Shakespeare
Matt Kozusko (mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu)
Tue, 03 Nov 1998 19:56:00 -0500
Camille Scaysbrook wrote:
> Go back to Shakepeare [......]
> Shakespeare was simply his generation's Steven Speilberg. There's no better
> analogy for it. In the end, he didn't even believe he was creating high
> art. He was just making a living.
Does the authority on how to perform or treat Shakespeare reside in the
productions of Shakespeare's company? And though the firsthand accounts
of Elizabethan theaters sometimes mention unruliness and disrespect on
the part of the 'groundlings,' is there reason to believe those accounts
are generally representative of the playgoer's experience? Of, say, a
Blackfriars performance? A court performance?
And do you *really* suppose Shakespeare didn't consider himself an
artist and a poet?
--
Matt Kozusko mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu