The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0481 Monday, 22 May 2006
[1] From: Elliott Stone <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 17 May 2006 18:05:17 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0456 A Roof on the Globe?
[2] From: Kathy Dent <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 18 May 2006 20:40:19 +0100
Subj: RE: SHK 17.0456 A Roof on the Globe?
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elliott Stone <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 17 May 2006 18:05:17 -0400
Subject: 17.0456 A Roof on the Globe?
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0456 A Roof on the Globe?
Peter Holland makes a valid point that the plays within the play in the
Shakespeare Canon might very well have been performed outside in a
courtyard rather than inside in a hall at the castles and palaces. The
point I was making is different. There is no evidence from the Shakespeare
plays within the plays themselves that they were to be performed at a
playhouse or were meant for performance at a playhouse. I also believe
that we have little evidence for any Shakespeare original performance at
the Globe.
If my thesis is correct then I should think it would make no difference at
all if they put a roof on the Globe insofar as it might effect an
"original" Shakespeare performance. It would, however, make watching a
performance bearable in inclement weather for all of us Shakespeare
lovers.
Best,
Elliott H. Stone
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kathy Dent <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 18 May 2006 20:40:19 +0100
Subject: 17.0456 A Roof on the Globe?
Comment: RE: SHK 17.0456 A Roof on the Globe?
Thanks to Tony Burton for summarising the original purpose of the Globe:
>Wasn't the original purpose of the Globe project to recreate
>that particular theater with the utmost authenticity, and to
>see and experience Shakespeare's plays in very nearly their
>original setting?
And to Todd Lidh for drawing attention to the new artistic director's
viewpoint:
>I think Original Practices is something that belongs to Mark,
>Jenny [Tirimani] and Claire [van Kampen]
Personally, I'm with Tony Burton on this. The concept of Original
Practices belongs not to any particular person, but to the Globe building
itself. If its purpose is not to explore Original Practices, why on earth
was all that time and money spent on trying to create a replica building?
And, as for design, I thought that was what went into the building.
I fail to see how a mechanism used by ancient Romans to cope with the
extreme temperatures of their summer climate is in any way relevant to the
Globe. If today's weather is anything to go by, its only positive
function in London will be to keep the spectators a bit less cold and wet
than they otherwise might be.
The Coliseum wasn't a theatre and the purpose of their roof was clearly
not for psychological atmospherics, so the designer is making an
irrelevant connection. I only hope that this doesn't signal a future of
clunky anachronisms and bizarre historical gimmicks at the Globe.
Kathy Dent
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
