This is the place to start a topic for discussion or leave a "lengthier comment" on whatever voting topic is current here on the blog if you like, etc. Is there a question you might have about anything you see here at Shakespeare Place? This is the thread to ask it. Maybe you don't have a blog--or would like to discuss something more you saw someplace but the comment line petered out? Something "Shakespeare" bugging you? --What is it?
I'm not exactly what one might call a super blogger. Nope. Not even close. That is, when it comes to making it my job to actively and assiduously seek out current interesting (or sometimes uninteresting) bits of information here or there as topics people might want to comment on. But I do have a penchant for discussion. In fact, I write more on other blogs than I do on my own. That's just the way it happens to work out at present. Maybe that will change when I have more time. In the meantime, if there's anything at all you'd like to have the power to make a subject of discussion, feel free to give any topic (and me) a jump start on whatever might, in your opinion, merit some talk.
This is Your Space at Shakespeare Place--you're invited...Welcome. JM
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Sunday, May 9, 2010
When Burbage Played
I think you'll see why it inspired the thoughts in me that it did. JM
When Burbage Played
When Burbage played, the stage was bare
Of fount and temple, tower and stair,
Two broadswords eked a battle out;
Two supers made a rabble rout;
The throne of Denmark was a chair!
And yet, no less the audience there
Thrilled through all changes of Despair,
Hope, Anger, Fear, Delight and Doubt,
When Burbage played.
This is the Actor's gift; to share
All moods, all passions, nor to care
One whit for scene, so he without
Can lead men's minds the roundabout.
Stirred as of old these hearers were
When Burbage played.
Austin Dobson
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Who's the Final Arbiter on "To double cast, or not..." ?
Quite the hubbub over the casting of the already oh too familiar closeup face of Jean Luc Picard, Starship Captain (Sir Patrick Stewart) in the roles of Claudius AND his brother, the Ghost of King Hamlet. (To read more about the hubbub go to the ShakespeareGeek blog http://blog.shakespearegeek.com/2010/04/double-casting.html )
Hamlet's father returned, as a flesh and blood "ghost" this time, in the recently aired Filmed No Less version of David Tennant's Hamlet. The "Ghost" in this version effectively asks Hamlet to seek revenge on what is now HIS DOUBLE. I didn't know they were twins. Well, you learn something new about Shakespeare from the concept geniuses everyday. But since I tend to be a "word man", someone who tends to care a lot more about what's actually in the text--you know, that "stuff" Shakespeare dreamed up; much like, I guess, concept geniuses dream up "stuff" they care more about--I thought I'd let Shakespeare make the decision for me as to how I feel about the notion of the "twin brothers" he didn't write.
Hamlet to his mom on this issue: 3.4.54-68
Looke heere vpon this Picture, and on this,
The counterfet presentment of two Brothers:
See what a grace was seated on his Brow,
Hyperions curles, the front of Ioue himselfe,
An eye like Mars, to threaten or command
A Station, like the Herald Mercurie
New lighted on a heauen-kissing hill:
A Combination, and a forme indeed,
Where euery God did seeme to set his Seale,
To giue the world assurance of a man.
This was your Husband. Looke you now what followes.
Heere is your Husband, like a Mildew'd eare
Blasting his wholsom breath.[brother-Q2] Haue you eyes?
Could you on this faire Mountaine leaue to feed,
And batten on this Moore? Ha? Haue you eyes?
-- bold emphasis mine--sorry Will, but I thought it might be illustrative--like some of the caps; none of which are mine.
A couple of things I learned first at the academy about textual analysis were 1) the fact that Shakespeare LOVES to employ antithesis (in this case his subject "appears" to be "appearance") and 2) he never repeats himself without a very good reason, looke you. :) JM
Hamlet's father returned, as a flesh and blood "ghost" this time, in the recently aired Filmed No Less version of David Tennant's Hamlet. The "Ghost" in this version effectively asks Hamlet to seek revenge on what is now HIS DOUBLE. I didn't know they were twins. Well, you learn something new about Shakespeare from the concept geniuses everyday. But since I tend to be a "word man", someone who tends to care a lot more about what's actually in the text--you know, that "stuff" Shakespeare dreamed up; much like, I guess, concept geniuses dream up "stuff" they care more about--I thought I'd let Shakespeare make the decision for me as to how I feel about the notion of the "twin brothers" he didn't write.
Hamlet to his mom on this issue: 3.4.54-68
Looke heere vpon this Picture, and on this,
The counterfet presentment of two Brothers:
See what a grace was seated on his Brow,
Hyperions curles, the front of Ioue himselfe,
An eye like Mars, to threaten or command
A Station, like the Herald Mercurie
New lighted on a heauen-kissing hill:
A Combination, and a forme indeed,
Where euery God did seeme to set his Seale,
To giue the world assurance of a man.
This was your Husband. Looke you now what followes.
Heere is your Husband, like a Mildew'd eare
Blasting his wholsom breath.[brother-Q2] Haue you eyes?
Could you on this faire Mountaine leaue to feed,
And batten on this Moore? Ha? Haue you eyes?
-- bold emphasis mine--sorry Will, but I thought it might be illustrative--like some of the caps; none of which are mine.
A couple of things I learned first at the academy about textual analysis were 1) the fact that Shakespeare LOVES to employ antithesis (in this case his subject "appears" to be "appearance") and 2) he never repeats himself without a very good reason, looke you. :) JM
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Book Review: What Time Devours by AJ Hartley
What Time Devours
Publisher: The Berkley Publishing Group, 2009
I'm not a big fan of Mystery Novels. I think the last batch of whodunnits
I wound my way through included works by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and
Edgar Allen Poe. And that was a long, long time ago.
But when someone who is in the middle of one of these plentiful puzzlers;
someone I know to be a big fan of the genre; who devours them like they
would so much "penny candy"; (there's a mystery for you, the disappearance of
penny candy) when this mystery fanatic starts to repeatedly ask me for help with analyzing Sonnets 65,64, 123, 15 & 116...well, don't you know, they had my Shakespeare antenna up at the first mention of “sonnet” ? What gives here?
Having never written about a mystery novel, I realized (duh) that I'd have to
exercise, at least, what would be mere elementary care to some other reviewer more
accustomed to such things, in how I would go about this without giving it all
away.
But then I realized that the very reasons I "devoured" this book (other than
its being habit forming) were because it was 1) about something having to do
with the Bard, and 2) because Hartley has a lot to say in the way of critique
when it comes to analyzing some of the more seedy and cutthroat aspects of his
own profession. And there's enough content in his book on Shakespearean scholarship, the calculating marketing techniques of the publishing industry, and some of his "invented" colleagues and their hell-bent need to climb to the top of the academic ladder, to allow for the focus of a review to be concerned with mainly that.
Why? Because A J Hartley is a bona fide Shakespearean scholar first.
Distinguished Professor of Shakespeare in the theatre dept. of UNC, the author
of "The Shakespearean Dramaturg", and editor of "Shakespeare Bulletin"
(available online btw) mystery writing is something of a departure for Hartley,
but in my opinion, he acquits himself equally as well as a mystery writer
as he apparently has done as a professor of Shakespearean Literature.
The adventures of one Thomas Knight, high school English teacher, "What Time
Devours" takes us on a wild ride of murders and attempted murders. Castle
skulking, moldy wine cellars, stuffy Shakespeare conferences, Stratford on Avon,
haughty academicians, people who speak exclusively in Shakespeare quotations,
and lunatic throwbacks to Dickens' Miss Havisham, all figure into the scheme.
But here's the kicker for fans of the Bard: The item many of the well-painted
characters in Thomas Knight's world will do most anything to get their hands on?
The "lost" copy of the supposed sequel to Loves Labors Lost, entitled "Loves Labors Won".
And that's where I'll end the "synopsis proper".
More to the point of this review, Hartley is not bashful in sending up those of
his profession on all accounts.
On the purpose of literary scholarship in general:
While attending a conference on Shakespeare, our hero, Thomas, finds himself the
brunt of some wily condescension, devilishly delivered by an attractive social
climbing professor in the dog-eat-dog world of today's academic scene:
--"But I want to learn about the play, about what it means--or might mean--what
makes it profound literature, [says Thomas] not about how it's a matrix for
social energies and discourses..." "Oh!" she shouted, with the kind of delight
someone might muster on spotting a chipmunk. "You're a humanist!"
--[...] "I'm a high school teacher who has to convince kids why these four
hundred-year-old plays are worth reading when they can be playing video
games..." [...] "Well, I think it's sweet," she said. "unfashionable and
politically a bit suspect, but kind of sweet."
[Very..."Sweet"]
"I love words", said Thomas, jutting his chin out.
[...] [on his students] "They live in a visual culture,
but without words...Language is about who we are, how we reason, even
how we feel. Words make experience."
--[...]"I just don't think the purpose of literature", said Thomas, pushing
through her amusement, "is to explore social hierarchy."
Commenting on the reading of a paper at the conference, (Thomas--and Hartley--
had me long before this) Hartley sums up, very nicely, his justifiable rant
against the gobbledygook academia can too often make of Shakespeare: " I'd just
like to hear something about the play, Thomas huffed. "I thought
that was why we're here."
Hartley also pooh-poohs the Oxford authorship question with a deft analogy
centering on the television show "The West Wing", but I won't give that one
away here.
Speaking through Thomas, Hartley registers more than a palpable hit with
this evaluation of some of his modern day colleagues:
"Fifty years ago, Shakespeareans might have been card-carrying establishment
types, but not any more. Most academics think they're countercultural
progressives socially, politically. Shakespeareans have little invested in the
man from Stratford. Some of them don't even like his works that much. More
would embrace any hard evidence challenging his identity as the playwright
without batting an eyelid. It hasn't happened because there's no real evidence
that William Shakespeare of Stratford didn't write the plays credited to him in
his lifetime. I don't think the kind of evidence we'd get in a new play would
change that at all."
And on the purported real worth of the "evaluation" and "analyzation" of the
works of Shakespeare, Hartley targets what I believe to be a tragic
reality of the academic profession vis a vis its ties to the multi-million dollar world
of marketing and publication, and what such a discovery might mean:
"...every word, each word enough to generate an article, each sentence a book,
each page a career."
I could go on with many more relevant comments and conversation recorded in
the novel. But after all, it is a mystery--and a good one. I wouldn't want anyone to
think that literary commentary is its sole purpose. It's fun, entertaining,
chilling, and surprising, as any mystery should be. And mystery fanatics will
get more than their share of what they came for: An easy read with lots of question marks.
The plus? Also expertly interwoven into that mystery, readers will get what I
think is a true picture of what a lot of all this Shakespeare hubbub is about.
And for that aspect, I can only commend, in the highest way possible,
A J Hartley's ability to blend philosophy, social commentary, and a damned good
mystery story into one artful rendering.
I think I'm interested in mysteries again. JM
Publisher: The Berkley Publishing Group, 2009
I'm not a big fan of Mystery Novels. I think the last batch of whodunnits
I wound my way through included works by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and
Edgar Allen Poe. And that was a long, long time ago.
But when someone who is in the middle of one of these plentiful puzzlers;
someone I know to be a big fan of the genre; who devours them like they
would so much "penny candy"; (there's a mystery for you, the disappearance of
penny candy) when this mystery fanatic starts to repeatedly ask me for help with analyzing Sonnets 65,64, 123, 15 & 116...well, don't you know, they had my Shakespeare antenna up at the first mention of “sonnet” ? What gives here?
Having never written about a mystery novel, I realized (duh) that I'd have to
exercise, at least, what would be mere elementary care to some other reviewer more
accustomed to such things, in how I would go about this without giving it all
away.
But then I realized that the very reasons I "devoured" this book (other than
its being habit forming) were because it was 1) about something having to do
with the Bard, and 2) because Hartley has a lot to say in the way of critique
when it comes to analyzing some of the more seedy and cutthroat aspects of his
own profession. And there's enough content in his book on Shakespearean scholarship, the calculating marketing techniques of the publishing industry, and some of his "invented" colleagues and their hell-bent need to climb to the top of the academic ladder, to allow for the focus of a review to be concerned with mainly that.
Why? Because A J Hartley is a bona fide Shakespearean scholar first.
Distinguished Professor of Shakespeare in the theatre dept. of UNC, the author
of "The Shakespearean Dramaturg", and editor of "Shakespeare Bulletin"
(available online btw) mystery writing is something of a departure for Hartley,
but in my opinion, he acquits himself equally as well as a mystery writer
as he apparently has done as a professor of Shakespearean Literature.
The adventures of one Thomas Knight, high school English teacher, "What Time
Devours" takes us on a wild ride of murders and attempted murders. Castle
skulking, moldy wine cellars, stuffy Shakespeare conferences, Stratford on Avon,
haughty academicians, people who speak exclusively in Shakespeare quotations,
and lunatic throwbacks to Dickens' Miss Havisham, all figure into the scheme.
But here's the kicker for fans of the Bard: The item many of the well-painted
characters in Thomas Knight's world will do most anything to get their hands on?
The "lost" copy of the supposed sequel to Loves Labors Lost, entitled "Loves Labors Won".
And that's where I'll end the "synopsis proper".
More to the point of this review, Hartley is not bashful in sending up those of
his profession on all accounts.
On the purpose of literary scholarship in general:
While attending a conference on Shakespeare, our hero, Thomas, finds himself the
brunt of some wily condescension, devilishly delivered by an attractive social
climbing professor in the dog-eat-dog world of today's academic scene:
--"But I want to learn about the play, about what it means--or might mean--what
makes it profound literature, [says Thomas] not about how it's a matrix for
social energies and discourses..." "Oh!" she shouted, with the kind of delight
someone might muster on spotting a chipmunk. "You're a humanist!"
--[...] "I'm a high school teacher who has to convince kids why these four
hundred-year-old plays are worth reading when they can be playing video
games..." [...] "Well, I think it's sweet," she said. "unfashionable and
politically a bit suspect, but kind of sweet."
[Very..."Sweet"]
"I love words", said Thomas, jutting his chin out.
[...] [on his students] "They live in a visual culture,
but without words...Language is about who we are, how we reason, even
how we feel. Words make experience."
--[...]"I just don't think the purpose of literature", said Thomas, pushing
through her amusement, "is to explore social hierarchy."
Commenting on the reading of a paper at the conference, (Thomas--and Hartley--
had me long before this) Hartley sums up, very nicely, his justifiable rant
against the gobbledygook academia can too often make of Shakespeare: " I'd just
like to hear something about the play, Thomas huffed. "I thought
that was why we're here."
Hartley also pooh-poohs the Oxford authorship question with a deft analogy
centering on the television show "The West Wing", but I won't give that one
away here.
Speaking through Thomas, Hartley registers more than a palpable hit with
this evaluation of some of his modern day colleagues:
"Fifty years ago, Shakespeareans might have been card-carrying establishment
types, but not any more. Most academics think they're countercultural
progressives socially, politically. Shakespeareans have little invested in the
man from Stratford. Some of them don't even like his works that much. More
would embrace any hard evidence challenging his identity as the playwright
without batting an eyelid. It hasn't happened because there's no real evidence
that William Shakespeare of Stratford didn't write the plays credited to him in
his lifetime. I don't think the kind of evidence we'd get in a new play would
change that at all."
And on the purported real worth of the "evaluation" and "analyzation" of the
works of Shakespeare, Hartley targets what I believe to be a tragic
reality of the academic profession vis a vis its ties to the multi-million dollar world
of marketing and publication, and what such a discovery might mean:
"...every word, each word enough to generate an article, each sentence a book,
each page a career."
I could go on with many more relevant comments and conversation recorded in
the novel. But after all, it is a mystery--and a good one. I wouldn't want anyone to
think that literary commentary is its sole purpose. It's fun, entertaining,
chilling, and surprising, as any mystery should be. And mystery fanatics will
get more than their share of what they came for: An easy read with lots of question marks.
The plus? Also expertly interwoven into that mystery, readers will get what I
think is a true picture of what a lot of all this Shakespeare hubbub is about.
And for that aspect, I can only commend, in the highest way possible,
A J Hartley's ability to blend philosophy, social commentary, and a damned good
mystery story into one artful rendering.
I think I'm interested in mysteries again. JM
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Review: David Tennant's "Hamlet" on PBS
David Tennant is a very, very fine actor. Of that there can be no doubt.
In fact, watching him work his way through the many "slings and arrows" thrown
at any actor attempting the role of Hamlet lends even more credence to the above
claim re: Tennant's abilities. So why am I disappointed after watching the much
heralded PBS airing?
Tennant plays the "peevish manic" not well. Not that he's incapable. He
disproved that incessantly from the time he opened his mouth. Something about
his features; too angular. And practically speaking, he grimaced his way from
start to finish. At times, I thought I might be watching The Riddler (Frank
Gorshin) from the old Batman series. The only thing Tennant was missing
was Gorshin's costume with the question marks all over it. And it was difficult
to separate Tennant's manic "crazy person" from the character of Hamlet. Something way too gimmicky was going on; way too cutesy and way too "easy" in the antic disposition dept. for me. An actor with Tennant's abilities need not go the route habitually taken by him.
It undercut Hamlet's intelligence and distracted from what he was saying of
import. Energy is one thing--lunatic energy something else. Tennant had the
latter in spades, making a johnny one note performance out of the whole shebang.
But what really bothered me is that it made Hamlet totally unlikeable; sadly,
and worse, his overdone mania made me not care a hoot about Hamlet or his predicament. I kept feeling as though I needed a flyswatter as a remedy for this Gadfly on Uppers. In fact, I cared about Claudius' travails the more for Tennant's interpretation. Something very wrong here. I hate Claudius.
Sir Patrick Stewart as Claudius gave the solid performance expected of him. His
ability with the conversational aspect of Shakespeare's lines has grown to
perfection. Probably the result of cross-pollination--tv, film, and stage--as
this production skirted the boundaries of all three in design. What can one say?
He was great--until he turned into the embodiment of Alfred E.
Neuman in his 'decision' to drink the poison. A "choice" apparently thought
quite brilliant--again suffering from an apparent penchant for easy, cute,
cleverness. An action most probably explained in the program notes--but I had
none at the time. It ruined the entire moment for me--or, what was left of it.
Gertrude (Penny Downie) also proved very adept at making Shakespeare's
lines soar on the wings of understandability. Her gradual decline from hostess with the mostest to a figure withered by the tragedy all around her was an artful thing to watch, particularly since it wasn't achieved totally with the sole help of the makeup
department.
Can someone tell me with what disease was Polonius suffering? The part, played
by (Oliver Ford Davies ) a brilliant actor in his own right, was yet
another victim of modern "cutesy". Was he in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's?
Or was he just a buffoon at these times? I have to say he handled it brilliantly,
and almost made me forget his clownishness during the rest of his portrayal of a
calculating Machiavellian. I especially liked the idea of the inclusion of the
Reynaldo scene (usually cut). But even there, his "forgetfulness" was excused
rather than explained. Polonius is a man always thinking of something else,
some other "designs", and always has too much to say to "explain" himself. He's
not, I don't think, pitiable because he's being ravaged by some "affliction"
(other than his own machinations.)
Ophelia, played by (Mariah Gale)--well, I couldn't take my eyes off of her.
No customary glamor queen (although pleasant looking enough to be desirable on
anyone's part) she was riveting. She brought a true vulnerability to the role
for me that few others have. Her plaintiff cries over the loss of her
Hamlet's " ...noble mind o'erthrown." were heart wrenching.
This was no mere statue of a child, suffering a tragedy she didn't understand
because of gross naiveté. Hers was an Ophelia quite knowledgeable of the ways
of the world, as she was able to explain and support even further in her deft
crafting of the "mad scene". Her awareness of just what it was that was happening
to her made me feel for her all the more. This is someone to watch for, all things
being equal, which they're not. Let's hope the lack of "model status" doesn't keep
this actor from the recognition I think she truly deserves.
The rest; Horatio (Peter De Jersey), Laertes (Edward Bennet), Rosencrantz
(Sam Alexander) Guildenstern (Tom Davey) were all capable enough in their roles,
as one would expect from RSC actors. But I think they suffered conceptually from
having to play against Tennant's maniacal court jester throughout.
Speaking of concept, all around I thought it was quite good in establishing the
modern setting for Shakespeare. And the clearness of the language was admirable. But ultimately, I think the gross deviations, as I see them, can also be laid at the foot of the concept person and Director, Gregory Doran. Failing to rein in Tennant (possibly even encouraging him, in view of some of the other ridiculous "crazy" choices seemingly made for both Hamlet and the other actors) gave us a Hamlet with an energetic mania too serious to be overcome by even the power of the greatest concept artist of all, one William Shakespeare. JM
In fact, watching him work his way through the many "slings and arrows" thrown
at any actor attempting the role of Hamlet lends even more credence to the above
claim re: Tennant's abilities. So why am I disappointed after watching the much
heralded PBS airing?
Tennant plays the "peevish manic" not well. Not that he's incapable. He
disproved that incessantly from the time he opened his mouth. Something about
his features; too angular. And practically speaking, he grimaced his way from
start to finish. At times, I thought I might be watching The Riddler (Frank
Gorshin) from the old Batman series. The only thing Tennant was missing
was Gorshin's costume with the question marks all over it. And it was difficult
to separate Tennant's manic "crazy person" from the character of Hamlet. Something way too gimmicky was going on; way too cutesy and way too "easy" in the antic disposition dept. for me. An actor with Tennant's abilities need not go the route habitually taken by him.
It undercut Hamlet's intelligence and distracted from what he was saying of
import. Energy is one thing--lunatic energy something else. Tennant had the
latter in spades, making a johnny one note performance out of the whole shebang.
But what really bothered me is that it made Hamlet totally unlikeable; sadly,
and worse, his overdone mania made me not care a hoot about Hamlet or his predicament. I kept feeling as though I needed a flyswatter as a remedy for this Gadfly on Uppers. In fact, I cared about Claudius' travails the more for Tennant's interpretation. Something very wrong here. I hate Claudius.
Sir Patrick Stewart as Claudius gave the solid performance expected of him. His
ability with the conversational aspect of Shakespeare's lines has grown to
perfection. Probably the result of cross-pollination--tv, film, and stage--as
this production skirted the boundaries of all three in design. What can one say?
He was great--until he turned into the embodiment of Alfred E.
Neuman in his 'decision' to drink the poison. A "choice" apparently thought
quite brilliant--again suffering from an apparent penchant for easy, cute,
cleverness. An action most probably explained in the program notes--but I had
none at the time. It ruined the entire moment for me--or, what was left of it.
Gertrude (Penny Downie) also proved very adept at making Shakespeare's
lines soar on the wings of understandability. Her gradual decline from hostess with the mostest to a figure withered by the tragedy all around her was an artful thing to watch, particularly since it wasn't achieved totally with the sole help of the makeup
department.
Can someone tell me with what disease was Polonius suffering? The part, played
by (Oliver Ford Davies ) a brilliant actor in his own right, was yet
another victim of modern "cutesy". Was he in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's?
Or was he just a buffoon at these times? I have to say he handled it brilliantly,
and almost made me forget his clownishness during the rest of his portrayal of a
calculating Machiavellian. I especially liked the idea of the inclusion of the
Reynaldo scene (usually cut). But even there, his "forgetfulness" was excused
rather than explained. Polonius is a man always thinking of something else,
some other "designs", and always has too much to say to "explain" himself. He's
not, I don't think, pitiable because he's being ravaged by some "affliction"
(other than his own machinations.)
Ophelia, played by (Mariah Gale)--well, I couldn't take my eyes off of her.
No customary glamor queen (although pleasant looking enough to be desirable on
anyone's part) she was riveting. She brought a true vulnerability to the role
for me that few others have. Her plaintiff cries over the loss of her
Hamlet's " ...noble mind o'erthrown." were heart wrenching.
This was no mere statue of a child, suffering a tragedy she didn't understand
because of gross naiveté. Hers was an Ophelia quite knowledgeable of the ways
of the world, as she was able to explain and support even further in her deft
crafting of the "mad scene". Her awareness of just what it was that was happening
to her made me feel for her all the more. This is someone to watch for, all things
being equal, which they're not. Let's hope the lack of "model status" doesn't keep
this actor from the recognition I think she truly deserves.
The rest; Horatio (Peter De Jersey), Laertes (Edward Bennet), Rosencrantz
(Sam Alexander) Guildenstern (Tom Davey) were all capable enough in their roles,
as one would expect from RSC actors. But I think they suffered conceptually from
having to play against Tennant's maniacal court jester throughout.
Speaking of concept, all around I thought it was quite good in establishing the
modern setting for Shakespeare. And the clearness of the language was admirable. But ultimately, I think the gross deviations, as I see them, can also be laid at the foot of the concept person and Director, Gregory Doran. Failing to rein in Tennant (possibly even encouraging him, in view of some of the other ridiculous "crazy" choices seemingly made for both Hamlet and the other actors) gave us a Hamlet with an energetic mania too serious to be overcome by even the power of the greatest concept artist of all, one William Shakespeare. JM
Monday, April 26, 2010
About theShakespeareProject
theShakespeareProject
Mission Statement
Through a multi-faceted, cooperative, and highly adaptable interface with established arts, business, educational, and theatrical entities, theShakespeareProject aims at the increased and localized visibility and availability of not only Shakespearean works, but also of Classic Literature in general. These treasures are always at our fingertips, yet rarely touched. Grasped once again, in innovative and sometimes unconventional ways, they can have an enormous impact on the uninitiated and the uninterested. The catalytic role these venerated, yet isolated artifacts might play in the increased awareness, communication, participation, and a sense of inclusion among the members in a community has, for the most part, been left to the occasional visit to the library, a courageous book club, or the many times grudgingly-accepted academic mandate of the classroom.
On the other hand, the theatrical form is, by its very nature, communal—interactive and participatory, instructional and educational, as well as fun and entertaining. Utilizing presentational, instructional, participatory, and interactive performance vehicles as complimentary tools--adaptable and symbiotically functional within the architecture of any educational or instructional venue-- members of theShakespeareProject believe that a more than infrequent dusting-off of the museum pieces will reveal how much we actually have in common with them—and with each other. theShakespeareProject is dedicated to the idea that a fresh approach to these literary/dramatic gems, employing them as living examples of excellence, might lead to a regeneration of heightened interest--in the theatre, the classroom, the boardroom—even the family room—and result in a natural and progressive repossession by the community at the grass roots level. A renewal of the interest in our rightful ownership could be the beginning of a new renaissance in thinking, made possible via an enhanced ability to communicate with one another, and spurred-on by an enriched awareness of the true value of our sense of commonality. JM
theShakespeareProject LLC
Joseph Mooney/Mahler
Producing Artistic Director
Contact us at: email:theshaksperproject@gmail.com
Mission Statement
Through a multi-faceted, cooperative, and highly adaptable interface with established arts, business, educational, and theatrical entities, theShakespeareProject aims at the increased and localized visibility and availability of not only Shakespearean works, but also of Classic Literature in general. These treasures are always at our fingertips, yet rarely touched. Grasped once again, in innovative and sometimes unconventional ways, they can have an enormous impact on the uninitiated and the uninterested. The catalytic role these venerated, yet isolated artifacts might play in the increased awareness, communication, participation, and a sense of inclusion among the members in a community has, for the most part, been left to the occasional visit to the library, a courageous book club, or the many times grudgingly-accepted academic mandate of the classroom.
On the other hand, the theatrical form is, by its very nature, communal—interactive and participatory, instructional and educational, as well as fun and entertaining. Utilizing presentational, instructional, participatory, and interactive performance vehicles as complimentary tools--adaptable and symbiotically functional within the architecture of any educational or instructional venue-- members of theShakespeareProject believe that a more than infrequent dusting-off of the museum pieces will reveal how much we actually have in common with them—and with each other. theShakespeareProject is dedicated to the idea that a fresh approach to these literary/dramatic gems, employing them as living examples of excellence, might lead to a regeneration of heightened interest--in the theatre, the classroom, the boardroom—even the family room—and result in a natural and progressive repossession by the community at the grass roots level. A renewal of the interest in our rightful ownership could be the beginning of a new renaissance in thinking, made possible via an enhanced ability to communicate with one another, and spurred-on by an enriched awareness of the true value of our sense of commonality. JM
theShakespeareProject LLC
Joseph Mooney/Mahler
Producing Artistic Director
Contact us at: email:theshaksperproject@gmail.com
Thursday, April 22, 2010
What Would You Write on a Card to The Bard?
Friday April 23, 2010
Apart from singing "Happy Birthday to Thee", of course, (I think we might not want to get into the second verse: "How old art thee now?") what sort of thing would you like to say to The Bard if you could write a short something to him on his birthday card?
Me: "Thanks ever so much for the myriad of good and diverse things you've inspired in all of us, Will. Now...I know 'tis better to receive than 'tis to give on one's birthday, but...would you write some more, an it please you Sir?"
Apart from singing "Happy Birthday to Thee", of course, (I think we might not want to get into the second verse: "How old art thee now?") what sort of thing would you like to say to The Bard if you could write a short something to him on his birthday card?
Me: "Thanks ever so much for the myriad of good and diverse things you've inspired in all of us, Will. Now...I know 'tis better to receive than 'tis to give on one's birthday, but...would you write some more, an it please you Sir?"
Friday, April 16, 2010
WWW (Willy's Worldwide Web): Friend or Foe?
Recent, high profile, focus on the "authorship" issue lately has gotten
me thinking. With the new film "Anonymous" in the works (a film claiming our Will was incapable of signing his own name, let alone able to write ANY of the works attributed to him) how much of what James Shapiro says in his LA Times article
about the sea change in attitude toward the "unimaginable" has to do with
exposure?
"A quarter-century ago all this was unimaginable."
..."What then accounts for the reversal? THE FACTS HAVEN'T CHANGED; [my
emphasis]what has is our comfort level with conspiracy theory as well as our
eagerness to seek authors' lives in their works."
I think we can add to that the fact that anyone can "publish" nowadays--even me--who, a few years ago, would never have imagined myself sitting here in front of a computer penning this particular opine.
Granted, the web is of great benefit as an information tool. But how much does
Willy's Worldwide Web-benefit, and how much does it serve to MIS-inform?
"Opinion" can become "Truth" when the fervor to make it so is furnished so many
opportunities. This is particularly the case on the Web, where sound bites
become word bytes. And everyone knows how much truth can reside (or not) in a
sound bite.
I'm pretty sure of what I think about it. I think George Orwell was a
prophet. So great care should be taken with what we "publish"; the words we use, what we intend them to mean, and most importantly, the result we intend from the utility they afford us.
However ironically, sometimes free speech can be a deterrent to free thought, with or without the intention to use it that way.
What do you think? Is the WWW a friend or foe of Shakespeare?
me thinking. With the new film "Anonymous" in the works (a film claiming our Will was incapable of signing his own name, let alone able to write ANY of the works attributed to him) how much of what James Shapiro says in his LA Times article
about the sea change in attitude toward the "unimaginable" has to do with
exposure?
"A quarter-century ago all this was unimaginable."
..."What then accounts for the reversal? THE FACTS HAVEN'T CHANGED; [my
emphasis]what has is our comfort level with conspiracy theory as well as our
eagerness to seek authors' lives in their works."
I think we can add to that the fact that anyone can "publish" nowadays--even me--who, a few years ago, would never have imagined myself sitting here in front of a computer penning this particular opine.
Granted, the web is of great benefit as an information tool. But how much does
Willy's Worldwide Web-benefit, and how much does it serve to MIS-inform?
"Opinion" can become "Truth" when the fervor to make it so is furnished so many
opportunities. This is particularly the case on the Web, where sound bites
become word bytes. And everyone knows how much truth can reside (or not) in a
sound bite.
I'm pretty sure of what I think about it. I think George Orwell was a
prophet. So great care should be taken with what we "publish"; the words we use, what we intend them to mean, and most importantly, the result we intend from the utility they afford us.
However ironically, sometimes free speech can be a deterrent to free thought, with or without the intention to use it that way.
What do you think? Is the WWW a friend or foe of Shakespeare?
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Breaking News: Shakespeare Leading Cause of High School Dropouts:Keanu Reeves To Head Australian English Dept.
"Ridiculous", you say? Well, maybe my sarcasm is slightly overextended.
However, according to The Australian and The Daily Telegraph:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/shakespeare-too-hard-for-hsc-english/story-e6frg6o6-1225835374675
"Shakespeare too hard for HSC English"
* From: The Daily Telegraph
* February 28, 2010 10:55PM
* English Studies course on trial in 75 schools
* Syllabus focuses on movies and TV shows
* Intended for pupils who don't plan to go to uni
Well of course, just what the attention span challenged are in need of; nothing like more TV--and Movies like The Matrix to:
"...support students in developing proficiency in English (my emphasis) to enhance their personal, social
and vocational lives".
Their sidebar (complete with a lovely Droeshout engraving of Will from the First Folio) reads:
"Students who do not plan to go to university will study The Matirix rather than MacBeth because Shakespeare is deemed too hard and too irrelevant" Source: The Daily Telegraph
"The new syllabus is aimed at lower-achieving students who would have been at risk of dropping out of school at 15 or 16 under the old leaving age law."
So! the reason there are so many dropouts has something to do with Shakespeare?
My first thought, exactly. String up the Bum for "Irrelevancy" and "Difficulty"! :)--no, make that :( .
Shakespeare irrelevant? To what?--more like to Whom? ...and WHY? These questions yet to be answered by...maybe we should ask Keanu?
Thanks to The Shakespeare Standard http://theshakespearestandard.com/ for featuring this most disturbing revelation.
http://theshakespearestandard.com/2010/03/10/australia-hsc-course-dumps-shakespeare/
Sadly, JM
However, according to The Australian and The Daily Telegraph:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/shakespeare-too-hard-for-hsc-english/story-e6frg6o6-1225835374675
"Shakespeare too hard for HSC English"
* From: The Daily Telegraph
* February 28, 2010 10:55PM
* English Studies course on trial in 75 schools
* Syllabus focuses on movies and TV shows
* Intended for pupils who don't plan to go to uni
Well of course, just what the attention span challenged are in need of; nothing like more TV--and Movies like The Matrix to:
"...support students in developing proficiency in English (my emphasis) to enhance their personal, social
and vocational lives".
Their sidebar (complete with a lovely Droeshout engraving of Will from the First Folio) reads:
"Students who do not plan to go to university will study The Matirix rather than MacBeth because Shakespeare is deemed too hard and too irrelevant" Source: The Daily Telegraph
"The new syllabus is aimed at lower-achieving students who would have been at risk of dropping out of school at 15 or 16 under the old leaving age law."
So! the reason there are so many dropouts has something to do with Shakespeare?
My first thought, exactly. String up the Bum for "Irrelevancy" and "Difficulty"! :)--no, make that :( .
Shakespeare irrelevant? To what?--more like to Whom? ...and WHY? These questions yet to be answered by...maybe we should ask Keanu?
Thanks to The Shakespeare Standard http://theshakespearestandard.com/ for featuring this most disturbing revelation.
http://theshakespearestandard.com/2010/03/10/australia-hsc-course-dumps-shakespeare/
Sadly, JM
Saturday, February 27, 2010
38 in 38 Anyone?
The Task? Read all of Shakespeare's plays--one a day--beginning on March 1st, 2010. WOW! Sounds like a plan to me. Who's in?
Get your "barding pass" here:
Click on the title above for the url or if you just love to cut & paste: http://www.shicho.net/38/ for the plan, updates, more info, discussion, etc. Pep talks will also be provided here at ShakespearePlace...for a nominal fee of course--just kidding! ...You can do it Mary Lou!--or my name is not Bela Karolyi!
Good Luck on one Journey of a Lifetime!
JM
Get your "barding pass" here:
Click on the title above for the url or if you just love to cut & paste: http://www.shicho.net/38/ for the plan, updates, more info, discussion, etc. Pep talks will also be provided here at ShakespearePlace...for a nominal fee of course--just kidding! ...You can do it Mary Lou!--or my name is not Bela Karolyi!
Good Luck on one Journey of a Lifetime!
JM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)