BBC Shakespeare Series for TV
jbar...@concentric.net
they may be obtained?
Thanks for any help
J Barrett
Patty Winter
<jbar...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Does anyone know if the series or parts of it are available and from where
>they may be obtained?
I'll let others fill you in on the (expensive) ordering details,
but if you're willing to put up with commercial breaks in order
to see them for free, a few of them will be airing on April 23rd.
See my posting about WS-related TV for April from last week.
Patty
Okay Fine
longest time.
Eric I
jbar...@concentric.net wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if the series or parts of it are available and from where
> they may be obtained?
Symposium1
>Does anyone know if the series or parts of it are available and from where
>they may be obtained?
Both of these sources are priced at $99.95 per play or $2500 per set, so be
forewarned.
http://www.socialstudies.com/c/@apP8K40yy4gu./Pages/product.html?record@TF25651
They are priced for educuational institutions, which is why they are usually
only found within public and educational libraries.
A few months ago (2/1/2000) Tom Reedy forwarded/posted a message on behalf oa a
woman named Tanya Gough. Here's what she had to say:
<<From Tanya Gough:
PLEASE POST
-------------------------------------------------------
The saga of the BBC videos continues.
As you all may or may not know, I have been trying for several years to
convince the BBC to release their Shakespeare series for home
distribution. After several promising leads which failed to realize, I have
talked to Burton Cromer at the BBC New York office. Burton is in charge of all
home distribution titles in North America.
According to him, the BBC does not feel that there is really a market out there
for their Shakespeare titles. Most of the requests they receive have come from
schools, and they are already being serviced by Ambrose Video, who sells the
titles for about $100 a piece, including public performance rights. The only
serious requests they have received otherwise have been mostly from me, and
they seem to have disregarded the 300+ names I have sent them via petitions and
forwarded e-mails.
Since this is the case, I am asking everyone to take a stand and assist in this
initiative. Call the BBC and ask for Burton Cromer, and then tell him, or his
voice mail, that you, personally want to buy the BBC Shakespeares, but cannot
afford to at the Ambrose rates. Tell your friends and colleagues and urge them
to do the same. Perhaps if we can deluge his office with calls in the next few
weeks, something will finally be done.
The phone number for the BBC NY office is 1-212-705-9300 (fax #
1-212-705-9344).
Ever the grassroots rebel,
Tanya Gough
Poor Yorick - CD & Video Emporium
www.bardcentral.com>>
Hope this is helpful to you.
--Ann
Tony
curing theatre ever applied to tape.
Even the comedies are depressing.
Why anyone would want to endure this is beyond me. The crime is that
millions of schoolchildren will be subjected to them.
There are lots of great videos, some by Mr Brannah, that are fun, exciting
etc.
Well that's my opinion....
--
Thanks
Tony
Symposium1 <sympo...@aol.computer> wrote in message
news:20000418022746...@nso-ck.aol.com...
Sabyha
>This is the most god awful, painfully uninspiring collection of insomnia
>curing theatre ever applied to tape.
>Even the comedies are depressing.
>Why anyone would want to endure this is beyond me. The crime is that
>millions of schoolchildren will be subjected to them.
I agree with you wholeheartedly!!! I have been asked to be a presenter at a
State Drama-in-Education conference here in Australia, and always tell
teachers, "If you want to destroy any hope of your students enjoying
Shakespeare, show them one of the BBC filmed productions". They are revolting,
loathsome and the poorest excuse for Shakespearian acting and productions,
EVER!!!!!!
Cheers!
Jodie - Australia
"O heaven, O earth, Bear witness to this sound!"
Ann Johnson
follow the story even though I'd just read it. In Othello, the whispers
were too soft and the shouting too loud; I couldn't enjoy the dialog because
I was constantly adjusting the volume.
Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing was delightful. I can't imagine
ruining the experience by watching the BBC's version.
"Tony" <t...@lineone.net> wrote in message news:8dp5ub$nui$1...@supernews.com...
> This is the most god awful, painfully uninspiring collection of insomnia
> curing theatre ever applied to tape.
>
> Even the comedies are depressing.
>
> Why anyone would want to endure this is beyond me. The crime is that
> millions of schoolchildren will be subjected to them.
>
Symposium1
been misconstrued.
I am well aware that there are some definite duds, shall we say, stinkers, in
the series. But, when one doesn't live in one of the theater meccas of the
world, chances are the productions of "Henry VI, part 3" and "Timon of Athens"
are few and far between. So, until someone makes a better complete video
series, I think these have some use in the world. (I'm hoping someone like the
RSC does eventually make available a complete video series of live stage
performances, by the way.)
The quality of the series varies widely, due to there being so many different
directors and three producers involved. And, no one ever attempted to make
these BBC products either representative of a stageplay or a feature film.
They were shot unapologetically on simple sound stages, a method of making
teleplays that has completely gone out of fashion.
And even in a pretty lousy production, there is always the opportunity to learn
something. I thought the BBC Much Ado was pretty unremarkable myself, but it
was the first production of the play I saw which gave me the distinct
impression that Benedick goes from being unlikeable to likeable. And Don John
as played by Keanu Reeves was much more annoying than the BBC version, although
I was otherwise delighted with the Branagh version myself.
In article <7AsM4.28610$fV.16...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Ann
Johnson" <Johns...@att.net> writes:
>The BBC's All's Well That End's Well was so murky looking that I couldn't
>follow the story even though I'd just read it. In Othello, the whispers
>were too soft and the shouting too loud; I couldn't enjoy the dialog because
>I was constantly adjusting the volume.
I haven't seen either of these yet. I'll probably see them someday and will
keep your comments in mind.
>Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing was delightful. I can't imagine
>ruining the experience by watching the BBC's version.
I'd much rather run into an unsatisfying video borrowed from the library than
pay $10-50 for a ticket to a theater and see a completely unsatisfying
production. At least, if I don't like the video, I can shut it off and rewind
it without disturbing anyone.
Of the BBC teleplays I've seen, my favorite is 3 Henry VI. I also liked King
John, Richard II, the Jacobi Hamlet, Richard III, Love's Labour's Lost, and
thought Titus Andronicus was okay. I'd possibly buy the first tetralogy if it
were made available for $30 instead of $400.
--Ann
Ann Johnson
on to bigger things (or have fallen) over the years. Patrick Stewart of
Star Trek played Claudius and Derek Jacobi played Hamlet who went on to be
Claudius in Branagh's version (so in 20 years I expect him to be Polonius,
20 years after that, Poor Yorik).
I was amazed at Bob Hoskins playing Iago. In Henry 4, pt.1, I recognized an
actor who went on to do a very funny British sitcom.
I have never seen LaLa Ward (Ophelia) since she was a Dr. Who companion. I
was loved seeing Jacqueline Pearce in a small role in Measure when I'd last
seen her in the Blake's 7 series.
"Symposium1" <sympo...@aol.computer> wrote in message
news:20000422232537...@nso-fa.aol.com...
John T. Kennedy
wrote:
>What I like about the BBC series is trying to pick out actors that have gone
>on to bigger things (or have fallen) over the years. Patrick Stewart of
>Star Trek played Claudius and Derek Jacobi played Hamlet who went on to be
>Claudius in Branagh's version (so in 20 years I expect him to be Polonius,
>20 years after that, Poor Yorik).
>
>I was amazed at Bob Hoskins playing Iago.
I heard Bob Hoskins say he had no idea what Mario Brothers was about
when he signed up to do the film, which I assume was a very healthy
paycheck. His son showed him Mario. Oh my god, he thought, I used to
do Shakespeare!
>In Henry 4, pt.1, I recognized an
>actor who went on to do a very funny British sitcom.
Have not seen it yet but Richard Briers was a big sitcom star and has
had big roles in many of Branagh's productions.
I noticed Refus Sewell who played Fortinbras for Branagh.
-
John Kennedy
The Slave Shall Slave Remain!
http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
Updated 4/22/00
Tony
thanks
Tony
Patrick Porter
canon---each project would take several years, and when they finish they
begin again---for TV, for radio, for movies. They could start at
Stratford and film each production, then maybe go around the world and
film great productions from distant countries. Then stage them all in a
studio setting...
That old BBC series certainly had problems---but they actually finished
it! now somebody has to set out to do it again. And again. And again.
phbp
Brad Filippone
: >Tony wrote:
: >This is the most god awful, painfully uninspiring collection of insomnia
: >curing theatre ever applied to tape.
: >Even the comedies are depressing.
: >Why anyone would want to endure this is beyond me. The crime is that
: >millions of schoolchildren will be subjected to them.
: I agree with you wholeheartedly!!! I have been asked to be a presenter at a
: State Drama-in-Education conference here in Australia, and always tell
: teachers, "If you want to destroy any hope of your students enjoying
: Shakespeare, show them one of the BBC filmed productions". They are revolting,
: loathsome and the poorest excuse for Shakespearian acting and productions,
: EVER!!!!!!
Only a few of them were as you describe them. King Lear was a
masterpiece, and Jacobi's Hamlet is very watchable. I've watched it many
times and his performance as well as Patrick Stewart's Claudius are
memorable and more than make up for the lack of budget.
As You Like It, filmed outdoors is also wonderful.
Brad
Brad Filippone
: My interest in, and occasional praise of, the BBC Shakespeare series has often
: been misconstrued.
: I am well aware that there are some definite duds, shall we say, stinkers, in
: the series. But, when one doesn't live in one of the theater meccas of the
: world, chances are the productions of "Henry VI, part 3" and "Timon of Athens"
: are few and far between. So, until someone makes a better complete video
: series, I think these have some use in the world. (I'm hoping someone like the
: RSC does eventually make available a complete video series of live stage
: performances, by the way.)
I never likes Titus Andronicus much until I saw the version with Trevor
Peacock. They managed to keep the gore down to a minimum (blood flowing
out of Livinia's mouth is the worst it gets) and the play, which
previously I had only read, come to life in a was I couldn't have
imagined. I still havn't seen the recent movie, and I will, but I'm
sceptical that they could manage to keep away from the gore, since these
days, the movie is rare that does this. (Please someone tell me I'm wrong
in this assumption about the movie)
Brad
Sabyha
>Jacobi's Hamlet is very watchable. I've watched it many times and his
performance as well as Patrick Stewart's Claudius are
>memorable and more than make up for the lack of budget.
I hated that version so much. I would rather disembowel myself with a teaspoon
than watch it. And I am the hugest Patrick Stewart fan that ever lived. I
love that man and I thought his Claudius was bloody awful!
Cheers,
Ann Johnson
"Brad Filippone" <al...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:8e6rjq$fn2$9...@News.Dal.Ca...
> Sabyha (sab...@aol.com) wrote:
> : >Tony wrote:
> Only a few of them were as you describe them. King Lear was a
> masterpiece, and Jacobi's Hamlet is very watchable. I've watched it many
> times and his performance as well as Patrick Stewart's Claudius are
> memorable and more than make up for the lack of budget.
Tom Reedy
Haven't seen part 2.
TR
Ann Johnson <Johns...@att.net> wrote in message
news:TvEN4.35720$WF.17...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Patty Winter
Brad Filippone <al...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>
>Only a few of them were as you describe them. King Lear was a
>masterpiece, and Jacobi's Hamlet is very watchable. I've watched it many
>times and his performance as well as Patrick Stewart's Claudius are
>memorable and more than make up for the lack of budget.
I watched it on Sunday and enjoyed it, but was anyone else
bothered by the fact that the director had Jacobi stare
right into the camera when he did his soliloquies? It made
it look as though Hamlet was talking to someone instead of
privately expressing his innermost feelings.
Patty
Brad Filippone
: In article <8e6rjq$fn2$9...@News.Dal.Ca>,
It IS a bit annoying but not as bad as doing the solioquies in voice over
as is done in Julius Caeser (otherwise another excellent edition of the
series)
Brad
John W. Kennedy
> I watched it on Sunday and enjoyed it, but was anyone else
> bothered by the fact that the director had Jacobi stare
> right into the camera when he did his soliloquies? It made
> it look as though Hamlet was talking to someone instead of
> privately expressing his innermost feelings.
He was talking to the audience -- which, in my experience, is the best
way to do the great soliloquies, be they Hamlet's or Benedick's.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
John W. Kennedy
> I never likes Titus Andronicus much until I saw the version with Trevor
> Peacock. They managed to keep the gore down to a minimum (blood flowing
> out of Livinia's mouth is the worst it gets) and the play, which
> previously I had only read, come to life in a was I couldn't have
> imagined. I still havn't seen the recent movie, and I will, but I'm
> sceptical that they could manage to keep away from the gore, since these
> days, the movie is rare that does this. (Please someone tell me I'm wrong
> in this assumption about the movie)
There is little blood, etc., on screen that isn't appropriate (i.e., any
significant reduction would have been an outright disservice to the
text). There's more nudity, I rather fancy, than altogether necessary.
JPWearing
very good indeed, as are quite a number of the other productions. There are
notable flops, but there's considerable value in a good percentage.
Sabyha
>Patty Winter wrote:
>> I watched it on Sunday and enjoyed it, but was anyone else
>> bothered by the fact that the director had Jacobi stare
>> right into the camera when he did his soliloquies? It made
>> it look as though Hamlet was talking to someone instead of
>> privately expressing his innermost feelings.
>
>He was talking to the audience -- which, in my experience, is the best
>way to do the great soliloquies, be they Hamlet's or Benedick's.
Thank you, John!
Cheers!
Tony
If I had to produce something that would persuade millions of schoolchildren
that Shakespeare was boring, uninteresting and no use whatever. I would
create the BBC Shakespeare series.
Shakespeare should be fun, that's how it was intended, lots of laughs, dirty
jokes, great speeches, audience participation etc. A visit to The Globe in
London brings out this in full.
Why on earth should any student suffer these videos when they can watch a
Brannah film, full of life and vigour?
A group of depressed middle to old aged actors standing around in heroic
Shakespearean poses (as if they've just had a haemorrhoid operation), under
cardboard sets.....ugh!
I gather Love's Labour's Lost is now being used to torture prisoners in
Iraq, and Romeo and Juliet should be banned under the statute against cruel
and unusual punishment.
As far as I'm concerned, the producers should be sent to a War Crimes
tribunal, and the lot burned. They have caused endless harm, put a
generation of students off Shakespeare, and the rest.
I suggest they be made available to annoracks, enthusiasts and schollars,
but not be allowed within 100yds of an educational establishment.
Tony
PS
Not all TV plays are bad, Olivier's Lear for Granada TV is quite superb
Lon Ponschock
Agreed. And I think the most enjoyable experience of
watching the whole canon is to find those particular
favorites on an individual basis.
I had never seen a production of Timon of Athens before
the series and it is one of my favorites: a morality
play with a message for today and always.
There is a book on the making of the series
which also gives some insight to the productions.
Having seen some of the original broadcasts with
Jonathan Miller being interviewed, I was disappointed
that these sequences were not included in the tapes.
lon
Patty Winter
John W. Kennedy <jwke...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>He was talking to the audience -- which, in my experience, is the best
>way to do the great soliloquies, be they Hamlet's or Benedick's.
Well yes, I know he was talking to the audience. But acknowledging
someone else's presence puts a different cast on a soliloquy--one
that I think interferes with its introspective nature.
For some reason, though, Branagh's asides to the camera in Much
Ado didn't bother me. But these lengthier staring-into-the-camera
scenes in the Jacobi Hamlet did.
Chacun a son gout...
Patty
Sabyha
>Well yes, I know he was talking to the audience. But acknowledging
>someone else's presence puts a different cast on a soliloquy--one
>that I think interferes with its introspective nature.
The whole point of a soliloquy is that the character reveals his or her
thoughts to the audience. In Shakespeare's day, there was no fourth wall
dividing the action of the play and the audience. Yes the character is talking
about their inner machinations, but they are saying it directly to the
audience.
Robert Stonehouse
>>Patty wrote:
>>Well yes, I know he was talking to the audience. But acknowledging
>>someone else's presence puts a different cast on a soliloquy--one
>>that I think interferes with its introspective nature.
>
>The whole point of a soliloquy is that the character reveals his or her
>thoughts to the audience. In Shakespeare's day, there was no fourth wall
>dividing the action of the play and the audience. Yes the character is talking
>about their inner machinations, but they are saying it directly to the
>audience.
Of course it's for their benefit - indeed, that's what the whole
play is for. But can't we see different ways of speaking to the
audience in, for example, Richard III's 'Now is the winter' and
Brutus's 'It must be by his death'?
So far as I know, soliloquies were not specially common in
Shakespeare's time, except in Shakespeare. Why did he write so many?
They must have been a high point, special to him and his company - a
competitive advantage. So often since they have been found an
embarrassment, which must mean we miss some of the best things in
Shakespeare.
Now that would imply there are as many kinds of soliloquies as there
are of other speeches. I have the impression we don't understand
soliloquies anything like well enough - that they need special
attention which they don't get.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Greg Reynolds
Sabyha wrote:
> >Patty wrote:
>
> >Well yes, I know he was talking to the audience. But acknowledging
> >someone else's presence puts a different cast on a soliloquy--one
> >that I think interferes with its introspective nature.
>
> The whole point of a soliloquy is that the character reveals his or her
> thoughts to the audience. In Shakespeare's day, there was no fourth wall
> dividing the action of the play and the audience. Yes the character is talking
> about their inner machinations, but they are saying it directly to the
> audience.
I agree with you regarding Richard III. He speaks to the room of people in front
of him and seems to have to "return" to the play after he explains himself.
I don't agree with you regarding Angelo in Measure who has two lengthy soliloquies
close together. He seems to be muddling it over, strictly speaking to himself.
I don't think its strict regulation how each/any soliloquist delivers, but Richard
III is boastful and sure of himself, whereas Angelo is the opposite.
And I disagree with "there was no fourth wall dividing the action of the play and
the audience." The fourth wall IS the audience, never a divider. There was just
no camera then, a single spot connecting with the entire audience (not to mention
the power of the close-up).
Greg Reynolds
Tom Lay
Greg Reynolds <eve...@megsinet.net> wrote:
<snip>
> And I disagree with "there was no fourth wall dividing the action of
the play and
> the audience." The fourth wall IS the audience, never a divider.
There was just
> no camera then, a single spot connecting with the entire audience
(not to mention
> the power of the close-up).
>
> Greg Reynolds
>
And to me, some plays do seem to have a somewhat remote feeling, where
it seems that we watch them from afar, as though they were old folk
tales. The Winter's Tale comes to mind. Jonson had some comment to
that effect, calling them "mouldy tales," didn't he?
Tom Lay
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sabyha
>Sabyha wrote:
>> >Patty wrote:
>> >Well yes, I know he was talking to the audience. But acknowledging
>> >someone else's presence puts a different cast on a soliloquy--one that I
think interferes with its introspective nature.
>> The whole point of a soliloquy is that the character reveals his or her
>> thoughts to the audience. In Shakespeare's day, there was no fourth wall
>> dividing the action of the play and the audience. Yes the character is
>talking about their inner machination
>but they are saying it directly to the
>> audience.
>I agree with you regarding Richard III. He speaks to the room of people in
>front of him and seems to have to "return" to the play after he explains
himself.
Yes.
>I don't agree with you regarding Angelo in Measure who has two lengthy
>soliloquies close together. He seems to be muddling it over, strictly speaking
to
>himself.
Angelo is asking questions. One asks a question to receive an answer.
>I don't think its strict regulation how each/any soliloquist delivers, but
>Richard III is boastful and sure of himself, whereas Angelo is the opposite.
I've got to disagree there. Soliloquys are for the audience, as are asides.
They are directed to the audience.
>And I disagree with "there was no fourth wall dividing the action of the play
>and the audience." The fourth wall IS the audience, never a divider.
"The fourth wall" is a realist invention of the late 19th century and came
about with the realist and naturalist movement spearheaded by Constantin
Stanislavski. The whole theory behind "the fourth wall" is that an audience
sits back and "suspends their disbelief" and watches a story unfold before
them. The acting is naturalistic or realistic, in other words,
representational of life. The language is heightened to a degree but it is
either naturalistic or realistic. (To compare it with Shakespeare, it is not
in verse and the prose doesn't have a 'melodic' feel to it). The staging is
as realistic as possible. It is as though a "slice of life" is happening right
before the audience. The staging for realistic and naturalistic plays,
traditionally has been the proscenium arch, or "picture box" theatre. At the
climax of the action, the audience members can achieve a catharsis and leave
the play feeling emotionally drained or tired.
Shakespearian acting appeared some 300 years before the realist and
naturalistic movement and is a presentational form of acting. The audience
know that they actors are "playing". The language is not naturalistic or
realistic. It is heightened whether it is in prose or verse. The staging was
a three-quarter thrust without elaborate sets, (certainly not sets of the
realist and naturalist movements). In a naturalist or realistic play, you will
not see the actors address an audience directly. Yes, there is a suspension of
disbelief, but the "metaxis", the holding of the fictional and the real
context, is always at the forefront of the actors and the audiences mind.
The reason why there is so much *bad* Shakespeare is because directors and
actors today use realist and naturalistic methods (ie: representational
methods) for presentational text. Barton in his book and series, "Playing
Shakespeare" talks about "marrying the two acting traditions". The only part
of the realist acting method that is used in my company is that the actors must
be fully aware of Elizabethan England and the historical era in which the
individual plays are set. The rest of the work is done in the presentational
method, and in my humble opinion, it works beautifully. That's why I get
audiences that say "Did you change the language? How come I can understand
it?"
>There was just no camera then, a single spot connecting with the entire
audience (not to
>mention the power of the close-up).
You weren't privy to an e-mail dialogue I had with Patty, but I am purist and
don't believe in the filming of Shakespearian plays. They are usually
dreadful. Give me a live, presentational performance anyday.
Sabyha
I have a web site. You can click on the little William Shakespeare and go to
the T-I-E page and there is a picture of a sleeping Imogen from my Cymbeline
production. I put it in just for you!
http://hometown.aol.com/powtied/pow1.html
Greg Reynolds
Sabyha wrote:
> Greg,
> I have a web site. You can click on the little William Shakespeare and go to
> the T-I-E page and there is a picture of a sleeping Imogen from my Cymbeline
> production. I put it in just for you!
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/powtied/pow1.html
>
Wow!
Thanks, Jodie, two minutes in photoshop and no more Iachimo!
Robert Stonehouse
>>I don't agree with you regarding Angelo in Measure who has two lengthy
>>soliloquies close together. He seems to be muddling it over, strictly speaking
>to
>>himself.
>
>Angelo is asking questions. One asks a question to receive an answer.
I think we must mean different things by what we say. For example,
nobody says a soliloquy should be spoken so that the audience can't
hear it. But, on the other hand, would it be to the point to speak
Angelo's soliloquy so that the audience were shouting out answers?
Surely that would turn it into a joke, and it's not meant to be a
joke.
I have seen Angelo's soliloquy get a round of applause, without
being spoken in a declamatory manner and also without disrupting the
performance. But it was not interrupted.
Some of the soliloquies, like 'Now is the winter', are pretty much
straight exposition. But there are others that are very far from
straight.
I think of the Brutus one and Hamlet's 'Oh, that this too too solid
flesh'. We have had questions about both from schoolchildren who had
to paraphrase them and were finding it very hard work, because the
thought is so disjointed. (Setting a question like that seems to me
cruel and inhuman treatment.)
Now, this disjointedness is surely meant to be a depiction of a
person's thought processes. This is someone thinking aloud, not
delivering an oration. How it gets across to the audience is a
matter for the actor to settle, but the audience must look on it as
thinking aloud.
Of course, discussing a thing like this in writing is necessarily
unsatisfactory. It's like reading a play from a book. What we need
is to see it done. Then, there would probably be no disagreement
about 'That is a good way to do it' or even possibly 'the right
way'.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
JPWearing
types. The terms are not the same thing (nor is the willing suspension of
disbelief original to Stanislavski--go back at least half a century earlier).
Properly speaking, naturalism refers to the theory that people are molded by
and determined by their environment and that they have no control over events.
A perfect example of this is Hauptmann's "The Weavers." The confusion between
naturalism and realism arises because a naturalist play uses realism to achieve
its effects. At its height realism can actually be seen in ninettenth century
melodrama (e.g. burning buildings, trains on stage), or in aquadramas--e.g. at
Covent Garden in the early 1800s when the auditorium was flooded and naval
battles staged.
It is really preferable to use the term realism for most "slice of life" plays
and the means to achieve them. Naturalism should be reserved for the theory
mentioned above. The term, of course, is also widely used when talking about
naturalistic novels--e.g. by Zola in France or Norris or Drieser in the US.
A little more presicion in this ng would be a blessing, to say the least,
especially when terms are bandied about by so called expert practitioners.
Sabyha
>The conflating here of realism and naturalism is so typical of so theatre
>types. The terms are not the same thing (nor is the willing suspension of
>disbelief original to Stanislavski--go back at least half a century earlier).
Did I say that Stanislavski was the first to coin the term "suspension of
disbelief"? I don't think so.
>Properly speaking, naturalism refers to the theory that people are molded by
>and determined by their environment and that they have no control over
>events.
It was also a movement in the theatre. I have never been a fan of naturalism.
I find it tedious and boring.>A perfect example of this is Hauptmann's "The
Weavers." The confusion between
>naturalism and realism arises because a naturalist play uses realism to
>achieve
>its effects. At its height realism can actually be seen in ninettenth century
>melodrama (e.g. burning buildings, trains on stage), or in aquadramas--e.g. at
>Covent Garden in the early 1800s when the auditorium was flooded and naval
battles staged.
Oh dear, the realist movement was a movement against melodrama. Have you never
read the criticism of a noted realist playwright about the actor Sarah
Bernhardt and her "melodramatic" acting.
>
>It is really preferable to use the term realism for most "slice of life" plays
>and the means to achieve them. Naturalism should be reserved for the theory
mentioned above.
Well, if you want to be snooty about it, then I suggest you take it up with
theatre practitioners. I am sure they would love to hear that you have claimed
the naturalist movement for what you mentioned above.
The term, of course, is also widely used when talking about naturalistic
novels--e.g. by Zola in France or Norris or Drieser in the US.
I was referring to the movements in the theatre, which appears you don't have
the most indepth knowledge about.
>A little more presicion in this ng would be a blessing, to say the least,
especially when terms are bandied about by so called expert practitioners.
Who is the expert practitioner? Pray, do tell.
Sabyha
>I think we must mean different things by what we say. For example,
>nobody says a soliloquy should be spoken so that the audience can't
>hear it.
No, I wasn't referring to that.
>But, on the other hand, would it be to the point to speak Angelo's soliloquy
so that the audience were shouting out answers?
No, I am not trying to say that the audience should be shouting out answer to
Angelo's question. But he is asking the question directly to the audience
because he doesn't understand what is happening. I have done a lot of work
when it comes to the delivery of soliloquys. No, I can't cite authorities, I
can only speak of practice. We tried it with the fourth wall, and with out the
fourth wall. Without the fourth wall was so engaging for the audience. In my
training, we worked to destroy an pretense of the fourth wall. It created
engaging theatre. Very powerful theatre.
>I have seen Angelo's soliloquy get a round of applause, without being spoken
in a declamatory manner and also without disrupting the performance. But it was
not interrupted.
Which soliloquy are referring to? I want to cry during one of them.
snip
>Of course, discussing a thing like this in writing is necessarily
>unsatisfactory. It's like reading a play from a book. What we need
>is to see it done. Then, there would probably be no disagreement
>about 'That is a good way to do it' or even possibly 'the right
I don't think there is such a thing as "the right way" or "wrong way"... it is
more what works best for the actor and the audience
Cheers
Tom Reedy
news:20000501094800...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
<snip>
> At its height realism can actually be seen in ninettenth century
> melodrama (e.g. burning buildings, trains on stage), or in
aquadramas--e.g. at
> Covent Garden in the early 1800s when the auditorium was flooded and naval
> battles staged.
The Romans did this, also. And even more realistically--the participants in
the battles actually killed each other.
TR
JPWearing
"Nineteenth Century Theatre Research," (now called "Nineteenth Century
Theatre"), a journal I edited for some fifteen years. I won't bother you with
my other qualifications which you would dismiss out of hand. Regardless, your
original discussion of realism and naturalism was confused and confusing,
though you now do seem to acknowledge some difference.
John W. Kennedy
theater, and 99% of the popular successes, have been presented and
praised as "more natural" and "more realistic".
We unfortunately live in an age when extreme naturalism/realism (or what
passes for it -- a single episode of "COPS" shows just how "natural" it
all is in honest fact) has become a vulgar shibboleth. (Look at the
quick demise of "Cop Rock", which was, in purely dramatic terms, quite
possibly Bochco's finest achievement.)
--
-John W. Kennedy
-jwk...@attglobal.net
Sabyha
Firstly, don't you dare patronise me or try to be familiar with me. Secondly,
I won't bother you with my qualifications, which I don't feel the need to share
with anyone. I don't need to shove academic qualifications down anyone's
throat. You seem to feel the need.
Tom Reedy
news:20000501190755...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
Damn, JP! What did you do to her? She's always so sweet to Rob, Nigel,
John, and me! You must have tickled her inferiority-complex button.
TR
Greg Reynolds
Sabyha wrote:
> >Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> >Sabyha wrote:
> >> >Patty wrote:
> >> >Well yes, I know he was talking to the audience. But acknowledging
> >> >someone else's presence puts a different cast on a soliloquy--one that I
> think interferes with its introspective nature.
>
> >> The whole point of a soliloquy is that the character reveals his or her
> >> thoughts to the audience. In Shakespeare's day, there was no fourth wall
> >> dividing the action of the play and the audience. Yes the character is
> >talking about their inner machination
> >but they are saying it directly to the
> >> audience.
>
> >I agree with you regarding Richard III. He speaks to the room of people in
> >front of him and seems to have to "return" to the play after he explains
> himself.
>
> Yes.
>
> >I don't agree with you regarding Angelo in Measure who has two lengthy
> >soliloquies close together. He seems to be muddling it over, strictly speaking
> to
> >himself.
>
> Angelo is asking questions. One asks a question to receive an answer.
No way. The day the audience answers a question in a soliloquy is the day I commit
theatre patroncide. Angelo is asking of himself, and has no answers. Here's
context of the two I have in mind:
Act 2, Scene 2:
ANGELO
>From thee, even from thy virtue!
What's this, what's this? Is this her fault or mine?
The tempter or the tempted, who sins most?
Ha!
Not she: nor doth she tempt: but it is I
That, lying by the violet in the sun,
Do as the carrion does, not as the flower,
Corrupt with virtuous season. Can it be
That modesty may more betray our sense
Than woman's lightness? Having waste ground enough,
Shall we desire to raze the sanctuary
And pitch our evils there? O, fie, fie, fie!
What dost thou, or what art thou, Angelo?
Dost thou desire her foully for those things
That make her good? O, let her brother live!
Thieves for their robbery have authority
When judges steal themselves. What, do I love her,
That I desire to hear her speak again,
And feast upon her eyes? What is't I dream on?
O cunning enemy, that, to catch a saint,
With saints dost bait thy hook! Most dangerous
Is that temptation that doth goad us on
To sin in loving virtue: never could the strumpet,
With all her double vigour, art and nature,
Once stir my temper; but this virtuous maid
Subdues me quite. Even till now,
When men were fond, I smiled and wonder'd how.
+++
There could be no eye contact as he builds his rhetoric--this is all new to him,
lusting after chastity, torn by both his lust and his guilt. The nice feature of
soliloquies is that they are sincere. I think we tried to find someone lying in
sol and we couldn't.
And now Scene 2, Act 4:
ANGELO
When I would pray and think, I think and pray
To several subjects. Heaven hath my empty words;
Whilst my invention, hearing not my tongue,
Anchors on Isabel: Heaven in my mouth,
As if I did but only chew his name;
And in my heart the strong and swelling evil
Of my conception. The state, whereon I studied
Is like a good thing, being often read,
Grown fear'd and tedious; yea, my gravity,
Wherein--let no man hear me--I take pride,
Could I with boot change for an idle plume,
Which the air beats for vain. O place, O form,
How often dost thou with thy case, thy habit,
Wrench awe from fools and tie the wiser souls
To thy false seeming! Blood, thou art blood:
Let's write good angel on the devil's horn:
'Tis not the devil's crest.
+++
Angelo is now answering his own questions, probably to get needed clearance for
his own conscience.
> >I don't think its strict regulation how each/any soliloquist delivers, but
> >Richard III is boastful and sure of himself, whereas Angelo is the opposite.
>
> I've got to disagree there. Soliloquys are for the audience, as are asides.
> They are directed to the audience.
Hi. Every word in the play is directed to the audience.
Soliloquies may or not acknowledge that there is an audience present--I say the
Richard III does and the Angelo doesn't. They need the charisma built in.
I feel it is used more as a quick step for the script. The inside story aloud.
Saves time and the cumbersome interlude with the other(s) needed to extract the
same information. He is a poet first! We are very attentive to both ways of
telling the tale, but the soliloquies are like the Bonneville salt flats--no
congestion, no traffic, no speed limits. Just let it out!
> >And I disagree with "there was no fourth wall dividing the action of the play
> >and the audience." The fourth wall IS the audience, never a divider.
>
> "The fourth wall" is a realist invention of the late 19th century and came
> about with the realist and naturalist movement spearheaded by Constantin
> Stanislavski. The whole theory behind "the fourth wall" is that an audience
> sits back and "suspends their disbelief" and watches a story unfold before
> them. The acting is naturalistic or realistic, in other words,
> representational of life. The language is heightened to a degree but it is
> either naturalistic or realistic. (To compare it with Shakespeare, it is not
> in verse and the prose doesn't have a 'melodic' feel to it). The staging is
> as realistic as possible. It is as though a "slice of life" is happening right
> before the audience. The staging for realistic and naturalistic plays,
> traditionally has been the proscenium arch, or "picture box" theatre. At the
> climax of the action, the audience members can achieve a catharsis and leave
> the play feeling emotionally drained or tired.
>
> Shakespearian acting appeared some 300 years before the realist and
> naturalistic movement and is a presentational form of acting. The audience
> know that they actors are "playing". The language is not naturalistic or
> realistic. It is heightened whether it is in prose or verse. The staging was
> a three-quarter thrust without elaborate sets, (certainly not sets of the
> realist and naturalist movements). In a naturalist or realistic play, you will
> not see the actors address an audience directly.
I'm hugely against eye contact with a camera always. No story is allowed to
include the viewer, it wrecks the fantasy that the audience member paid for > > I
mean that the audience is totally immersed emotionally, but the eye contact
immediately reduce the 'observant participant' to 'the guy in Row 3'. What I mean
is that the eye contact kills the illusion theatre provides (when done through a
camera).
> Yes, there is a suspension of
> disbelief, but the "metaxis", the holding of the fictional and the real
> context, is always at the forefront of the actors and the audiences mind.
The dictionaries in my hemisphere don't mention metaxis but we're on the same
ground.
> The reason why there is so much *bad* Shakespeare is because directors and
> actors today use realist and naturalistic methods (ie: representational
> methods) for presentational text. Barton in his book and series, "Playing
> Shakespeare" talks about "marrying the two acting traditions". The only part
> of the realist acting method that is used in my company is that the actors must
> be fully aware of Elizabethan England and the historical era in which the
> individual plays are set. The rest of the work is done in the presentational
> method, and in my humble opinion, it works beautifully. That's why I get
> audiences that say "Did you change the language? How come I can understand
> it?"
> <>
> You weren't privy to an e-mail dialogue I had with Patty, but I am purist and
> don't believe in the filming of Shakespearian plays. They are usually
> dreadful. Give me a live, presentational performance anyday.
Okay, but if Shakespeare had a camera, he would have used it.
Oh, and get a shot of Imogen walking into the cave if you can.
Nice talking to you again,
Greg Reynolds
Sabyha
You and I are going to have to agree to disagree about soliloquys! Hehehehe!
The first Angelo speech you were talking about, I had the privilege of watching
Kevin Coleman workshop with a young actor. He did the 'fourth wall' thang, and
then with the audience contact. It was mesmorising.
Do I want an audience to yell out.. Nope... but the characters are asking
questions. You ask a question to get an answer. At that moment when the
character is asking the question, they don't know the answer. Then through
their thought processes they come to an answer.
As for Imogen going into the cave. Hehehehe. She had a lovely little outfit
in the same material that her dress is in. Cute hat and all. She looked
adorable carrying her sword that was too heavy for her. The tech fell in love
with her. So did the audience.
It always great having a chat with you, Greg.
Cheers!
Sabyha
>Damn, JP! What did you do to her? She's always so sweet to Rob, Nigel,
>John, and me! You must have tickled her inferiority-complex button.
I don't have an inferiority complex. I just don't suffer fools or patronising
men who want to "bedazzle" me with academia. I find it rather tiresome. My
nickname in Oz is "bulldozer". I am very fond of that nickname. It suits me
to a tee.
Robert Stonehouse
>> ew...@bcs.org.uk wrote:
>>I think we must mean different things by what we say. For example,
>>nobody says a soliloquy should be spoken so that the audience can't
>>hear it.
>
>No, I wasn't referring to that.
>
>>But, on the other hand, would it be to the point to speak Angelo's soliloquy
>so that the audience were shouting out answers?
>
>No, I am not trying to say that the audience should be shouting out answer to
>Angelo's question. But he is asking the question directly to the audience
>because he doesn't understand what is happening. I have done a lot of work
>when it comes to the delivery of soliloquys. No, I can't cite authorities, I
>can only speak of practice. We tried it with the fourth wall, and with out the
>fourth wall. Without the fourth wall was so engaging for the audience. In my
>training, we worked to destroy an pretense of the fourth wall. It created
>engaging theatre. Very powerful theatre.
Is it, for example, the difference between a play and a film? In a
film, the actors have no real-time awareness of the audience and the
audience know that. This, I would say, is the reason why Shakespeare
films miss so much of the point.
Now, if you are saying that actors must interact with the audience,
in soliloquies as well as in other parts of the play, I am with you
one hundred and ten per cent. The only problem was in understanding
one another.
>>I have seen Angelo's soliloquy get a round of applause, without being spoken
>in a declamatory manner and also without disrupting the performance. But it was
>not interrupted.
>
>Which soliloquy are referring to? I want to cry during one of them.
'When I would pray and think', at the beginning of Act 2 scene 4. It
made his decision understandable - not moral, but credible - the
kind of thing we could see ourselves doing.
I have always had trouble with that, and maybe the (other)
applauders had too and felt the right way of doing this soliloquy
saved the play. If Angelo is unintelligible, it spoils things - at
least nowadays. And if not then, why did the playwright bother with
this soliloquy?
>
>snip
>>Of course, discussing a thing like this in writing is necessarily
>>unsatisfactory. It's like reading a play from a book. What we need
>>is to see it done. Then, there would probably be no disagreement
>>about 'That is a good way to do it' or even possibly 'the right
>
>I don't think there is such a thing as "the right way" or "wrong way"... it is
>more what works best for the actor and the audience
Well, let's keep trying! This is not just an empty slogan.
Philosophically speaking, when there may or may not be a right way,
trying is the only way to find out.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Robert Stonehouse
Can you quote a reference? I know they sometimes staged executions
(Laureolus) using a real criminal, but this one is new to me. The
theatre was not a gladiatorial arena, as a rule.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Tom Reedy
I was referring to gladitorial contests in the coliseum, not in the
theatre. Sorry for the mixup, but I was taking the key word to be
"aquadramas."
TR
Brad Filippone
: So far as I know, soliloquies were not specially common in
: Shakespeare's time, except in Shakespeare. Why did he write so many?
Actually solioquies were very commmon. I've read most of the other
playwirtes of his period and all of them employ soliloquies.
Brad
John W. Kennedy
> Maybe my problem is in understanding what 'the fourth wall' means.
> Is it, for example, the difference between a play and a film?
Not technically -- a film (even a film as lowbrow as the recent
"Inspector Gadget") can break the fourth wall, and many stage plays
(certainly all those in the Ibsen-Miller line) keep a very solid fourth
wall. It's all in the approach. (An extreme case on one side was "It's
Gary Shandling's Show", where the hero and some of the other characters
constantly made remarks both to the studio audience and the camera. In
one notable scene, Shandling was at a community meeting, and started to
discuss what was going on with the audience, prefacing his remarks with,
"It's all right; they [the other people at the meeting] can't hear me
when I'm talking to the camera.")
The technical meaning is simply this: in a proscenium stage, there are
three walls (mostly with doors in 'em) on a normal interior set (and
most of the action in the Ibsen-Miller line is interior) -- the upstage
wall, the stage right wall, and the stage left wall. The fourth wall is
the invisible wall at the proscenium, where the room the action is
supposedly taking place in would have a fourth wall, a wall that, for
theatrical convenience, is supposed to be visible to the characters, but
invisible to the audience.
Now, the plain fact is that, in practice, Shakespeare works best when
the fourth wall isn't there. He doesn't play games with it, as
Stoppard, say, does, but the actors should. I've seen a Benedick
actually pick out women in the audience and flirt with them during the
"One woman is..." passage. (Actually, the actor in question was gay,
but in Art's name....) When I'm auditioning with "Is there no way for
men to be...?", when I get to "Me of my lawful pleasure she restrained,"
I pick out a man among the auditors and address the complaint to him, as
though having a semi-private conversation in a bar.
(It all reminds me of the famous advice for strippers....)
> In a
> film, the actors have no real-time awareness of the audience and the
> audience know that. This, I would say, is the reason why Shakespeare
> films miss so much of the point.
It's a problem. That's why some modern films address soliloquies
directly to the camera, or do them as V.O., or imitate the conventions
used for songs in musicals.
John W. Kennedy
> No way. The day the audience answers a question in a soliloquy is the day I commit
> theatre patroncide.
In Shakespeare (and with an adult audience), I'd agree with you. But I
gather "The Entertainer" supposes a certain amount of audience
backchat. When Paul Barry did it in '83 or so, he was rather
disappointed that American audiences were too overwhelmed at being in
the Temple of Theatre to cooperate.
> I'm hugely against eye contact with a camera always. No story is allowed to
> include the viewer, it wrecks the fantasy that the audience member paid for > > I
> mean that the audience is totally immersed emotionally, but the eye contact
> immediately reduce the 'observant participant' to 'the guy in Row 3'. What I mean
> is that the eye contact kills the illusion theatre provides (when done through a
> camera).
But that is no more than to say it is _your_ habit. Others have felt
differently. What of Groucho Marx? (Or Bugs Bunny, for that matter.)
> > Yes, there is a suspension of
> > disbelief, but the "metaxis", the holding of the fictional and the real
> > context, is always at the forefront of the actors and the audiences mind.
> The dictionaries in my hemisphere don't mention metaxis but we're on the same
> ground.
...including the OED and, for good measure, the Abridged Liddell and
Scott. It would appear to relate to "metaxy" -- "between".
Robert Stonehouse
>Greg Reynolds wrote:
...
>> > Yes, there is a suspension of
>> > disbelief, but the "metaxis", the holding of the fictional and the real
>> > context, is always at the forefront of the actors and the audiences mind.
>
>> The dictionaries in my hemisphere don't mention metaxis but we're on the same
>> ground.
>
>...including the OED and, for good measure, the Abridged Liddell and
>Scott. It would appear to relate to "metaxy" -- "between".
Might it perhaps be 'metataxis', a transposition, a change in the
order of battle, a changing of sides?
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Sabyha
The word "metaxis", the holding of the fictional and real context in the mind,
was a term first coined (to my knowledge) by Dr Brad Haseman.
Lon Ponschock
Thanks for the concise description of 4th wall John.
While I was reading your description (included below) and though it
is not strictly a Shakespeare reference, I wondered how
Pirandello's "Six Characters" fit in 4th wall theory (?)
lon
>--
John W. Kennedy
>
> Thanks for the concise description of 4th wall John.
>
> While I was reading your description (included below) and though it
> is not strictly a Shakespeare reference, I wondered how
> Pirandello's "Six Characters" fit in 4th wall theory (?)
"Six Characters" plays games with the art/reality dichotomy in the same
way that breaking the 4th wall does, not only in the device of the
"characters", but in such touches as having the "theater" characters use
their real names. However, it doesn't engage in breaking the 4th wall
itself; as far as that goes, it's relentlessly realistic (unless I
misremember -- it's been a few years).