This is Rafe Esquith

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TF3fn_Bm3I

Get this . . . in my research I found his email . . . I emailed him . . . and he called me back! I am going to have a phone interview with him next week!

I'm so moved by this guy, I think I might do my project on him instead.

Several Items

I thought I'd upload this article I read for an anthropology class last semester. It addresses the myth of the "universality" of Shakespeare, something that I certainly encountered in high school but was surprised to learn in some of our readings that said notion of thought has since been challenged and rather died out. Anyway, although the article itself is a bit dated (I think the author penned this in the 50's?) it is very interesting. As an English anthropologist studying the lives of the Bushmen of Africa, she attempts to explain the story of Hamlet to several elders and receives some very unexpected reactions. I've uploaded the article in .pdf format to Mediafire, if anyone's so inclined: http://www.mediafire.com/?wz1jf9bhdzj. Hopefully that works for you all.

Also, I thought I'd throw my two cents in regarding the little defamation scandal we experienced earlier in the week (which was quite amusing, actually). Here is a direct quote from the Shakespeare Fellowship website:

"The goals of the Fellowship include bringing the Shakespeare authorship debate to a world-wide audience via the Internet and stimulating a wide-ranging dialogue on the relevance of Shakespeare to the 21st century."

It is interesting then that apparently in order to take part in this "stimulating" discussion with members of the Fellowship, one must be a card-carrying member of the Oxfordian theory. Hmm!

The Morgan Library & Museaum

So, who else was floored by the photo exhibit at the end of the tour?! Elliott, I know you and I were.

I loved looking at the artifacts, the quarto and the folio with the pages misprinted, but I couldn't seem to get away from the photos at the end. I know I ranted at a few of you, but I'll do it again here because I'm just that passionate. Did any of you catch the portrait of Jorge Luis Borges? For those who don't know him, he's my blind Argentinean philosopher and was President of the National Libraries of Argentina for quite some time. He began to lose his sight in his 20's while studying in Europe and by the time he cam back and became involved politically, he was pretty much blind as a bat. Once the political climate settled down, he came to the forefront as an expert on Argentinean literature and poetry. I love his work and would recommend his poetry if you've got 5 minutes and want to read something breathtaking (my favorite might be "Poem Written In A Copy of Beowulf"). He would wait for students from the university serving detentions to wander by his office and snag them, forcing them to sit for hours and copy down the poetry he had written in his head. He once had some kind of organ-located-in-the-torso surgery with no drugs or anesthetic: he spent the 2 hour procedure lecturing the surgeons on the history of Argentinean literature. I just love this man.

He was kind of an odd duck. In a lecture called "Blindness" he said that what he missed most is the color red--the passion of it, the taste of it. He says blindness is not darkness but a sort of shifting gray pantomime, shadows of what really is. You can see it in his glazed, shifting eyes and drooping left eyelid, the way he leans his head on his cane as though waiting for an unfortunate student to dictate his verse to. You can almost see the cogs ticking behind his eyes....

Also, on an altogether unrelated note, Dali looked positively mad. Anyone else wild about this exhibit and/or tempted to go back on one of their free nights?

A quick little something...

I ditched the rock/popular music focus on my study, opting instead to look at Shakespeare on film and how it's been accepted by scholars and the American public. I did look on YouTube for some good Shakespearean videos - the user ShakespeareAndMore has some excellent choices: Olivier's final scene in King Lear is vital viewing - and, speaking of Olivier, bumped into this little vestige of my previous route of study. It's Peter Sellers, from the TV special The Music of Lennon & McCartney, way back in 1965.



It may not be relevant, but it’s at least amusing.

Apology

Editor of "The Shakespeare Fellowship" website has removed item from their website and apologized for inaccuracy.

ASH

"Shakespeare Fellowship" Website Posting about American Shakespeare course

Sage Readers:

Here is the posting from "The Shakespeare Fellowship":


Added 3/8/08

NYU/NYPL Shakespeare Course Requires Adherence to Stratford Party Line

It's official. To enroll in the NYU/Gallatin Interdisciplinary Seminar: "American Shakespeare" (Spring semester, 2008) students are required to be card carrying members of the Stratford cult.

The course description lists the two "requirements" for entrance as "1. A conviction that the plays of Shakespeare were written by Shakespeare" and "2. A belief that the works of Shakespeare constitute one of the cornerstones of world literature. "

The course, sponsored by will be held in the Humanities and Social Sciences library of the New York Public Library, is decribed as an opportunity to "discover the world of William Shakespeare at The New York Public Library. Ponder the textual problems of the quartos and folios. Explore various beautiful and unusual illustrated editions of Shakespeare' s plays and poems. Experience Shakespearean research for the 21st century through the Library's databases. "

What students obviously won't be doing in this course is asking any fundamental questions about Shakespeare, early modern literary studies, or the philosophy of inquiry in the human sciences. Those questions are forbidden: "fiat tenebras."

Thanks to Martin Hyatt for this news item.

Added 3/8/08

Shakespeare Diva defamed on the Web!

Sage Readers:

I am not precisely sure what a "card carrying Shakespearean" is, but I stand accused of the high crime of 'public Shakespeare indoctrination' ...

http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/news.html

Setting the Record Straight!

Dear NYU Shakespeareans and Sage Readers:

My recent posting informing you all of a then up-coming Shakespeare research session at NYPL, has prompted a flurry of reactions from readers beyonds the confines of our humble class. My email inbox has been flooded recently by a number of inquiring missives expressing concern over the issue of "free thought" in this course, as it relates to the question of Shakespeare's identity, personage and authorship.

The source of this consternation is the following passage that was lifted from the course description for the NYPL Shakespeare research session:

"Requirements: 1. A conviction that the plays of Shakespeare were written by Shakespeare. 2. A belief that the works of Shakespeare constitute one of the cornerstones of world literature."

I hope to here address, once and for all, that:

a.) These words are NOT mine, they were in fact lifted directly from the NYPL website/course catalog.
b.) Students in the NYU American Shakespeare Seminar are not required to hold any specific views of any kind, on 'Shakespeare' or any other subject
c.) The NYPL Shakespeare Research session was an optional course event, and is not in anyway connected to the NYU "American Shakespeare" seminar.
d.) The facilitator of the NYPL Shakespeare Research session is in no way connected to the NYU "American Shakespeare" Seminar, and his statements do not express the views of The Shakespeare Diva.

The Shakespeare Diva has always been a proponent of "free thought," and being a proud product of the X-Files generation advocates and promotes active questioning and healthy debate in all circumstances!

When time permits, after the ides of March, The Shakespeare Diva will muse upon the authorship question, or rather her favorite aspect of the authorship question, i.e., her near obsessive fascination with leading anti-Stratfordian, Delia Bacon.

Bardily yours,
Alycia Smith-Howard, "The Shakespeare Diva"

Historical Society and Morgan

When Professor Smit-Howard told us that a librarian is worth his/her weight in gold, I hear her but I didn't really take it into account. After visiting the Historical Society and the Morgan and hearing our tour guides' knowledge and expertise in all of the subjets we discussed, I must say - I was floored. The Historical Society gave me such insight into the past, and what it must have been like to see early productions as well as the great fire of the theater. I have a much greater appreciation than I did before the visit.

The Morgan was so huge, that I got extremely overwhelmed by the books - art - music - and photography collections. It seemed like an endless structure. What I liked most was the combination of old and new integrated together. To have the Morgan buildings that were actually residences... and to see the studies of those brilliant collectors was so... COOL! I also loved the class atrium. It was the perfect relatable structure for a New York City audience. It gave me an understanding of the magnitude of such a place.

When I asked my question about personal collections, I was surprised at the answer I got. I went on a trip to Las Vegas with my family some years ago and Steve Martin was showing his vast collection of contemporary art in the Bellagio, I believe. He had an introdcution recorded for the viewers that basically stated how selfish he felt keeping this priceless art all to himself. I have to agree with him. I feel that private collectors are a bit selfish in their pursuits to own original works of art that should be accessible to all people. What good is a Picasso painting when only a few people get to see it every day? I suppose it is correct that those who are private collectors DO take care of their collectables, but no one could possibly have greater expertise than historians and preservation experts. It just seems wrong to me. Oh well... to each his own, I suppose.

All in all - both visits were truly fascinating.

Broadway . . . Here He Comes!

"The acclaimed production of Macbeth — which casts stage and screen star Patrick Stewart in the title role — is heading to Broadway."

Full article: http://www.playbill.com/news/article/115402.html

NY Historical Society of Worthy Individuals

From the beginning of this class, I have to say that your (Professor Howard) obsession and near- idolization of librarians has made a strange impression on me. Mainly, because I never really realized the work that went into being a librarian, beyond knowing which aisle to go to for comedy and which for non-fiction, and therefore never gave them the respect they deserved (in my mind) . From the second you said you had a degree in "Library Sciences" I realized there was something I was missing. Now, after hearing the archival work and labor that goes into the life of a librarian, specifically someone who works at an institution as concerned with preserving the present and past as much as the New York Historical Society, I feel guilty for the lack of credit I have given them. Recently, as I go through my daily life and am constantly buying and throwing things away, I keep finding myself wondering which of these everyday items would be useful to save, maybe even preserve? What things that we use and take for granted will be able to give future generations insight into the lives of people in 2008. It's a really interesting and non-American (where everything is always concerned with the next thing to come) mindset to have, and I feel as though it would drive me insane to have to seriously consider these things for a profession.

The thing that really stood out to me about our visit to the NY Historical Society was the obsession with the wealthy citizens over the normal ones. It seemed as though it was far more important for historians of the time to record and report on the elite of society rather than the impoverished or even middle class. The two most obnoxious books that I can recall were the "Who's Who in America," essentially a list of people of some sort of stature in society in the early to mid-1900s, and the class favorite list of Wealth in New York, which actually listed off the net-worths of the richest people of the time. I was disgusted and fascinated by these collections in the best possible way.

OH MY GOD! KEVIN SPACEY!!!!!

First off, I would like to apologize for my lack of posting on this fabulous little online get together. It was due to technical difficulties and I’m excited to finally be participating. Let me begin with my reaction to ‘Looking For Richard’. My first reaction was surprise at the fact that I had never even heard of a movie with such a star-packed cast. The purpose, made abundantly clear from the start of the movie, is for this gang of Shakespeare bullies to get everyone to really see what the big deal is about this guy Shakespeare. Yes—everybody knows the “To be or not to be’s” or the fact that 10 Things I Hate About You was modeled after Taming of a Shrew, but this is not enough for Pacino and his boys (and girl). They need to bring Shakespeare to the streets and get people excited about William Shakespeare for the right reasons and not just because it’s hip or considered to be something that should be common knowledge.

 

            Though people have tried in the past to make Shakespeare more accessible to the general public (i.e. through movies like 10 Things I Hate about You and the 90s remake of Romeo and Juliet), the unique aspect of Pacino’s mission seemed to lie in the fact that he was primarily concerned with the words of Wiliam Shakespeare and not his main idea. He wants people to see the beauty in these words that he, his actor friends, English teachers around the world, and general Shakespeare enthusiasts everywhere see; the elegance and magnificence of language that often gets thrown to the curb by our blog-obsessed generation. This was intriguing to me as I was really curious to see how he would approach it. Yes—the language and emotion in his words are extremely powerful, but I believe it’s more of something that one must develop their own interest in and pursue, more so than something that can be shoved in someone’s face. So intrigued I was and on I watched, and honestly, I was kind of disappointed.

 

            Yes- bringing Shakespeare to the people! What could be better? Taking it down from his pedestal of eloquence and intimidation and served in a harmless McDonalds bag that people have been eating from since their childhood, right? Not quite. On this point, I agree and disagree with Sara’s feelings toward the movie. While watching it, all I was thinking about was how much I like Kevin Spacey, and I was really enjoying it. I think he’s fantastic and seeing him in the cast really did draw me in. Until I realized what was going on. Yes, the only way in which he really makes the play accessible to American audiences is by casting famous American actors. Now, realizing what was happening, I felt betrayed by the movie. I do disagree with Sara, however, when she says that he is underestimating Americans and not giving us enough credit. I will admit that when I signed up for this class I thought it was a class studying Shakespeare and his works and as the class has progressed I have felt more and more like I know nothing about Shakespeare and everyone else came in with an extensive knowledge of his life and works. I feel unprepared to say the least. So, obviously, it is possible that he was not giving us enough credit as Americans, but from my perspective it seems as though we really do have a very superficial understanding of Shakespeare’s works. I have studied a few of his plays and put on an 8^th grade production of Romeo and Juliet, but I would definitely classify myself as having a “pop” impression of Shakespeare. Therefore, I think, for myself, I would classify Pacino’s mission as failed. I appreciate his effort, but all he really did was show us his passion for Bill and essentially say, “Get it now?” And no, Mr. Pacino, I’m afraid I don’t.

Much Ado About Nothing - Gene Frankel Theatre, March 2008

Dear Shakespeare Scholars:

Just spotted a notice for this production of Much Ado at the Gene Frankel Theatre. I'd like for us to see this.
I think it will offer us a nice counterbalance to our visit to BAM for Macbeth. I think it will also give us an example for our further exploration of Sarah and Bahar's excellent points about 'mediation' and adaptation.

Best,
ASH

http://www.wideeyedproductions.com/muchado.html

Rafe Esquith Changes Lives With Shakespeare

My quick response to Looking for Richard turns into a full-blown essay.

Like Shakespeare himself, I learned of the video Looking for Richard before I saw it - much in the same way so many of us know of Shakespeare before I read or watched anything of his. we are told that the work is good until we want to like it, decide to see it for ourselves, and find whether or not we are satisfied. The difference is that at this point, Shakespeare has at least lived up to my expectations.

I thought the acting was top-notch and would have loved to have seen a full-length adaptation of Richard III. In fact, a proper adaptation of the play alone would have sufficed to accomplish Pacino's mission of accessibility - to make it accessible through the acting and directing, and otherwise let the play speak for itself. Of course, the insight of the British and some American actors was extremely good; they know their stuff well. I think this Richard III travelogue would have been outstanding if our tour guide had been Gielgud or Branagh or Redgrave (their being British would have downplayed the "American" aspect of the study, but would have enhanced the "Shakespeare" aspect).

Unfortunately, with all due respect to Al Pacino - I still consider him a skilled actor - he leads us with a ninth- or tenth-grade understanding of Shakespeare. It would be wronge to accuse Pacino of talking down to his viewers; this can't be helped if he himself needs to be talked down to. My qualms that Pacino does not do Shakespeare full justice are certainly not helped in the scene where, in trying to make the play accessible, he decides to change the line in the opening soliloquy from "G of Edward's heirs" to "C of Edward's heirs." This is no mere superficial bastardization; Shakespeare chose the letter G for a reason - a reason that comes about explicitly and almost immediately afterwards with Clarence's "Because my name is George....[King Edward] from the cross-row plucks the letter G,/And says a wizard told him that by G/His issue disinherited should be;/And for my name of George begins with G,/It follows in his thought that I am he." Even changing the aforementioned line to "George of Edward's heirs" would have clarified the line in and of itself, while still maintaining the connection to Clarence's spiel.

This film is, of course, not entirely without merit. While I find myself somewhat aligning with Sara on my verdict on this, I agree with Bahar's comparison to the film to the NEA video. Looking for Richard is an introduction to Shakespeare, rather than an intense study of Shakespeare. Many audiences - i.e. the high school students and "common folk" Pacino addresses throughout the film - demand a simple spoonfeeding like this, rather than, for instance, a nutcracker and snow crab legs. I would probably be praising Looking for Richard had I been viewing it in the eighth or ninth grade, when to hear something like an explanation of iambic pentameter would have been useful to me. In this context, it is a much better idea to introduce Shakespeare through something like Richard III, rather than a "greatest hit" like Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet.

Apropos to this class: the film even serves a great purpose to the whole intellectual, college-educated, Shakespeare-scholar crowd many of us fall into. It is more of a record of the first, rather than the second, word in the phrase American Shakespeare. Whether Pacino ever knew it or not, his film serves as a document on how, in America, Shakespeare is deified, with little or no understanding of his works, to those who do not understand him, or could care less about him. It is a sketch on the almost inevitable and sometimes necessary condescension and hackneyed explanation involved with the teaching of Shakespeare. I couldn't help thinking of an old piece from The Onion that illustrates excactly this point, albeit in a far more intentional, exaggerated manner:

"Shakespeare Was, Like, The Ultimate Rapper." - from The Onion, August 24, 2005.


Trieste 1910
Brooklyn 2008

Give us some slack!

Sara, you said: "As far as making it more accessible to American audiences, I think he is insulting American culture by claiming we can't access it without his help."

You also have to realize that not everyone is as educated and well-versed in Shakespeare as you guys. I would like to consider myself an educated individual, but I have very little understanding or appreciation of Shakespeare. I have no where NEAR the understanding or appreciation that you guys have. That's why I'm taking this course.

Someone like me, who is obsessed with mainstream actors, can easier connect with a movie like this.

There is an audience for every kind of "mediator". Professor - would you consider this movie successful?

(P.S. No hard feelings Sara - just playing devil's advocate)

What about the video we viewed in class?

My question to Samantha's blog is . . .

Then how do you feel about the video we viewed from the NEA ???

I'm surprised to hear positive feedback from Looking for Richard. I was rolling my eyes throughout most of the movie. Towards the beginning, Pacino says that his mission is to "translate our passion and what we've learned to portray how we think and feel today." Why is this unique to Pacino? Don't we still perform Shakespeare today because the plays are passionate and relevant to what we think and feel today? Granted, there are antiquated, dispassionate productions done with overt pretense, but who is Pacino to 'save' us from these productions? After he makes this claim about making it "relevant today," there seems very little in the rest of the movie to accomplish this goal. His production is no more modern and interesting than the many BBC produced classical Shakespearean productions. As far as making it more accessible to American audiences, I think he is insulting American culture by claiming we can't access it without his help. It's even more insulting that, as far as I could tell, the only thing he did to make it more accessible to the American public was cast American actors-himself [of course], Kevin Spacy, Winona Ryder- bankable stars that make a film accessible to the public, not necessarily Shakespeare. Many of these performances (especially Ryder's) had be convinced that his counterargument was correct: American actors can't handle Shakespeare.

The most illuminating parts of the film, I felt, were the interviews with the English actors who are Shakespeare veterans. Vanessa Redgrave in particular supplied a lot of insight. But Pacino is placing these actors on a pedastal. I would have been interested to hear Pacino interview American actors who frequent Shakespeare and how they managed to bridge the gap between the American culture and this allegedly British tradition. Instead, Pacino spent most of his time interviewing people on the street who have nothing illuminating to say; most of them just seem excited to be talking to Al Pacino.

By the end of the film, I had written in my notes "WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS MOVIE?" It was poorly planned with no conclusion. Pacino did not make Richard III accessible, but he hurt his cause by speaking for American actors and producing this mess of a film. The film seemed nothing but self-indulgence from an actor who can afford to be self-indulgent. The documentary side of the film's disarray suggested to me that halfway through filming, Pacino realized he had no relevant footage and just threw together the nonsensical, pretentious arguments he did have in a pathetic attempt at a narrative. At one point, Pacino is trying to explain one of Shakespeare's lines and then dismisses it by saying "it's very confusing. I don't even know why I'm bothering." Neither do I.