June
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1324 Friday, 30 June 2000. [1] From: Pete Wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 2000 08:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: Macbeth is Listening [2] From: Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 2000 12:50:12 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 11.1313 Macbeth is Listening [3] From: Erick Kelemen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 2000 17:31:44 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 11.1313 Macbeth is Listening [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete Wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 2000 08:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Macbeth is Listening Bob Haas (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ) asked: >Did anyone see the recently defunct production of Macbeth in New York >that starred Kelsey Grammar? I wonder if he overcompensated. To be >fair, it's difficult to escape the kind of identification he's >created with his television alter-ego. Yes, a friend and I saw the production in Boston, in the deservedly half-empty (should have been a clud) Colonial Theater, just before it moved to NYC. Kelsey played the part at one emotional level -- barely-controlled frantic rage, like Mike Tyson on speed -- and did not live up even to Dorothy Parker's assessment: he never made it to B. It was a complete waste, imo. The capper was that ol' Kels got a standing O -- totally bogus. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 2000 12:50:12 -0400 Subject: 11.1313 Macbeth is Listening Comment: Re: SHK 11.1313 Macbeth is Listening > Did anyone see the recently defunct production of Macbeth in New York > that starred Kelsey Grammar? I wonder if he overcompensated. To be > fair, it's difficult to escape the kind of identification he's created > with his television alter-ego. > > [Editor's Note: The current Time magazine characterizes the Grammar > *Macbeth* as one of the great flops of Broadway, A similar squabble, less scholarly, is going on in the NYTimes Theatre Forum. An anonymous poster-- "Bodge1" is the signature, the Forum doesn't permit human names, apparently to deny the prestige of Times publication to the opinions expressed there-- anyway, someone called Bodge1 from Boston who sounds very like a respected local actor of my acquaintance is defending Kelsey Grammar's MacB: on economic grounds, essentially. Bodge1 makes the point that in the non-subsidizing US of A, only a star who is a successful pro at TV or film and an amateur at Shakespeare can get $ backing, and it is a courageous thing for him to do. In the short rehearsal periods that are all we Yanks can afford it is not surprising that the production will be shallow and the classical acting barely competent at opening. If the popularity of the star is sufficient to win the production an extended run in spite of mixed reviews, the actors will dig in and endow it with depth. But it is unfair to compare such efforts to the RSC, whose actors who have decades of experience in performing Shakespeare and the luxury of months rather than weeks of rehearsal. Geralyn Horton, Playwright Newton, Mass. 02460 <http://www.tiac.net/users/ghorton> [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Erick Kelemen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 2000 17:31:44 -0400 Subject: 11.1313 Macbeth is Listening Comment: Re: SHK 11.1313 Macbeth is Listening I and three friends saw the second- or third-to-last performance of the run -- we liked it, despite its flaws -- and I can say unequivocally that Macbeth was not played by Dr. Crane. Grammer (spelled -er) was actually very good -- better in ensemble than in soliloquy, but always very good. The porter and Seyton were played expertly by Peter Gerety, whom I knew only from his role as a detective on "Homicide," though he has had a very full career on the stage. Other television notables, mainly Michael Gross, were less notable; not bad, just not outstanding, either. The real problem with the play, as I saw it, was not the acting but the directing. Only the porter scene recognized that an audience was present, for instance, and not surprisingly that scene seemed to be the audience's favorite. Moreover, the cuts in the text were rather odd. For instance, no one explains to the audience why Birnam wood might suddenly appear where it shouldn't, no sense that it's part of a strategic plan of an advancing army. It just appears onstage, not carried by soldiers. Poof! A forest. The performance relied too heavily on lighting and sound tricks to create emotions, too, so that after feeling startled by a sudden explosion of light and sound, I didn't feel as though I were on the battlefield with Macbeth, or in the sudden presence of women who could control the elements, and I didn't feel awed as I think I was supposed to. I briefly felt annoyed, but that was all. And there were small glitches that left me wondering what was going on backstage, too. When Venora came out for her first appearance as Lady M., her long skirt was tucked into her hose in back, not so much that it looked horribly silly, but enough that everyone noticed the difference in her second appearance. At one point in the performance, a cell phone started ringing, and one of my friends is convinced that it belonged not to a rude audience member but to one of the witches! She claims that the phone was being picked up by a microphone and that she saw the witch reach into her clothing and turn it off. Perhaps it was her agent with news about her next role. . . . As I say, we did enjoy it. I don't think it should have been panned, but I also wouldn't call it brilliant. On balance, it was good. Grammer should certainly be encouraged to play more Shakespeare. Erick Kelemen Department of English University of Delaware
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1323 Thursday, 29 June 2000. [1] From: Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 28 Jun 2000 15:13:58 -0400 Subj: RE: SHK 11.1286 Re: A Shrew [2] From: Stephen Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 2000 13:28:02 +0100 () Subj: A Shrew (reply to SHK 11.1286) [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 28 Jun 2000 15:13:58 -0400 Subject: 11.1286 Re: A Shrew Comment: RE: SHK 11.1286 Re: A Shrew --- Any more? I would add to an earlier attempt to align Christopher Sly with Freud and Baudelaire's theories of laughter that the implication of leaving the narrative frame unresolved puts Sly back where he really resides: somewhere among the groundlings. Clifford Stetner CUNY Graduate Center http://phoenix.liu.edu/~cstetner/cds.htm [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Jun 2000 13:28:02 +0100 () Subject: (reply to SHK 11.1286) Comment: A Shrew (reply to SHK 11.1286) To Marcus Dahl on the subject of A SHREW as an adaptation, > If the Du Bartas poem was available since 1578 this does not > help issues of chronology. Not at all, alas. > What other evidence do you (or others) have in order to > argue that A Shrew (1594 or earlier) was written after > The Shrew (first published 1623). I already know Maguire's > opinion. No external evidence that I know of exists to argue precedence of THE SHREW. The plays are clearly linked textually; one was not produced independently of the other. As my last message said, A SHREW is a play with passages manifestly lifted from other writers including Marlowe, so it seems logical to assume that the writer who lifted those would also willingly lift passages from a play by Shakespeare and even much of the plot. This seems more likely than that Shakespeare would carefully fuss over reworking A SHREW. Beyond that, as my edition for New Cambridge Shakespeare argues, the reworking of the source material (subjugation of a wife by threatening violence) to me suggests Shakespeare, reminiscent of THE COMEDY OF ERRORS. As for the evidence of others, critics such as Richard Hosley have suggested that the complex plot structure of both versions more likely had its origin in Shakespeare while pointing out that THE SHREW shows closer knowledge than A SHREW of Gascoigne's SUPPOSES, a common source for the subplot in both versions. On the verbal level, some readers, examining similar passages between THE SHREW and A SHREW, have argued the priority of the wording in THE SHREW. Because most of these arguments strike me as reversible, my footnotes contain counter-arguments in some cases. I guess the shocking thing about my theory of origin for A SHREW is that it suggests that whoever put the play together was not in awe of Shakespeare as a playwright, but appears to have adapted THE SHREW, borrowing what he wanted while improving as he saw fit. Sincerely, Stephen Miller
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1322 Thursday, 29 June 2000. From: Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 28 Jun 2000 15:13:54 -0400 Subject: 11.1287 Re: Sonnet Facsimiles Comment: RE: SHK 11.1287 Re: Sonnet Facsimiles I just completed a series of lectures on the Sonnets, and (while David Lindley might scoff) being able to use these beautiful images to bring all the issues of their original publication, as well as the subtleties of meaning lost in modern spellings and orthographies alive was invaluable. These were mostly older students for whom no such material was available when they were in school. My gratitude as both a teacher and a student goes out to you and the others involved in this project. It also goes out to a culture whose values are so perverse that they sell their dross at a premium while their greatest treasures are still given away for free. I'm hurriedly downloading my own copy of the series against the day when they come to their senses. Clifford Stetner CUNY Graduate Center http://phoenix.liu.edu/~cstetner/cds.htm > I'm very pleased to know that the images of Shakespeare's Sonnets are of > some use to those in our group.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1321 Thursday, 29 June 2000. From: Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 28 Jun 2000 11:14:19 -0700 Subject: The Shakespeare Channel Pervez Rizvi and I have been bantering about what a silly idea it would be to have a new cable television channel, The Shakespeare Channel: All Shakespeare, All the Time. While we admit we'd probably watch it, the idea surely has limited potential. Once you have endlessly shown all extant TV productions and films made from the plays, what next? A couple of our ideas were not completely silly. For example, I suggested > Give Stanley Wells a chat show, broadcast documentaries on The > Wars of the Roses, early modern comedy, and antecedents to > Shakespearean tragedy... But then it degenerated to > Oh, mustn't forget The de Vere Hour. The madcap adventures of > the zany Earl of Oxford in his quest to write a decent line of poetry And the show Shakespeare Quiz. > "Who wrote As You Like It?" > "Shakespeare." > "You win! Who wrote Othello?" > "Shakespeare." > "You win! And now for the grand prize, who wrote Two Noble Kinsmen?" > "That is interesting. It is a collaboration between Shakespeare > and John Fletcher, almost certainly, but there is some disagreement > as to who wrote which... > "Sorry, but your answer to too long and complicated for television. You lose." Pervez had a couple of excellent suggestions. > I think there's more fun to be had with this Shakespeare channel idea. > Quiz show questions like "Which Shakespeare play has a character > called Hamlet?" Cool. We could come up with questions about Othello, Macbeth, Coriolanus, Antony and Cleopatra. There is no end to the giggles. Then we could really trick them with the question, "Which Shakespeare play has a character named The Comedy of Errors." > You and Terry Hawkes in a wrestling match. Hey, I'd kick his Cultural Materialist butt so hard my foot would get stuck! I was taking lessons from Orlando, but he kept calling me Ganymede. Besides, he kept trying to kiss me. Yuck! > You and Judy Craig on Blind Date. I can't speak for Ms. Craig, but I suspect we would agree on something for the first time: this program should be titled The Unreal World. How about having Richard Burt host a program about transgressive Shakespeare? He could host it from his bed and in his pajamas. I'd pay big bucks to see this kind of programming. Maybe five or six cents a year. Make that a decade. Feel free to join in the fun. Mike Jensen
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1320 Thursday, 29 June 2000. From: Tanya Gough <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 28 Jun 2000 13:47:34 -0400 Subject: ACT Taming Video!! I've just received word from Demetrius Martin (is that a cool name or what?) at the American Conservatory Theatre in San Francisco, and he tells me their Taming of the Shrew from 1974 (sometimes shown on PBS) is finally receiving a limited release on video. The price will be under $39 US, and they should be available by the end of July. ACT is making special arrangements to make certain that Poor Yorick will be allowed to carry the title, as well. If you would like to be informed when the video is finally available, please e-mail me off list atThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Tanya Gough Poor Yorick Shakespeare Multimedia