The Shakespeare Place

Welcome Yule!

2011-12-20T15:08:00.004-05:00

I Salute You:
There is nothing I can give you which you have not.
But there is much, while I cannot give, you can take.
No Heaven can come to us, unless our Hearts find rest in it Today:
Take Heaven.
No Peace lies in the Future, which is not hidden in this Present instant:
Take Peace.
The gloom of the World is but a Shadow,
Behind it, yet within our reach, is Joy:
Take Joy.
And so, at this Christmas Time, I greet you with the Prayer
That for you, Now and Forever, the Day breaks, and the Shadows flee away.

from Fra Giovanni's, Salutation to a Friend - 1513
*******************************************************
Mar. Some saye, that ever 'gainst that Season comes
Wherein our Saviors Birth is celebrated,
The Bird of Dawning singeth all night long:
And then (they say) no Spirit can walke abroad,
The nights are wholesome, then no Planets strike,
No Faiery takes, nor Witch hath power to Charme:
So hallow'd and so gracious is the Time.
Hor. So have I heard, and do in part beleeve it.

The Tragedie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke 1.1.158-65

Pocket Posh William Shakespeare: A stocking stuffer whose time has come!

2011-11-11T12:14:00.004-05:00

pocket posh william shakespeare
Pocket Posh® William Shakespeare: 100 Puzzles and Quizzes' by The Puzzle Society is published by Andrews McMeel.

Crossword lover? Like wordsearches? And Shakespeare too? Then you'll really like pocket posh william shakespeare from Andrews McMeel Publishing.

Measuring in at just 6in. X 4in., this little book is chock-full of crossword puzzles, code crackers, and word searches with Shakespearean connections. But here's the thing that's great about it: The "shakespeare parts" are expertly woven into puzzles employing clues for words mere mortals will have no trouble with. Many times, Shakespearean references 'reveal' themselves with work on the rest of the puzzle. So you don't have to be an expert on Shakespeare to have fun with this book. (However, when you're finished with it you just might well be on your way.)

For all of you English teachers -- I can see how pocket posh william shakespeare might easily be used in a classroom setting to have fun and also help familiarize students with Shakespeare's characters and plays.

I gave a copy of pocket posh shakespeare as a gift to an avid crossword puzzler who, upon opening the book for the first time, spent at least a couple of hours doing puzzles without stopping--it's kind of infectious that way.

For it's very small size, pocket posh william shakespeare is a very big book of puzzles; easy to carry with you wherever you go, and a perfect stocking stuffer for the general puzzle enthusiast and lover of Shakespeare alike.

Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?

2011-10-31T17:26:00.008-04:00

by James Shapiro
2010 Simon & Schuster Publishing

When I received a message from the publishers at Simon & Schuster last week, asking if I'd be interested in reading Contested Will, (now out in paperback) the one word that kept sounding over and over in my mind was 'timely'. As anyone who might be interested enough to read this account (or anyone who watches television for that matter) will know, this past weekend saw the blossoming of a mighty advertising campaign come to fruition in the grand opening of a film entitled: "Anonymous". Emblazoned in white on black on its billboard, in letters half as large as its title is the message: "Was Shakespeare A Fraud?". I think no other discussion is necessary in attempts to ferret-out the intentions of those responsible for the poster. One thing's for sure: they're not peeking out from behind it. (It should be pointed out that the movie "Anonymous" is nowhere referenced in Contested Will, although Shapiro continues to make known his opinions of its possible negative effects in the educational community.)

I have come late--by choice--to the 'Authorship Debate'. Previously, the only serious consideration I was willing to give the issue was in thinking it to be a terrific waste of time; time that might otherwise be much more productively spent discovering more about The Works themselves, rather than fruitlessly conjecturing about the personal life (or, in this case, lives) of who might have written them--approximately 70 or so to date--put forth as candidates by anti-Shakespeareans. By saying that I avoided the issue, I don't mean that I know nothing about it--just that I have, up to this point, refused to devote any serious time to the "debate". Others, both more and less scholarly than myself, seem to have had feelings similar to my own. James Shapiro has sounded the alarm to 'we ostriches' in his prologue to Contested Will:

"There yet remains one subject walled off from serious study by Shakespeare scholars: the authorship question. More than one fellow Shakespearean was disheartened to learn that I was committing my energies to it, as if somehow I was wasting my time and talent, or worse, at risk of going over to the dark side. I became increasingly interested in why this subject remains virtually taboo in academic circles, as well as in the consequences of this collective silence. One thing is certain: the decision by professors to all but ignore the authorship question hasn't made it disappear. If anything, more people are drawn to it than ever."

(emphasis mine)

The ramifications of casually dismissing the issue--and those who so zealously pursue it-- are brought home in Shapiro's account of meeting with a group of nine year olds at an elementary school to discuss the poetry of Shakespeare. Upon asking if anyone had questions...

"...a quiet boy on my left raised his hand and said: 'My brother told me that Shakespeare didn't write Romeo and Juliet. Is that true?' "

Oxfordian blogger William Ray writes [about Anonymous]: "This is one of the few instances where the artistic community is going to revolutionize the Western world's educational system." (source-Wikipedia)

As an educator, such crowing about fictionalized 'history' and 'facts' is, to say the least, disturbing to me. Enter, James Shapiro and Contested Will.

Much of Contested Will reads like a detective story, its focus on today's most prominent leading candidates for anti-Shakespeareans, Sir Francis Bacon (Baconians) and hero of the above-mentioned film, Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, (Oxfordians). Those refusing to jump on the bandwagon of any of these anti-Shakespearean theorists, in other words those more willing to depend upon scant but concrete evidence--and not autobiographical fantasy-- that Shakespeare of Stratford did indeed write the works which bear his name, have been dubbed "Stratfordians" by the nay-sayers.

Since the 1800s, much time has been devoted by anti-Shakespeareans to positing theories about 'who' might have written the works. However, Shapiro's interest turns not on the 'what' doubters of William Shakespeare of Stratford have thought, but on the particulars of the 'why' they have thought it, and continue to think it. And he's not afraid to suggest that some of the blame can be left at the feet of worshippers of Shakespeare; 'Bardolators' who, like Oxfordians or Baconians, have attempted to see every move of an author's life as motive to somehow encode his or her personal life experiences and feelings in the Works themselves. Shapiro cautions against the modern idea that ultimately, an author must have experienced, first hand, what he or she writes about.

This also happens to be the starting point and basis of ALL anti-Shakespearean claims: The man from Stratford, a glover's son without a college degree and lacking in the high-born fortune requisite to being a courtier and world traveler could not have possibly written such great theatrical works. All access to books, previous great works--many of which Shakespeare's plays borrow from directly--and the fact that Shakespeare was an actor and shareholder in the company that produced the plays--among many, many other facts Shapiro lists in Shakespeare's defence, seem not to matter to those who seem so willing to zealously embrace negative theory. Shapiro also argues quite successfully against underestimating the power of the imagination; of how life can but does not necessarily directly inform art.

In addition to impressive research, it is the psychology of why that Shapiro has thoroughly investigated in Contested Will. The whys are both revealing and surprising in the fealty they seemingly generate from nothing but negativity; that is, until the common ground all of the proponents share is revealed by Shapiro. He promises in his prologue:

"The following pages retrace a path strewn with a great deal [of] fabricated documents, embellished lives, concealed identity, pseudonymous authorship, contested evidence, bald-faced deception, and a failure to grasp what could not be imagined."

It is highly ironic to me that those who wish to dismiss the imagination of Shakespeare are the possessors of what can only be described as healthy imaginations, grounded in the very fertile soil of what can many times be described as high-flown fantasy. Shapiro more than ably--and fairly-- supports that idea in his book.

Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? is not only highly recommended reading; in my estimation, the modern methodology of the advancement of anti-Shakespearean theory makes it important reading. You can look for more to come on this blog regarding James Shapiro. As an educator myself, I'd now be remiss in not closely following both this issue and Professor Shapiro's subsequent thoughts on it. JM

--James Shapiro is the Larry Miller Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University.--

Guest Post: No Sweat Shakespeare

2011-10-25T12:53:00.007-04:00

Having recently made the acquaintance of the folks over at the educational website No Sweat Shakespeare, we decided that it might be a good thing to exchange ideas and thoughts in the form of some guest posts. For those of you who don't know their website, let me just say that it's not only a 'blog' (in fact, I believe the blog to be one of its newer components) it's also a full-fledged website full of ideas for learning and teaching Shakespeare that's been around for seven years or so. No Sweat Shakespeare is shepherded by London-based John and Warren King. John's dad, Warren, was an English teacher and Shakespeare expert in the UK for 35 years. I'd advise anyone interested in most aspects regarding our man Will Shakespeare to check out their site--there's something for everyone. Without further ado, what follows is, in my opinion, a great tool for teachers of the Bard; a way to make Shakespeare Live.
Thanks Guys. JM

A Shakespeare Lesson For Teachers
By Warren King

One of the most common tasks English teachers are confronted with is to teach a Shakespeare text. The question, particularly for a teacher new to it, is how to approach it.

The last twenty years have seen a revolution in the teaching of Shakespeare in schools. Before that teachers had been trained to regard a Shakespeare text as a literary document and to teach it in a strictly academic way. It was a common cry of students that ‘Shakespeare is boring’ or ‘I can’t understand it’, or ‘It’s written in old English with a lot of thees and thous.’
Shakespeare’s language was generally regarded as a barrier that prevented most students from access to the wonderful things contained in the text and it was the job of a teacher to decipher it for them..

All that has changed as a result of the development of Shakespeare teaching methods. Teachers now look at a Shakespeare play, not as a literary text, but as a pointer to the fun and actions and emotions of a group of characters involved with each other in a life experience. That change in attitude has led to an exploration of how teachers may use active methods, bringing the language to life, rather than giving line by line explanations.

Take Macbeth’s ‘soliloquy, ‘If it were done when ‘tis done,’ at the beginning of Act 1 Scene 7. Teachers will not only want students to understand what he is saying there but also how the themes of the play are reflected in the passage and, above all, what kind of person is saying these things. There is a simple, fun way of doing that.

Student desks should be moved out of the way, or students could be taken into a cleared space such as a hall or gym or drama studio. Students stand in a circle with copies of the soliloquy and follow as the teacher reads it. At this point students will probably not make anything of it. The teacher then tells them she is going to read it again and every time there is any word or phrase that suggests any physical activity the students should speak that word or phrase with her as she reads. That process can be repeated until all the students are speaking those bits of language with her. They will then be joining in with such things as ‘’assassination,’ ‘trammel up,’ ‘catch,’ ‘blow,’ ‘jump,’ ‘teach,’ ‘shut the door,’ ‘bear the knife,’ ‘plead,’ ‘taking off,’ ‘striding the blast,’ ‘horsed,’ ‘drown,’ ‘prick the sides,’ ‘vaulting,’ ‘leaps,’ ‘falls,’ and so on.

Students will now see that there’s a lot of reference to physical activity, including the kind of sport and athletic activity that they are familiar with. The teacher now asks them to perform the actions each time. Students will soon be striking blows, jumping, leaping, striding, taking off, horse riding, vaulting, falling, and performing all the actions. They will be laughing and having fun. The teacher may draw two chalk lines on the floor and ask each student in turn to stand on the first and say ‘but here upon this bank and shoal of time….’ and jump to the second as they say ‘we’d jump the life to come.’ Students will naturally pause, take a deep breath and jump on the word, actually feeling the physical effort and the change in their breathing.

We now have the basis of a discussion. The teacher doesn’t have to explain anything: the students will tell her that this is a man of action, a sportsman. They will feel the strenuous breathing in the language, the muscular stretching, the desperation that is all there in the language. Macbeth is examining his own feelings about killing Duncan, setting out his arguments for and against, but strictly according to his own physical nature. And it is that physical nature – the man of action - that is the clue to his personality. They will have a perception of the violence that underscores his personality. His yearning and desire are all felt in the muscles of his body and students will understand that. The actual arguments, and therefore the surface meaning of the soliloquy will become apparent and there will be no need for the teacher to try and explain it.

An exercise like that will capture the students’ interest in further exploring the play. It could actually be their introduction to the play, the first lesson. They could be asked to talk about what kind of man this is, what he is planning, and they could be asked to construct a story from it. They will also see his reluctance to carry it out, and thus the tension. They will see how profound his ambition is and how even now he knows that he is an over-reacher and that his plan is doomed to ultimate failure. The teacher’s input will have to be nothing more than a few guiding comments. The language barrier will have evaporated.

Active methods are available in almost any passage in any Shakespeare text and if teachers apply their knowledge of a text to devising them students will remember that teacher for the rest of their lives and refer to her as a wonderful teacher.

By Warren King, Nosweatshakespeare.com

So Much For "Hey, It's Just a Movie!"

2011-10-18T12:04:00.004-04:00

The title of this post is taken from James Shapiro's (author of Contested Will) Oct. 16 op-ed piece in the NY Times "Hollywood Dishonors the Bard". In it, Shapiro explores the push Anonymous director Roland Emmerich and Sony Pictures are making to influence school children and the educational community. New to this writer is the fact that Emmerich is also producing a documentary for distribution (Emmerich is President of First Folio Pictures--Ha!) in addition to "... the lesson plans that Sony Pictures has been distributing to literature and history teachers in the hope of convincing students that Shakespeare was a fraud."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/opinion/hollywood-dishonors-the-bard.html?_r=3&emc=eta1

What's beneath all of this, one wonders? Please allow me to say again, there's more to this than meets the eye. JM

Not So "Anonymous"

2011-10-16T11:35:00.031-04:00

In case anyone was wondering about the ultimate aims of the Oxfordian media machine, this just in:
Thanks to Will at I Love Shakespeare blog http://blog.iloveshakespeare.com/ , I came across this little bit of harmless marketing info: A pdf. http://www.ymiteacher.com/pdf/AnonymousHS.pdf

I was, of course, tempted to do some research.
http://www.youthmarketingint.com/why.htm

The above link will take you to the website of Young Minds Inspired, a group which has as its aim the marketing of products to school children with their "educational welfare" in mind. I suggest exploring their site map for the full thrust of what it is that this corporation does. In short, the marketing group has sold ideas and products to school children for such companies as Dole, McDonalds, Pfizer, Kraft, Visa, etc., as well as major media firms, studios, and outlets, including Warner Bros., Miramax, and Fox. How do they do this? By providing free pdfs to educators, most of whom (possibly all) they state, are desperately in need of funding for educational materials to use in the classroom. According to a testimonial from one of their clients:

“YMI blows away its competitors. Their educators customize their lesson
plans to assure a high quality and credible learning experience for the
students, while subtly presenting my brands in a completely professional way. This is the strongest in-school program I have worked with in 15 years of marketing to kids.”

I had a little more to say several days ago about the possibility of this kind of 'branching out' messaging vis a vis the film's visibility, popularity, and marketing efforts on ShakespeareGeek's blog: http://blog.shakespearegeek.com/2011/09/how-should-we-deal-with-anonymous.html (First and among the closing comments of 30+). --Now this.

They want to help Educate Our Children about "Shakespeare" ?

You be the judge... JM

Martin Luther King & Shakespeare: A Common Thread

2011-01-17T14:54:00.001-05:00

One of my favorite quotes from Martin:

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

It's all either of them talked about, mostly--things that matter. They both live on through their words. Words that matter. JM

The Queen, My Lord, Is Much, Much Better!

2011-01-17T13:32:00.001-05:00

VIDEO

Update: Jan. 18-- Just received word that this funny little film received its Northern Hemisphere preview a few days ago, at the Arisia Convention.

I meant to post this a long time ago. Anyone who knows Macbeth will get what this is all about from the title. In tidying up one of my email boxes I found one I didn't even know I'd lost. Some time back, I received the following message from the wife of a voice-over artist:

Dear Joe,

I think you might enjoy my husband's funny video about Shakespeare
plays, The Queen, My Lord, Is Much, Much Better

Here's the backstory: My husband, Bob Kuhn, is a voiceover actor. (It's an interesting job,something different every time. So far, probably the most prestigious gig was narrator for a National Geographic TV special. The weirdest was voicing a torture victim in a dungeon …)

Awhile ago, I suggested he create a recording of his longtime favorite
"party piece": a comic essay from the 1950s that imagines theatrical
sabotage by bit-part actors in British productions of Shakespeare plays.

(Given your background, I should mention that a teacher distributed the
published essay to his English class in high school, and Bob has loved
it ever since.)

Well, 3 months later, Bob’s labor of love is finished: an actual (if
short) movie! I may be just slightly biased when I say it’s a glorious
cross between SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE and NOISES OFF, carried off kind of
magnificently in a mere 15 minutes.

Some funny stuff there. It certainly conjures up some interesting images in addition to the ones already there. And my sincere apologies to Darcy for not posting it sooner. JM

Romeo & Juliet and Troilus & Cressida with Sir Peter Hall

2011-01-16T19:30:00.005-05:00

AUDIO EXCERPT

Made to serve as an accompaniment to his book Shakespeare's Advice to the Players, this 42 Minute Audio, from Theatre Communications Group, finds Sir Peter instructing two young actors in what to look for in the musical sense already embedded in Shakespeare's verse. Although it's just a beginning compared to what's in the book itself, and the wealth of other specific knowledge to be gathered by closely investigating the text, it's well worth a listen- to. (If for nothing else, to selfishly help excuse my earlier possibly over-generalized ravings in "Shakespeare Transmogrified", and at other places on the net re: the importance of paying attention to the syllabic structure, musical notation, and the myriad of other textual clues in Shakespeare's work) ;)

The book, to say the least, is highly recommended, not unlike anything written by Peter Hall's partner, John Barton. As I noted in the previous post, this is what I believe to be a warranted reiteration and sharper focus on the audio from what's already on The Bard Blog. Just wanted to get it out where it might be noticed again after so long.

As Sir Peter is quick to point out, these clues are not just for actors; they can also contribute to a reader's greater understanding as well. JM

The Bard Blog; or, Gedaly, where are you?

2011-01-16T15:54:00.004-05:00

In my opinion, one of the best educational blogs about Shakespeare on the net, and one of my favorites, "The Bard Blog" has ceased to function for almost a year now. One could always count on The Bard Blog for its concentration on important, enlightening aspects on understanding Shakespeare, relevant and timely books, articles, and seminal postings getting to the heart of the matter of interpreting the Bard.

The blogs owner and proprietor, Gedaly, known for his enthusiastic promotion of textual analysis via the performance aspects of Shakespeare's work, last posted Feb. of last year. I've been dropping by every so often anticipating his return but, no Gedaly. In fact, the post that is to follow this one was inspired by Gedaly's review of Shakespeare's Advice to the Players by Sir Peter Hall, an extremely important book on the Form embedded in the text which Shakespeare used to instruct his actors.

Here's hoping Gedaly's okay, has just been too busy acting and directing, and will soon return. I would advise anyone interested in learning more about Shakespeare to click on the links above for The Bard Blog. Thumb through some of the topics. You're in for a wealth of information. JM

Fleshing Out Shakespeare's People

2011-01-14T18:26:00.003-05:00

We can talk all we want about "character"--and that's always enlightening. But to actually see, first hand, someone's vision of what a Shakespeare character might look like is a real treat. Shake the Sculpture dropped by the other day to comment on "Who Introduced You To Shakespeare?" (thanks) and so I decided to check out what the name meant.

There's some really interesting and great work going on over at their blog ShakeTheSculpture

Check it out. I'm waiting for Hamlet and Macbeth...among many others :)

Who Introduced You To Shakespeare?

2010-12-19T12:17:00.008-05:00

Lately, I've been involved in a number of discussions having to do with Education and Shakespeare over at shakespearegeek's blog. Duane has brought up some interesting points and posed what I think are some important questions relating to how we teach Shakespeare and the effects those methods might have on our perception of his work.

http://blog.shakespearegeek.com/2010/12/performance-enhancing.html
http://blog.shakespearegeek.com/2010/12/what-do-we-expect-students-to-get.html
http://blog.shakespearegeek.com/2010/12/what-would-you-teach-romeo-and-juliet.html

In my experience, I've seen that it's very easy to turn someone off to his work. That was, in fact, my own feeling toward Shakespeare at my initial exposure to his plays. But this type of thing doesn't just happen in school, where many times the academics are stressed over the actual performance of the plays. It can also happen from seeing a "not so good" production--or two or three.

As a resident Shakespeare specialist, director, and acting instructor, I've taught Shakespeare over a broad spectrum, from elementary students all the way to professionals, and everyone in between. As a teacher, the first question I'm interested in asking any prospective student (or anyone in general) has to do with exactly what has happened so far in their exposure to Shakespeare. Only then can I make an assessment and develop a focus on how I might formulate my own teaching and/or directing approach with any particular individual or group. I have certain foundational elements in what and how I teach, but I generally devise components to specifically target aspects related to experience.

For instance, I'm scheduled to soon begin teaching acting techniques for an established Shakespeare production company. Although some of the very same basic elements and components I use to teach every level of student will be included, this will, of course, be a somewhat different approach than one I'd use for elementary students. BUT, in the beginning, I'll be asking these more experienced students some of the very same questions.

In developing teaching techniques any and all information is important, so this isn't just a point of interest, it's actually a serious research question as well. So, you'd actually be helping me a great deal with any input and it would be much appreciated.

The questions are:
*How much exposure to Shakespeare in any form have you had? (school, theatre, movies, tv).
*How and when did it start?
*Who was responsible for your first exposure to Shakespeare?
*If you've seen performances early on in your Shakespeare experience, when and where did you see them, who was performing, what was it like, what did it make you feel and/or think? JM

Tempest in a Teapot?

2010-10-17T09:44:00.010-04:00

Given all of the advanced hype over the upcoming release of the Julie Taymor film version of The Tempest, I decided to do a little digging. I wanted to see if I might come up with some opinion other than the latest salivating conjecture about how good it 'looks to be' from simply viewing a trailer; or projecting how fantastically 'important' it might be because I'm told "something wicked this way comes" by the pricking of the thumbs of studio execs all too eager to sell the next 'latest, greatest, idea thing'; or what they might claim a decent (never mind definitive or great) job of 'interpreting Shakespeare' might actually look and sound like.

It turns out that the film was screened at the Venice Film Festival last month. Here's some advance opinion from some who've actually been privy to more than Hollywood 'massaging'. For your considered perusal, what we might expect in December as a possible climax to all the titillating, pre-release foreplay.

Robert Beames, of the Telegraph UK is receptive but critical, giving Helen Mirren (love her) great credit for making the film a more positive than negative outing, as he sees it:

"...American director Julie Taymor releases what she must hope is a film that does justice to the play, whilst still working as a piece of cinema. It's a feat quite rarely achieved. Luckily, she is helped in no small part by the presence of Helen Mirren - who is here at the peak of her powers."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/7996596/Review-The-Tempest-with-Helen-Mirren-in-first-screening-at-Venice-Film-Festival.html

This is no surprise to me, either on the part of Mirren or on the part of solid acting, in its ability to mask possible deficiencies in other departments of interpretation in a venture as large and brassy as this one. Contrary to popular view, not all reviewers are misogynistic cave-dwellers, pounding away at some antiquated typewriter exuding acid for words. And speaking of popularity when it's warranted, personally, I think it was the outstanding performances of some of the actors in Taymor's Titus that made her overindulgent art director's dream of a mish-mosh work at all. But once again, that's just my opinion.

Another opinion on overindulgent rendering which too often masks Shakespeare's point:

Variety's Leslie Felperin:

As if it were not disappointing enough to produce an intellectually undernourished version of Shakespeare's late romance, helmer Julie Taymor has gone one better by crafting a "Tempest" so kitschy, yet curiously drab and banal, even supporters may hope she'll break her staff and drown her book. Despite a tony cast led by Helen Mirren in the gender-bent lead role, pic makes even earlier middlebrow Shakespeare adaptations look masterful. Skedded to bow in December, the Touchstone release could find a niche among older auds and those who can't be bothered to read the play.
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117943513.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&query=review+ Taymor+Tempest#ixzz12M5IxLtu

So, can we expect the definitive Tempest of our day? ...Or what? Hard to say...yet.

When it comes to Shakespeare's genius--as opposed to the very busy, busy 'genius' of those also in the process of making a name for themselves--I'll take Groucho Marx's tongue-in-cheek advice to heart every time: "Are you gonna believe me, or your lying eyes?" :) Ask me in December. JM

Book Review: Will Power by A. J. Hartley

2010-09-20T08:18:00.006-04:00

Will Power-Tor/Forge Publishing (Click the title of this review for more info)

Will Power, second in a series of fast-paced fantasy novels by A J
Hartley, makes its debut on the bookstore shelves today. I write "series" in the
hopeful assumption that Hartley has plans for continuing the saga of one Will
Hawthorne--actor, poet, playwright, con man, and now full-time reluctant adventurer. Hawthorne's somewhat checkered rise to stardom as a young Elizabethan-style actor of plays and self-proclaimed pithy purveyor of pentameter poesy, was rudely interrupted in the first installment, Act of Will, leading to new employment as front man for a band of, in Will's modest opinion, much too heroic adventurers.

Stylistically, Professor Hartley has created a somewhat eclectically archaic world
for us to adventure through in accompaniment to his heroes. An entertaining mix of places and individuals with the flavor of the Elizabethan, the Gothic, and the sometimes hard to categorize populates the narrative, written in the first person from Will Hawthorne's perspective. But our inability to 'peg' this time and these places, while at the same time being more than faintly all too familiar with them is the result of a clever device on Hartley's part. And it's the use of that very device that makes it an unusually fresh approach in my opinion. Hartley is able to remain true to his atmosphere with rich and vivid descriptions of the surroundings, situations, battles, creatures, and ancient weaponry, yet allows the reader to settle into an easy, comfortable, narrative realm, through the modern linguistic expressiveness and colloquialisms of his lead character, Will--and far from clashing, the style winds up complementing itself over and over.

Following the events through the eyes of Will Hawthorne, Will Power transports us to ancient lands of Goblins who use bears as horses, wolves that seem to understand what you're thinking, and a gleaming White City where King and court seem all too concerned with outward appearances. Therein lies a theme commented on by Hartley. But the commentary isn't heavy handed. It's intertwined so well within the story line that the denouement, held close enough to the vest to more than support the lessons we might learn, still comes as a shock to the senses, surrounded by the events Hartley so deftly and vividly describes for us. In reality, though we might sometimes wish to ignore their existence, we Know these strange characters for who and what they are--and the realization can come to us as a little unsettling, even though we must nod in assignation as we read. This is one of the qualities I have come to admire about Hartley as a writer; he instructs as well as entertains.

Hartley has also seen fit to aptly furnish his saga with a back story. In the author's words:

Like the first volume, Act of Will, it [Will Power] has been translated from
the original Thrusian--as preserved in the now famous Fossington House
Papers--with the aid of notes left by the Elizabethan translator Sir Thomas
Henby. As readers of the first manuscript will quickly see, the second volume is
different in key respects from the first, and raises still more vexing questions
of provenance, locale, and issues of how much of the narrative--if any--is
derived from fact.

He then goes on to promise the results of further investigation in a series of
academic papers to be published in issues of Philological Quarterly
--HA!--Though he doubts that a general reader would be very much interested.
-- What a hoot.
This is the type of well-rounded attention to detail I came to expect from Hartley, becoming familiar with his work after having fortunately stumbled upon his mystery novel, What Time Devours. See my review. And it's what makes Will Power read with the veracity of a mysterious and exciting in-but-out-of-this-world historical chronicle, rather than pure fantasy.

Although I must admit, upon finishing Will Power, I immediately began a quest
to find book #1 --Act of Will , Will Power certainly holds up to
its billing as a 'stand-alone' fantasy novel. But trust me, if you're a fantasy
fan, you too will be looking for more from Professor Hartley, past or future. This book, as well as all of his others, no matter the genre, is recommended reading. JM

From Tor/Forge Publishing: British-born writer A. J. Hartley is the Distinguished Professor of Shakespeare in the Dept. of Theatre and Dance at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. As well as being a novelist and academic, he is a screenwriter, theatre director, and dramaturge. He is married with a son, and lives in Charlotte.

Film Review: Hamlet; Branagh; Blu-ray--A Stunning New Release

2010-08-17T18:38:00.021-04:00

Blu-ray release date: August 17, 2010 (Click the title of this review for the Official Warner Bros. Website and more info on this great release)

When I was contacted by Warner Bros. about the possibility of doing a review of Kenneth Branagh's filmed version of a full length Hamlet, I was, at first, confused. Hadn't all of this happened long ago--way back when I didn't have a blog? Fortunately, Warner Bros. has decided to re-release Branagh's 70 mm treatment in the Blu-ray format and I get a chance to review a production of my favorite of all of Shakespeare's plays. And if ever a project deserved to be seen in all its 'pixel-ized' glory, this is it.

Prior to Branagh's ambitious, and, to say the least, courageous decision to do an unedited version of Shakespeare's play, The Tragedie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke, the last film to be shot in Britain in the epic 70 mm Super Panavision format was David Lean's Ryan's Daughter (Among other films to have received this grand filming treatment --and they have been few--is Lawrence of Arabia). Ryan's Daughter was made 25 years before 1996--along about the time Branagh's major ambition might have had him a wee bit apprehensive about another epic moment in life, that of starting his next year of grammar school. Of course, we know what's happened since. When he was 15, Branagh saw (now Sir) Derek Jacobi (Claudius in this production) play Hamlet in a stage version...the rest is Shakespearean history. Branagh has, in my opinion, emerged as one of the premier proponents of the Bard's works on film; and viewing this film again reminded me of the role he has assumed as a most positive ambassador of the work of William Shakespeare in general. The studio has this to say of this major undertaking:

"Hamlet has the kind of power, energy and excitement that movies can truly exploit", award-winning actor/director Kenneth Brannagh says. In this first-ever full-text film of William Shakespeare's greatest work, the power surges through every scene. The timeless tale of murder, corruption and revenge is reset in an opulent 19th-century world, using sprawling Blenheim Palace as Elsinore and staging much of the action in shimmering mirrored and gold-filled interiors. The energy is electrifying, due to a luminous cast. The excitement of the Bard's words and an adventurous filmmaking style lift the story from its often shadowy ambience to fully-lit pageantry and rage."

I have a little bit more to say from a literary/performance standpoint regarding this dazzling and intelligent interpretation.

I don't often come away pleased with filmed 'adaptations' of any of the works of Shakespeare. Fundamentally, I believe they were written for the stage--for live performance. It's how I cut my teeth on them, it's how I've interpreted, acted, taught and directed them, and it's how I've come to appreciate them the most. But Kenneth Branagh's emergence as a filmmaker, even at a relatively young age, has come after being steeped in textual analysis and how to translate that information to the stage. Somehow, through his experience and great appreciation for the textual nuances and true genius of the verse, he's found a way to more than do justice to Shakespeare through the medium of film. And this last undertaking of Hamlet is apparently the result of a meld of all of the knowledge he's garnered from the great wealth of his experience and success in both stage and screen genres. In his own words he wanted to "...throw everything into the mix to try and match the genius of this man's writing." Well Ken, say I, you've done just that.

From the very first opening line, Bernardo's "Who's there?", the pacing of the dialogue, and the vocal and articulated temporal dynamics of his actors are all right on target. "Trippingly on the tongue..." comes to mind; a line to come later, delivered by Hamlet himself as instruction to the actors who visit Elsinore. (Shakespearean instruction Branagh practices, in evidence in his own performance--as well as preaches to his real-life actors, no doubt.) But, "...use all gently. For in the very torrent, tempest, and as I may say, whirlwind of your passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness." More instruction from the Bard and Hamlet put to good use by Branagh.

There is a maxim (among some others) in acting Shakespearean verse; to whit: When performing Shakespeare, an actor must earn his pauses. Branagh certainly gives credence to it. All of the expected moments are there, in all of the right places, along with some unexpected new ones. And Branagh misses not Shakespeare's humor, interspersed like little strokes of genius relief, many times left unexplored in this great tragedy.

Filtering into his role as a filmmaker as well, he's managed to bring many of the qualities of stage dynamics to a filmed work, yet is aware of the greater lengths to which he can go and the brilliant nuances he can affect with a camera as the audience. He knows the value of "acting large" even in the close-ups, when to cut to whom, where the focus should be; when intimacy is at its most effective; and much of this, he will admit, is due to what has come from his understanding of Shakespeare textually. (Included in this blu-ray edition--among some other very nice video perks--is a full version voice-over commentary by Branagh and Russell Jackson, editor of The Cambridge Guide to Shakespeare on Film, Professor of Drama and Theatre Arts at the University of Birmingham, and Branagh's textual advisor since his filmed version of Henry V.)

All of this attention to detail has led to a clearness and accessibility to the language, (the opacity has been removed and the lucidity brought to it in its conversational aspect is remarkable) fully rounded characters, (otherwise many times misunderstood or incomplete because of editing choices), and an interpretation and honestly delivered focal coherence of a play by Shakespeare as a whole that is rarely achieved in this medium.

But the value of this blu-ray edition doesn't stop there. The cinematography in this version is stunning. The sheer breadth of Blenheim Palace, the richness and color of its interiors, and the epic scope Branagh manages to achieve while filming this great work in its entirety, all combine to make for a very unique experience. It's as beautiful to look at, as it is wonderful to listen to. An epically treated, gorgeously filmed, faithfully executed, high definition version of a textually complete play with a stellar cast in...4 hours! (An edited staged version can take that long or longer). I could go on and on about why everyone should own a copy of this edition. But I'll end it here with a question for Warner Bros. : Which Blu-ray version of what Shakespeare play is next for Kenneth Branagh? JM

What's On YOUR Mind "Shakespeare"? THAT is the Question.

2010-05-16T15:53:00.005-04:00

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

When Burbage Played

2010-05-09T19:07:00.002-04:00

Read a very interesting post today over at shakespearegeek blog, put up by a poster named "Ed". It reminded me of something I came across in my reading recently. It's a poem by Austin Dobson on Shakespeare's leading actor and a shareholder in the company, Richard Burbage. Burbage was the first to play some recognizable names in Shakespeare's list of characters: Richard III, Hamlet, Othello, Lear, and according to some scholarship, in all probability Romeo, Bassanio, Brutus, Macbeth, Antony and Coriolanus, among others. Quite a list. Not anything close to the "matinee idol"-- what we know of as a "leading actor" today, Burbage was ill-equipped physically for most of the roles he played. So Shakespeare would "cast against type" continually. But unlike today's actors, Burbage assumed the character, less interested in bringing more of himself to the role than the role to himself. Anyone who could successfully play the great range of characters in the list above didn't do it with smoke and mirrors, or makeup and special effects. Anyway, after you read Dobson's poem, read Ed's post http://blog.shakespearegeek.com/2010/05/quote-something.html
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

Who's the Final Arbiter on "To double cast, or not..." ?

2010-05-04T19:17:00.015-04:00

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 damned good reason, looke you. :) JM

Book Review: What Time Devours by AJ Hartley

2010-05-01T14:07:00.017-04:00

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

Review: David Tennant's "Hamlet" on PBS

2010-04-29T13:33:00.009-04:00

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

About theShakespeareProject

2010-04-26T11:04:00.003-04:00

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:shakespeareproject@comcast.net

What Would You Write on a Card to The Bard?

2010-04-22T16:38:00.001-04:00

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?"

WWW (Willy's Worldwide Web): Friend or Foe?

2010-04-16T12:05:00.003-04:00

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?

Breaking News: Shakespeare Leading Cause of High School Dropouts:Keanu Reeves To Head Australian English Dept.

2010-03-20T16:43:00.004-04:00

"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

38 in 38 Anyone?

2010-02-27T18:57:00.002-05:00

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

Bard InThe House?

2009-10-17T15:50:00.030-04:00

Where my journey began: Shakespearepost.com--a great resource site. "Rap vs.The Bard" by Anna http://www.shakespearepost.com/2009/10/11/rap-vs-the-bard/

The Word on the Street?: Rapper/Hip-hop artist Jay-Z is the Contemporary Shakespeare of the Rap World. Quoted in an article on Unkut.com, Assoc. Prof.Adam Bradley of the Claremont McKenna College (CA) Literature Dept. says the title is "...a heavy burden to bear, but I think the one who could probably do it the best would be Jay-Z – and I say that both for the longevity of his career but [sic] [and] also the range of his subject matter." In the Unkut.com article by Robbie, Professor Bradley, author of the Book of Rhymes, lists some of the reasons for his opinion:

-- Jay-Z's musical evolution reflects personal change as an individual. Before, topics of his work centered around dealing drugs, the street, and other unnamed "nefarious" activities. This vs. the subject matter on his latest album: His wife Beyonce and his life as a visionary business entrepreneur. Bradley cites Jay-Z's similarity to Shakespeare in his ability to expand and shift the focus of his topics and his audience,thereby discovering new ways in which to appeal to a new sector of the public; Says Bradley, according to the article "...precisely what Shakespeare did..." . http://www.unkut.com/2009/10/is-jay-z-the-shakespeare-of-hip-hop/

"English 101 Meets Hip-Hop Studies 101"
(from Baz Dreisinger's NY Times Review)

Baz Dreisinger's Sept. 8, 2009 New York Times review Def Poetry opens with "Are you a hip-hop fan who can't tell assonance from alliteration.?" In my opinion, his immediate attempt at balance--asking English Majors if they know the difference between Biggie and Tupac--is unnecessary. After all, by Dreisinger's own admission, his ultimate analysis is that Bradley's book is all about giving hip-hop's biggies the poetical recognition and legitimacy he seems to be seeking to earn for them, not an exploration into how much an English lit major's legitimacy might be proven by mock-testing them on how much they know--or even care--about rap stars. Political correctness has its place, but in this case it seems a little like overkill.

From there, Dreisinger goes on in some detail, noting some of Bradley's recognition of poetical technique embedded in rap: e.g. onomatopoeia, its rhyme/beat "dual rhythmic relationship", as well as the preference of simile to metaphor in its more directly targeted focus, and etc. Dreisinger finishes with a description of Bradley's efforts as wanting "...to legitimize rap by setting it in a canonical context, [then asks] but aren't we past the point of justifying it?"
My question? Aren't we also then, past the point of needing to justify any legitimate criticism of rap?

But even without "pointing it up", Dreisinger has already zeroed in on a salient point very early on, in his first paragraph, by quoting Bradley: 'rap "is poetry, but its popularity relies in part on people not recognizing it as such." ' And he records another very telling statement by Bradley on Rhyme: " [it] provides the necessary formal restraints on their [the rapper's] poetical freedom."
Dreisinger doesn't mention Shakespeare here. (Another version of his article appeared in the NY edition on 9/13/09.) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/books/review/Dreisinger-t.html?_r=2&scp=7&sq=&st=nyt

Perhaps references to the Bard and statements like "...precisely what Shakespeare did.", given the evidence offered by Bradley, seem somewhat out of place. Maybe someone else thinks, as I do, that Shakespeare's poetical expertise--one might argue, his intentionally applied knowledge of a structured poetic technique--makes no sense as a focus of comparison to hip-hop's free-wheeling poetical construction; particularly when analyzed by Bradley after the fact. Given Hip-hop's apparent need to somehow intentionally disguise itself ? as something those "not in the know" would think is "poetry" is one thing. To somehow continue to infer, subsequent to raw poetical analysis,("unspoken" "related" assertions sometimes more powerful conclusion makers than ones actually stated out loud) that Hip-hop, in conjunction, might miraculously and simultaneously represent something remotely resembling Shakespeare seems to be grasping at a conclusion. (A conclusion arrived at with the help of only generalized reasons of personal choice and/or business habits, or public relations considerations--attributes common to many successful artists, whether they be poets, painters, or pottery makers.) Any potential undue profit garnered from invoking Shakespeare's name would seem to have been logically eliminated--or has it been?

As to any ultimate conclusion on Professor Bradley's theoretical assertions pertaining to Jay-Z, Shakespeare, poetry, and Hip-Hop, as well as what might be the ultimate impact of some of his more popular ideas about Shakespeare, in my view, the jury is still out. First, I'm interested in the answers to what I believe are more important image-related questions. How much "poetical expertise" there might be in the construction of rap, by whatever means it might exist (accidental or incognito) is, by itself, a question that has likely been answered by Bradley. However, he complicates his answer with his later references to Shakespeare. After all, it's evident in the mere reading, on the surface and without very much deep-mining or hindsight analyzing, how much the expert hand of the poet resides in Shakespeare's work. So, to me, the honest answers to the following questions might (or might not)be much more relevant as to how Shakespeare might (or might not) "fit in" here:

--What kind of an influence might any of this--in Dreisinger's terminology--canonization of rap have on the impression made by Jay-Z's poetry---in-disguise?
--And, what kind of ultimate influence might Bradley's research and consequent opinions have on someone's impression of Shakespeare?

With all due respect to Prof. Bradley, even more accurate and pertinent information, possibly more important than some of that which has been outlined by him, might come from an assessment of opinion gathered from the members of a checkout line in a popular CD store. JM

How Old Is Too Young for Shakespeare?

2009-10-11T15:45:00.004-04:00

As quoted by a reporter in a NJ Camden County newspaper article, May 6, 2008:

"'I had to practice hard. I really winged it my first day, but I learned how to look at words before reading them', said [Nick Bottom] whose role called for frequent interplay with audience members."

One reason for the frequent interplay was because Shakespeare "himself" had directed this player to do exactly that. In fact, Shakespeare himself (or some guy who looked, sounded, and dressed an awful lot like him) had actually stopped the action to give this actor some direction--in front of the audience! But, knowing that the performance of "Rehearsing A Midsommer Nights Dreame With Shakespeare" had been billed as just that--a rehearsal, the audience members weren't too put off by the rudeness of this Impostor.

Another of the reasons Bottom's "...role called for frequent interplay..."?

The rest of the students in the school, grades 1-4, were a big part of the process. They were watching how well a 5th grader had learned how to "...look at words...", and they already knew some of what he was going to say. Having worked on some of those words, and many more, as part of a month long program involving words and concepts often billed as "too hard" or "too advanced for their age group", they were familiar with Bottom's "Raging Rocks" "bad acting" tirade in Act I of A Midsummer Night's Dream. So familiar, in fact, that when the guy dressed as "Shakespeare" once again stopped the action to ask his Apprentice Players if they remembered the speech, they showed him how well They had learned "how to look at words"--and how. On the count of three, the entire remainder of the school, grades 1-4, in perfect unison, and without a hitch, recounted, from memory, a speech they were never asked to memorize. But they'd heard it enough, spoken it out loud, worked on it and other speeches in pieces and bits, while depending on the cooperation of their fellow students to support their efforts when they were asked.

The teachers and parents in attendance were not a little amazed at this response from an entire student body. But Shakespeare? ...Somehow he knew the chance he was taking wasn't all that risky. He and His Players had come to a mutual respect and interest when it came to each others Knowledge, Abilities, and Talents.

So, I'm asking: How old is too young to learn something about Shakespeare? JM

shakespeare text speak

2009-09-17T20:42:00.030-04:00

According to sources at No Sweat Shakespeare, --Shakespeare Text Speak (or shkspr txt spk!) Aug. 30 2009, politicians in the U. S., New Zealand, Australia, and England, have criticized teachers for accepting certain assignments from their students. What's on these allegedly dubious homework "papers"? It looks something like this: "wot dis iz, iz d nu way 2 rIt shkspr. ts al d rAj."

Ts..."shkspr txt spk"

Of course, the completeness of my NU ShksprEn DicshnarE/Texticon, being temporarily limited to the wrdz & frAzs in the examples you see below, forces me to improvise. So I make no claim to--accuracy, in my attempts to dEsIfr & cumpOz, from the nonetheless uncommon wealth of the wrdz bElO, thOse I have to invent in order to ...cumUnicAte...properlE in dis xItn nU lngwj. JEz, I could be taking a really big chance at botching up shksprz lines and not even know it. I'll try to be more careful az I bEcum mo ("more"? like "mo" in Shakespeare's text? --must be a mistake.) mor adep @ T. I wdnt wnt 2 apEr az thO Im a ejit. For "brevity's sake" I'll move on, old style, and try incorporating the astounding & innovative qualities of this new...sorry... nU lngwj az I gO. (langwj?--that's..."langwidge"-for the benefit of the uninitiated, spelin-chalnjd, or jis plAn slO. )

Witness how the upcoming lines from Hamlet, arguably the most famous in all of English Literature, are gracefully transformed and rendered, az dA (they) simultAnEuslE, economically, and summarily xcize d OvrblOn syllabic detritus and mellifluous superfluity so often left behind as the result of unnecessary alliterative and assonant bombast; itself, native to self-centered poetic genius; the traces of which, as anyone az familiar az dEz students must be with Shakespeare must know, can sometimes, tragically, go unnoticed by more lax, incautious editors. Not so here; as beautifully, in its cumplEte and unXprgatd poetic magnificence, the brilyinz of shkspr is lifted to new hItes upon the wings of brevity.

Without further adU. Here, not 2 2 sollid...sallied, or sullied, by the flesh of my halting hand of ignorance; an actual, authentic 2 !!! excerpt from "d trjdE of hmlt prnz of dnmk", as tranzpOzd by-- "shkspr txt spk"--an xcIting, nU, & Rtfl lngwj.

‘2 b, r nt 2 b dat iz d Q wthr ts noblr n d mnd 2 sufr d slngs & arowz of outrAjs fortn r 2 tAk armz agnst a C f trblz, & by oposn nd em?’

Once more, proof of Shakespeare's skill with words, imagery, and their power to leave one speech-LESS . . .... that power further enhanced by "shkspr txt spk".

Still unconvinced? --And for those who might think I'm kidding, I can assure you, according to the folks at No Sweat Shakespeare (who seem behind it 100%) this is true-form, actual, and authentic Shakespeare, so defined and accepted today, within some of the halls of academia.

For the incredulous--or yet to be impressed--among us (unyieldingly cretinous though ye may be) I can identify with your skepticism, even while blinded by this technique's stunning impressiveness as an instructive and enlightening tool. Claimed by its proponents as "...an additional language the [students have, ...one] that their critics don't." ...[have]...and...well, I digress.

Here's another example of the exemplary form and movement we all expect from a true shksprEn Tragedy; its essence and clarity served up to us in no time, and in a more potent, concentrated dose, thanks to "shkspr txt spk". May it serve to bend the unswerving and most stubborn opinion of even the most draconian critic. ("Doubtful" of its great usefulness or legitimacy.)--And, as the nO swt shkspr ppl are keen to infer about critics--envious, no doubt--of those few, those happy few, conversant-lucky in this new Art in Language).

From The Tragedy of Macbeth:

2mrw & 2mrw & 2mrw crEpz n dis pety plAs frm dA 2 dA 2 d lst silabl of rcrdd tIm & al our ystdAz hv lItd f%lz d way 2 dsty def…tis a tAl tld by an ejit, ful of snd & fury sgnfyn nutin.’

...And Nutin from Nutin leaves...NUTIN.

(Disclaimer: No further editing, whatsoever, of the previous content--either on my part--or on anyone else's part, for that matter--could have possibly occurred.)

Let's get real.

One "matter of fact" question in the article that plays apologist for this..."uddr nonsnz" makes me seriously question the motivation of anyone who might champion a practice such as this: "But what could be more relevant to the modern teenager?"
As if bastardizing words while poking at a cell phone is an unquestionable and better-functioning conduit to learning how those words sound and what they mean.

I have a question for them: What could be more IR-relevant to developing an ease and familiarity with the mellifluent phrasing, vocabulary, imagery, and laudable, erudite, and Truly-Accomplished "Word-Play" in Shakespeare's work, than to waste precious learning-time and effort in attempts to turn it into a series of UN-pronounceable, stunted, grunts and tics; so malformed and transmogrified, that they look and sound as though they were uttered by a lot of ILL-literate, "F%lsh Ejits"? (If I may be allowed Teacher's permission to whet an almost blunted purpose; as I remember that I am also allowed their permission--even within the scope of such seemingly misplaced authority in the granting of permissions --to Spell It Out for Them : Foolish Idiots).

Furthermore, are we actually doing anything worthwhile towards making anything more understandable, when the greater focus is on making it "relevant" to someone's lifestyle? --Particularly when, by allowing the practice of the habits of that lifestyle such permissive pervasiveness, it so skews and maltreats the material itself? Aren't we sending the signal that what's more important is their pacification, at any cost, to them and to us? (As it's likely that they spend more time focusing on altering the very thing we would teach them, than on the actual, unadulterated article itself.) And then, to lend it the legitimacy of sanctioning its submission IN THE PLACE of, and EQUAL TO, the Art we would teach them; telling them, in effect, that whatever they do To that work of art has no real affect; not even on our own respect for it...Tsk...tsk...tsk..."Shkspr txt spk"...THAT.
JM

Shakespeare Transmogrified (Introduction)

2009-09-14T13:19:00.019-04:00

Part one in a series of articles devoted to unmasking Shakespeare's Hand in his works.

(transmogrify-tranz mog' re fie'- v. to change in appearance or form, esp. strangely or grotesquely; transform.)

What a wonderful word. It's even juicier as a noun: transmogrification. Reminds me of an old horror flick--Lon Chaney Jr.and his Transmogrification into...The Werewolf!

I learned what the word meant because of a fellow who, like Shakespeare, was a wonderful genius at painting descriptive pictures and outlining the quirkiness of his Characters--with Words. (was that a subconscious attempt at a pun? ...or the quirkiness of his words with characters...get it?--characters--letters?...sorry)

This Author, as did the Bard two hundred plus years before him, capitalized the first letter of some of the words he wanted to stand out on the page. Most Editors, who know better, have since 'emended' the results of this practice for him; likewise, for Shakespeare. They always use the word "Emended" when speaking of any duty associated with supervising the compilation and publication of works by Shakespeare--even when describing wholesale and unnecessary alterations. It's less offensive, softer, and less direct than the apparent black sheep of this particular Synonym Family..."Corrected". That would more than imply, directly, that someone was wrong about something.---Wouldn't---It?
And although there is some legitimate discussion around the fact that it was a common practice of the time to capitalize some words we wouldn't find the need to give Proper Noun status in our (also "emended") grammar books, and unanswered questions about what exactly happened to copies of the Plays when in the care of sometimes sleepy, or possibly overzealous, typesetters in the printing shop, there is more than enough evidence in the Doing to indicate, to some of us, that there is value in the investigation... Vocally and Aurally.

Far from being 'incorrect', our "mystery author", Charles Dickens--at one time in his life an aspiring actor himself--also knew about the importance of getting and holding the attention of his readers. Until his dying day (and that's not too far short of being literal) he would read his work Out Loud to huge audiences, playing ALL of the Characters he'd created--male, female, or child. (Maybe he capitalized the words as reminders to himself as to what to do with this or that word at his speaking engagements--nahhh) He knew that if you wanted a reader to audibly capture the sounds you heard in your head as the writer; if you wanted them to also appreciate the rhythms you felt in the words as you wrote them, something had to be done, On the Page, to Point Them Out. (see how I sneakily...snuck...that right in there? --Subb-tal, huh?).

Although you can still see this practice in action in original printings of his Sonnets, presumably (and I use the preceding word with some caution) meant to be 'read', when it came to his Plays, Will had the Listener in mind.

When referring to a visit to the Theatre, Elizabethans spoke in terms a listener might use: "Yesterday I went to hear the Tragedie of Macbeth." or "Will you go with me tomorrow to hear Henry V?" They loved their language, the way it sounded, the shape of a phrase. It was, literally, "Music to their ears". And Shakespeare was their Mozart/Beethoven/Mahler, Stokowski/Ormandy/Shaw, Rachmaninoff/Horowitz/Pavarotti--Composer/Conductor/Player--all rolled into one. Examples of the nearest approximation of Shakespeare's actual notation on the page cannot be found in a popular publishing house edition. The closest we can come to discovering possible indications of his hand, on the printed page, can be evidenced only in the First Folio of 1623 and some of the "good" Quarto publications.

Because of so many ongoing structural and internal "emendations", of every kind, applied to his compositions over the centuries passed since they were first printed for publication, the copy of Romeo and Juliet most of us will have been directed to buy in our local bookstore has been...transmogrified--and not only in terms of capitalization. Verse structure (the overall page layout and format, (measures), and thus, phrasing, expression, line completions, pauses (rests)--the instrumentation and implementation of dynamics in a scene can be affected); punctuation (dynamic markings altered; ritardando, staccato, legato, largo, prestissimo, adagio, along with stops and rests); spellings (possibilities of applying color, sound, voicing, expression, and dynamics); ALL of which affect Rhythm, Tempo, and Interpretation--Logistically, Practically, Emotionally, and Intellectually. All of these major components (and others, to be outlined in this series) affect not only the ability of the performer to successfully interpret and present the work; they also alter the end result of what audience members or readers not only see, but also hear, respectively, either in their ears or in their heads (and sometimes both). Notwithstanding gross and obvious errors in printing or transcribing--and they do exist--would we presume the greater right to move any of the other little dots and rests around on the page, in some cases altering the melody, rhythm, and tempo of, shall we say, The Resurrection (Symphony 2) by Gustav Mahler, or Missa Solemnis, by Ludwig van Beethoven?

Yes, Shakespeare's plays are great Literature. What is quite amazing to me, is that the literary aspect of his work is only a by-product of Shakespeare's genius; of his then-immediate intentions, which were to produce the best damned version of whatever, ever Heard. And because his Words were meant to be Spoken Out Loud, by an Actor--the Instrument of the Stage--it behooves us to sit up and take notice as to how Shakespeare the Conductor, aka Director, might have been just a little interested in how his Players Voiced his Notes and played his tunes. With very little time to rehearse his part, what better way to instruct the Player of an Instrument, than to write those instructions on the page in front of him-- into the work itself? JM
(to be continued)

This Time I Will Mention Oedipus

2009-09-10T18:18:00.005-04:00

--something on "incestuous" abomination and Hamlet's projected "obsession" with it, his procrastination, and the hierarchy of his concerns.

The Trial of Bastardie (London, 1594)
The Triall of Bastardie: that part of the second part of Policie, or maner of Gouernement of the Realme of England: so termed, Spirituall, or Ecclesiasticall. Annexed at the end of this Treatise, touching the prohibition of marriage, a Table of the Leuitical, English, and Positiue Canon Catalogues, their concordance and difference. By William Clerke.
Table of prohibited marriages.

[Listed in the same tables as the abomination of marrying your own aunt, daughter-in-law, grand daughter, sister, mother, or daughter, along with several other possible "incestuous" unions.]:

A man may not marrie his
{Sister., Wife's Sister.,Brother's Wife.
}The equall collateral line, and first degree.

30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinances, that ye doe not any of the abominable customes, which have been done before you.

This is real bad stuff then, regardless of our viewpoints on any of it--as attested to by King Hamlet's Ghost: To Hamlet:

"I that incestuous, that adulterate Beast
With witchcraft of his wits,hath Traitorous gifts.
Oh wicked wit, and Gifts, that have the power
So to seduce? Won to this shamefull Lust
The will of my most *SEEMING VERTUOUS Queen: [my emphasis]
Oh Hamlet, what a falling off was there,
From me, whose love was of that dignity,
That it went hand in hand, even with the Vow
I made to her in Marriage; and to decline
Upon a wretch, whose Naturall gifts were poore
To those of mine. But Vertue, as it never will be moved,
Though Lewdness court it in a shape of Heaven:
So Lust, though to a radiant Angell link'd,
Will sate it selfe in a Celestial bed,
& prey on Garbage." [Note which words are Capitalized]

Following the description of the "incestuous", "murderous", "adulterer's" crime:
"Oh horrible, Oh horrible, most horrible:
If thou hast nature in thee beare it not;
Let not the Royall Bed of Denmarke be
A Couch for Luxury and damned Incest."

It sure seems as though the former King Hamlet has a few "issues" himself re: Claudius sleeping with his wife--Hamlet's Mother. I think Hamlet finds it not a little important,after the somewhat repetitive,insistent, horrible moans of his father about the vileness of all this. I also think he finds it extremely disgusting to even think about--never mind LIVE WITH under the same roof and scrutiny of an entire kingdom's eyes. (Hamlet's not alone in the disgust department over this somewhat "questionable union".) And he can't get away from it! And since his Too, too solid Flesh" rant about it, the shame, anger, and disgust quotient has been magnified a hundred fold by this latest revelation. But he has to Eat It All, like a good-little-boy-Prince(-who-should-be-King-too):) ("But breake my Heart, for I must hold my Tongue.") His desire to go back to Wittenberg has already been pronounced,"...most retrograde to OUR desire." Mummy's too.

Later, though they may also be his own feelings as well (and the feelings of anyone who might put themselves in his place) Hamlet recounts his father's sentiments; anger, pain, and utter disgust about his mother's actions--her betrayal, incestuous behavior, and *"seeming vertue". Imagine having to confront your mother--Queen or no Queen-- with these things? --After she's "summoned you", obviously to tell you what a bad little Prince YOU'VE been? What size head of steam might that gather?

And his final words to Claudius, THE VERY ONE, HIMSELF, HE, ACTUAL ARTICLE, THE "...incestuous, adulterate [murderous] Beast":
Ham. "Heere thou incestuous, murderous, Damned Dane,
Drink off this Potion: Is thy Union heere?
Follow my Mother."

Laertes. "He is justly served.
It is a poyson tempr'ed by himselfe:
Exchange forgiveness with me Noble Hamlet;
Mine and my Fathers death come not upon thee,
Nor thine on me."

Once again, in the oft-repeated words of he whom Hamlet avenges, and WHILE stating the very reasons he's been asked to do it, WITH his mother's death to add to the mix. Although they may be his thoughts as well, Hamlet reiterates the words his father can't say.

As to his belated decisions to go stabbing about; Circumstance has pretty much dictated things. NOW in front of ALL, witnesses to the treachery, with Laertes dying testimony,(the guy whose father he mistakenly killed) no less, his mother another victim of the "Incestuous, murderous, Damned Dane",...the oft-overlooked (possibly because it was always missing?) item in the arsenal of "facts" used to condemn him for his procrastination--"Proof"--isn't something he needs anymore.

His feigned madness, by the way, was a common practice among royalty when the intrigue and safety issues for particular "chosen ones" got a little dicey. It was used as a means of protection, especially from one's bloodthirsty relatives eager to climb the political ladder "legitimately". (the insane were protected from recrimination for their actions, which, could include getting in the way of those potentially dangerous "loved ones" while they were seeking out a solution to what could happen to them as a direct result of their "kind affection") I may have mentioned Hamlet's behavior re: Polonius' body--"Don't kill me yet...I'm still crazy, see?."
He was protecting himself the whole time, just in case the "murderous" persona in the "incestuous, murderous, damned Dane" decided it might suddenly resume killing people "too much in it's way"; especially those "would have beens", "wannabees", or possible "should have beens" named "Hamlet". You think he didn't know Claudius kept him around to "watch" him? Anyone who thinks Hamlet could have simply, with impunity, "enacted revenge" without explaining or proving anything, simply because he's The Prince with a beef, hasn't read the play. He can't trust anyone. Not even his own mother. And his only witness to anything he knows...? --a ghost!

As far as how we can tell anything about what Hamlet's thinking by "how he says it"--that would have to do with the way the relationships have been handled by the PRODUCER/DIRECTORS--the "Concept People"-- throughout the play; and also, by the way the line itself has been delivered. Any actor who puts undue emphasis on the word "incestuous" for reasons of "proving" something Psycho-sexual--perhaps that Hamlet could easily exchange names with Oedipus and no one would notice-- clearly cares more about impressing the audience with some more sensational "point" than, well, for one thing, their ability to scan and read verse convincingly with any accuracy.

Wisdom From "Down-Under"

2009-09-07T10:35:00.023-04:00

Many belated thanks to Flloyd Kennedy for a visit and her concurrence and very knowledgeable comments re: my post " 'Translating" Shakespeare' " 8/16/09.

Fortune has favored us from Down Under with input from Flloyd and her knowledge about the importance of Shakespeare's Words. (As much as I'm tempted, I'll forgo a quip here about "Fortune's Favours"-Hamlet 2.2.227-232.) uh...Maybe it's too late :-)

Wait--did I say 'her' ? Before we get into a discussion on the problems someone might think I have concerning 'gender issues', "Flloyd"--with 2 LLs--Kennedy is a noted Acting/Voice Instructor/Performer/Playwright ("The Fall of June Bloom: A Modern Invocation") from Australia. She's taught verse speaking at RSAMD, the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama, and, in addition, has taught most of the other subjects related to speaking from a stage, at other notable educational institutions. She's also recently hung around with one of my heroes, Patsy Rodenberg, Director of Voice at London's Royal National Theatre, and author of the books The Actor Speaks and Speaking Shakespeare, among others. (ask me if I'm jealous; even a little bit)
However...moving on...Flloyd is quick to point out that in Australia, they're not so 'gender-specific' as we might have a tendency to be. "Actor", for instance, can mean either a male or female thespian. I've always preferred to not make that particular distinction myself. (Wonder if I have any 'joey' blood in me, mate?).

As an actor, director, and instructor of a technique developed from the First Folio of 1623 (the very first collected edition of Shakespeare's plays) I also find much in common with her philosophy and viewpoints on the ART of Acting.

I capitalize 'ART' because that's really what it is. This is especially so when it comes to acting Shakespeare. And far from what seems to be the most popular and prevalent wisdom relative to a Method of acting, (here in America at least) Flloyd recognizes the importance of a TECHNIQUE of Acting; one which also employs the Words, and values them as the Tools of the Trade they most certainly are. She also recognizes the danger of messing about with the words and/or ignoring their importance. Inherent in that danger, we, as actors, put ourselves at peril's mercy if we lose our connection to the very definite networking structure set up intrinsically within the words themselves--the voice/body/emotion/mind connection. This is so important, not just for Shakespeare or Acting in general. It's a vital component in any kind of Communication using Words as the Vehicle. It also directly affects how the communication is received, understood, interpreted, and appreciated--audience, reader, student, et al. (If you hang out here long enough, you'll probably get tired of hearing me babble about it).

Learning and Knowing HOW to "Speake the Speech"--Ham.3.2.1--is every bit as important as knowing what the speech means, or knowing how it's supposed to make us "feel". Knowing how to handle the words frees us, so that we can "feel"; and, in fact, it can be a definite source of incredible inspiration for that feeling. For both actor and observer, AND for the student/reader as well, the ability to banish the confusion, correct the misconceptions, and find the key to great understanding resides in Shakespeare's Form: His usage of particular words, sentence and verse structure, his genius as an Architect in putting them all together, and the connection to Voicing Them, in a sculpturally sound and highly communicable way.

So before we throw up our hands in disgust, annoyed with how difficult Shakespeare's words are (and believe me, I understand the feeling--I once felt the same way) maybe a little investigating into how they work might be the Thing: THE Ticket to The Play.

Click this post's title and read Flloyd Kennedy's comments on Words and "Translating Shakespeare". Visit her blog (http://beinginvoice.wordpress.com/) and tell her I sent you.
Hang out a little there--and here. Shakespeareplace is a new-borne Blog; there's a lot more to come on this very important subject.
JM

Hamlet: "Woman-Hater" (promise I won't mention Oedipus)

2009-09-01T14:07:00.004-04:00

A hot topic over at the shakespearegeek blog nowadays is " They Say He Made a Good End" http://blog.shakespearegeek.com/2009/08/they-say-he-made-good-end.html which has evolved into something like "Hamlet VS Ophelia". As usual I'm all over it over there--me and my big mouth. Check it out. Duane (the geek) has put up some great clips on it as well.

But I thought since I already had started a sort of Hamlet vs Ophelia thing here, I'd also comment on it here, while continuing the train of thought about Hamlet's "character".

'Interesting' that in his anger with Ophelia, marriage and betrayal is the subject matter Hamlet picks to focus on "--we will have no more marriages", etc.. Gee, what would have made that occur to him, now believing he's been betrayed by not one, but TWO women he loves? Think maybe he had ideas about Ophelia and Marriage? Apparently Mom knew enough at Ophelia's graveside to wish it had come to what she thought Hamlet and Ophelia were all about. What could be more obvious? Also, consider his tirade (mysterious to many) berating himself, stating in effect that as not worth anything--"What should such Fellows as I do, crawling between Heaven and Earth. We are arrant Knaves all, believe none of us"...etc. Is he angrily, yet wryly, commenting on how he's "not good enough" for Ophelia, in her eyes? Mightn't it seem so to him?

And of the gifts she attempts to return: "No, no. I never gave YOU aught." ...I loved YOU not; to the point that she's acting like (and has been acting like) no one he now "knows" at all; AND-- "Gee Ophelia, I guess with all of my insistence, with all of my pleadings, with everything we've had, IF you can STILL believe the relationship isn't worth it, and in addition, have NO good reason for believing that I'm not worth your trouble--or if you have a reason, refuse to share with me why this is SO-- "Well then, (tongue in cheek) I MUST NEVER HAVE "loved" you, since you seem to be insisting on it so strongly. OK, you're right-- Since you won't, let's see if I can come up with a why or two as to my "never loving you".

Hamlet's sarcasm is always logical. He seems to be saying (possibly): "It's now ALL I CAN THINK OF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE AT ALL!--get it Ophelia? (If, then, therefore) He uses the same formula of reasoning later on with his mother.

These important people in Hamlet's life are constantly forcing him to ask, "WHY?!...HOW...COULD YOU POSSIBLY DO THIS?!--It MAKES NO SENSE!" And "maddening"? (and quite literally, it is) is the fact that neither of them ever gives him an answer! (however we may justify their reasons for it, Hamlet's left blind, because he doesn't know what they--or WE--know).

This is too often forgotten or conveniently ignored by the conclusion-jumpers, psychoanalysts, and theoreticians. They're too busy at playing needle-in-the-haystack, mountain-out-of-a-molehill with Hamlet to notice any other character's flaws or transgressions.
You know, like Mom's an adulterer with Dad's brother, married him only 2 months after Dad "died", and Ophelia not only snubbed him for reasons he will never know, but also becomes a spy against him in the deadly game he plays with the court! Likewise they pay less attention to the words if they don't happen to "fit" the particular theory about Hamlet with which they happen to be enamored (or mired in) at the time.

It appears to me that some try first to simply foist a supposed penchant for meanness and cruelty on everything he says and does, without putting themselves in his place. How mundane and thoughtless, as though this were a daily soap opera, and as if Hamlet had their values and customary judgment and behavior. They'll "give him" that--the cruelty and pettiness in human nature; but never along with it, the strength of hurt or reaction a normal human being would have when faced with similar crushing circumstances.

However; back to his wit: His mercurial thought processes would immediately latch onto the now-available and pertinent subjects (marriage, betrayal, deception) as the vehicles; his perception would make the relationships in a split second, and his delivery would be as swift --and deadly-- as ever.

But as with his mother, these "witticisms" would be anything but subtly communicated, channeled as they are through the great anger that the realization of betrayal and its emotional pain would cause him. To keep his usual cool, dry, witty head with these particular individuals (Ophelia and Gertrude) is impossible anyway, and even if possible, a measured reaction would cost him too much, for many reasons; one of which would be that it would be misinterpreted; taken as his "normal" sarcasm when it comes to attempting to reveal truths. And yes he is "mad" --as in the later case with his mother --quite mad--insane with anger and hurt-- in this moment with Ophelia.

These instances are the only times I can think of during which he couldn't be supposed to be "faking madness". --Why?

Both of these women have left a thinker of serious proportions without the means to parse out what has happened to him! Their behavior is "insane" to him. He responds accordingly, himself insane in the moment from the realization that they will never help him understand WHY they've done what they've done. There is an Answer--they just won't give it to him!

This point would be scanned: What they've done appears to him to be partly driven by insane decision-making on their part, and they've driven him insane partly by WHAT it is, and partly by refusing to help him figure out the "WHY?" it is.
And he stands too much to lose in either case to not make known to them the damage he's received at their hands. They are too important to him and he loves them both too much not to let them know just how much they've hurt him. (...and, also... could they just be reasonable...and stop it...please?).
But in the case of both Ophelia and Gertrude, other than to "wonder" what might be wrong with him, There is No Response.

It's only fair to recognize that their decisions to stay mum are, at times, directly affected by the circumstances bearing on the two women. But Fate and their unwillingness (the hesitance sometimes justified, sometimes not) combine to never allow them to explain, even if they would--or could--or, possibly, to give Hamlet the time to batter down the bulwark of what is--to him--abject denial of the truth--and the results of that denial--of their (as far as he knows) obviously intended actions.

For once again, one of the greatest instruments of Tragedy in the play--Time-- fails to mesh with The Moment in which, ironically, it's simultaneously occurring. Everyone in the play, at one or more points, either lacks timing, or the intervention of Fate, Circumstance (or both) forces that lack of timing; they all pay dearly for it. Hamlet sees and knows, presciently, in his gut, from the very beginning of the play, the terrible, destructive power of this lack of synchronization, and the effects it may likely have: "The Time is out of joint."

The Tragedie of Hamlet, "Jerk" of Denmark.

2009-08-24T10:53:00.022-04:00

It seems that everywhere I go in search of Shakespeare on the web lately, when it comes to the topic of Hamlet and his character, I can find someone ready to take a vicious stab at The Melancholy Prince.

Scholars of all stripes (from the time of Goethe, through Freud and on to today) attack everything in his nature. From his "indecision" and failure to act, to his lack of courage and heroism, to his "secret desire" to sleep with his mother (YUCK!), to his failure to embody the qualities defining "Tragedy" and the "Tragic Hero" set down by Aristotle; Academia is, and has always been, more ready to find his "flaws" as opposed to his virtues.

Time after time, Commercial Shakespeare's producers and directors, from Hollywood to Broadway, in production and/or 'adaptation', support these theories, always finding ways to 'read into' and play on the theme of Hamlet's weaknesses, rather than his strengths. The tragedy is always the result of his faults. Close examination of gaping character flaws in those who surround him, and the monumental exigencies supplied for him by simple fate will usually take a back seat, compared to the emotional sensationalism provided by pecking at the proposed hero with juicy personality complaints, however niggling, until he's brought down to his knees--or better yet--to the pedestrian level of the nigglers themselves.

This comes as no surprise. Many people are uncomfortable in the presence of genius, whether it be the intellect of a Hamlet or... a Shakespeare. From today back to Alexander Pope, who, in 1723, modestly claiming he knew better (most kindly meant, I'm sure) what Shakespeare the literary bumpkin was attempting to do--and therefore say--eliminated and/or changed words, phrases, and whole passages in the Plays, 'Editors' of Shakespeare have formulated wholesale rationalizations and suppositions as starting points from which to support their 'emendations' of the text and their theoretical 'reading into' the true meaning of his Work.

Since Hamlet is Shakespeare's 'wordiest' play; since Hamlet himself is his most vociferously intellectual character; since Hamlet is thought by many to be Shakespeare's greatest accomplishment (ironic in light of so many complaints about it); Hamlet gets the most attention in the way of analytical "help" from those Absolutists who think they know better than what the lines say--what Shakespeare said.

These theoretical notions--for that and only that is what they are--having been accepted and supported for so long, have had an enormous influence on the way the play and its central character are perceived. Hamlet is first read into before it is even read. The omnipresence of all this theoretical bantering has had the effect of strongly imprinting an initial image of Hamlet the Dane as a weak milk toast; a mewling, puking, adolescent; selfish and impotent, callous and completely self-centered; incapable of any heroic action; most simply, it seems, and worst of all, a woman-hater by nature. This impression is now the accepted premise and influential starting point from which any further analytical thought regarding Hamlet's character emerges. Any conclusions about the Prince seem to be powerfully influenced by it. Seemingly, when it comes to this play, events as they occur in sequence, difficulties which arise (as they would be perceived by any other human being--not allowed perception for Prince Hamlet), and even the lines themselves, are ignored in favor of a powerful gauze-like opaqueness, which seems to mask the obvious truth of the above to the eyes of an observer under the influence of any one of these "popular notions".

In fact, more casual readers and playgoers (and believe it or not, their opinion is the more important one to me and therefore the most disturbing in this context) many times simply refer to Hamlet as a "Jerk", citing his "callousness" and lack of "feelings". The 'proving-ground' of this opinion is located mainly in his obvious treatment of "poor Ophelia" in what has come to be known as "The Nunnery Scene".
Attached to his callousness, the idea of Hamlet's selfishness, his self-centered attitude, of his being "too caught-up in his own drama" are shortcomings often offered as support in an argument which 'proves', without a doubt, his "Jerky-ness".

My question is: Exactly whose Drama IS The Tragedie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke?

"Translating" Shakespeare

2009-08-16T12:11:00.007-04:00

Several months ago, I found myself involved in a rather lengthy argument on The Bard Blog over whether or not we need to "translate" Shakespeare. http://www.bardblog.com/the-world-sans-shakespeare/ (Should you visit, you'll see that 'lengthy' might be an understatement--I ran on quite a bit as my alter-ego "Willshill", but then, so did Professor Richmond.)

The meaning of 'translate' is defined by a 'translator', who has decided that Shakespeare, as written, is just too darned hard for mere mortals such as we. A professor at Cal State, Long Beach, Kent Richmond, as we speak, is busy at work "rewriting" Shakespeare, his stated purpose being to make Shakespeare more accessible to all. http://www.fullmeasurepress.com/

It's my contention that his work does just the opposite of its stated purpose-- making actual Shakespeare inaccessible for several reasons; not the least of which is the fact that it seems Mr. Richmond intends his work to be a wholesale replacement for Shakespeare-- as we know it--in our educational venues. Surely there are better ways to sell books, as well as better ways to teach Shakespeare, the latter being the main problem, I think. (I've experienced the positive results of some of those better ways--more on that later) Is Shakespeare too hard? --or would another kind of approach help? What do you think?

Welcome Carly

2009-08-16T12:04:00.003-04:00

Many thanks to a new follower, Carly J. Mooney for her interest in shakespeareplace. Having performed some of Shakespeare's more popular roles (and having done them well, I can personally witness) I'm pleased to have both her opinion and insight here. Welcome!

"Sonicky" Words

2009-08-02T17:13:00.007-04:00

The author at one of my favorite Shakespeare watering holes--The Bard Blog--recently returned following a long absence. Coincidental with my attempt to write a sonnet of sounds using alliteration and assonance, it so happens one of the new subjects on The Bard Blog was the sound of words and how sounds-- and the actual construction of the word itself-- can conjure up a picture that can literally describe the thing itself. But it isn't simply assonance, alliteration, or onomatapoeia, as Gedaly points out. As he mentions, "Sonicky" is a word author Roy Blount Jr. came up with in his new book "Alphabet Juice" to describe this kind of word. (I wrote an initial response as my alter ego "Willshill". You can read the whole Bard Blog story by clicking on the title of this post). It seems that "sonicky" doesn't sit well with some as a description for this phenomenon. The search is on, it appears, for a "better sounding" word.

Anyway, I really don't like "sonicky" either.
What it really warrants, I think, to accurately describe what's happening, is a more than one word description. But I gave it some thought and came up with a few one-word possibilities.

--pictsonorant, pictsonorous, pictsonic, pic_sonic (if you want to get "slangy")

Here are a couple of doozies that take in Articulatory Phonetics, (the branch concerned with actual vocal production of sound) and also,the ideas of depiction or picturing (also used to define picturing in or with words), sonorous and sonar-- without the ous-- (a resonant quality of sound itself,the depth of sounds and also 'sounding' the depths with sound, therefore displaying the picture it finds as a result).
Are ya ready?

articulopictsonorous or... articulopictsonorant or... articulopictsonic

Hey, Will invented a few words, didn't he? Why can't we when trying to describe what he does best with them?

Whaddaya think? Any other ideas?

Welcome!

2009-07-21T09:32:00.005-04:00

Welcome Gentles All ! to number 1623 Shakespeare Place--the place for anything "Shakespeare"--and we mean Anything! Voice your opinion on the current topics already under discussion or...start a topic you're interested in. Ask a question; if we don't know the answer we'll help find it if we can. Cast your vote in the latest poll and let us know why you feel the way you do. Let's talk Shakespeare!

To kick things off, I thought it might be fun to come up with a sonnet chock-full of alliteration and assonance (in fact it's entirely alliterative and assonant--maybe I got carried away?) describing some of the difficulties and joys, tribulations and rewards, of tackling stuff by the Bard. Since I'd never tried before, I'm not sure how well I did. Some of it's fun...I think...I hope. Thoughts anyone? Don't be shy--say it out loud! That's why we're here--and the whole point of Shakespeare (more on that later).

“Why Wrangle With Will?”

Bravely bombasting ballad by Bard,
Wantonly witty, will-willowing--worse:
Haltingly, hatching half-hopelessly hard,
Vouchedly vexing, varnishèd verse!

Tortuous, tongue-tied torrents to traverse,
Workmanly-wise, would we willingly wade
In innocence, insane; ill-ta'en immerse
Ourselves over-deep; orate odes o'ermade?

Rattling wry, recapitulate rhyme,
Quizzical quatrains, quickly quixotic,
Soliloquy Splenetic, Sonnet Sublime,
Elegy Elegant, ever exotic.

Accounts Adventurous, artfully avouched,
Tragedy, touchingly tearful-tainted,
Comedy's Counsel, cordially couched:
Pictures Poetic, perfectly painted.

In Incomparable Intellect Imbued;
Valiantly Voiced Verisimilitude.

J.M. © 2009

About Me and Shakespeare: Professional actor, director, teacher, editor, sometimes writer, and overall loudmouth-- when it comes to anything "Shakespeare". (more on that later)