The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0295 Thursday, 19 April 2007
[1] From: Joseph Egert <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 12 Apr 2007 08:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0286 Alms for Oblivion
[2] From: Charles Weinstein <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 14 Apr 2007 07:21:51 -0400
Subj: Alms for Oblivion
[3] From: Cary Dean Barney <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 18 Apr 2007 10:15:15 +0200
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0280 Alms for Oblivion
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Egert <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 12 Apr 2007 08:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 18.0286 Alms for Oblivion
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0286 Alms for Oblivion
Robert Projansky writes:
"There is no artist more abused by novelty than WS."
In the year 2007, or 56 AD (Anno Derridi), a man about fifty, intimately
familiar with Shakespeare's works, both paged and staged, buys a ticket
to the Stratford Doran production of "CORIOLANUS by William
Shakespeare." There he witnesses, as described by Charles Weinstein, "an
intermittent androphilia/gynophobia", an "unforgivably" changed
penultimate line, and the title character's self-impalement on Aufidius'
sword and Pieta cradling in his enemy's arms. Furious, the patron tracks
down the theater owner and complains, "This play, as performed, is not
by William Shakespeare, as advertised. This is outright cozenage! I
demand my money back!" The owner refuses, at which point the patron
warns, "I Will not rest until I am reimbursed."
Who should decide who gets the money? What is the optimal legal mechanism?
Perplexed,
Joe Egert
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charles Weinstein <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 14 Apr 2007 07:21:51 -0400
Subject: Alms for Oblivion
Obviously, transmuted influence is one thing while unacknowledged
borrowings are another. In that regard, theatrical plagiarism is every
bit as fraudulent and aesthetically bankrupt as literary plagiarism.
Listmembers who condemn the latter should really think twice before
condoning the former.
--Charles Weinstein
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Cary Dean Barney <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 18 Apr 2007 10:15:15 +0200
Subject: 18.0280 Alms for Oblivion
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0280 Alms for Oblivion
Since I endorsed the RSC "Coriolanus" on another thread, this one, which
began with a condemnation of the same, has interested me. Apart from
differences of taste, preference, etc., what's clear to anyone who sees
a lot of productions is that the same directorial ideas crop up in one
place after another. Some of this may be copying, from productions
either seen or heard about; but directors suffer from anxiety of
influence too and most don't want to be seen as thieving magpies. Most
of these coincidences are what I'll call iconic, in that images will
spring immediately to mind when considering how to bring out an aspect
of the work deemed, in a certain cultural moment, to be important. So
when Aufidius emerges from his house in IV.v. in loose-fitting silk
pajamas and ends up cradling Coriolanus in a Pieta image, it seems to me
the director is less likely to be copying a "Coriolanus" he's already
seen than simply reaching for strong visual images which will underscore
the homoeroticism of the relationship- images that are quite likely to
occur to other directors as well. To take another example, video
monitors in Shakespeare productions have by now completely lost their
novelty (unless of course you haven't seen them used yet) -- so why
don't directors say, "Wait, that's not original" and stop themselves?
Because of the iconic power that allows a visual connection between the
text and modern concerns of surveillance and/or the ubiquity of the
media. Yes, we've seen it before, but if it works, who cares if it's
original?
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
