October
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0537 Wednesday, 28 October 2009 From: Justin Alexander <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 20 Oct 2009 14:36:09 -0500 Subject: 20.0526 The Book of William by Paul Collins Comment: Re: SHK 20.0526 The Book of William by Paul Collins >To me, "SHAKESPEARE," the power-meme, the cultural phenomenon, >is an emergent property that requires the presence of >Hamlet/Othello/Macbeth/Lear, and maybe one or two other signal plays; >the Henriad or Romeo and Juliet/MSD. I think the interesting element in this question is how we all bring our unique perspective to it. One of the remarkable things about Shakespeare is the broad appeal of his work: One person resonates with Hamlet. Another loves the fantastic comedy of Midsummer's. Another resonates with the heroines of Twelfth Night and As You Like It. Another revels in the villainy of Richard III and Iago. So any one of us might identify 4 or 5 works which are the "quintessential Shakespeare" for us. But it'll be a different 4 or 5 works for each of us. I suppose we could work by inversion by taking a wide enough poll and then figuring out which works rarely or never appear on those lists. (I'm willing to bet that we would discover Merry Wives' Windsor to be one of those, although it might be the only one.) It wouldn't be much more work to figure out at what point we could cut Shakespeare's career short while still including, say, 4 out of 5 plays listed by 90%+ of the respondents. Although, even here, we would be overlooking the important historical question: Which works kept Shakespeare's reputation alive (or created it) through the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries? Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0536 Wednesday, 28 October 2009 From: William Sutton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 26 Oct 2009 05:02:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Gibert Shakespeare Hello Biographers, I have recently been searching for the truth behind this idea that Shakespeare's brother Gilbert was a haberdasher. My next step is to try and verify from the early records of the Haberdasher's company. Now Halliwell-Phillips searched the Coram Rege rolls of 1597 and found a reference to Gilbert standing bail for a clockmaker of Stratford, describing him as a haberdasher in St Bride's parish, London. Then I read CC Stopes Shakespeare's Family who claimed that Halliwell Phillips had erred and read Gilbert Shepherd's name in place of Gilbert Shakespeare Stopes searched the Haberdasher Company records and registers in St Bridget's and St Bride's as well as the subsidy rolls. Then I find in Schoenbaum that Stopes is in error and not a very good archivist and that a record does exist! Only he gives no footnote or source for it. The Worshipful haberdasher company's archivist informs me that the early records covering Bindings are incomplete (possibly due to the great fire in 1666) eg bindings for the period aug 1596-nov 1602 are missing. and in the case of the freedom registers these have complete (less detailed) records, but its index is unreliable. I know there is an autograph of Gilbert in the Stratford records proving his literacy. But I am at a loss as to how biographers can claim with any certainty that he was a haberdasher (owning a shop with another man in St Bride's). Shakespeare's A to Z for example is but one of many. I have stated it myself using the authority of repetition that Gilbert was a haberdasher and yet there seems to be no 'proof'. Please can anyone provide something ocular and conclusive, one way or another? Yours, William Sutton http://sonnet.iloveshakespeare.com _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0535 Wednesday, 28 October 2009 From: Nicholas Clary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 20 Oct 2009 15:37:40 -0400 Subject: AYL: Rosalind and Orlando 4.1 I submit the following observation on a scene from As You Like It for the a colleague who has come new to the play. Christopher is fascinated by the scene between Rosalind and Orlando in 4.1, and offers a brief reflection on it. He and I welcome any comments that readers might like to offer: There appears to be some coherent design to Rosalind's lesson in Act IV, scene I. We notice a back-and-forth play between the shrewish, stand-offish woman and the playfully flirty woman, which may be meant to mark the progression of a courtship. It is as if this brief exchange between Orlando and Rosalind is supposed to prepare Orlando for what he can expect when he finally meets his Rosalind again and begins to court her. In fact, one may observe how the course of any courtship seems to follow the roles of the women Rosalind plays. The design of her characters and the progression of the exchange seem to be carefully orchestrated to mimic what the conventional flow of a courtship and subsequent relationship might look like. Or, at least what Rosalind understands relationships to be. If we are to understand Rosalind's efforts as an attempt to cure Orlando of his love sickness, then we might interpret this exchange as a carefully orchestrated introduction to the experience Orlando can anticipate upon meeting up with Rosalind and courting her. It is important, however, not to forget that at the same time that this is an introduction, it is also a lesson. Rosalind has taught Orlando how a playful courtship might progress into the exchanging of vows. How marriage might be more important than sex. How true love is much more meaningful than tacky love poems. To say that Rosalind teaches Orlando in an effort to cure him is not to say, however, that she does not learn something herself. Indeed Rosalind seems to fall deeper in love with Orlando and becomes frustrated as a result of her efforts, all of which can be understood from the fact that it becomes indistinguishable at certain points whether Rosalind is playing Ganymede or herself. In fact, there seem to be moments in the scene when we are inclined to believe that Rosalind is herself, and moments when she is playing Ganymede. If Rosalind is the magician who orchestrates the vacillation between different types of women in an effort to cure Orlando of his love sickness, Shakespeare is the magician who orchestrates the vacillation between different interpretations of Rosalind's identity to cure our obsession with conformity and sameness. In much the same way that Orlando is being cured by Rosalind, so too is the audience being cured by the playwright. Both Rosalind and Shakespeare are offering to their respective audiences a plurality of possibilities (whether it be different types of women or different interpretations of characters) which, by the nature of their diversity, are meant to lead to understanding and harmony. It is from exposure to a plurality of types of women that Orlando may come to better understand love and becomes himself a more mature lover. Similarly, it is from the audience's exposure to different possibilities of interpretation that they are to better understand each other and the world they inhabit. A diversity of people and a plurality of perspectives seem to lead to an understanding and a harmony which is dependent upon differences. The universal truths are universal in so far as they are based on diversity. So as for the woman you play, the man you are, or the way you interpret the world, the possibilities are many indeed. Thanks in advance for whatever the SHAKSPER readership may have to say about it. Nick Clary _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0534 Wednesday, 28 October 2009 From: Cheryl Newton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 20 Oct 2009 16:02:25 -0400 Subject: Hamlet on Broadway My friend Rachel Kovaciny & I are co-Hamlet fans & collectors of any productions, live or otherwise. She doesn't subscribe to this list, but she gets forwarding of any Hamlet discussions. She agreed to offer her recent email to me to Hardy, if he would be interested in sharing her review. ~smile~ The insight here is passionate fan not scholarly critic. There are photos on the Broadway site of the staging of the snow scene & the Queen's chamber. (If you're in OH & want to carpool to NYC, let me know, only half in jest!) ********* It was magnificent. The set was very austere, with tall stone walls on both sides, L shaped, with archways in them for entrances & exits, eavesdropping, etc. The rest of the back wall could be big wooden gatelike doors (which had normal-sized doors in them, or could be shoved wholly aside, which Hamlet did rather triumphantly a couple times), or it could be open to the "outside" with a brick wall a bit behind, or it could just be stone like the other two pieces and be an interior wall. There were very few props, just a chair or bench now and then, and swords/daggers when needed, etc. In that, it reminded me a lot of the Richard Burton version on Broadway that I have on dvd. Quite minimalistic. The costumes were modern, all blacks and greys, except during "The Murder of Gonzago" when the Players wore all white, which was very striking. Claudius and Polonius and the courtiers wore expensive suits and ties, and Gertrude was usually in a spiffy pantsuit or full-length dress. Ophelia had very plain, classic dresses, and wore men's pajamas for her mad scenes. Laertes was in trousers and a shirt and sport coat or sweater vest, very ivy league grad student. Horatio was the rebel, always in perfectly-fitted jeans, biker boots, and a black leather jacket, with long black hair slicked back into a queue. You would have LOVED him. (He was played by Matt Ryan, and here's a link to a pic and little bio of him: http://www.theatermania.com/cast/Matt-Ryan.html More about Horatio later.) Hamlet wore all shades of grey, very layered, with a knee-length grey overcoat for his outdoor scenes, darker grey slacks, a soft grey button-down shirt he wore both closed and open, sometimes a grey cardigan, and underneath everything, a tight-ish, stretchy shirt. As for performances, I didn't hate Oscric (and I often do), I felt almost sorry for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and Fortinbras was quite soldierly and commanding. Gertrude was sympathetic, and I loved how she took Hamlet's warning in her bedchamber to heart and gave Claudius a decidedly cold shoulder after that. She had a bit of a Glenn Close/Meryl Streep look, so a strong woman, not a silly one. Polonius was quite good, and got most of the laughs, some in not-so-obvious spots, usually because his gestures were sometimes so absolutely perfect, yet unexpected. He was officious, but not unbearable. Ophelia was okay, though her voice was a bit high and thin for my taste, and she was portrayed as timid and pliable. Claudius was excellent, and his closet soliloquy was heartfelt and compelling. Laertes was acceptable. They went the rash, young, headstrong route, which is not my favorite interpretation. He was sweet to Ophelia, but lacked that brotherly protectiveness I always look for. But I'm hugely picky about my Laertes, and only Liev Schreiber has ever played him to my complete satisfaction (so far), so I wasn't too disappointed. Horatio. Ahhh, Horatio. Not only was he HOT, he was GOOD. According to the program, this guy is the understudy for Hamlet, and I would dig seeing him in the role -- I think he'd bring a nifty edginess to it. But anyway, Horatio was the best friend Hamlet totally needs -- strong, resilient, quiet, and completely devoted. He seemed to exude an aura of "I'm here, don't worry," and also a sense of protectiveness. Although he spent much time in the sidelines, arms folded, ever watchful, he always seemed ready to leap to Hamlet's aid if the need arose, like he was part best friend and part bodyguard. And his "Now cracks a noble heart" brought me to tears, it was so heartwrenching. He had a great voice too, deep and just a little husky. Reminded me a lot of a young Cary Elwes, with his movements and body language, anyway. He'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts. And then, there was Hamlet. I'm not a big Jude Law fan. I like him okay, but I don't seek out his movies. But he CAN act. No question. His Hamlet was confused, melancholy, jumpy, and so very tired of this whole mess. He did several scenes barefoot, after putting on his antic disposition, which was quite sexy, though he's too slumpy and skinny for me to really have a thing for him. But he made me cry twice, with his "Rogue and peasant slave" soliloquy (which he got claps and cheers for, and rightly so, it was probably his best moment) and his "If it be now" speech, which is not a place I usually choke up. He was just soooo tired of it all and ready to die if need be, so at peace with his fate after railing against it for so long... I loved it. Excellent portrayal overall. Some of the staging was not to my taste -- they blocked everyone very far apart most of the time, so characters would be ten or more feet apart during a conversation. It felt a bit stagey and forced, not particularly natural. On the other hand, the overall distance between most characters made Hamlet's closeness to certain ones more noticeable. He spent a lot of his scenes very close to one character or another -- particularly Horatio and Gertrude, but sometimes Ophelia or R&G or the Players -- with a hand on someone's shoulder or what have you. So in that way, it did sorta work to emphasize his relationships. I really liked the way they staged the first part of the bedchamber scene between Hamlet and Gertrude. A big, white, sheer curtain dropped down parallel to the backdrop, and Polonius hid behind it on the audience's side, while Hamlet and Gertrude were behind it, where they were still visible, but not perfectly. It re-enforced the fact that we, the audience, are all eaves-dropping on the play, which rocked. When Hamlet stabbed Polonius, then the curtain fell down over him and we could see the whole stage again. And I adored all of the soliloquies -- Hamlet broke the 4th wall every time and addressed us as if confiding his innermost self to a diary or bosom friend. It was especially effective on the "Who calls me coward?" section of the "Rogue and peasant slave" speech -- he sort of challenged us to own up that we'd called him that. The overall effect, for me, was to make me want to run down to the stage, throw my arms around him, and promise that everything would be all right. It was intensely personal and awesome. And the end was perfect. Hamlet died in Horatio's arms, with Horatio sitting on the floor, one knee up to support Hamlet a little, who died with his back to Horatio's chest, Horatio's arms around him. After "Now cracks a noble heart," Horatio kissed him on the forehead, very ala the death of Boromir in LOTR. And then Horatio stayed there, cradling him, through the rest of the scene. He looked very much the steadfast, protective, broken-hearted friend to the end. He would periodically smooth Hamlet's hair, or lay his cheek on Hamlet's forehead, and remained very focused on him, only paying Fortinbras the barest attention. Perfect. I was bawling. I would say Jude Law combined Mel Gibson's almost reckless energy and drive with Richard Burton's weary snarl, if I had to compare him to performances I've seen on dvd. The cast on a whole was excellent, and I'm so glad this was my first live Hamlet. Bravo. ********** _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0533 Wednesday, 28 October 2009 From: Robert Shaughnessy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 23 Oct 2009 09:33:34 +0100 Subject: Roman Tragedies Event at the Barbican 21 November Dear colleagues, Apologies for cross-posting; this may be of interest. I understand that places are filling up fast, so please move quickly if you want to participate; I hope to see some of you there. Robert Forwarded message from Dr Peter Boenisch: Dear colleagues, Registration is now open for the ETRN research day around Toneelgroep Amsterdam