields of commercial activity intersect and overlap, but a critique
of one doesn't touch them all, and only by laying blame at the right
door is cultural and political criticism performed.
Gabriel Egan
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
