The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0039 Wednesday, 17 January 2007
[1] From: John W. Kennedy <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 2007 15:24:28 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0031 Globe-ness
[2] From: Gabriel Egan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 2007 21:06:26 -0000
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0031 Globe-ness
[3] From: John Drakakis <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 17 Jan 2007 15:19:34 -0000
Subj: RE: SHK 18.0031 Globe-ness
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: John W. Kennedy <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 2007 15:24:28 -0500
Subject: 18.0031 Globe-ness
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0031 Globe-ness
Carol Barton <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
>It has always struck me funny that the "new" Globe on
>Thames is unrecognizable as anything remotely resembling
>that, except from the river---and that it was built several at
>considerable distance from the site of the original (now an
>apartment complex).
The building in the original location is itself a listed (protected
historic) building.
>Call me a traditionalist, but if you're going to bother to recreate
>the bloody thing, at a cost of millions of dollars (pounds-foreign
>exchange equivalents), why not do it as accurately as you can?
They did.
>It was funny, to see the number of bewildered people wandering
>around Southwark, looking for wattle and daub where only red
>brick was visible to the pedestrian eye.
My wife and I had no difficulty finding it. For the rest, the ancillary
structures are plainly necessary, and it was hard enough to get
exemptions from the fire laws (some of them in force since 1666) for the
theater proper.
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gabriel Egan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 2007 21:06:26 -0000
Subject: 18.0031 Globe-ness
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0031 Globe-ness
The annual account of Carol Barton's disappointment at the historical
sites of Shakespeare comes early this year. In April-May 2006
Stratford-upon-Avon was scathed; now it's Bankside's turn:
>. . . the "new" Globe on Thames is at considerable
>distance from the site of the original
For those who don't know this bit of south London, the "considerable
distance" is about 200 yards by road, and less as the crow flies.
>(now an apartment complex)
Well, a Georgian building called Anchor Terrace.
>. . . if you're going to bother to recreate the bloody
>thing . . . why not do it as accurately as you can?
If that means destroying a Georgian terrace to put up a replica of what
was previously on the site, almost everyone involved in the scholarship
of old buildings-indeed almost everyone at all-would rightly oppose the
plan. From a theatre-historical point of view, the more interesting
proposition would be to do a full, destructive archaeological excavation
of the Globe site. This would mean destroying properties within Anchor
Terrace but the facade could be maintained. English Heritage (= The
Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England) have in the
past indicated that they would oppose such a proposition.
Of course, making the replica on a nearby site in no way harms the
accuracy of the replica. The work of theatre historians, architect Jon
Greenfield, and Tudor timber-framed buildings expert Peter McCurdy is
unfairly insulted by Barton's ignorant claim that the building is not
accurate. Its makers would not claim that it's perfect, but they can
with justice assert that it's well researched and has itself advanced
theatre history considerably.
>It was funny, to see the number of bewildered
>people wandering around Southwark, looking
>for wattle and daub where only red brick was
>visible to the pedestrian eye.
Not that the Globe was "wattle and daub". It was timber framed with
'lath and plaster' between the timbers.
>Why don't they resurrect the submerged (for
>its own good) Rose instead?
It depends who 'they' are. In Barton's complaints about
Stratford-upon-Avon of April 2006 she conflated the Royal Shakespeare
Company, the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, and the Stratford tourist
industry. Here the International Shakespeare's Globe Centre (Wanamaker's
project) is seemingly conflated with the Rose Theatre Trust, English
Heritage, and the owners of the office block constructed over the Rose
foundations in 1989-90. If these disparate groups all thought and felt
the same way, the matters that Barton seems to think are trivial would be.
Gabriel Egan
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Drakakis <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 17 Jan 2007 15:19:34 -0000
Subject: 18.0031 Globe-ness
Comment: RE: SHK 18.0031 Globe-ness
My sentiments exactly.
And another thing...the Globe won't burn (like the original)! There are
no orange sellers, prostitutes, or pickpockets! And everybody washes
before they go to the theatre! It's a Disneyfication of Shakespeare (I
understand that one of its US supporters is someone by the name of Louis
Fantasia, so there you have it).
Cheers,
John Drakakis
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
