2007

Ian Richardson Dies

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0129  Monday, 12 February 2007

From: 		Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, February 12, 2007
Subject: 	Ian Richardson Dies

A number of obituaries for Ian Richardson have appeared in the 
newspapers and on Internet news services.

The Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/11/AR2007021101396.html

The LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-richardson10feb10,1,2811507.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california&ctrack=1&cset=true

And from Playfuls.com:
http://www.playfuls.com/news_0005162_British_Shakespeare_Actor_Ian_Richardson_Dies.html

British Shakespeare Actor Ian Richardson Dies
06:42 PM, February 9th 2007
by News Staff

British Shakespearean actor Ian Richardson, who also played Professor 
Henry Higgings in My Fair Lady and starred in a number of films and 
popular TV series, has died, aged 72, his agent in London said Friday.

Richardson, best known for his role as the Machiavellian chief whip 
Francis Urquhart in the BBC drama House of Cards, also appeared in TV 
adaptions of John Le Carre spy thrillers and films including Lolita, 102 
Dalmatians and, as Sherlock Holmes, in The Hounds of the Baskervilles.

He also played Professor Henry Higgins in the 1976 revival of My Fair Lady.


But Richardson, who was born on April 7, 1934 in Edinburgh, Scotland, 
was best known for his regular appearances on the British stage, mostly 
with the Royal Shakespeare Company of which he was a founder member.

He played Hamlet at the Birmingham Repertory Theatre in 1960, and later 
performed in plays including Romeo and Juliet, King Lear and the Comedy 
of Errors.

In the mid-1960s, Richardson, who directed many Shakespeare productions, 
toured eastern Europe and the United States in Shakespeare plays.

He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1989 and is survived by his 
widow, the actress Maroussia Frank, whom he married in 1961.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Thorpe Queryxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0128  Friday, 9 February 2007

[1] 	From: 	Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Thursday, 8 Feb 2007 17:27:16 -0500
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0116 Thorpe Query

[2] 	From: 	Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Friday, February 09, 2007
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0116 Thorpe Query


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 8 Feb 2007 17:27:16 -0500
Subject: 18.0116 Thorpe Query
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0116 Thorpe Query

SNIP to:

>there is no reason not to conclude that Shakespeare was angered
>by both instances of the misuse of his name. One must, however,
>conclude that Shakespeare's complaint in 1612 resulted in the
>cancellation of the third edition's title-page and its replacement
>that omitted Shakespeare's name.
>
>Hardy M. Cook

I agree with everything in Hardy's post, except that I would emphasize 
that while I can certainly accept that Shakespeare was complaining about 
the 1599 edition, as well as the 1612 one, I feel it necessary to make it 
clear that this doesn't mean Shakespeare was not (in that case) also 
offended by the 1612 edition, according to Heywood.

--Bob G.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, February 09, 2007
Subject: 18.0116 Thorpe Query
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0116 Thorpe Query

I agree completely, and in an e-mail reply to Bob, I wrote, "Fair enough."

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Branagh Hamlet DVD Update

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0126  Friday, 9 February 2007

From: 		Ron Severdia <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 6 Feb 2007 10:07:44 -0800
Subject: 18.0097 Branagh Hamlet DVD Update
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0097 Branagh Hamlet DVD Update

Actually, a DVD can have up to 720x576 pixels/frame because PAL is higher 
than NTSC. In the case of scan lines, you have 1080i (which is 540/540 
interlaced lines) or you have 1080p, which displays like film (one frame 
at a time like film instead of interlacing). Film is not measured in 
resolution like DV or HD is so that's why it's difficult to make a direct 
comparison. Some (like Canon) have stated it would take around 40 
megapixels of depth to equal a 35mm film frame, and there has been tons of 
speculation & testing which purport other results. But the bottom line is 
mostly subjective. The "art of compression" is a complex one, so even if 
70% of a film's image is tossed when going to digital, *which* 70% is it? 
Is it 69% of the film you can't even see even in a movie theatre?  Is the 
viewer's subjective "filmgoing" experience any less? Maybe waxing too 
philosophical here. :)

Maybe Branagh's Hamlet will skip DVD altogether and jump directly to 
HD-DVD/Blu-ray?  One can only hope...


_______________________________________________________________
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.

A Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0127  Friday, 9 February 2007

[1] 	From: 	Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Thursday, 08 Feb 2007 13:31:02 -0500
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0114 A Question

[2] 	From: 	Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Thursday, 08 Feb 2007 21:22:56 +0000
 	Subj: 	RE: SHK 18.0103 & 18.0114 A Question


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 08 Feb 2007 13:31:02 -0500
Subject: 18.0114 A Question
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0114 A Question


>In the midst of his latest post, John Drakakis mentions "the
>sophisticated transformations of late capitalism."  Ever since
>encountering the phrase in Frederic Jameson's work, I've
>wondered about it.  How, at this (or that) point in time, can
>one know that we're in the phase of "late capitalism."  Might
>we not be in the middle?  It struck me then, as it still does, as
>a kind of nostalgia for a time that has not yet come, when
>capitalism has vanished (or itself been transformed) from the
>workings of the world.

I am trying to wrap my mind around the concept of "nostalgia for a time 
that has not come"; I suppose it is something akin to imagination.

I would assume that someone referring to "late capitalism" means "recent" 
or "modern" capitalism, not capitalism on its last legs and gasping for 
breath.  The latter doesn't come close to describing the vital economic 
system in place throughout the world, which shows every sign of vibrant 
good health:  Witness the renaissance in China since the supposedly 
Marxist state embraced a vigorously capitalist model.

Capitalism, like any system that does not carry the seeds of its own 
destruction, adjusts to changes in technology, culture, political 
attitudes, etc., so that while twenty-first century capitalism is 
recognizably the same system as nineteenth century capitalism, there are 
variations that entitle us to refer to it as "late" capitalism.  The 
socialist states are also showing signs of adjusting; they are becoming 
capitalist.  The Soviet Union did not adjust quickly enough.  I predict 
that post-Castro Cuba will quickly accommodate itself to reality; if it 
doesn't its future is bleak indeed.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 08 Feb 2007 21:22:56 +0000
Subject: 18.0103 & 18.0114 A Question
Comment: 	RE: SHK 18.0103 & 18.0114 A Question

John Drakakis writes:

  >I am very sorry that Joseph Egert thought that I was attacking him,
  >and from the barricades no less!

Could it be that our Master of Analysis John Drakakis did not recognize 
the jesting tone in which my remarks were couched? Has his long engagement 
with Theory rendered him humorless as well as unresponsive? Let not your 
roar be muffled, John. We've come to expect the passionate full-throated 
polemicist from postings past, and nothing less will suffice.

JD goes on:

  >The trouble with
  >all of these labels is that they get in the way of serious enquiry.

But John, was it not you who labeled this humble correspondent 
"reactionary", not progressive? We have yet to hear how you, John 
Drakakis, distinguish the two (presently).

JD again:

  >I'm afraid that to define what 'modernity', 'Enlightenment' and
  >'Renaissance' are would try the patience of us all,...

Once more, we have yet to hear how JD categorically defines the 
"Enlightenment" in relation to its neighbors in time. Please try, John. 
Maybe it's time to pin down some of those floating signifiers, before 
instructive communication becomes impossible. Thank you, in any case, for 
the references.

JD continues on the "self-critical tradition" within Marxism:

  >Simply to assume that this will lead inevitably to a
  >slippery relativism is to forsake the rigour of intellectual enquiry
  >for fashion.

I believe that a radical presentism, that sweeps all before it, will 
inexorably lead to the relativist nihilism that John says he wishes to 
avoid. JD has yet to tell us how he agrees or disagrees with Wright's, "it 
should come as a relief not to aim at an impossible objectivity." Or this, 
from our distinguished List jester: abandoning the quest for permanent 
historical truth "constituted the great American contribution to 
philosophy..." No need for despair here?

Let us rather listen to Larry Weiss in his illuminating analogy of legal 
praxis:

  >must [we] throw up our
  >hands and concede that the past is unknowable in a Heisenbergian
  >way?  I submit not....  We might not be able to achieve a perfect
  >understanding of the events, but that doesn't mean it is useless to
  >try.

Hear! Hear! OTHELLO, of course, explores these issues of knowledge and 
judgment with their attendant frailties in remarkable depth. I'd go 
further and argue that Weiss' program should remain, above all, the 
central task of scholarship.  One nit to pick, however. When I insist, 
Brother Weiss, that History Itself is a Fact, I'm arguing it is completely 
and concretely True, and not merely an ideal Platonic abstraction. Larry 
Weiss' language seems to confuse the interpretations or translations (what 
"men may construe[] after their fashion") with the Real Facts or True 
Texts ("the things themselves").

Presentism's distinguished founder has now weighed in, quoting from Marcus 
Aurelius:

"Facts stand wholly outside our gates; they are what they are, and no 
more; they know nothing about themselves, and they pass no judgment upon 
themselves. What is, then, that pronounces the judgment? Our own guide and 
ruler, Reason."

Many thanks to Terence Hawkes for making my case. I could not have said it 
any better. The Facts and Texts speak perfectly for themselves, only we 
hear them imperfectly in translation. My position approaches that of 
Levinas, as refracted through Sean Lawrence: that the Other exists prior 
to the self and that the past exists absolutely whether we experience and 
recreate it or not. I cannot accept, however, that "[t]o integrate the 
past into our categories kills it" and that "[i]t ceases to be Other." 
Instead, our translations, valuations, and re-presentations, while 
necessarily incomplete and distorted, nonetheless in their real impact and 
influence become part of the evolving Other itself.  Without in any way 
sacrificing agency, this dynamic evolving unity goes even beyond what JD 
calls the "dialogue" gap. It is the Other re-fashioning itself.

Regards from the living past,
Joe Egert

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Renaissance Tragedy

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0125  Friday, 9 February 2007

From: 		Arthur Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 8 Feb 2007 21:52:03 +0000
Subject: 18.0113 Renaissance Tragedy
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0113 Renaissance Tragedy

Would that be *Sweet Violence *(2002)?  Terry also has one called *Holy 
Terror*, which sounds like the flipside.

Arthur

_______________________________________________________________
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.