August
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0630. Monday, 21 August 1995. From: Dale Lyles <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 Aug 1995 09:55:02 -0400 Subject: Q: Winter's Tale Here's another director of an upcoming production who would love to have all the ideas SHAKESPERians have to share. Auditions are next week for Winter's Tale. I've done all my usual reading and research, and I think I'm at least ready to begin, but it never hurts to have more ideas to wrestle with. So, what are your thoughts on WT? What problems have you had in production, and how have you solved them? What are the dangers in the text? I have very few specific questions, because I'd rather hear what everyone has to share rather than start a debate. [Here? on SHAKSPER??] 1) I'm assuming that if we don't allow Leontes full play in his reign of terror, and if we make him really really repentant, then the audience will not notice how insane Hermione must be to hide for 16 years and not nurse a grudge. Has this been true in other productions? 2) In playing with the idea of Time, I've cut the Act IV chorus and set the first half of the play "in the past." In other words, it becomes almost a flashback. Costumes, set, all in shades of gray, black, silver, etc. Then when we hit "the present," we do the Wizard of Oz thing and burst forth in color. I was thinking of beginning the play with Camillo alone on stage, "remembering," if that seems possible. What are your thoughts? 3) Our audiences are small town and loyal. They'll slog through almost Anything with us and like it; fortunately, we rarely have given them bad stuff. With WT, we are not synopsizing the end of the play in publicity, since none of our audience knows it. The possibility exists that the statue scene may come as a genuine surprise. No question here, just information. Any other thoughts/ideas/recommendations? We'll digest anything you have to offer. Has anyone else noticed that, alone of all the characters, the Clown does not age between Part I and Part II? It's 16 years alter, and he's still the same adolescent idiot he was at the end of Act III. I'm wondering if the audience will catch *that* one. Many thanks, Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Co. Newnan, GA
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0629. Monday, 21 August 1995. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 20 Aug 1995 02:02:34 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0628 Q: The Genesis Metaphor in *Othello* (2) From: David Crosby <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 20 Aug 1995 10:38:06 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0628 Q: The Genesis Metaphor in *Othello* (3) From: Helen Ostovich <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 20 Aug 1995 11:51:56 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Jonson and Florio; OTHELLO (4) From: Dale Lyles <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 Aug 1995 09:34:23 -0400 Subj: Re: Teaching LEAR (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 20 Aug 1995 02:02:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 6.0628 Q: The Genesis Metaphor in *Othello* Comment: Re: SHK 6.0628 Q: The Genesis Metaphor in *Othello* Dear Amy Hughes--- The problem with the genesis allegory is that snake-IAGO is married to Emilia....what do you do with her in the play? Would she get lost in the shuffle of allegory? Considering that she has one of the most moving speeches in the play, and has significant encounters with all three of the other principals, your TRIANGLE reading seems somewhat reductive....I don't have any alternative allegorical suggestions at present. And the idea of Desdemona MAKING othello seems to have possibilities, but one doesn't need to bring in eden, etc--to show this----chris stroffolino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Crosby <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 20 Aug 1995 10:38:06 -0400 Subject: 6.0628 Q: The Genesis Metaphor in *Othello* Comment: Re: SHK 6.0628 Q: The Genesis Metaphor in *Othello* Amy, Your insight about the genesis metaphor is useful so long as it stimulates _your_ thinking about the dynamics of Othello, but, as with most metaphors, when pushed too far it is likely to lead you into blind alleys. In Genesis, of course, Eve's role is to fall for the serpent's temptation and urge Adam's participation in the "original sin." When Othello succumbs to Iago's insinuations, he becomes an avenging angel, an agent of justice (like a mistaken Hamlet). Desdemona, unlike Adam, utterly rejects the propostion that Iago has planted in Othello's mind. I think you are essentially right that Desdemona is strong rather than weak: she confronts authority with the same clever rhetoric and decisive action as Rosalind, Juliet, Portia, Viola, and Cordelia. I think Iago is less the serpent of Genesis than the Vice of the early modern morality plays, a character who manifests great pleasure in lies and treachery (note that he betrays not only Othello but also Roderigo, Cassio, Amelia, and Desdemona). He offers not forbidden knowledge, but pure deception. But, by all means, carry on, especially with the design possibilities. Just don't let it overwhelm the production. Good luck. David Crosby <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Lorman, MS (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 20 Aug 1995 11:51:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Jonson and Florio; OTHELLO Re: Bob Leslie's query. Jonson clearly was familiar with Florio's Italian-English dictionary in 1599 when he came up with names for the characters in _Every Man Out of his Humour_. The probability is that he was personally familiar with Florio too. Re: Amy Hughes' OTHELLO. I love it! I have always argued that Desdemona is a strong character, not given to the mealy-mouthed conventions of other Venetians or the Venetianized Othello of Act 1. Wish I could see the performance. Good luck. Helen Ostovich Department of English / Editor, _REED Newsletter_ McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L9 (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 Aug 1995 09:34:23 -0400 Subject: Re: Teaching LEAR Part of the reason teenagers are more in tune with R&J is that they almost all empathize with the lovers. What I've done with LEAR is to ask students to examine their empathy and how the playwright is directing it. With whom are we *supposed* to empathize? Are there crosscurrents in play? Mostly, they find that they are supposed to focus on Lear and Cordelia, but that Lear's behavior makes it extremely difficult not to side with Regan and Goneril for the first half of the play. Having admitted that the old man is a difficult case, they are then appalled at the extent of R & G's cruelty and of Lear's fall. Their sense of fair play is engaged: "Yes, he was a cranky, selfish old man, BUT..." And then Cordelia's cold, prim love is redeemed by her selfless going to battle for the old man. Also, students have enjoyed tracking the images of nothing, eyes, and animals. They begin to sense the vast structure of the play. Dale Lyles
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0628. Saturday, 19 August 1995. From: Amy E. Hughes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 20:15:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Genesis Metaphor in OTHELLO I know I should buy a gun and shoot myself for this, but I am taking on the task of directing OTHELLO. <HEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLPPPPP!> Okay. I'll admit it is an exciting prospect. It is the play I have always wanted to direct. It is comforting to know, also, that no matter how truly horrible the production may become, I am still a student director (junior at NYU/Undergrad Drama) making art in an academic context, so I can always cry "inexperience" if I need an excuse. However, this is definitely not in my plan. I expect it to be (as my mentor Louis Scheeder would say) FABulous. So bear with me if I ask questions. Be my sounding board? ************************************************** In my OTHELLO studies, hyperbolating on commentary I have read and research I have done, I have come up with many ideas. The most current one may just be amusing, but I find it an interesting parallel. I have been experimenting with the idea of Othello in a weaker position than Desdemona (his text is more subservient, especially in front of senate in Act I, full of euphemisms; Desdemona's is not --- she seems almost brazen). In a sense, Desdemona has the power to "make" Othello into a Venetian -- she is the insider while he is the outsider. Who says that Desdemona has to be weak, anyway?? Thinking on the biblical comparison of God's statement to Moses, "I am that I am" and Iago's, "I am not what I am" (as observed by E. Jones and others), I experienced epiphany: can the Garden of Eden story in Genesis be a metaphor for the play in production? My reflections produced the following: 1) Desdemona is Adam, Othello is Eve. Desdemona "creates" Othello in many ways: by way of marriage, she makes a domestic out of a soldier; Othello effectively marries in Venice through her; more of an off-shoot, she makes him a victim of Iago, since it seems to be the marriage that sparks Iago's arsenal of hate. 2) As loathe as I am to use the cliche, Iago is the snake; i.e., the serpent: Eve's temptress. 3) OTHELLO is, in many ways, a play about the danger of knowledge. My favorite monologue in the play depends on this theme (III, iii, lines 351-364, "I had been happy if the general camp,/Pioners, and all, had tasted her sweet body,/So I had nothing *known*"). Eden's serpent is the bringer of forbidden knowledge. This metaphor, I think, has possiblities in production terms (design, etc.), but I know this post is long, and I will save them for later. Are there any critics in print who have had similar revelations? Thoughts? Thanks, Amy Hughes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0627. Saturday, 19 August 1995. (1) From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 14:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 6.0624 Qs: Lady Macbeth's Speech (2) From: Roger D. Gross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 16:54:19 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Content/Macbeth (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 14:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 6.0624 Qs: Lady Macbeth's Speech Comment: Re: SHK 6.0624 Qs: Lady Macbeth's Speech Mike Field: Why can't "content" mean both? Cheers, Sean. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger D. Gross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 16:54:19 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Content/Macbeth Michael Field asks about "content" in Lady M's act 3 speech. The evidence is very clear on this one. Shakespeare never uses the word "content" to mean "that which is contained". "Content" always refers to some version of the psychological state of contentedness or acquiescence. It is one of Shakespeare's favorite words and he uses it as a noun, a verb, and an adjective. It is always pronounced "cuhn-TENT". When he wants to talk about that which is contained, he uses the word "contents" which he always pronounces "cuhn-TENTS", causing a lot of actors to make rhythm errors. The scansion evidence for this is extremely strong. Look carefully at the context of that Lady M. line. I think it clearly means something like "joy." The next lines, which use the word "joy" are a sort of paraphrase of the line you inquire about. Her point is that when we take a risk or great expense, we do it in anticipation of some joy which will follow. So it was with her involvement in the murder ("It'll be big fun to be queen."). But it has been hell, not heaven, ever since the murder. She's saying that it is painful that, when you realize joy won't follow, you can't get your money (or peace) back. NOTE: My friends, I introduced the verse issue several months ago. I was delighted with the response it got (on and off list). I got many questions and a couple of challenges. I promised to give more. Then I more or less fell off the planet and have only recently returned. (That's what it feels like each year when the Mount Sequoyah New Play Retreat, which I direct, begins its work.) I'm back in gear now and will soon provide two things: an answer to the challenge, "how does anyone really know what Shakespeare's verse system was?" and the list of Most Often Mispronounced Names. Thanks for your patience. Roger Gross Univ. of Arkansas
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0626. Saturday, 19 August 1995. (1) From: Tom E. Hodges <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 15:02:26 GMT-6 Subj: Re: SHK 6.0617 Q: Edgar (2) From: Balz Engler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 19 Aug 1995 09:17:06 +0200 Subj: SHK 6.0624 Qs: Altering Lines (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom E. Hodges <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 18 Aug 1995 15:02:26 GMT-6 Subject: 6.0617 Q: Edgar Comment: Re: SHK 6.0617 Q: Edgar Another thought on why Edgar does not reveal his identity to Edmond before their duel: Does not this brother-vs-brother fight echo that other familiar dramatic emblem on the Elizabethan stage, the father- who-has-killed-his-son and son-who-has-killed-his-father? The dramatic movement and the thematic effects seem similar. As for this image of the "family at war with itself," the HOMILY AGAINST DISOBEDIENCE AND WILFUL REBELLION preaches as follows: "But when these mischiefes are wrought in rebellion by them that should be friends, by countreymen, by kinsemen, by those that should defend their countrey, and countreymen from such miseries, the misery is nothing so great as is the mischiefe and wickednes when the Subiects vnnaturally doe rebell against their Prince, whose honour and life they should defend, though it were with the losse of their owne liues: countreymen to disturbe the publique peace and quietnesse of their countrey, for defence of whose quietnesse they should spend their liues: the brother to seeke, and often to worke the death of his brother, the sonne of the father, the father to seeke or procure the death of his sons...." (Short-Title Catalogue 13675. Renaissance Electronic Texts 1.1 copyright 1994 Ian Lancashire, ed., U Toronto) So in this last scene, we have all of these varieties of rebellion (and sister vs. sister thrown for good measure) capped by Edgar's revelation to Edmond--a momentary triumph of good over evil. But this peak just helps to set up the fall, as Shakespeare toys briefly with the audients' hopes and fears for Lear and Cordelia; then enter Lear, howling. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Balz Engler <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 19 Aug 1995 09:17:06 +0200 Subject: Qs: Altering Lines Comment: SHK 6.0624 Qs: Altering Lines Why shouldn't we change Shakespeare's text in performance? Mark Goldman's query seems to be based on the assumption that there is an authentic text that has to be followed in production. I don't quite know what he is referring to. Even if you want to have your *authentic* (whatever that is) Shakespeare play in the theatre you have to change the texts available. Shakespeare certainly did not write the kind of gibberish actors and actresses sometimes have to speak, frantically trying to make us forget the words with the help of all kinds of ingenious business. Balz Engler Basel University