The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0321 Thursday, 3 May 2007
[1] From: Robert Projansky <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 20 Apr 2007 01:05:26 -0700
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0295 Alms for Oblivion
[2] From: Terence Hawkes <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 20 Apr 2007 10:41:04 +0100
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0276 Alms for Oblivion
[3] From: Connie Geller <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 21 Apr 2007 08:37:52 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0295 Alms for Oblivion
[4] From: Robert Projansky <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 21 Apr 2007 23:59:33 -0700
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0269 Alms for Oblivion
[5] From: Joseph Egert <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 23 Apr 2007 10:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0295 Alms for Oblivion
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Projansky <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 20 Apr 2007 01:05:26 -0700
Subject: 18.0295 Alms for Oblivion
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0295 Alms for Oblivion
Joseph Egert writes:
>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
Dear Perplexed,
I don't know if I am being invited to respond to this message, which
perplexes me too. My answers: I have no idea.
I am not sure I understand the connection between my quoted words and the
exam question that follows or even if we are having an argument. You do
seem to say that the production has ruined Shakespeare's play, and that's
a squawk I have made myself about many productions. You also see
"borrowed" things in it as emblematic of artistic bankruptcy. I haven't
seen this production but I do not object to "borrowing". I infer that you
prefer to see new stuff when you go to the theater, not the same old
stuff.
I want to see Shakespeare presented imaginatively, fresh, with lots of
creativity to admire and ooh and aah at, but I would rather see the most
pedestrian (but intelligible) production imaginable than to see a
production that does violence to the play. When I say there is no artist
more abused by novelty than WS I certainly am not condemning innovation in
Shakespeare performance. But I know from experience there are many
directors out there -- all of whom want some WS on their resums -- who
neither care nor know anything about Shakespeare, who find him boring.
Such directors always want to mess with the play, cut it to under two
hours, use a lot of inappropriate music (can you imagine Eartha Kitt's
"Santa, Baby" sung in Act IV of Titus Andronicus? Alas, I don't have to
imagine it), and set it in some period and place that will mean snazzier
costumes. They don't know or care about verse technique, they jam their
period/place round peg into history's square hole, and they hew their way
through the text with a bloody axe. To get the job they come with a
"concept" - like a MAAN set in Texas with the soldiers returning from WW
II and everyone drawling unintelligibly as if they were in "The Last
Picture Show". Worse: Duncan as a godfather mafioso and Mac and all the
other thanes his mob. That's what I mean by abused by novelty. In
Portland, OR, a few years ago, a MOV by that city's leading company was
set in a brothel/ disco (no hautboys in that show). What the hell can that
do for MOV? The director was a Hungarian who spoke no English and had to
communicate with his actors through an interpreter. What does that tell
you about respect for the language? And this company with a budget of
millions. The justification for the damage done is always "making the play
more accessible to the audience" which is a crock; how is the verse more
accessible if it's spoken by cowboys or surfers or Nazis who can't even
scan it? No, "making the play more accessible to the audience" is code
for: "I myself wouldn't pay to see this 400- year-old turkey, and unless I
jazz up the play we won't be able to get the public's backsides into these
seats." Most productions that serve up such a concept twist the play away
from what WS wrote and get nothing whatsoever in return. Except those
Gosford Park costumes.
Sorry this is so long. Best to all.
Bob Projansky
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Terence Hawkes <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 20 Apr 2007 10:41:04 +0100
Subject: 18.0276 Alms for Oblivion
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0276 Alms for Oblivion
I repeat. Charles Weinstein says that, in Coriolanus, William Houston
'unforgivably changes his penultimate line to "...like an eagle in a
dove's-cote, I/Fluttered all your Volscians in Corioles." ' Could he be
more specific?
T. Hawkes
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Connie Geller <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 21 Apr 2007 08:37:52 -0500
Subject: 18.0295 Alms for Oblivion
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0295 Alms for Oblivion
I don't mind deciding myself. The jerk doesn't get his money back.
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Projansky <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 21 Apr 2007 23:59:33 -0700
Subject: 18.0269 Alms for Oblivion
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0269 Alms for Oblivion
Charles Weinstein writes:
>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.
I think this overstates the offense, if it is one at all. Does re- using
some uncopyrighted thing that's been done onstage before rise (or sink) to
"plagiarism"? If some director wants to use video monitors onstage in his
next play, is he or she obliged by the law or civilized standards of
decency to acknowledge that he is "borrowing" this gimmick from someone?
If it's borrowed, there's an owner. Must he acknowledge the owner from
whom he borrowed it? Must he get that owner's permission?
I know an actor who admired a particular gesture he saw Ralph Richardson
do in a film, and he has used that same distinctive gesture himself a few
times, without permission of Ralph Richardson or his estate. Must he
really confess this plagiarism? If he is going to do it onstage must he
acknowledge it in his bio in the program? And how would he know whether
or not RR was its actual author and owner? Maybe Ralph Richardson
"borrowed" it himself.
Charles Weinstein's own personal standard as a critic or audience member
may be one of strict liability, but I don't think it is the standard in
the theater, where actors' and directors' choices are not held quite as
closely as, say, George Harrison's lyrics. I grant that duplicating a
director's entire production would be plagiarism and malfeasance, but I
don't think actors and directors think of themselves as owners of a
particular line reading or scene blocking or gesture or stage business.
The very few times I have heard complaints about being copied it sounded
to me like camouflaged bragging.
Bob Projansky
[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Egert <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 23 Apr 2007 10:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 18.0295 Alms for Oblivion
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0295 Alms for Oblivion
Here, with his permission, is Dan Venning's reply to my query:
>Dear Joe:
>
>A few rambling thoughts in response to your closing question:
>
>There is absolutely no way the patron in question would win a case that
>actually went to trial, although if s/he were seriously irate enough,
>threatening legal action would possibly, but probably not, be enough to
>frighten or annoy the theater into refunding the ticket.
>
>The reason it might work: theatres are poor, in general. They're afraid
of
>anything that would cost them money (of course, this makes one ticket
price
>valuable to them).
>
>The reason it probably wouldn't work: Principle. Theatre managers will
not
>want to start a precedent of refunding tickets when patrons aren't happy
>with the production.
>
>Why wouldn't legal action work? Because the theatres have a plethora of
>arguments in their favor: Traditionally, one is not allowed to get one's
>money back after a production because one didn't like it, for whatever
>reason. Shakespeare's texts are not fixed, stable entities, and are not
>under copyright, so directors have the freedom to adapt them. There is a
>tradition of liberal adaptation in staging Shakespearean plays, so an
>audience member should always be prepared for the possibility of a
>nontraditional performance, even a radically nontraditional one. If the
>audience member had read Weinstein's review beforehand, this would be
even
>more problematic, because s/he had essentially been warned.
>
>That last reason is why the "false advertising" argument wouldn't work,
>either. Saying, "CORIOLANUS, by William Shakespeare," is not the same as
>advertising "CORIOLANUS, exactly as written by William Shakespeare,
without
>alteration whatsoever." Perhaps it would have been more honest, in this
>case, to say "CORIOLANUS, adapted from William Shakespeare," but even the
>Wooster Group's HAMLET had the line, "by William Shakespeare," and every
>audience member knew that the play was HAMLET by The Wooster Group (&
>Shakespeare). When attending a production of one of Shakespeare's plays,
one
>has to take the "by William Shakespeare" with a grain of salt until
>evaluating the production.
>
>On the other hand, if the patron was seriously offended and really wanted
to
>hit the theatre where it hurt, instead of demanding his/her money back,
s/he
>should write an eloquent letter to the theatre explaining exactly why
s/he
>will NEVER return to this particular venue (especially powerful if the
>patron has been a subscriber). Theatres pay attention to such letters,
>because every patron counts.
>
>Hope these rambling thoughts are of interest to you,
>
>Dan Venning
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
