Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2016 8:04:38 GMT -5
Due to unprecedented demand from around the world, everyone reading ' The Third' is cordially invited to join Ian McKellen at 18:30 (BST) to discuss the problems and joys of interpreting Shakespeare for the theatre, television, radio and cinema. Shakespeare on Stage, Screen and Elsewhere, with Ian McKellen is sold out, so if you cannot make it tonight, here are Ian McKellen’s favourite Shakespeare roles on film. To be honest, I do not know whether Shakespeare is better on film, at the theatre or elsewhere. Shakespeare’s influence on cinema is profound, while cinema has wholly transformed access to his work. Nevertheless, it is possible that a great stage performance still has the edge?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2016 10:09:34 GMT -5
You may well be right kc, but one thing I would do to Shakespeare is censor him - cut out all those late sixteenth and early seventeenth bits that are too crude for modern souls.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Apr 6, 2016 10:48:23 GMT -5
You may well be right kc, but one thing I would do to Shakespeare is censor him - cut out all those late sixteenth and early seventeenth bits that are too crude for modern souls. Why? And why only to Shakespeare and not also to dramatists from any era up to a generation or so ago? Is it not up to those who attend performances, see movie / radio / television adaptations or read the scripts first to exercise a certain amount of effort in getting to grips with the differences in language use and social and other conventions of earlier eras? ONe might as well make similar observations about reading, say, the Bible in translations that have been made many generations previously!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2016 11:59:18 GMT -5
What do you find too crude, Sydney?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2016 4:04:53 GMT -5
What do you find too crude, Sydney? Kc is tempting me to repeat pecisely what I would like to be censored out. That would be something of a contradiction. Society should have qualified and trustworthy censors, and leave discussion and consideration to those qualified and trustworthy men. This was attempted in Britain until the fifties of the last century, but it did not work very well. The censors of those days were not properly qualified and not trustworthy. A new and unprejudiced lot should be brought back - robotic censors perhaps? Anything would be preferable to the current rule by mob opinion.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Apr 7, 2016 4:29:23 GMT -5
What do you find too crude, Sydney? Kc is tempting me to repeat pecisely what I would like to be censored out. That would be something of a contradiction. Why would it be that? Between what things might you perceive such contradiction to exist? Society should have qualified and trustworthy censors Some societies already do, or did (as indeed you note later), but then how would a 21st century offical arts censor be expected to address literature, drama et al from four centuries ago or thereabouts in terms of its perceived "suitability" and "acceptability" or otherwise for contemporary audiences? Moreover, not everyone will agree with certain items of censorship and not everyone will in any case respond in the same way to this play, that poem, the other novel &c.; what might upset or offend some won't do so to others, just as has always been the case. and leave discussion and consideration to those qualified and trustworthy men But who should be charged with responsibility for the appointment (and, for that matter, replacement) of such officials and how will they themselves be appointed and by whom? Furthermore, you mention only men, thereby introducing your own notion of censorship in leaving the appointment to such positions open only to members of less than half of the population - and presumably you would advocate that only men would appoint the censors, thus exacerbating that censorship (not that either would be allowed or allowable in Western society today, fortunately) - so I don't think that you'd qualify as the most appropriate arbiter in this! This was attempted in Britain until the fifties of the last century, but it did not work very well. The censors of those days were not properly qualified and not trustworthy. A new and unprejudiced lot should be brought back - robotic censors perhaps? Anything would be preferable to the current rule by mob opinion. There's no such thing as "mob opinion"; all in democratic societies and entitled to their own opinions and, whilst some people might share certain opinions, others' opinions will differ widely, including censors and those who would appoint them and regulate and oversee them and their work. Trustworthiness? Trust you to try to fall back on the implausible concept of robotics when you can't think of a better solution and regardless of the fact that robots are designed, manufactured and maintained by humans! How in any case could a robot impose censorship? Can you imagine such a machine entering an opera house hall and managing to order, for example, the cast, conductor and orchestra to cease and desist in its presentation of a production of Die Soldaten? The amused and bemused audience would probably mistakenly assume its presence to be part of that production! But to return to the specifics of the topic, namely Shakespeare (and perhaps some of his dramatist contemporaries), "society" (which you believe should appoint artistic censors appropriate to and for the benefit of all, as if that were possible) was so different in Shakespeare's time to what it is today and the same must be said for the English language and its use even in England alone, let alone anywhere else where it is the principal language; likewise, the very manner in which Shakespeare's plays are presented to audiences is very different to the ways in which they were acted when new In music, the HIPP movement has sought to address the ways in which many composers from before Bach up to Elgar would have been performed when their music was newly composed, in terms of instruments used, playing techniques and other performance traditions; leaving aside the question of the ways in which this has been explored over recent decades, it is clear that the very existence of this movement is predicated upon recognition of these differences and seeking to preserve aspects of an history tht might otherwise risk being overlooked. There are obvious paralllels beteen this and an understanding of Shakespeare in performance, even if no one is necessarily suggesting that his plays should be presented as they might have been in his own time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2016 7:30:02 GMT -5
But who should be charged with responsibility for the appointment (and, for that matter, replacement) of such officials and how will they themselves be appointed and by whom? We already do we not have a system for appointing and replacing a monarch, and that works very well. We also already have a method of appointing and replacing an archbishop of Canterbury, and that works well enough. For a new post of chief censor something along those lines could no doubt be devised, without the least participation of the mob, obviously. It is clear that Mr. H. worries overmuch!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2016 8:40:30 GMT -5
It is true, Sydney, that every society, and every generation, has to determine its stance in relation to the shifting lines between the acceptable and the unacceptable. As far as Shakespeare is concerned, King George III suffered bouts of insanity so all performances of any version of King Lear were banned from the stage during his reign from 1810 to 1820. At roughly the same time, Thomas Bowdler published The Family Shakspeare, an expurgated edition of William Shakespeare's work, edited by his sister Henrietta Maria Bowdler, intended to be more appropriate for nineteenth century women and children than the original. The verb, to bowdlerise, has associated his name with the censorship not only of literature but also of motion pictures and television programmes. Wikipedia - Thomas BowdlerIt is clear, too, that Sydney Grew worries overmuch! I would be tempted to avoid bowdlerisation wherever possible, Sydney. Ian McKellen was a great success at the BFI last night, you can see him there on Twitter, as we were unable to get in. Twitter - BFIAs for Shakespeare on Film, on stage, in music, or elsewhere, what would you recommend?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Apr 7, 2016 8:46:01 GMT -5
But who should be charged with responsibility for the appointment (and, for that matter, replacement) of such officials and how will they themselves be appointed and by whom? We already do we not have a system for appointing and replacing a monarch, and that works very well. In your opinion, perhaps, but that opinion is not even shared by all monarchists in UK. In any event, monarchical succession procedures in UK are based upon familial history bases and there's been a monarchy in UK for quite some time, whereas there is no public arts censor and no one to appoint one other than the UK Parliament in what is fortunately the most unlikely event that it should choose to debate new legislation with a view to passing a law in which procedures for the appointment of such a censor could be enshrined for as long as said law might last; in any case, were there to ever be a government appointed public arts censor, why should the appointment of his/her successor/s be subject to similar familial arrangments as apply to succession procedures for the UK monarch? We also already have a method of appointing and replacing an archbishop of Canterbury, and that works well enough. But for whom and whose benefit? That appointment method relies upon the internal input of the very Church over which said Archbishop presides, yet this is of relevance principally to certain Protestant Christians alone and has little if any impact upon or direct relevance to most of UK's Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Buddhists et al, let alone its agnostics and atheists; accordingly, as the duties of an Archbishop of Canterbury are first and foremost to what's quaintly termed the "Anglican Communion", it is hard to see how government could set up arrangments for the appointment of public arts censors in a manner analogous to the methodology for appointment of Archbishops of Canterbury, not least because (a) Parliament is not the Anglican Church and (b) a censor's duties would be to serve the public as a whole, not just paid-up members of the Anglican Church! For a new post of chief censor something along those lines could no doubt be devised No, most fortunately it couldn't, for reasons including but by no means limited to those outlined above. For that matter, how far into the arts would you expect such a censor's legal duties to extend? Just plays, poetry, novels and other examples of the written and acted word, or would you also advocate it to cover dance, all the visual arts, music and so on? It is clear that Mr. H. worries overmuch! To you, perhaps, but not to me or, I imagine, anyone else, if for no more important reason that that I am not worried at all, lt alone "overmuch", not least because this isn't about to happen and, if it were to do so, UK society would suddenly find itself enmeshed in a world in which Entartete musik became the norm and tinpot arts dictators (even if appointed by a purportedly "democratic" government) were accorded powers over the freedom of speech, publication, music performance and much else besides; just imagine the instant population emigration that would follow from that until the government of the day realised that it must put a stop to its nonsense immediately!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Apr 7, 2016 8:47:57 GMT -5
It is clear, too, that Sydney Grew worries overmuch! No. Not "too". "Instead". See my last post for an explanation of that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2016 0:42:04 GMT -5
It is true, Sydney, that every society, and every generation, has to determine its stance in relation to the shifting lines between the acceptable and the unacceptable. As far as Shakespeare is concerned, King George III suffered bouts of insanity so all performances of any version of King Lear were banned from the stage during his reign from 1810 to 1820. At roughly the same time, Thomas Bowdler published The Family Shakspeare, an expurgated edition of William Shakespeare's work, edited by his sister Henrietta Maria Bowdler, intended to be more appropriate for nineteenth century women and children than the original. The verb, to bowdlerise, has associated his name with the censorship not only of literature but also of motion pictures and television programmes. Wikipedia - Thomas BowdlerIt is clear, too, that Sydney Grew worries overmuch! I would be tempted to avoid bowdlerisation wherever possible, Sydney. Ian McKellen was a great success at the BFI last night, you can see him there on Twitter, as we were unable to get in. Twitter - BFIAs for Shakespeare on Film, on stage, in music, or elsewhere, what would you recommend? We must get hold of that Family Shakespere that you recommend kc. It is undeniable that a good many of Shakespere's plays are unsuitable for exhibition to an audience of nice ladies (and even nice gentlemen). We encourage everyone to apply the nice lady test much more often than is done at present. Compare them (i.e. Shakespere's plays) with the endeavours of George Shaw (often known as Bernard) of which censorship is seldom if ever required. It is obvious who was the better playwright and that Shakespere in the raw is unsuitable for the modern age. I have however recently come into possession of a video of Shakespere's Midsummer Night's Dream, as set in adaption by a curious Englishman, which may not be considered unsuitable for posting here.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Apr 8, 2016 6:29:18 GMT -5
We must get hold of that Family Shakespere that you recommend kc. It is undeniable that a good many of Shakespere's plays are unsuitable for exhibition to an audience of nice ladies (and even nice gentlemen). It's that amorphous "we" again, seeking as usual to bolster the value of an individual opinion by trying but failing to make it sound as though it is widely shared. "It is undeniable"? In whose opinion? Who's unable to do such denying and where's the evidence in support of this assertion? What on earth is "an audience of nice ladies"? and who decides how "nice" they might be and on what grounds?; same question goes for a ditto of "nice gentlemen". Moreover, how often would Shakespeare's - or, for that matter, anyone else's - plays be acted before a single-sex audience in any case? We encourage everyone to apply the nice lady test much more often than is done at present.[/quote What "nice lady test"? Of what does it consist and who devised it and when? Your "more often than...at present" suggests that it is in use somewhere - even if, in your view, insufficient use - so would you be kind enough to provide documentary examples of such in practice? Compare them (i.e. Shakespere's plays) with the endeavours of George Shaw (often known as Bernard) Why - and based upon what parameters - would anyone want to do this? One might as well compare Pirandello's with Marlowe's or either's with Beckett's! of which censorship is seldom if ever required. Leaving aside the fact that censorship is a dangerous thing and is almost never "required", what leads you to the conclusion that Shaw's plays are less in need of it than Shakespeare's? It is obvious who was the better playwright and that Shakespere in the raw is unsuitable for the modern age. It might be obvious to you but certainly not to everyone - and certainly not obvious to everyone just because it's obvious to you! To how many actors, directors and literary scholars, for example, would it be "obvious"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2016 9:38:02 GMT -5
BBC Radio 3 is getting in on the act, announcing the final line-up for Sounds of Shakespeare Season. Come and join presenters including Sean Rafferty, Ian McMillan, Suzy Klein and Sara Mohr-Pietsch as well as actors, musicians, poets, singers and orchestras as they perform songs, film scores, jazz, chamber music, choral works and world music inspired by Shakespeare's words. From the Breakfast show in the morning through to live music in the evening, Radio 3 will be celebrating the anniversary in its pop-up studio and with special Shakespeare-inspired performances in The Other Place's Studio theatre. RSC - BBC Radio 3 Sounds of ShakespeareNow Sydney may have a point. Radio 3 will not be broadcasting Shakespeare in the raw, so is he unsuitable for the modern age? BBC One -The Richard Dimbleby Lecture - Gregory Doran: Is Shakespeare Chinese?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Apr 8, 2016 10:04:35 GMT -5
Now Sydney may have a point. Radio 3 will not be broadcasting Shakespeare in the raw, so is he unsuitable for the modern age? If he does indeed have a point, I am uncertain as to precisely what it might be, not least because I am unclear as to what he means by "Shakespeare in the raw"; as to his suitability for contemporary audiences (Shakespeare's that is - not Sydney's!), I have endeavoured to respond to that question as best I can by asking which actors, directors, literary scholars and the like would even think to question such suitability. Incidentally, I have only ever set Shakespeare twice; once, more years ago than I care to remember, one of the sonnets for tenor and piano and, on the other occasion, not Shakespeare himself per se but a reference to him in Walter Savage Landor's sonnet To Robert Browning which contains the lines Shakspeare is not our poet, but the world’s, Therefore on him no speech! and brief for thee, Browning! Since Chaucer was alive and hale, No man hath walkt along our roads with step So active, so inquiring eye, or tongue So varied in discourse.The composer Alan Bush begins his essay The Greatness of Beethoven ( In my eighth decade and other essays, Kahn & Averill, London, 1980; chapter V, pp. 49-61) with the words "The greatness of Beethoven has never been in question"; by the same token, one might say the same of the ubiquity of Shakespeare who was admired by many composers from his own time to today, not least Shostakovich (a fact which will surely persuade Sydney of his "suitability for modern audiences" if nothing else will!)...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2016 6:03:48 GMT -5
tongue So varied in discourse. But . . . surely concentration is preferable to variety?
|
|