The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0045 Friday, 19 January 2007
[1] From: Peter Holland <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 12:00:55 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth
[2] From: Norman D. Hinton <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 11:50:50 -0600
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth
[3] From: Sarah Neville <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 14:51:22 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth
[4] From: Rolland Banker <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 17:50:37 -0800 (PST)
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0029 Wordless Macbeth
[5] From: Douglas Galbi <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 19 Jan 2007 12:57:50 -0500
Subj: Wordless Macbeth
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Holland <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 12:00:55 -0500
Subject: 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth
While SHAKSPERians are busy mocking wordless productions, please
consider the following two cases: (1) the hundreds of silent films of
Shakespeare made, shown, discussed and enjoyed (and mostly lost for
ever) (2) the long tradition, especially in England, of Shakespeare on
radio. We can, if we choose, laugh at silent Shakespeare films but many
of us spend time, as scholars and as teachers with our students, trying
to understand what these films set out to achieve and how the cultural
contexts of their reception might best be considered. I don't think we
are wasting our time by doing so. And, as to radio/audio Shakespeare
(which have given me many of the finest experiences of Shakespeare in my
life), I find wordless Shakespeare no more ridiculous than invisible
Shakespeare.
Peter Holland
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Norman D. Hinton <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 11:50:50 -0600
Subject: 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth
I guess coming next are "Beethoven without the Music", and "Monet in the
Dark", eh ?
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sarah Neville <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 14:51:22 -0400
Subject: 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0041 Wordless Macbeth
Just a (perhaps not so) innocent question of the dismissers of the
"Wordless Macbeth": when a deaf person goes to see a (worded)
Shakespeare play, are they also not seeing "Shakespeare"?
Sarah Neville
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rolland Banker <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 18 Jan 2007 17:50:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 18.0029 Wordless Macbeth
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0029 Wordless Macbeth
T. Hawkes asks,
>Douglas Galbi claims that a 'wordless' production of Macbeth
>'profoundly explores Shakespearean art'. How?
I'll tell you how, Mr. Hawkes; and why must I always play the role of
the world-weary autodidactic bardolator for the lettered-sort? Anyhow,
here is the splendored aesthetic answer in all its glory(now you hear
it, now you don't):
(This space reserved for something profound--silence perhaps?)
Cheers and all the best,
Rolland Banker
[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Douglas Galbi <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 19 Jan 2007 12:57:50 -0500
Subject: Wordless Macbeth
Mari Bonomi wrote:
[quote]
>*Can* we divorce the play from its language and still call it the play
>Shakespeare *wrote*?
>
>That is not to say that one cannot celebrate Shakespeare by creating
>one's own interpretations of his stories... it is merely to say that
>calling such interpretations "Shakespeare" is to me a significant
>misnomer. I love Tchaikovsky's "Romeo and Juliet Overture/Fantasy."
>I've used it as a teaching tool, asking students to listen to it and
>tell me the story that the music is telling (this is a good way to use
>any programmatic work). But it is *not* the play by Shakespeare that I
>taught 2-5 times a year for close to 40 years. Both are rich works of
>art, but they are not the *same* work of art.
[end quote]
Several other posters to this list expressed similarly sentiments,
modulated of course through differences in personality and experience.
I tried to indicate in the full review (see
http://purplemotes.net/2007/01/15/synetic/ ) that what counts as
authoritative communication (spoken?, written?, visual image?, physical
gesture?) was of great concern to Shakespeare and his time. So too was
a concern about oneness and idolatry. Not taking for granted particular
positions on these issues is profoundly important for appreciating
Shakespeare's art.
Fidelity to Shakespeare's work is an aesthetic judgment. For example, a
person who reads Macbeth carefully might notice some lines that seem to
be not like Shakespeare, e.g. Act 4, Scene 1, ll. 39-43. My judgment is
that Synetic Theater's production of Macbeth is, with perhaps some human
failings, truly faithful to Shakespeare's Macbeth.
Douglas Galbi
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
