July
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1600 Monday, 8 July 2002 From: Boris Motsohein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 05 Jul 2002 21:17:37 +0400 Subject: Shakespeare in Russia Dear SHAKSPERians, I am glad to inform you about the International Shakespeare Conference, which took place at Vladimir, Russia, 27-30 June 2002. I hope, this Conference means that Russia will be included in the World Shakespeare movement on regular basis as the national association. As soon as we open our own site, all SHAKSPERians will be informed. The conference program featured two plenary (general) and some special sessions that contained more than 50 paper presentations (some papers were represented as reviews) on Text and historic realities , Myth and symbols , Russian Shakespeare , Shakespeare and the theater and Translations problems . The abstracts of the papers are published in bilingual edition. The Conference Chairman was Prof. Alexey Bartoshevitch from State University of Theatrical Art, Chairman of Shakespeare Committee of Russian Academy of Sciences. Conference Secretariat Prof. Irina Prikhodko, Vladimir State Pedagogical University,This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Some well-known Russian and foreign scientists took part in the Conference, among them Prof. Stanly Wells (President, International Shakespearian Association, Great Britain), John Carr, Jean Peterson, Carol Enos and Marcela Costihova (different USA Universities). Eugene Pasternak, the son of great Russian poet, Nobel Prize winner Boris Pasternak, reported about Pasternak s translations from Shakespeare, and so on. As for me, my paper, Shakespeare and Internet (annotated review of 129 different sites) was very much indebted to Hardy M. Cook s A SELECTED GUIDE, which was the launching point for my work. I also informed our Russian specialists about SHAKSPER as the most useful electronic conference and hope, some of them will join us in near future. Boris Motsohein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > [Editor
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1603 Monday, 8 July 2002 [1] From: Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 2002 17:10:23 -0400 Subj: Macbeth in Kate and Leopol [2] From: Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 2002 17:11:32 -0400 Subj: R and J in Orange County [3] From: Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 2002 17:13:38 -0400 Subj: AVN ad for Hotel "O" [4] From: Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 2002 17:29:35 -0400 Subj: More Shakespeare in Asian cinema [5] From: Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 2002 22:24:35 -0400 Subj: Shakespeare in Romance Fiction [6] From: Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 2002 22:29:30 -0400 Subj: New Shakespeare Beer [7] From: Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 2002 22:39:16 -0400 Subj: Yet More Shakespeare in Asian cinema [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 2002 17:10:23 -0400 Subject: Macbeth in Kate and Leopold Kate's brother in the romantic comedy Kate and Leopold is a struggling actor and at one point refers positively to an actress's line reading of "unsex me here, unsex here." Macbeth is not mentioned by name. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 2002 17:11:32 -0400 Subject: R and J in Orange County The comedy Orange County (2002) contains a scene in a high school classroom involving Shakespeare and film, focusing on Romeo and Juliet. The DVD has a promo spot that uses Macbeth to similar effect. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 2002 17:13:38 -0400 Subject: AVN ad for Hotel "O" The July issue of AVN as a full page ad for Hotel "O" on p. 22 and a trivia quiz about it on p. 86. Both may be seen on my website at http://www.naughtyprofessor.com/bardcoreexamples (If pornography offends you, do not click on this link.) [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 2002 17:29:35 -0400 Subject: More Shakespeare in Asian cinema I have turned up the following examples: Go! (A Japanese interracial [Korean and Japanese] romantic comedy that cites R and J at the beginning), based on a Korean novel that makes no reference to Shakespeare. Agnipath (alternate spelling Agneepath) (Indian, cites Macbeth). 1990. dir Mukul Anand Saed-e-Havas (1936) dir. Sohrab Modi. This was an adaptation of King John by Shakespeare. http://us.imdb.com/Title?0243536 Aan (1952). dir. Mehboob Khan, an adaptation of Shakespeare
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1602 Monday, 8 July 2002 From: Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 07 Jul 2002 13:02:07 -0400 Subject: Identity of W.S. Bruce Young has written a spirited and cogent defense of the essential orthodoxy of _A Funeral Elegy_, stressing two main arguments: (1) the religious references in the poem, which seem to establish the author's religious faith; and (2) Bruce's paraphrase of lines 561ff, which, as he sees it, posits hope as weak only for now -- it will be affirmed later on in heaven. I have no problem accepting Bruce's position as one interpretive pole or terminus in the ongoing debate about this poem, but I think there's another pole or terminus still to explore. The elegy is a poetic form particularly constrained by conventions and by audience expectations. The author better fulfill those expectations, or at least seem to, if he wants to be paid his commission. The Christian audience would expect that the poet would 1. express sorrow at the passing of the deceased 2. praise the achievements/life of the deceased 3. offer Christian consolation (the "consolatio"), usually with references to Christ, life everlasting in heaven, and so on. _A Funeral Elegy_ contains the three elements listed above, but the poet goes about his business in a rather unorthodox way. Interestingly, he minimizes religious references at the end of the poem, where the consolatio should be, and maximizes them, instead, in the long part of the poem leading up to the anticipated ending. By doing so, he makes all -- or almost all -- of the references point down, not up. That is, the references are used to support the excellence of Peter's life, not the afterlife to come. For example, there are two references to Christ in the main body of the poem, but the first is used to show that, like the Apostle Peter, this Peter was a good friend. The second reference to Christ, which mentions His death, is employed to dispute ignorant public opinion, which often thinks that how a person dies is a sign of how he lived his life. Note, in both cases, what is left out: no emphasis on the glorious life to come, which is what the audience would expect. Such references should signal the start of the consolatio, but they do not do so in this poem. The same is true for the author's reference to the Day of Doom, which would be a perfect entry to a rhapsodic consolation. Instead, the poet only uses the judgment day as an occasion to assert the blameless nature of his friend's life on earth. To be fair, there is one reference to the life to come that is striking: "Such honor, O thou youth untimely lost, Thou didst deserve and hast; for though thy soul Hath took her flight to a diviner coast, Yet here on earth thy fame lives ever whole. . . (197-200). The poet quickly points this reference downward ("Yet here on earth. . ."), and it seems as much classical as Christian ("diviner coast" = heaven?), but it is in the poem. Perhaps that clinches Bruce's position, but these lines need to balanced against "So he that dies but once, but doubly lives, Once in his proper self, then in his name" (495-96). Perhaps the poet means to add " on earth" after "lives." But in any case, the omission of eternal life is telling. I think a pious Christian reader could read the first 536 lines in one of two ways. First, she could simply note the references and be pleased by them. Second, she could note the references, each time thinking that the consolatio is about to begin, and become increasingly frustrated by the poet's continual refusal to gratify her expectations. In short, the references are problematical, and they don't necessarily establish beyond doubt that the poet believes in an orthodox Christian afterlife. In this poem, even a reference to the saints in heaven (391ff) leads only to a discussion of how they, like William Peter, suffered torture and affliction. As a result, my impression is of a poet who spends a long time praising William Peter's life because that is the ground on which he feels comfortable. Bruce's explication of lines 561-69 stresses that the poet's hope is weak for now only because his friend is gone. Someday, the poet's hope will be gratified in heaven. I'm not sure if anyone can paraphrase lines 561-69 accurately, but if Bruce is right, one still has to ask, "What kind of hope is that?" Religious hope should depend mainly on faith, not on time and circumstances. In fact, dire circumstances should make religious hope stronger, not weaker, shouldn't it? I conclude that the poet's hope is simply weak, as he himself says. And there's an additional problem. The poet confesses that his hope may be no more than a reaction to his feelings of anxiety. His "deep unrest" may be prompting him to embrace popular religious opinion. This admission is particularly damning in that public opinion is not something the poet admires earlier in the poem when he defends his friend (and himself!) from public ridicule. Overall, this is a poor consolatio indeed. In fact, it's almost not a consolatio at all. Compare it to, say, Surrey's final lines on the death of Wyatt, written in 1542, and about as orthodox in form and content as you can get: "But to the heavens that simple soul is fled, Which left with such as covet Christ to know Witness of faith that never shall be dead, Sent for our health, but not received so. Thus for our guilt this jewel have we lost; The earth his bones, the heavens posssess his ghost. ( "Wyatt resteth here", ll.33-38) It's hard to believe that the _Funeral Elegy_ poet could not have written something similar if he had wanted to. The poet denies the audience exactly this expected and traditional kind of ending. In fact, he even denies references to Christ and the saints that DO occur earlier in the poem! The ambiguity and lack of clarity of lines 561-569 is striking. I offered one paraphrase, and then Sean offered another, and then Bruce offered a third. I emailed Bruce a copy of Bevington's paraphrase, and Bruce could accept it generally, but not completely. No one understands what the poet means on a first reading or a second or a third. Why is that? It seems to me that there are two possibilities: (1) the poet simply loses control at the crucial moment when consolation is to be offered; (2) the poet is sending a thinly veiled message: he does not believe in life after death; literally, it is nonsense, and this sad truth is mirrored in the impossible grammar and syntax of lines 561-569. It would be folly to insist on the second suggestion, but I offer it as an intriguing possibility. I'll end by suggesting that a picture emerges of the poet who wrote _A Funeral Elegy_: 1. The poet admires William Peter and William Peter's faith. 2. The poet admires the life of Christ and sees it as exemplary. 3. The poet admires Christian ethics and Christain morality. 4. Both the poet and Peter have suffered from the malice and envy of others. 5. The poet admires good manners, good graces, and gentle deportment. 6. The poet strongly suspects that there may not be an afterlife. What can we call this? Semi-atheism? Faith riddled by doubt? Perhaps the latter is more accurate, and so I'm happy to modify my use of the word "atheistic," which so troubled Bruce. But the fact remains that, rightly or wrongly, I see this poem as more unorthodox and more full of doubt than Bruce does. Best wishes to all, --Ed Taft _______________________________________________________________ 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 13.1601 Monday, 8 July 2002 From:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Date: Saturday, 6 Jul 2002 00:14:51 EDT Subject: 13.1594 Theater Shakespeare in L.A. Comment: Re: SHK 13.1594 Theater Shakespeare in L.A. I could wish that the author of this article hadn't selected that particular quotation of mine to highlight, because I certainly don't want to appear to have some sort of vendetta against the Ahmanson. Nevertheless, I stand by my remarks, and given that I've already panned a couple of Ahmanson productions in Shakespeare Bulletin, I suppose my views are no secret. The main point is that there really is a great deal of wonderful Shakespeare being performed in Los Angeles, and I urge anyone who happens to find him / herself in the vicinity to explore some of these productions, and to encourage our students to explore them too. Best, Miranda Johnson-Haddad _______________________________________________________________ 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 13.1599 Monday, 8 July 2002 [1] From: Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 5 Jul 2002 10:01:37 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 13.1597 Re: British Culture and Shakespeare [2] From: Jillian Tremblay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 06 Jul 2002 12:48:20 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 13.1597 Re: British Culture and Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 5 Jul 2002 10:01:37 -0400 Subject: 13.1597 Re: British Culture and Shakespeare Comment: Re: SHK 13.1597 Re: British Culture and Shakespeare The Last Action Hero sequence involving Joan Plowright and Olivier's Hamlet suggests a somewhat different narrative than John's, one that calls both Shakespeare's and the performer's high culture status into question by the mediatization of Shakespeare in film. Plowright, you will recall, introduces the film and Olivier to the students by telling them they may have seen him Clash of the Titans or Polaroid commercials. The (in)joke depends on the viewer