The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0269  Wednesday, 4 April 2007

From: 		David Lindley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Tuesday, 3 Apr 2007 10:33:46 +0100
Subject: 18.0261 Alms for Oblivion
Comment: 	RE: SHK 18.0261 Alms for Oblivion

Leaving on one side Charles Weinstein's view of the production of 
Coriolanus at Stratford (which I thought had an admirable and unfussy 
clarity) and the performances (where I shared some of his reaction to 
Houston, but emphatically not to Suzman), there is a point of principle 
raised by his final comment. One does not, of course, know whether Doran 
had studied the prompt-books or seen the performances from which he is 
alleged to have cribbed (similar ideas may occur spontaneously, after 
all); but why can a director not use again an idea, or variation on an 
idea (s)he may have seen and thought worked well? Why must everything be 
utterly novel? Can any production be 'all new'? After all, most of the 
audience will not have seen the other productions, and I would have 
thought the direction of Shakespeare, and perhaps particularly at the 
RSC, suffers rather more severely from the pressure to make it 'new' at 
all costs than from borrowing from the past.

David Lindley

_______________________________________________________________
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.