Month: January 2010

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/01/26/bawdy-bard.html Romeo and Juliet is too much for Nashville.  At least it’s too much for Nashville high school students, according to their parents.  They came to town, and out came the censors. Apparently they recognized the word “maidenhead” in the first scene, because they wanted that gone.  Oh, you can still thrust them up against the wall, and pull his naked weapon out, that pretty piece of flesh – apparently nobody figured out what that means. Falling under the same “I recognize that word!” magnifying glass is also Mercutio’s hand upon the very prick of noon.  Nope, right out.  Makes me wonder if Sleeping Beauty is allowed to prick her thumb on the spinning wheel?  Does this mean that Macbeth is out, too?  By what would something wicked this way come?? Romeo and Juliet is all sex and violence.  You can’t begin to censor half of it. UPDATE: Be sure to read the lengthy rebuttal from Will O’Hare, Education Director for the Classical Theatre Project.  Apparently there’s more to the story than meets the eye, and any audience disapproval that may have existed seems to be centered squarely on some interesting choices by the actors, rather than on the specific source material.  I appreciate Will stopping by to set the record straight!

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2010/01/11/bloom-cancels-class-due-illness/ We joke about Harold Bloom here on the site, but the truth is I don’t know much about the man. I have “Invention of the Human”, and I’m not lying when I say that I can’t finish it.  That doesn’t necessarily say anything about the man, however – I adore Isaac Asimov, and I have trouble with his tome as well. It’s unfortunate, then, to report on Professor Bloom’s failing health:

English professor Leslie Brisman described Bloom as “gravely ill” in a Jan. 7 e-mail to students in Bloom’s fall seminar, “Shakespeare and the Canon: Histories, Comedies and Poems.” Bloom has been in the hospital since December.

For those that are interested, somebody’s set up a Get Well Harold account on Twitter for sending him well wishes.

I spotted the “Kill Shakespeare” project a little while ago when they started following me on Twitter.  Fair enough, I thought – some more Shakespeare in the Manga style.  We’ve had that before. Apparently they’ve got something else in mind altogether!  This might be a little over the top for some of the readers, but I think it could be great fun.  What do you think of a giant Shakespearean crossover where the “heroes” – Hamlet, Juliet, Falstaff – do epic battle against the villains – Iago, Richard III, Lady M?

  As a purist I think the whole thing would self destruct – I think Hamlet wouldn’t be able to stand Falstaff and neither of them would give Juliet a second glance.  And I suspect that Iago and Richard would probably kill each other. But we’ll just have to see how it plays out! Update : Hamlet couldn’t stand Falstaff, that is. 🙂

http://www.copyblogger.com/blog-like-shakespeare/ Copyblogger is one of the most respected sites on the net for those in the business of being bloggers.  So when our dear bard shows up in the title of one of their posts, I know it’s going to get some traffic.  The premise is an interesting one:

…he mastered the art of writing for completely different audiences. He appealed to the ultra elite, to regular theater-goers who never missed a performance, and to the illiterate mobs in the cheap seats. And he managed to satisfy each audience magnificently.

I’m wondering how true that is, or if the author of this article just needed to back up his argument and brought out Shakespeare to do it? Where my historians at?  Is the above correct?  Would you say that Shakespeare was actively addressing three distinct audiences, or even that an Elizabethan audience broke down that way?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2010/jan/14/shakespeare-theatre-big-lebowski We’ve already done the “Big Lebowski” thing here on the blog (and it’s been all over Twitter), but this article is about that project yet again. What’s interesting is the reference to Godwin’s Law, and the bits in the middle.  Godwin’s Law, for those not up on the Internet lore, basically says “In any argument, once somebody brings up the Nazis no further intelligent conversation can take place.” Well, it seems that one J Holtham has put forth a similar law for discussion of things theatrical :

If you bring up Shakespeare in any discussion, particularly if it’s about diversity or style, you lose the argument….It’s lazy, it’s weak, and worst of all it’s stupid as hell.  Everybody likes Shakespeare.  You know why?  Because he was a frickin goddamned authentic genius.”

When I skim a statement like that it gets the ol’ dander up, since lord knows I mention Shakespeare often.  But I think, upon further reading, that they’re talking about modern theatre and those people inevitably say “Yeah, well, Shakespeare did it first.”  That’s useless.  I can agree with that.