Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2013 1:57:13 GMT -5
Salutations to everyone reading The Third! Join us all at 18:30 (GMT) for 19:30 this evening.  The Dreamer Examines his PillowWe are living through a remarkable cultural renaissance at the beginning of the twenty-first century. William Shakespeare, eat your heart out!  I should add that when Shakespeare first moved to London from Stratford-upon-Avon, he probably lived in Shoreditch. He would not have drunk at the Old Red Lion in Islington, Sydney Grew, it did not exist at the time, but what about you?  Old Red LionSee you all there! Cheers (breakfast coffee)! As you all probably know, Islington is the spiritual home of New Labour. ' Granita' was a restaurant at 127 Upper Street, Islington, although it closed down in 2004. It has a certain prominence in British politics, as in late May 1994, it was the setting for the alleged 'Blair-Brown deal' between the then shadow Home Secretary, Tony Blair, and the then shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown. Curiously, kleines c was around the corner at the Almeida Theatre seeing an excellent production of Synge's ' Playboy of the Western World', Gerard, so kleines c is perhaps more playboy, and more New Labour, than either Tony or Gordon. These arrivisites at Granita's never really knew what was going on in the backstreets of Islington. Back in 1994, what they became were playboys of the Western World, and would-be crusaders to the Eastern World. Funnily enough, Granita's was replaced by a Mexican restaurant called ' Desperados' at 127 Upper Street, Islington, in 2004. New Labour became increasingly desperate during the course of the 'noughties. If you feel so inclined, you can still have a meal at Desperados, although I believe that it has now relocated southwards to 67 Upper Street! DesperadosIn terms of economics, the Holy Trinity of New Labour, Tony, Gordon and Peter (Mandelson), not to mention the concurrent Presidents of the United States of America (USA), Bill (Clinton) and George W. (Bush), Neil, all failed to foresee the consequences of their profligacy. Unfortunately, we now live with those consequences.  |
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Feb 27, 2013 2:48:12 GMT -5
A lady has written in to let us know that, as the elegant Mr. MacGregor says, "Objects do what textual criticism cannot," and it is the rôle of museums to build up panoramas from fragments; but there is a danger that by focusing on a single object, that object is transformed into a cultural icon, wrenched from its context, its meaning encapsulated in itself and in the present, and consequently misunderstood. Any attempt to interpret the past is in danger of telling us more about our own age, and current scholarly fashion, than about that past - one thinks does one not of the highly dirigiste interpretations of Stubbs in the exhibition at the ungrammatically named 'Tate Britain' in 2007, or of many of the current labels at Kelvingrove; and this may be apparent in MacGregor's focus on early modern Catholics. It is also in line with current scholarly fashion, correcting the attitude summed up by Eric Crozier in Albert Herring as "The Bible, Shakespeare, and Foxe - three quoin-stones of our National Heritage!", but the balance is now tilted the other way. Of course as every one now knows Foxe entered Brasenose at sixteen.
MacGregor claims that the early modern playhouse was unique to England. Here he should have consulted Mr. Bowsher, who refers to the Spanish corral theatres and the important playhouse in Gdansk, as well as unspecified Italian parallels. Neither author mentions the intriguing Loggia Cornaro (commenced 1524) in Padua, which must have been known to many English visitors, or the stage in the London garden of John Rastell, which may predate the Loggia.
|
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on Feb 27, 2013 3:25:58 GMT -5
The history of playhouses in England before the Elizabethan age (and indeed during it) divides sharply into public playhouses, and theatres in private homes and premises. There's considerable interest currently in theatre in the early Tudor period.
Of course, a playhouse isn't a necessity for a play.
The York Mystery Plays are examples of a prevalent genre of playgiving that was found throughout medieval Europe.
Still earlier were the sacred dramas and mysteries - of which the most important musical example is THE PLAY OF DANIEL, which we know for certain (from textual references within the PLAY itself) was performed in 1222.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2013 3:26:01 GMT -5
It is quite possible that Neil MacGregor should not have used the word 'unique', Gerard. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017gm45English Renaissance theatre, also known as early modern English theatre, refers to the theatre of England, largely based in London, which occurred between 1567, when the first English theatre 'The Red Lion' was opened; and the closure of the theatres in 1642. It includes the drama of William Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe and many other famous playwrights. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Renaissance_theatreAs it happens, I took part in a live blog with Neil MacGregor last year, and we discussed the Scottish play and Shakespeare's attitude towards union with the Scots! www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radio4/2012/04/shakespeare_live_blog_with_nei.htmlI suspect that the Scots will vote for independence next year, so in March 2016, the United Kingdom (UK) will finally come to an end. What a union it has been, Neil McGowan! Out of interest, are you of Scottish ancestry? |
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on Feb 27, 2013 4:42:07 GMT -5
This is a highly selective view of the history of the theatre in England, frankly. Considerably (by a century!) earlier than the Red Lion theatre, there had been plays on the scale and scope of The Castle of Perseverance, of which we even have a sketch of the layout of the auditorium:  Of course, it is greatly mistaken to talk about 'theatres' at all, since all of the later theatres in the Elizabethan and Jacobean era were open-air in any case - because of the issue of lighting (or rather, its complete absence). There's really little difference between a purpose-built Shakespearean theatre like the Curtain and the Cockpit, and an outdoor stage erected in the market square in Chester, York, or Wakefield. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Feb 27, 2013 5:36:17 GMT -5
As it happens, I took part in a live blog with Neil MacGregor last year . . . So you did! I had no idea that Mr. MacGregor had been on the wireless: we are at every moment guided through by greater Powers are we not. "God is the perfect poet, Who in his person acts his own creations." More than a mere happening then. Do you follow scientific fiction kleines c? And it will doubtless interest Mr. McGowan to learn that the two books in question are MacGregor's "Shakespeare's Restless World" and Bowsher's "Shakespeare's London Theatreland," reviewed together by a Miss Wilson in the T.L.S. of February the first - although having seen Mr. McGowan's erudite contribution I have the feeling that he knows rather more about the subject than do either of those two men. The review is headed "Forks and Shoes" and at the top of the page there is a photographic image of a so-called "sucket fork," used for eating sweetmeats, and excavated from the site of London's Rose Theatre. |
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on Feb 27, 2013 5:58:28 GMT -5
Mr MacGregor is an intellect of considerable acumen, and it would be a pleasure to sneak into his garden now and then  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2013 6:09:13 GMT -5
If I may address your question directly, Gerard: "Do you follow scientific fiction kleines c?" Yes, as a scientist myself, I am naturally very interested in scientific fiction, and even science fiction. According to Wikipedia, science fiction is difficult to define, as it includes a wide range of subgenres and themes. Author and editor Damon Knight summed up the difficulty, saying "science fiction is what we point to when we say it", a definition echoed by author Mark C. Glassy, who argues that the definition of science fiction is like the definition of pornography: you don't know what it is, but you know it when you see it. Vladimir Nabokov argued that if we were rigorous with our definitions, Shakespeare's play ' The Tempest' would have to be termed science fiction. ' The Tempest' is one of my favourite plays. According to science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein, "a handy short definition of almost all science fiction might read: realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method." Rod Serling's definition is "fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science fiction is the improbable made possible." Lester del Rey wrote, "Even the devoted aficionado—or fan—has a hard time trying to explain what science fiction is", and that the reason for there not being a "full satisfactory definition" is that "there are no easily delineated limits to science fiction." As a means of understanding the world through speculation and storytelling, science fiction has antecedents back to mythology, though precursors to science fiction as literature can be seen in Lucian's ' True History' in the 2nd century AD/CE, some of the ' Arabian Nights' tales, ' The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter' in the 10th century and Ibn al-Nafis' ' Theologus Autodidactus' in the 13th century. A product of the budding Age of Reason and the development of modern science itself, Jonathan Swift's ' Gulliver's Travels' was one of the first true science fantasy works, together with Voltaire's ' Micromégas' (1752) and Johannes Kepler's ' Somnium' (1620–1630). Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan consider the latter work the first science fiction story. It depicts a journey to the Moon and how the Earth's motion is seen from there. Another example is Ludvig Holberg's novel ' Nicolai Klimii iter subterraneum', 1741. (Translated to Danish by Hans Hagerup in 1742 as Niels Klims underjordiske Rejse.) (Eng. Niels Klim's Underground Travels.) Brian Aldiss has argued that Mary Shelley's ' Frankenstein' (1818) was the first work of science fiction. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fictionAs I am also interested in film, I would recommend ' 2001: A Space Odyssey' to everyone reading The Third. Stanley Kubrick took science fiction cinema in a grandly intelligent new direction with this epic story of man’s quest for knowledge. A year before the first moon landing, Stanley Kubrick envisioned an outer space where vast spacecraft revolve weightlessly to the strains of Johann Strauss’s ' Blue Danube waltz. 2001 revolutionised the depiction of the cosmos on film, at the same time – with the HAL-9000 computer that fatally malfunctions during a mission to Jupiter – sounding a warning about unbridled technological advance. Beginning with primordial apes discovering tools and climaxing with astronaut David Bowman (Keir Dullea) travelling beyond the limits of the known universe, Kubrick’s film was an intellectual (and psychedelic) event in the late 1960s. A ‘match cut’ which quickly replaces a bone thrown upwards by an ape with a similarly shaped spaceship floating through space, thereby compressing millennia of human evolution, is justly celebrated. explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b6b9450a5Have you got any particular favourites, Gerard? |
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on Feb 27, 2013 7:35:16 GMT -5
Vladimir Nabokov argued that if we were rigorous with our definitions, Shakespeare's play ' The Tempest' would have to be termed science fiction. ' The Tempest' is one of my favourite plays. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2013 12:49:41 GMT -5
I don't think that it quite matches the play, Neil McGowan, although it is an interesting comparison. According to ' The Guardian', here are the top ten sci-fi films: www.guardian.co.uk/life/news/page/0,12983,1290764,00.html ' Blade Runner' beats ' 2001: A Space Odyssey', Gerard! Of course, it is all ultimately a matter of taste, Sydney Grew, and I am not particularly keen on the genre, so take it or leave it. A good rough test as to the efficacy of art, in my opinion (as a scientist), is whether we feel that it is reconciling us with life. What do you all reckon? |
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on Feb 27, 2013 13:13:19 GMT -5
I don't think that it quite matches the play, Neil McGowan, although it is an interesting comparison. In fact FORBIDDEN PLANET is a very tightly-constructed sci-fi version of The Tempest. The dialogue, of course, has been completely re-written, although as movie dialogue it's rather good-quality within its own genre  THE TEMPEST was the last play which was entirely Shakespeare's own work - Henry VIII, Cardenio, and Two Noble Kinsmen were collaborations with Fletcher. It's interesting to speculate if Shakespeare knew it would be his last play? Is this, perhaps, his own farewell to the stage?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.
William Shakespeare
From The Tempest, Act 4 Scene 1 But if we don't want FORBIDDEN PLANET as our last word on The Tempest, then perhaps we can leave it to... Derek Jarman? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2013 7:30:38 GMT -5
According to Mr. van Es, between February the sixth and March the twenty-third 1600 the two great comic actors of Shakespeare's plays were both at work on celebrity spin-offs. Robert Armin wrote Quips upon Questions and William Kemp, after his celebrated jig to the city of Norwich, produced his Nine Days Wonder as an account of that trip. It is difficult to imagine two more radically different books. Armin's verse is satirical and sadistic, and often borders on madness; Kemp's prose, on the other hand, exudes a spirit of holiday fun. Armin, as a performer but also as a writer, had a traceable influence on Shakespeare that is as great as that of major poets. It is time for Shakespeare editions and source books to give due acknowledgement of his work is it not.
|
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on Mar 1, 2013 14:28:04 GMT -5
Entirely agreed. Of course, we shall never know how much the comedians contributed to the performance of Shakespeare's plays. Non-textual aspects of performances are notoriously had to keep record of - but therein lies their charm, and the very essence of why we go to live performance |
|
