[NEohioPAL] "Tootsie" as "Cleopatra"

Mon Aug 17 14:22:33 PDT 2009

I must say that Shakespeare shines royally in your hands, Larry Nehring. That you
have had ample opportunity to examine the who's, what's, when's, and where's of most of 
William's plays is brilliantly explained in your 'versions of Shakespeare.' If the casting of all male plays makes Shakespeare controversial and, gets "butts in the seats" so be it!!
If ever there was a problem of getting "butts in seats'" it is today, hoy dia, oggi - fully in the present tense. If it begins to create the Elizabethan ambience of the 17th century when 
Shakespeare was writing, I say Amen to that also. We need to be tranported back to those times when a wrongly place word meant someone's head might roll. 

Did the "version" of Antony and Cleopatra" that I saw at Wade Oval differ markedly from 
the one William presented at the Globe in 1608??  I think that CSF was as faithful in
telling this compelling story as William was almost four centuries ago. 
I would think our egalitarian age wants a real woman to play Cleopatra, although when
Dustin Hoffman played "Tootsie" he truly allowed us to see what was in the mix when
Shakepeare dressed men in women's clothes - and also in their words!!!! I think the modern
preoccupation of "suspension of disbelief" was the farthest thought from Shakespeare's 
male actors' minds, since no woman ever had the opportunity to put a definitive female identity on the Egyptian siren, or the other 'womens' roles.. 

It was the Elizabethan customs and mores concerning men as 
more 'natural' actors, a legacy from the Greeks, that set the 1st Century story in the form
sent down to us today. And if  Shakespeare ever stops being interpreted, revised, or otherwise 'messed with' as the purists say, as is Aristophanes, Sophocles, and Chekhov,  the connection to the contemporary society that presents it will be lost. That then, would
be a complete disservice to the Bard, and finally, to ourselves. 

Martin Cosentino

--- On Sun, 8/16/09, Larry Nehring <larry.nehring at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Larry Nehring <larry.nehring at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [NEohioPAL] CWRU: Versions (?) of Shakespeare
To: "Anastasjoy at aol.com" <Anastasjoy at aol.com>
Cc: "neohiopal at listserve.com" <neohiopal at listserve.com>, "smith at tennisamigo.com" <smith at tennisamigo.com>
Date: Sunday, August 16, 2009, 6:38 PM

I think we are in dangerous waters whenever anyone discusses Shakespeare as a pristine text. No real evidence exists as to what was performed in his time so little stock should ever be taken in any claim at fidelity. The folio was published after his death with enough differences from the previously published quarto editions for their accuracy to be questionable. No manuscripts exist, and nothing of the plays in Shakespeare's own hand.

As was pointed out, there were no actresses in his plays, but today an all male cast would be considered rare and controversial. 

Woodcuts and journals seem to be clear that Shakespeare's actors wore "modern dress", so contemporary clothing would be more accurate today than doublet & hose. 

As for cutting/amending the text... it is rare for any Shakespeare play to be performed uncut. The prologue to Romeo and Juliet says, "two hours traffic of our stage," but it is difficult to even read it in that time, let alone perform it in under three. Big cuts have to be made. 

While I was working at the Cleveland Shakespeare Festival we boldly cut and played with casting. The ideas were Shakespeare's as were the words, even if we rearranged or dropped many to make the story as we chose to present the most clear possible. 

Shakespeare's plays should not be considered literature. Literature is meant to be read. Dickens was very careful with word choice and published his works. Homer recited his works and people memorized them by his example.  Shakespeare produced plays with so many current (for his audiences, not ours) references that it it easy to see how the lines would change as the social and political landscape changed around them. Lines which might displease the king or queen dropped and jokes about recent scandals added. 

I am not an expert at Shakespeare, and let's not even start an authorship discussion, but I would respectfully caution anyone from judging an adapted script unless it is a complete deviation from the plot intent. Nahum Tate was one famed adapter who played pretty loosely with the original texts. However he and those who produced revisionist Shakespeare plays kept interest in the Bard going for all these centuries. 

Bottom line is... Shakespeare wanted butts in seats. Every ticket was income. If he really cared about the faithfulness to the scripts he would have made sure there were "correct" versions for all to adhere to religiously. 

My humble opinions only.  

Larry Nehring
LNehring at aol.com
Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 13, 2009, at 6:56 PM, Anastasjoy at aol.com wrote:

So, if women are cast in women's roles, which wasn't done in Shakespeare's time, do you believe this needs to be noted in the title so people won't feel cheated? I'm baffled at how you decide, in the case of Shakespeare, mich of whose original production style is unknown to us, what is over the line and should be advertised and what hews to his origfinal intention. 

**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd=JulystepsfooterNO115) 

______________________________________
NEohioPAL is SELF-SERVE. If you need to unsubscribe, change from digest to one-at-a-time delivery or vice-versa, go on hiatus while out of town, switch from mime to plain text or vice-versa, etc. check out the FAQS at http://www.fredsternfeld.com.
______________________________________
please consider a voluntary contribution to support Neohiopal - http://www.fredsternfeld.com/faqs.htm#support
______________________________________
Disclaimer: The facts and/or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the person in the 'from' or 'reply-to' header. The fact that this message is posted should in no way be taken as an endorsement by the administrator of this list. Subscribers should perform due diligence for all goods, services and activities promoted on NEohioPAL.
_____________________________________
NEohioPAL mailing list
http://mailman.listserve.com/listmanager/listinfo/neohiopal

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

______________________________________
NEohioPAL is SELF-SERVE. If you need to unsubscribe, change from digest to one-at-a-time delivery or vice-versa, go on hiatus while out of town, switch from mime to plain text or vice-versa, etc. check out the FAQS at http://www.fredsternfeld.com.
______________________________________
please consider a voluntary contribution to support Neohiopal - http://www.fredsternfeld.com/faqs.htm#support
______________________________________
Disclaimer: The facts and/or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the person in the 'from' or 'reply-to' header. The fact that this message is posted should in no way be taken as an endorsement by the administrator of this list. Subscribers should perform due diligence for all goods, services and activities promoted on NEohioPAL.
_____________________________________
NEohioPAL mailing list
http://mailman.listserve.com/listmanager/listinfo/neohiopal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.neohiopal.org/pipermail/neohiopal-neohiopal.org/attachments/20090817/456ee984/attachment-0003.htm>