APPENDIX
For the Record: Conversation with Sulayman Al-Bassam
Margaret Litvin, Interview with Sulayman Al-Bassam, Beirut, May 8, 2011
“ re we recording? Can I begin?” asks Ophelia in Sulayman Al-Bassam’s Al-Hamlet Summit [AHS] (2002), poised for the video testimonial that will mark her transformation into a suicide bomb- A1 er. Recordings feature even more prominently in the second play of his Arab Shakespeare Trilogy, Richard III: An Arab Tragedy [R3] (2007), com- missioned in Arabic by the Royal Shakespeare Company: the royal family runs a slick satellite television station called York TV; Gloucester’s “citi- zen scene” turns into a pre-recorded Islamic TV call-in show; and Palace Consultant Buckingham, whose correspondences with the U.S. Embassy have infiltrated but not really endangered the York regime, gives a taped confession before he is crudely asphyxiated.2 And the power of record- ing is absolutely central to the Trilogy’s final work: The Speaker’s Progress [TSP] (2011) is built around a recording of a 1963 localized adaptation of Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night: as fragments of this play-within-a-play circu- late virally online, a Director-turned-regime-apologist and his government- sponsored technicians re-create, then come to inhabit, the ludic worldview in which theater is thinkable and revolution is possible.3 Life has mirrored art. Some preliminary rehearsal videos from The Speaker’s Progress were posted on YouTube; ironically, however, over the spring of 2011 Al-Bassam’s own copy of the videos somehow disappeared, sucked into the recesses of a government cultural agency from where they have neither been returned nor officially submitted to the state censorship 222 M Appendix office. So the play’s premise of a society where theater is strictly regulated and where performance recordings carry subversive power – a view that at first glance might have seemed like self-dramatization on the part of this widely fêted playwright/director, whose work is produced and celebrated in Kuwait and whose program notes sometimes pay tribute to Kuwaiti democracy – turns out to be truer than even Al-Bassam had imagined.4 The conversation below probes some of the ironies of Sulayman Al-Bassam’s double-edged career as a bilingual, intercultural Anglo-Arab adapter of Shakespeare over the past decade. It was audio-recorded in Beirut in early May 2011. Lebanon itself was very calm, but from all sides came news of ups and downs in the “Arab Spring” (a problematic term that we will continue to use as scare-quoted shorthand for the events of January-February 2011 and ensuing developments), pushing Al-Bassam to rapidly rework the script of TSP ahead of scheduled fall performances in Beirut, Brooklyn, and Boston. He and I have subsequently edited the tran- script and inserted subheadings, but the interview remains bound to the thoughts and sentiments of the historical moment in which it was recorded: Egypt and Tunisia in still-hopeful transition, Jordan and Morocco experi- menting with monarchy-protecting reforms, Syria and Bahrain in rebel- lion, Libya and Yemen in flames. Some of the plot and character revisions we discuss were subsequently incorporated into the play. I believe this dialogic, explicitly contextualized format, which puts the artist and the critic directly into conversation, is particularly appropriate for this volume’s inquiry into the ethical dimensions of appropriation. For even while Al-Bassam has appropriated Shakespeare, the critical establish- ment has appropriated Al-Bassam. He has been invited to speak at university campuses; references to his work appear in such works as Ewan Fernie’s Spiritual Shakespeares and the third series Arden Hamlet.5 The two levels of appropriation have intersected, as Al-Bassam’s Shakespeare adaptations have been produced in increasingly close dialogue with his scholarly critics. For instance, at an October 2011 panel discussion at Boston University, flanked by two professional interpreters of his work (Graham Holderness and myself), Al-Bassam said his political take on Twelfth Night in TSP had been inspired in part by Holderness’ journal article, “Rudely Interrupted: Shakespeare and Terrorism,” on the 2003 suicide bombing in Doha of a the- ater producing Twelfth Night.6 Holderness’ perceptive reading of Malvolio as an Islamist had in turn been conditioned, if not directly suggested, by Al-Bassam’s earlier portrait of a militant Islamist Hamlet, “dazed by the stench of rot” (AHS 34) in his authoritarian Arab homeland. In light of such deep collaborative relationships, it would be hypocritical to insist on a heuristic separation between the creative process and its analytical twin. Appendix M 223
Besides Shakespeare, the other main element appropriated in Al-Bassam’s Trilogy is the Arab world: its language registers, its cul- tures, and above all its recent history. Over time, Al-Bassam’s approach to current events has shifted. AHS, written in the immediate aftermath of September 11, was conceived “after a night of channel surfing between BBC World, Al-Jazeera, CNN and Iraqi TV, which gave me an acute dose of the back street snuff theater that is world politics;”7 Al-Bassam’s Claudius borrowed lines from Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush, and Ariel Sharon. Nine years later, TSP took a cooler approach, alluding to “the Arab Spring” but focusing more on the fragile miracle of theatricality itself. (“The theater can not be simply an annex to the newsroom,” Al-Bassam told National Public Radio journalist Tom Ashbrook in an onstage conversation at the Boston performance.8) It is the later play, with fewer literally matchable “real” details, that paints the more nuanced portrait of an Arab society. While AHS reconfirms many Anglo-American stereotypes about Arab culture, TSP successfully provincializes them. Sidelining the audience’s “knowledgeable ignorance”9 (or stubborn attachment to outdated stereotypes) about the culture leaves room for a more open-ended exploration of the ongoing history. As our conversation shows, Al-Bassam’s Arab Shakespeare Trilogy has gained its ethical traction from its insistent contemporaneity. To a greater extent than I was willing to acknowledge before the full triptych had come into view,10 his Shakespeare appropriations seek to comment honestly (and thus, of course, provisionally) on a specific decade-long slice of historical time (2001–2011) more than on the Arab world as a fixed geographic or cultural place. Our conversation below is offered in the same spirit.
ML: Why did you decide to start calling your three Shakespeare-based plays, produced over a decade, “The Arab Shakespeare Trilogy?” SAB: TSP is the final part of a unified body of dramatic work. It was conceived as the final volley in a three sequence movement. True, the idea of three sequential parts developed as the works were made, but nonetheless, once I’d made R3, a piece influenced in turn by AHS, it was inevitable that there should be a concluding work, therefore a trilogy. All of these pieces explore in their own, different ways a the- matically coherent body of issues, namely: power, corruption, radical ideologies, the forces that move societies towards fracture, dissolution, or in the case of TSP, just major change. There is a unity of moral tenor, a double-edged political critique running through the Trilogy. All of the pieces are highly critical of dominant political practices 224 M Appendix
inside the Arab world whilst also exposing the face of Western politi- cal opportunism that has informed so much of the history of this region. The result of this double-edged moral thrust is that neither Arab audiences nor their Western counterparts can watch these pieces without feeling a sense of discomfort.
Allegory across Cultures? ML: It seems that every time I see you we have the same conversation, and it’s about the referent of allegory. SAB: Is that the case? ML: It is. About where the allegory goes. Does it go to an unnamed Middle Eastern state? Does it go to an unnamed Gulf kingdom on the verge of a succession crisis? Does it go to an unnamed but recogniz- ably Islamic authoritarian state, where art has been forbidden? And if so, doesn’t this unnamed, inchoate, and yet incredibly familiar cari- cature mirror in alarming ways the inchoate but familiar caricature about the Arab or Islamic world fed to us by our Western media, once you’ve de-localized it and de-racinated it from local specificity? That’s why we always have this conversation. SAB: No, I don’t think the non-specificity of it has to move it towards a kind of negative stereotyping. To look at it another way: if you gave specificity of place to any of those allegories, at the end of the day, you have a kind of allegorical framework as well that the piece is working within. ML: An allegory is an allegory of something. SAB: Absolutely. Elsinore or Pomfret Castle operates on an allegorical level. ML: As allegories for England. It’s true that allegories can be multifari- ous, they can apply both to France and England without a problem, and they can be shifting. One of my colleagues, Jerry Brotton, uses the word “flicker,” so at some moments they seem this and at some moments they seem that. But when you are talking about an overde- termined, over-stereotyped region, this is a pretty dodgy move. SAB (after a longish pause): Because you think that by removing specific- ity of location or time or place — not that time is underspecified actu- ally — that you fall into a sort of religio-ethnic kind of generalization that inevitably draws the discourse toward recognizable forms of that typology? ML: Precisely. I do! The example that I use in my talks about your work is the quote from the reviewer of your AHS who found it an invaluable Appendix M 225
guide to “the nightmares now brewing in the cauldrons of the Middle East.” In the Western viewer’s mind there’s already a cauldron of nightmares. And . . . SAB: Hmm. ML: I’m sorry! I’m doing a very nasty thing here, saying that your job as a maker of theater is to educate people. This is, of course, bullshit. It’s not your job to educate anyone. But insofar as you reproduce the region as a cauldron of nightmares, without historical specificity and geographical recognizability, aren’t you just profiting from and repro- ducing that discourse? You see what I’m saying. SAB: Except that they’re all very identifiable imagined spaces in a sense. They have enough ambiguity to read significantly in a variety of contexts. ML: You can make a play about Elsinore in which people will see England, or in which people will see Poland, or Russia, or Czechoslovakia, or Egypt. That is somehow different from making a play about “Arablandia.” About a place that has no identity of its own. Elsinore has an identity of its own, right? Shakespeare’s Denmark is pretty spe- cific, even if it never existed anywhere on the real map. It’s a real king- dom. It doesn’t, at least as far as we can tell today, parasitically borrow from our preconceptions of the whole region. It’s its own place, which we the viewers then do the work of relating to our own places. That’s different from what you’re doing, right? Because you are claiming to re-present a place, or to present a place. Or a type of place. SAB: What I don’t understand is why you would think that the specific- ity of place would somehow allow for that argument of validation or falsification that you speak about, or indeed why validation or falsifi- cation would be valuable criteria. ML: But if the point of the play is to make a judgment about a govern- ment or a society, especially a society, then as a theater maker you have this incredible resource available . . . SAB: But why would a theater maker ever want to make a judgment about a society? ML: But that’s what you’re doing in your plays. SAB: No. No. ML: No, come on. SAB: No, I don’t think that any of the work that I’ve made in theater looks to make such a judgment. What’s interesting is to allow the characters to become vectors for their own particular needs and desires, working within a structure of power or an environment that is identifiable, and to follow the resolution or the collision of those actions. Is passing judgment a valid pursuit, a valid function? 226 M Appendix
ML: It’s a valid function for satirical political theater, of course. It’s what a lot of it aims to do. To “expose” or “illuminate” or mock or incite outrage about certain features of a state or society. The ethical objec- tion is that you are handing the ignorant Western viewer a brush with which to tar the entire region. You must see that. SAB: Yes, but the ignorant Western viewer is also handed a stake to skewer themselves with. ML: How so? SAB: It also depends on the ethics of the viewer, right? You can’t have a complete ethics in a piece of dramatic writing. ML: Of course you can’t form your viewer in the course of an hour and a half, but . . . SAB: You can inform . . . ML: You can avoid playing to his worst instincts. SAB: Sure. But I think —I don’t know! — I think most of the time the Shakespeare plays use what people know, or think they know, in order to bring them in, and then kind of ambush them with other stuff that they would never give themselves the space to consider or reflect upon or even question.
Courting, Then Subverting Expectations ML: So what are you counting on your audience to know and think? What audience expectations and preconceptions are you counting on? SAB: That’s something that I think about a lot. How audiences are broached, prepped, informed, and brought into the world of the per- formance, and what it is that they might bring as audience members, and how that is dealt with ethically as well. ML: Do these three pieces play with Shakespeare and with audience expectations in a consistent way? SAB: The works are unified by their interpretive-exploratory relation- ship to the original Shakespearean characters, language, setting and also their para-Shakespearean meaning. By para-Shakespearean, I mean what these Shakespeare pieces represent on an iconic cultural / theatrical level as a result of the accrued critical and performance history around them. Hamlet, for instance, has become shorthand for existential trauma; Richard III shorthand for evil. These para- Shakespearean meanings figure strongly in the minds of audiences coming to see these pieces; they form part of the associative baggage Appendix M 227
that audiences bring to a performance, and therefore they influence how I am led to present / adapt the piece. My use of Shakespeare also has a lot to do with manipulating audi- ence expectation and audience recognition. Arab audiences coming to see Shakespeare in Arabic expect to see a romantic tale set in—I exaggerate to make the point!—faraway castles, a tale that has import to them only through the veil of allegory. Their discomfort stems from the very urgent sense of contemporaneity used in the language, style, and content of the piece. The allegorical veil is soon shredded, and audiences are left looking at highly realistic political drama with no allegorical intermediary. Western or non-Arab audiences come expecting the reverse—to see a familiar tale made distant and novel through its ethnographic re-coloring into Arabic. There is an inherent exoticism in the Western audiences’ expectations of these pieces. Their discomfort is caused by the fact that the plays reinforce these preconceived expectations on one level, whilst challenging and subverting them on another. My plays redirect the familiar tropes of the Shakespearean tale—the character names, the storyline—not to tell the Shakespearean story but, rather, the story of the audiences’ own preconceptions about the entity known as the “Arab world”: its issues, its causes, and the post- colonial discourse that informs the relationship of the West to the Arab world. The pieces take the prejudices of the Western audience and court them, encourage them, provoke them in order to entangle audiences into a programmatic subversion of their prejudices: “I’ve heard this before; this corresponds with my expectations / preju- dices about the Arab region.” This enticement onto morally familiar, though disputed, ground is part of the strategy of ethical subversion and satire that the works aim to achieve. This subversion is achieved primarily through the incitement to emotional engagement with the characters. ML: How would you say this process of identification and alienation works in the first play of the trilogy, AHS, about which some people (including me) said it mainly reinforced audience stereotypes of the Middle East?11 SAB: Western audiences see the young, liberal Hamlet, identify with his idealism, with his messy and immature love entanglement; they are morally primed to engage with him emotionally. Hamlet becomes a radical Islamist who adopts violence as a means of liberation. Audiences may not sympathize with the person Hamlet becomes, 228 M Appendix
but they understand why he went on that journey, the causes and articulating points of that journey. Hamlet is not just another Arab terrorist. The genealogy of the term “terrorist” is significant in this process. The audience is encouraged to identify political motivation in the use of the term. Polonius applies it to Hamlet long before his transforma- tion into a radical Islamist. The audience is primed to interrogate the normative associations of “terrorist” and then watch the protagonist morph into the standard Western definition of one. The malicious trope / prejudice of Arab=Terrorist is courted, toyed with, reinforced in order to better subvert it as the play unfolds. The second way in which the subversion of (Western) prejudice is achieved is through the exposure of Western political opportunism and cynical entanglement in the affairs of the characters and events of the plays. Western audiences are obliged to reexamine the moral rectitude of their own political systems whilst witnessing the flailing and traumatic unwinding of the “other’s.” This process of reflexive questioning builds upon the colonialist / orientalist assumptions of Western audiences coming to attend an ethnographically tinged ver- sion of Shakespeare in order to disrupt these conceptions.
An Arab—Or a Human?—Tragedy SAB: This whole issue of specificity of location, or, what did you call it, the referent of allegory . . . These are landmines, in a way. Take R3: In a way it should be R3: A Gulf Tragedy. ML: But why “A Gulf Tragedy”? This is the thing: You open the pro- gram for a play of yours, and you see: A note on the use of Qur’anic citations; a note on costumes, a note on the Arabic of the text: ethno- graphic notes on the use of Arab culture in your plays. And you don’t see, for instance, quotations from Camus’s The Plague. The viewer is guided before the theater lights even go down toward viewing this as an Arab rather than a human predicament. You want it that way, on some level. SAB: No. No, because they’re coming to see Richard III. Anyone com- ing to see Richard III understands that . . . they’re not coming to see the story of the hunchback from the fifteenth century who was por- trayed by Thomas More like this. They understand that this is a story of a human predicament. That’s understood. No? You don’t think that? So you think that, what? That someone can enter the theater to see R3: An Arab Tragedy thinking that— Appendix M 229
ML: That they’re about to learn something about Arabs, rather than something about humans. SAB: Rather than something about Richard III? So if it was not An Arab Tragedy, if it were just R3, then what would this inchoate audience think they’re coming to learn something about? ML: Human nature. SAB: Human nature. Okay. ML: You’ve seen the Ian McKellen movie. SAB: Yes. ML: It kind of brilliantly does have it both ways, both being about a particular place and time and being about tyranny as such. Because it’s about a particular place and time. It’s anchored in the historical. We know this: this fact, this hook of historicity that underpins the general political and ethical dynamics between the characters. SAB: Very well. But that still doesn’t convince me of the validity of that as a referential structure. I mean, the fact that the film is underpinned by historical veracity is ludicrous, anyway! I mean, how could something set in 1934 that’s based on a totally different narrative structure with a completely different cast of characters and power relations . . . ? Basically the seed of the idea is based on historical fact, but the way in which the narrative relates to that historical fact is totally incidental. It is— ML: It is more shaped by a relationship to Shakespeare’s Richard III than by a relationship to English history. Absolutely. Of course. SAB: So you could say that in that instance they’re hiding under the veil of historical veracity in order to costume their actors and tell the premise of their story, and then completely betraying the notion of his- torical veracity by going off and following the Folio text or the Quarto text, and hence duping the audience entirely! ML: How are they duping the audience? SAB: For those that thought they were going to learn something about human nature, they’re led into the historical items room where they see these . . . ML: Swastikas. 1930s cars. SAB: All of that. And then the real political issues that were at stake in 1934 are left to burn by the roadside, like garbage, as one pursues the narrative of the Bard. ML: That’s true. SAB: Betrayal! Historical inveracity! Allegorical blackmail. ML: Yes, wonderful. And if the Nazis were around today to write reviews, they would object. You see what I mean. When you purport to represent the Arab world— 230 M Appendix
SAB: I don’t purport to represent anyone! ML: Sure you do! What happens when I open the program and I see notes on Arab culture? SAB: You’ve been given some indicators to the language of the perfor- mance. Now when we play those plays inside the Arab world, for example when we played R3 in Damascus, I could have still done with some program notes, I can tell you. ML: Tell me.
A Dictator in the Audience SAB: Because Bashar al-Asad turns up to the final performance, and ten minutes before the final performance when we know now that it’s Bashar al-Asad who’s been the cause of all the police dogs, and the going-through of all our costumes, and this and that, and then the festival organizer comes to me and says (whispering): “Sulayman! I haven’t seen the piece! I haven’t seen it. The president’s coming! Who is the man in that big photo? Who is he? Is he the crown prince of Kuwait who died three days ago?” And I say to her, “But, Madame, Duktuura, that’s Abu Mazen! He’s our production manager!” And she says: “Thank god, thank god. Alright. Okay.” And I say: “Look, say to the president when he comes that we performed this two months ago in Kuwait, under the patronage of the Emir of Kuwait.” “Oh. Okay. Okay. Okay.” So, I could have done with that information in program notes, right? That the guy that you are seeing is not a looka- like of King Faysal of Saudi Arabia, and this is not a play about the murder of King Faysal and what happened after that (which is what they thought in the Emirates–they thought for some reason that our production manager looked like King Faysal, which he doesn’t.) That that’s our production manager and he was made to look with a big portrait above the stage like any number of Arab rulers today and the way in which they portray themselves. So there is the issue of itera- tion, and of allegory: “Who is this? Is this King Faysal? Is this the crown prince of Kuwait? No, no, no, this is the production manager of my theater company.” (Whispers) (“Oh, okay.”) But do we want the audience to know that? Well, no, we want the audience to think: “Hmm. Right, where are these guys from? They’re from Kuwait. Maybe, maybe, maybe they’ve taken a risk and chosen to portray some political player in Kuwait.” Because if they think that, then it’s kind of useful that they see what happens to a society where the charismatic pragmatic opportunistic marginalized character becomes the source of all human evil. Appendix M 231
ML: You’re talking about Catesby? SAB: No, I’m talking about Richard! Richard and how rapidly Richard can take hold of a society like that. So it’s useful for the audience to think. And I had the same in the Emirates. They were like, “Sorry, you’ve got to remove this image at the beginning of the show. We can- not have it. We cannot have this image!”—“Why can’t we have this image?”—“Because no big images are allowed except the rulers or the crown princes or other things.” ML: I see how for an Arab audience that knows too much, and that is always trying to make that connecting move, from the general to the specific—I see how the general is useful. I see how it’s useful for the portrait to be of your production manager. You leave it general so they can see how it might apply also to their own community or society. But then when the thing travels to Washington, or New York—or Stratford. Or Paris. You see how the underlying message of “the pathologies of Arab societies resemble each other to an alarming degree,” how this message could be salutary in one place and harmful in another.
A Fast-Shifting Progress ML: In the last piece in your trilogy, any effort at allegory faces another problem: Arab political reality is really a moving target. How is the kind of questioning incited by TSP changing in response to the events of the recent uprisings, what people call the “Arab Spring”? SAB: TSP was written before any of these events happened. Really, it took the point of view of a protagonist who made a failed attempt at revolt—his last throw of the dice, and nothing changed . . . that failed. Hence the bitterness contained in the ending of the first draft of the play, completed in November 2010. ML: But you changed that. You were afraid of appearing anachronistic? Out of tune with the tenor of the times? SAB: In part. But I also felt (and this was the main reason for changing the ending) that what was happening was genuinely humbling, and that the despair of the protagonist in 2010 seemed not only anach- ronistic in a sense of being current or not being current but seemed somehow also . . . obscure or too self-consumed? ML: No, I agree. I also felt the cynicism of the ending was untenable and smug. SAB: Pessimistic, I’d say, more than cynical. I thought it was very appropriate and most fitting that the closing part of the trilogy be bleak, and despairing, and if I could have made 232 M Appendix
it more bleak and more despairing, then I probably would have done. But the trilogy and this closing part of the trilogy work responsively with moments of structural change and alteration inside perspectives within the Arab world. And what has been happening from January to today has opened up so many perspectives and alternatives to ideas about power, people, and even authorship, the role of authors. I don’t think it overweighs the piece for it to work responsively in this way. This has been the impetus of the other pieces, and it’s appro- priate that this should be an impetus for the final play in the series. ML: It seems to me that you are trying to get two incompatible things, and I don’t see how you achieve both of them. On the one hand, you seek the closure of a trilogy, and on the other hand, you con- tinue to write and live, and this can never be the final response to the subject—aren’t these incompatible aims? Why not just leave TSP as you wrote it and write another play? SAB: Any artistic response to complex realities is doomed to be anything but comprehensive. Comprehensiveness, I would suggest, is a ques- tionable artistic goal in any case.
What’s Islam Got to Do with It? ML: Are you still revising TSP’s use of Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night and its handling of allegorical elements more generally? What about its presentation of political Islam? SAB: Yes. I no longer feel that the potential of the piece to carry meaning is served by starting from a premise colored by religious oppression or by Islamism specifically. Because the point is that the cloak of oppres- sion has many forms, not only in its imagined environment, but in an absolute sense: it can be the mullahs, it can be the military; it can be the oligarchs, or crony capitalists surrounding them. ML: Yet you draw a specific equation to the Puritan movement and the closure of theaters on religious grounds, and in the Arab and Muslim world, this can have only one referent. And then, in addition, you have the Malvolio character who is a very clear instance of a very popular type of caricature on the Arab stage, of the sort of ridicu- lous Islamist. For instance, I saw a rather bad play in Egypt in 2001 that had a group of characters called the Ikhwan Muḥashshashīn, the “Stoner Brotherhood.” They were just stoned all the time, mumbling religious-sounding mumbo-jumbo. And, of course, the state was very happy to allow such plays at the time. SAB: I’m sure. Appendix M 233
ML: So you built those allegories in. And if they were relevant to a moment, they didn’t suddenly stop being relevant in February. SAB: No, that’s true. But actually there are different currents in the Malvolio character in that piece. Originally, they were conceived as one current: the Malvolio Mullah caricature, the Puritan analogy, and the Islamic state that had forced the director into this position, that was one block of ideology. ML: And then? SAB: Then they split and splintered and became more than one. The Puritan analogy serves the idea of the Speaker’s position vis-à-vis the state, the form of oppression that has led to the position they are in, and yes, it’s a religious ideology, but that does not necessarily have to be the case, and it is no longer useful to the piece. The state ban on theater is to be equated with a ban on freedom of speech. All refer- ence to the Islamic nature of this state needs to be removed from the outer story. In this scenario, the Puritan analogy becomes a metaphor for statist oppression that is less colored by a religious definition.
On Arab Theater’s “Golden Age” ML: What is the relationship in TSP between the framing story, which is set in the present, circa 2010, and the framed story set in 1963, considered by many commentators an Arab golden age because of the period’s freedom of expression and flowering of theater and other arts? SAB: In my mind now, the ‘63 play should be something of which only fragments exist. Combustible fragments that have been misinterpreted and reinterpreted, played with by the youth of today or by parts of the population that have latched onto these parts of their culture and history. ML: That makes sense. Because the only way we have access to the Golden Age now is in people’s imagination. Through the eyes of the present. That’s the only place it ever was a golden age anyway. In their minds the theater makers of the 1960s were making political allego- ries against the already oppressive Nasser regime! SAB: Or they were trying to make something that looked Italian, or looked French. They may have had no genuine political agenda. ML: Although that’s historically unlikely. SAB: Really? Is it? ML: Well, maybe not. In 1964, the Egyptian National Theatre did Othello and then Hamlet, and really their only intention was to show 234 M Appendix
that dammit, they could do Shakespeare, and therefore they existed, they deserved to be on the world map, they deserved political recogni- tion: “We have Shakespeare, too.” So it’s possible it could be from that early period. SAB: But what’s loaded in the Golden Age metaphor for the catastrophic present is the fact that they allowed such liberty of proposition. Such a lavish production was given space and means to develop, with orches- tras and things. It was something that society cherished, something that had place and position. Which is at the heart of the Golden Age nostalgia. ML: And therefore art is a mediating link in this period between state and society. And you’re writing in the 2000s, when there is no more mediating link, at least in Egypt, between state and society. Where that link has been cut, and there is no more meaningful civil society. SAB: Art has transformed into a tool of the state and the hollowing of meaning from its content has reached its apogee, and there is no more art. There is no more proposition of meaning that lies outside [the state’s] predefined code of what might be and should be said. ML: I know what you mean. The Egyptian National Theatre staged King Lear in 2002, with Yahya El Fakharani. Of course, you could say King Lear is, for that period, the Arab play par excellence: the aging incom- petent ruler who doesn’t know how to abdicate, although he keeps promising to. And there was none of that in the play. Not a whisper, not a smidgeon. It was just like, “Look at this big Shakespeare pageant we can put on because we are the Egyptian National Theatre with a big TV star in the lead.” It was terrible! SAB: Yes. So we have eviscerated forms of art within the concept of state. The space for integrity has been demolished. At the same time, however, we shouldn’t take 1963 as a static ideal. This is problematic, particularly in terms of getting the play to reso- nate outside a very narrow context. Outside of the Arab world, how is anyone to know that ‘63 meant something? Part of the issue with the work is that I really don’t want it to have to depend on such specifi- cally local signification. ML: Why not? SAB: Because then it has much less opportunity to grow.
The Theater as Momentary Community ML: On the subject of allegory, let me back up and try to make this as an aesthetic critique, because I think we’ve hit a kind of impasse Appendix M 235
here. In TSP, why is the audience supposed to care about the Director and his situation? How do you accomplish that building of audience sympathy? SAB: Through the direct incitement to complicity. From the very begin- ning. Making them part of the stakes, making them understand the stakes. ML: So audience members themselves are made to feel that they are par- ticipating in something dangerous and interesting. SAB: That’s the extent of the allegory. So if the audience allows itself to accept that complicity, then that arena of complicity should be the horizon of the allegory. The boundaries of the theater space itself. Ultimately the question with all these revisions is how and where does theater fit into the revolution outside its doors? How does it insert itself into a larger environment? And really, I think that it’s a wonder- ful time for theater, in many ways, and maybe the world . . . well, the world never needs theater, but it’s a really wonderful time for theater in the sense that that community of spectators, and that community of actors, and that community of story and engagement with ideas is a really perfect metaphor for so many aspects of this revolution. ML: Maybe this shouldn’t be a conversation about allegory. It should really be a conversation about metaphor. What if I ask you to push a thought experiment? Take all references to Islam out of the TSP outer story, the one about the traveling performance in 2011. Leave them in the inner story set in the 60s, leave Malvolio with his beard, whatever. SAB: I think it kind of becomes more interesting. ML: Right? It just becomes Ionesco’s Rhinoceros. It’s delocalized com- pletely and set free into its own dynamic between the actors and the audience. They’re not asked to imagine themselves anywhere else; they just are where they are. Just pushing your idea that the horizon of the allegory is the space of the room. SAB: Absolutely. I’ve already started writing that, and actually it’s very simple.
Arabic at the RSC ML: One question. Don’t you need a certain level of audience under- standing and engagement to build that kind of complicity, that momentary utopian political community inside the theater? SAB: The problem of that engagement with local audiences that is at the heart of developing metasignification is that you need to have 236 M Appendix
shared language. You need to have shared references, meta-language. You need to have so many things shared with the audience to develop sophistication in performance. If you don’t have those shared mean- ings, then you need a different toolkit to make theater. ML: So when you write for Western audiences in R3, why do you do it in Arabic? SAB: You don’t write for Western audiences. You don’t. ML: Give me a break. You wrote for Stratford. They commissioned you to write for them in Arabic. So that your audience would be bobbing their heads up and down between the surtitles and the stage. Flicking their eyes back and forth. What’s the utility of that? When you’re a perfectly good writer in English? A brilliant writer in English. I’m not saying there’s no utility; I just want to push you on it. SAB: That wasn’t the issue I had with it, but I can see what you’re saying. Of course, they had an agenda they wanted to fulfill. ML: Right. What was yours? SAB: I had an agenda as well. Which was primarily to get myself out of the trap that I’d fallen into. Which was accepting to do Richard III. In Arabic! For me, the issue in responding to their needs for a festival that brings things together from all over the world, where we can have like an ethnic party of, you know, Tibetans and Chinese and I don’t know what . . . ML: Where you can be a non-English “responder” to their great English Shakespeare festival. Right? You were billed as a response to the main- stream Michael Boyd production. SAB: Listen. You need to conform to their agenda as long as it is a play- able surface. ML: And then, it’s up to you what you do with that, right? They wanted it in Arabic? SAB: I wanted it in Arabic. I couldn’t make that piece in English. It’s not a piece for English. ML: You made Hamlet in English. SAB: But this had a different genesis and a different progress. You can’t make that sort of piece in English. Because, to play it in English, you would need a much more contentious subject matter in the body of the play to make it interesting, to my mind, for an English audience. By placing it in Arabic you gain other connotations through the lin- guistic transposition of the story and those dialogues. ML: In “Shakespeare Without his Language,” Dennis Kennedy argues that the non-Anglophone Shakespeare adapter has greater freedom of movement because he’s not shackled to Shakespeare’s text.12 Appendix M 237
SAB: Nor is he shackled to the interpellations of Shakespeare’s text, or the comparisons to Shakespeare’s text, or the other performances of those lines in that language. ML: Is that why you put it in Arabic? SAB: No. Actually, I don’t think Richard III is interesting in English. ML: Ha! Explain. SAB: The issues at the heart of the text—the religious transcendental- ism, the tribal values, the nature of that power struggle—I think so much of that is not so engaging for an English audience anymore. ML: I’m going to have to ask you to distinguish between language and cul- ture. You could have a scene where he’s impersonating a religious Muslim on a game show. In AHS, you would have done something very much like that. Rewrite the Shakespearean text in your own words, through an (in heavy scare quotes) “Arab perspective,” in English. It was an English- to-English translation. Why wouldn’t Richard work that way? SAB: If Richard III was going to be played in English, and I was going to play “an Arab perspective” of that in English, then I’d really have to till that text quite differently. I would have to unpick and remove everything that had to do with the sacred. When you move that text into Arabic, you activate the liberty of your own possibilities in the recipient language. Richard III into Arabic makes a lot of contextual sense: societal, religious, and historical sense. ML: Okay. SAB: So, listen: Let’s say there’s no Arabic, how are you gonna pass off the whole issue of the Yorks and the Lancasters, just to begin with? How are you going to make comprehensible any idea of tribal alle- giance that is higher than state or citizenship? ML: What does language have to do with that? SAB: I think it’s fundamental. ML: You’re talking about culture again. We’re in Beirut. You can see that Arabs are still Arabs even if they speak to each other in French. Or English. SAB: Really? They don’t make the same gestures! They don’t have the same automatic thought processes.
Language as a Signifier ML: But still: what do you gain by putting it into Arabic? By produc- ing for people in a language they don’t speak? I don’t think that’s an unfair question. SAB: New worlds of meaning! We’re able to undermine their reliance on language, and make them watch what’s actually happening onstage. 238 M Appendix
Which brings us to the whole question of the nature of the surtitles. The Brooklyn Academy of Music had very strict rules about the num- ber of words that they would allow to be translated. ML: Precisely so the audience wouldn’t spend its time reading? SAB: Yes. I’d always managed to evade those rules when they were less strict. But it was actually salutary to undergo that process. It’s about a release into that chasm of non-recognition that you’re talking about, between audiences that don’t speak the language and the play. ML: You’re a writer. Plus, you’re a control freak. What release? SAB: No, it is a release for a control freak to let go. Because at the end of the day, you make a stage picture as well—the actors, their gestures and body language, and scenic space. ML: Putting it in Arabic freed you and the audience to concentrate more on the scenography? SAB: Yes, why not? ML: Great. Why not make it silent? SAB: We don’t have a tradition of silence. (A silence.) Also, from the moment you stage the Arabic language in front of a non-Arab audi- ence, you are in the presence of a whole set of cultural prejudices and expectations inside the audience. We cannot pretend that language is transparent. That it carries meaning with no cultural signification. The audience aren’t coming to wear ear plugs and watch surtitles in their home language. They are engaging with an Arabic-language performance. The Arabic language itself, the sound it makes on the ear, is a political signifier. ML: So part of it is the physical, embodied presence of the Arabic lan- guage on stage. Good. That makes sense. SAB: Also, it allows us to work with the interplay between Arabic and English, when the English does come back in. We can play with the subject position of an English-speaking audience that does not know Arabic. ML: Like in R3, when they were forced to identify with Richmond, the hapless American diplomat / general. SAB: And even more so in TSP. ML: Wow. That’s much more convincing than the reasons you started with. Thank you.
Notes
1. Sulayman Al-Bassam, The Al-Hamlet Summit (Arabic and English), ed. Graham Holderness (Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2006), 78. Subsequent Appendix M 239
quotations are from this edition. Full subtitled video of the expanded Arabic production (2004) is at
Al-Bassam’s Post-9/11 Odyssey,” in “Shakespeare After 9/11,” Shakespeare Yearbook 18 (2010): 105–39 and the excerpted and updated version of that essay in this book. 11. See, for example, Peter J. Smith, “‘Under Western Eyes’: Sulaynam [sic] Al-Bassam’s The Al-Hamlet Summit in an Age of Terrorism,” Shakespeare Bulletin 22.4 (2004): 65–77. 12. Dennis Kennedy, “Introduction: Shakespeare without His Language,” Foreign Shakespeare: Contemporary Performance (1993; repr. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Bibliography
Ackroyd, Peter. Shakespeare: The Biography. New York: Nan A. Talese, 2005. Aebisher, Pascale and Nigel Wheale. Introduction to Remaking Shakespeare: Performance across Media, Genres, and Culture. Edited by Pascale Aebisher, Nigel Wheale, and Ed Esche. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. 1–17. Agamben, Giorgio. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Translated by Daniel Heller-Roazen. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998. ———. Nudities. Translated by David Kishik and Stefan Pedatella. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2011. ———. State of Exception. Translated by Kevin Attell. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Ahmad, Aijaz. In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures. London: Verso, 1992. al-Asadi, Jawad. Forget Hamlet. Translated by Margaret Litvin. Brisbane: Faculty of Arts, University of Queensland, 2006. ———. “Sweeping Away Ha mlet.” Forget Hamlet. Translated by Margaret Litvin. Brisbane: Faculty of Arts, University of Queensland, 2006. 7–9. Al-Bassam, Sulayman. The Al-Hamlet Summit. Edited by Graham Holderness. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2006. ———. The Arab Shakespeare Trilogy. London: Bloomsbury Methuen, 2014. ———. “A m I Mad? Creating The al-Hamlet Summit.” Theatre Forum 22 (2003): 85–88. ———. Kalila Wa Dimna: Or, The Mirror for Princes. London: Oberon Books, 2006. ———. “R icha rd III: A n A rab Tragedy.” Unpublished A rabic a nd English scripts, 2007. ———. Richard III, une tragédie arabe. Paris: L’Avant-Scène Théâtre, N° 1244, 2008. Albanese, Denise. Extramural Shakespeare. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. ———. “The Sha kespea re Film a nd the A merica nization of Cu lture.” In Marxist Shakespeares. Edited by Jean E. Howard and Scott Cutler Shershow. London: Routledge, 2001. 206–26. Alter, Iska. “King Lear and A Thousand Acres: Gender, Genre, and the Revisionary Impulse.” In Transforming Shakespeare: Contemporary Women’s Re-Visions in 242 M Bibliography
Literature and Performance. Edited by Marianne Novy. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999. 145–58. Appadurai, Arjun and Carol A. Breckenridge. “Why Public Culture?” Public Culture Bulletin 1.1 (1988): 5–9. Appiah, Kwame Anthony. The Ethics of Identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005. Apter, Emily. “Translation with No Original: Scandals of Textual Reproduction.” In Nation, Language, and the Ethics of Translation. Edited by Sandra Bermann and Michael Wood. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005. 159–74. Aristotle. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Translated by George A. Kennedy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. ———. Rhetoric. Translated by W. Rhys Roberts and Ingram Bywater. New York: Modern Library, 1954. Attridge, Derek. “Innovation, Literature, Ethics: Relating to the Other.” PMLA 114.1 (1999): 20–31. Bailey, Martin. Dürer. London: Phaidon, 1999. Bakhtin, M. M. “Art and Answerability.” In Art and Answerability: Early Philosophical Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Edited by Michael Holquist. Translated by Vadim Liapunov. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990. 1–3. ———. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Edited by Michael Holquist. Translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981. Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” In Image-Music-Text. Translated by Stephen Heath. New York: Hill and Wang, 1977. 142–49. Bass, Ellen and Laura Davis. The Courage to Heal: A Guide for Women Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse. 1st edition. New York: Harper & Row, 1988. Bate, Jonathan. The Genius of Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. ———. Shakespearean Constitutions: Politics, Theatre, Criticism 1730–1830. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989. ———. Soul of the Age. London: Penguin, 2008. Bates, Laura. Shakespeare Saved My Life: Ten Years in Solitary with the Bard. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, 2013. Beaumont, Gustave de and Alexis de Tocqueville. On the Penitentiary System in the United States and Its Appropriation in France (1833). Translated by Francis Lieber. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1964. Bermann, Sandra and Michael Wood, eds. Nation, Language, and the Ethics of Translation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005. Bevington, David. Shakespeare: The Seven Ages of Human Experience. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002. ———. This Wide and Universal Theater: Shakespeare in Performance, Then and Now. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. Bharucha, Rustom. The Politics of Cultural Practice: Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalization. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press, 2000. Bibliography M 243
Blair, Tony. “The Power of World Community.” In Re-Ordering the World. Edited by Mark Leonard. London: Foreign Policy Centre, 2002. 119–24. Bloom, Harold. The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973. Booth, Wayne C. The Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. ———. “W hy Ethica l Criticism Ca n Never Be Simple.” In Mapping the Ethical Turn: A Reader in Ethics, Culture, and Literary Theory. Edited by Todd F. Davis and Kenneth Womack. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2001. 16–29. Borges, Jorge Luis. “Kafka and His Precursors.” In Labyrinths: Selected Stories and Other Writings. Edited by Donald A. Yates and James E. Irby. New York: New Directions Books, 2007. 199–201. Bornstein, George and Ralph Williams, eds. Palimpsest: Editorial Theory in the Humanities. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1993. Bortolotti, Gary and Linda Hutcheon. “On the Origin of Adaptations: Rethinking Fidelity Discourse and ‘Success’—Biologically.” In New Literary History 38.3 (2007): 443–58. Bosker, Bianca. Original Copies: Architectural Mimicry in Contemporary China. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2013. Bourdieu, Pierre. “The Field of Cultural Production, or: The Economic World Reversed.” In The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Edited by Randal Johnson. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. 29–73. Brauner, David. “‘Speak Again’: The Politics of Rewriting in A Thousand Acres.” The Modern Language Review 96 (2001): 654–66. Bristol, Michael. Big-Time Shakespeare. London: Routledge, 1996. ———, ed. Shakespeare and Moral Agency. London: Continuum, 2010. ———. “‘A System of Oeconomica l Prudence’: Sha kespea rea n Cha racter a nd the Practice of Moral Inquiry.” In Shakespeare and the Eighteenth Century. Edited by Peter Sabor and Paul Yachnin. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008. 13–27. Brooks, Douglas A., Matthew Biberman, Julia Reinhard Lupton, eds. Shakespeare After 9/11: How a Social Trauma Reshapes Interpretation. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2011. Bryson, Bill. Shakespeare: The World as Stage. New York: HarperCollins, 2007. Buber, Martin. I and Thou. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970. Buchannan, Robert. “The Fleshly School of Poetry: Mr. D. G. Rossetti.” Contemporary Review 18 (1871): 334–50. ———. Review of Poems and Ballads by A. C. Swinburne. The Athenaeum (August 6, 1866): 137–38. Buell, Lawrence. “Introduction: In Pursuit of Ethics,” PMLA 114.1 (1999): 7–19. Buhler, Stephen. “The Psychology of Teen Hamlets: Edgar G. Ulmer’s Strange Illusion.” Quarterly Review of Film and Video 28.4 (2011): 353–61. 244 M Bibliography
Bulman, James C, ed. Shakespeare, Theory and Performance. New York: Routledge, 1995. Burke, Kenneth. “Four Master Tropes.” In A Grammar of Motives. 1945. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1969. 503–17. Burnett, Mark Thornton. Filming Shakespeare in the Global Marketplace. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. ———. Shakespeare and World Cinema. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Burt, Richard. Unspeakable ShaXXXspeares, Revised Edition: Queer Theory and American Kiddie Culture. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998. Cakebread, Caroline. “Remembering King Lear in Jane Smiley’s A Thousand Acres.” In Shakespeare and Appropriation. Edited by Christy Desmet and Robert Sawyer. London: Routledge, 1999. 85–102. Calbi, Maurizio. Spectral Shakespeares: Media Adaptations in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Cartelli, Thomas. Repositioning Shakespeare: National Formations, Postcolonial Appropriations. London: Routledge, 1999. Caruth, Cathy. Unclaimed Experience: Trauma, Narrative, and History. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. Cavell, Stanley. “The Avoidance of Love: A Reading of King Lear.” In Disowning Knowledge in Six Plays of Shakespeare. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 39–123. Christ, Carol Ann. “‘The Sole Guardians of the Art Inheritance of Asia’: Japan and China at the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair.” Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique 8.3 (2000): 675–709. Connor, J. D. “The Persistence of Fidelity: Adaptation Theory Today.” M/C Journal 10.2 (2007).
———. Monolingualism of the Other; or, The Prosthesis of Origin. Translated by Patrick Mensah. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998. ———. “Signature Event Context.” In Limited Inc. Translated by Samuel Weber and Jeffrey Mehlman. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1988. 1–23. Derrida, Jacques and Lawrence Venuti. “What Is a ‘Relevant’ Translation?” Critical Inquiry 27.2 (2001): 169–200. Desmet, Christy and Robert Sawyer, eds. Shakespeare and Appropriation. London: Routledge, 1999. Diehl, Karen. “Once Upon an Adaptation: Traces of the Authorial on Film.” In Books in Motion: Adaptation, Intertextuality, Authorship. Edited by Mireia Aragay. New York: Rodopi, 2005. 89–106. Dollimore, Jonathan and Alan Sinfield, eds. Political Shakespeare: Essays in Cultural Materialism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994. Drakakis, John, ed. Alternative Shakespeares. London: Methuen, 1985. Duncan-Jones, Katherine. “Complete Works, Essential Year? (All of) Shakespeare Performed.” Shakespeare Quarterly 58.3 (2007): 353–66. ———. Shakespeare: An Ungentle Life. London: Bloomsbury-Arden, 2010. Eaglestone, Robert. “Levinas, Translation, and Ethics.” In Nation, Language, and the Ethics of Translation. Edited by Sandra Bermann and Michael Wood. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005. 127–38. Eagleton, Terry. Sweet Violence: The Idea of the Tragic. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. Edmondson, Paul, and Stanley Wells, eds. Shakespeare beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Eickelman, Dale, and Jon Anderson, eds. New Media in the Muslim World: The Emerging Public Sphere. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2003. Eskin, Michael. “On Literature and Ethics.” Poetics Today 25.4 (2004): 573–94. Evans, Lee R. “Women, Energy, and Middlemarch.” Massachusetts Review 13 (1972): 223–38. Fernie, Ewan. “The Last Act: Presentism, Spirituality and the Politics of Hamlet.” In Spiritual Shakespeares. Edited by Fernie. London: Routledge, 2005. 186–211. Fetterly, Judith. The Resisting Reader: A Feminist Approach to American Fiction. London: Indiana University Press, 1978. Fischlin, Daniel and Mark Fortier, eds. Adaptations of Shakespeare: A Critical Anthology of Plays from the Seventeenth Century to the Present. Edited by Fischlin and Fortier. London and New York: Routledge, 2000. Fortier, Mark. “Shakespeare as ‘Minor Theater’: Deleuze and Guattari and the Aims of Adaptation.” Mosaic 29.1 (1996): 1–18. ———. “Wild Adaptation.” Borrowers and Lenders 3.1 (2007): 1–8. Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House, 1977. ———. “What Is An Author?” In The Foucault Reader. Edited by Peter Rabinow. Translated by Josué V. Harari. New York: Pantheon Books, 1984. 101–20. Fraden, Rena. Imagining Medea: Rhodessa Jones and Theater for Incarcerated Women. London: University of North Carolina Press, 2001. 246 M Bibliography
Freedman, Barbara. “Reading Errantly: Misrecognition and the Uncanny in The Comedy of Errors.” In The Comedy of Errors: Critical Essays. Edited by Robert S. Miola. New York: Garland Publishing, 1997. 261–97. Friedman, Michael D. “In Defense of Authenticity.” Studies in Philology 99.1 (2002): 33–56. Gabrieli, F. “Ibn al-Mukaffa‘.” In Encyclopedia of Islam. Edited by P. J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, and W. P. Heinrichs. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Ganti, Tejaswini. Bollywood: A Guidebook to Popular Hindi Cinema. New York: Routledge, 2004. Garber, Marjorie. Quotation Marks. London: Routledge, 2003. ———. Shakespeare and Modern Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009. Glover, David. Vampires, Mummies, and Liberals: Bram Stoker and the Politics of Popular Fiction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1996. Gombrich, E. H. Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1960. Görlach, Manfred. The Cambridge History of the English Language, 1476–1775. Edited by Roger Lass, vol. 3. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992–94. ———. Introduction to Early Modern English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Greenblatt, Stephen J. “Learning to Curse: Aspects of Linguistic Colonialism in the Sixteenth Century.” In Learning to Curse: Essays in Early Modern Culture. New York: Routledge, 1990. 16–39. ———. Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare. New York: W. W. Norton, 2004. Greenhalgh, Paul. Ephemeral Vistas. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1991. 82–111. Guillory, John. “The Ethical Practice of Modernity: The Example of Reading.” In The Turn to Ethics. Edited by Marjorie Garber, Beatrice Hanssen, and Rebecca L. Walkowitz. New York: Routledge, 2000. 29–46. Haaken, Janice. Pillar of Salt: Gender, Memory, and the Perils of Looking Back. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1998. Hacking, Ian. Rewriting the Soul: Multiple Personality and the Sciences of Memory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995. Hawkes, Terence. “Band of Brothers.” In Presentist Shakespeares. Edited by Hugh Grady and Terence Hawkes. London: Routledge, 2007. 6–26. ———. Meaning by Shakespeare. London: Routledge, 1992. ———. Shakespeare in the Present. London: Routledge, 2002. ———. That Shakespeherian Rag: Essays on a Critical Process. London: Routledge, 1986. Helgerson, Richard. Forms of Nationhood: The Elizabethan Writing of England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Bibliography M 247
Henderson, Diana. Collaborations with the Past: Reshaping Shakespeare Across Time and Media. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006. Hodgdon, Barbara. Afterword to World-Wide Shakespeares: Local Appropriations in Film and Performance. Edited by Sonia Massai. New York: Routledge, 2005. 157– 60. ———. “From the Editor.” Shakespeare Quarterly 53.2 (2002): iii–x. ———. The Shakespeare Trade: Performances and Appropriations. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998. Holderness, Graham. “From Summit to Tragedy: Sulayman Al-Bassam’s Richard III and Political Theatre.” Critical Survey 19.3 (2007): 124–43. ———. Introduction to The Al-Hamlet Summit. By Sulayman Al-Bassam. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2006. 9–21. ———. Nine Lives of William Shakespeare. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2011. ———, ed. The Shakespeare Myth. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988. The Holy Bible. Glasgow: Harper Collins, 1991. Honan, Park. Shakespeare: A Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Hope, Jonathan. “Shakespeare and Language: An Introduction.” In Shakespeare and Language. Edited by Catherine M. S. Alexander. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 1–17 Huang, Alex. Chinese Shakespeares: Two Centuries of Cultural Exchange. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009. ———. “‘W hat Countr y, Friends, Is This?’: Touring Sha kespea res, A genc y, a nd Efficacy in Theatre Historiography.” Theatre Survey 54.1 (2013): 51–85. Huffer, Lynne. “In Praise of Error.” In Shakesqueer: A Queer Companion to the Complete Works of Shakespeare. Edited by Madhavi Menon. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011. 72–79. Hutcheon, Linda. A Theory of Adaptation. New York: Routledge, 2006. Hyder, Clyde, ed. Swinburne as Critic. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972. Ikeuchi, Yasuko. “Modern Japanese Adaptations of Othello [Kindai nihon ni okeru Osero no hon’an geki].” Art Research 3 (2003): 137–50. Irace, Kathleen. “Reconstruction and Adaptation in Q of Henry V.” Studies in Bibliography 44 (1991): 228–53. ———. Reforming the “Bad Quartos”: Performance and Provenance of Six Shakespearean First Editions. Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press, 1994. Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. London: Methuen, 1983. ———. Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003. Johnson, Barbara. “Taking Fidelity Philosophically.” In Difference in Translation. Edited by Joseph F. Graham. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985. 142–48. Johnson, Lemuel. Shakespeare in Africa (And Other Venues): Import and the Appropriation of Culture. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, 1998. 248 M Bibliography
Johnson, Samuel. The Works of Samuel Johnson. Vol. 8: Notes on Shakespeare’s Plays. Edited by Arthur Sherbo. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1968. Joughin, John J. “Philosophical Shakespeares: an introduction.” In Philosophical Shakespeares. Edited by Joughin. London: Routledge, 2000. 1–18. Kano, Ayako. Acting Like a Woman in Modern Japan: Theater, Gender, and Nationalism. London: Palgrave, 2004. Khoury, Yvette K. “Richard III: An Arab Tragedy, by William Shakespeare, directed and adapted by Sulayman Al-Bassam, the Swan Theatre (RSC), Stratford- upon-Avon, 15 February 2007.” Review of Richard III: An Arab Tragedy. Cahiers Élisabéthains 71 (2007): 75–76. Kidnie, Margaret Jane. Shakespeare and the Problem of Adaptation. London: Routledge, 2009. Kipling, Rudyard. “The White Man’s Burden.” In Rudyard Kipling’s Verse, Inclusive Edition, 1885–1918. Garden City: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1922. 371–72. Knapp, Steven, and Walter Benn Michaels. “Against Theory.” Critical Inquiry 8.4 (1982): 723–42. Ko, Yu Jin, and Michael W. Shurgot. Shakespeare’s Sense of Character: On the Page and From the Stage. Farnham: Ashgate, 2012. Kozusko, Matt. “Monstrous!: Actors, Audiences, Inmates, and the Politics of Reading Shakespeare.” Shakespeare Bulletin 28.2 (2010): 235–51. Kunzel, Regina. Criminal Intimacy: Prison and the Uneven History of Modern American Sexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008. LaCapra, Dominick. Writing History, Writing Trauma. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. Lang, Cecil Y., ed. The Letters of Algernon Charles Swinburne. vol. 1. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1959–62. Larson, Doran. “Toward a Prison Poetics.” College Literature 37.3 (2010): 143–66. Leinwand, Theodore. “Afterwords: Reading Reading Renaissance Ethics ‘with Modesty Enough.’” In Reading Renaissance Ethics. Edited by Marshall Grossman. London: Routledge, 2007. 277–84. Levi-Strauss, Claude. Elementary Structures of Kinship. Boston: Beacon Press, 1971. Levinas, Emmanuel. Otherwise Than Being or Beyond Essence. Translated by Alphonso Lingis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991. ———. “Rea lit y a nd Its Shadow.” In The Levinas Reader. Edited by Seán Hand. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989. 129–43. Litvin, Margaret. “Doomed by ‘Dialogue,’ Saved by Curiosity? Post-9/11 Arab Performances under American Eyes.” In Doomed by Hope: Essays on Arab Theatre. Edited by Eyad Houssami. London: Pluto Press, 2012. 158–77. ———. Hamlet’s Arab Journey: Shakespeare’s Prince and Nasser’s Ghost. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011. ———. “Richard III: An Arab Tragedy.” Review of Richard III: An Arab Tragedy. Directed by Sulayman Al-Bassam. Shakespeare Bulletin 25.4 (2007): 85–91. London, Jennifer. “How to Do Things with Fables: Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s Frank Speech in Stories from Kalila wa Dimna.” History of Political Thought 29.2 (2008): 189–212. Bibliography M 249
Lynch, Jack. Becoming Shakespeare. New York: Walker & Company, 2007. Macaulay, Thomas Babington. “Minute on Indian Education.” In Archives of Empire Volume 1 – From the East India Company to the Suez Canal. Edited by Barbara Harlow and Mia Carter. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003. 227–38. Maguire, Laurie E. “Composition/Decomposition: Singular Shakespeare and the Death of the Author.” In The Renaissance Text: Theory, Editing, Textuality. Edited by Andrew Murphy. Manchester University Press, 2000. 135–53. Maine, Henry. Cambridge University. Cambridge. 1875. Lecture. Cited in Thomas R. Metcalf. Ideologies of the Raj. Vol. 3, Part 4 of The New Cambridge History of India. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Marcus, Leah S. “Editing Shakespeare in a Postmodern Age.” In A Concise Companion to Shakespeare and the Text. Edited by Andrew R. Murphy. London: Blackwell, 2007. 128–44. ———. Unediting the Renaissance: Shakespeare, Marlowe, Milton. New York: Routledge, 1998. Margolis, Joseph. Selves and Other Texts: The Case for Cultural Realism. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001. Marlowe, Christopher. Doctor Faustus A and B Texts (1624, 1616). Edited by David Bevington and Eric Rasmussen. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993. Marowitz, Charles. A Macbeth: Freely Adapted from Shakespeare’s Tragedy. London: Calder and Boyars, 1971. ———. “Sha kespea re Rec ycled.” Shakespeare Quarterly 38.4 (1987): 467–78. Marsden, Jean I., ed. The Appropriation of Shakespeare: Post-Renaissance Reconstructions of the Works and the Myth. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991. Massai, Sonia. “Defining Local Shakespeares.” In World-Wide Shakespeares: Local Appropriations in Film and Performance. Edited by Massai. New York: Routledge, 2005, 3–11. ———, ed. World-Wide Shakespeares: Local Appropriations in Film and Performance. New York: Routledge, 2005. Masten, Jeffrey. “More or Less: Editing the Collaborative.” Shakespeare Studies 29 (2001): 109–31. Mathieson, Barbara. “The Polluted Quarry: Nature and Body in A Thousand Acres.” In Transforming Shakespeare: Contemporary Women’s Re-Visions in Literature and Performance. Edited by Marianne Novy. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999. 127–44. McAlindon, Thomas. Shakespeare’s Tragic Cosmos. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991. McGann, Jerome. A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. McLeod, Randall, ed. Crisis in Editing: Texts of the English Renaissance. New York: AMS Press, 1988. McNally, Richard J. Remembering Trauma. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. 250 M Bibliography
Michaels, Walter Benn. The Shape of the Signifier: 1967 to the End of History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. Mihalopoulos, Bill. “The Making of Prostitutes: The Karayuki-san.” Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 25.1 (1993): 41–56. Minton, Gretchen E. “A Polynesian Shakespeare Film. The Maori Merchant of Venice.” Upstart Crow 24 (2004): 45–55. Mishra, Vijay. “Bollywood: A Critical Genealogy.” Working Paper. Victoria University of Wellington, Asian Studies Institute, 2006. 1–31. ———. Bollywood Cinema: Temples of Desire. London: Routledge, 2002. Moretti, Franco. Signs Taken for Wonders: On the Sociology of Literary Forms. London: Verso, 2005. Morgan, Michael L. The Cambridge Introduction to Emmanuel Levinas. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Müller, Max. “The Aryan Section” (1876). In Archives of Empire Volume 1—From the East India Company to the Suez Canal. Edited by Barbara Harlow and Mia Carter. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003. 239–45. Murray, Paul. From the Shadow of Dracula: A Life of Bram Stoker. London: Jonathan Cape, 2004. Nakajima, Chikuka. Trip into the Lands of Savages in Taiwan [Seiban tanken-ki]. Tokyo: Hakubunkan, 1897. Nanta, Arnaud. “Colonial Expositions and Ethnic Hierarchies in Modern Japan.” In Human Zoos: Science and Spectacle in the Age of Colonial Empires. Edited by Pascal Blanchard, Nicolas Bancel, Gilles Boëtsch, Eric Deroo, Sandrine Lemaire, and Charles Forscick. Translated by Teresa Bridgeman. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2008. 248–58. Nealon, Jeffrey. “The Ethics of Dialogue: Bakhtin and Levinas.” College English 59.2 (1997): 129–48. Nicholl, Charles. The Lodger: Shakespeare on Silver Street. London: Allen Lane, 2007. Novak, Peter. “‘Where Lies Your Text?’: Twelfth Night in American Sign Language Translation.” Shakespeare Survey 61 (2008): 74–90. Novy, Marianne, ed. Transforming Shakespeare: Contemporary Women’s Re-Visions in Literature and Performance. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999. 127–44. Nussbaum, Martha C. Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. ———. Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Orgel, Stephen. “The Authentic Shakespeare.” In The Authentic Shakespeare and Other Problems of the Early Modern Stage. New York: Routledge, 2002. 231–56. Ozdek, Almila. “Coming out of the Amnesia: Herstories and Earth Stories, and Jane Smiley’s Critique of Capitalist Ownership in A Thousand Acres.” In New Directions in Ecofeminist Literary Criticism. Edited by Andrea Campbell. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, 2008. 62–73. Parker, Patricia. Shakespeare from the Margins: Language, Culture, Context. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Bibliography M 251
Poole, Ross. Morality and Modernity. New York: Routledge, 1991. Pope, Rebecca A. “Writing and Biting in Dracula.” In New Casebooks: Dracula. Edited by Glennis Byron. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1999. 68–92. Popper, Karl. “The Myth of the Framework.” In The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality. Edited by M. A. Notturno. London: Routledge, 1994. 33–64. Potter, Lois. The Life of William Shakespeare. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. Potz McGerr, Rosemarie. “Retraction and Memory: Retrospective Structure in the Canterbury Tales.” Comparative Literature 37.2 (1985): 97–113. Purcell, Stephen. Popular Shakespeare: Simulation and Subversion on the Modern Stage. London: Palgrave, 2009. Rabkin, Norman. “Rabbits, Ducks, and Henry V.” Shakespeare Quarterly 28.3 (1977): 279–96. Rajadhyaksha, Ashish. “The ‘Bollywoodization’ of the Indian cinema: Cultural Nationalism in a Global Arena.” In Global Bollywood. Edited by Anadam P. Kavoori and Aswin Punathambekar. New York: New York University Press, 2008. 17–40. ———. Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Reynolds, Bryan. Performing Transversally: Reimagining Shakespeare and the Critical Future. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Reynolds, Bryan and Don Hedrick. Shakespeare Without Class: Misappropriations of Cultural Capital. Edited by Reynolds and Hedrick. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. Rhu, Lawrence. Stanley Cavell’s American Dream: Shakespeare, Philosophy, and Hollywood Movies. New York: Fordham University Press, 2006. Rich, Adrienne. “When We Dead Awaken: Writing as Re-Vision.” College English 34.1 (1972): 18–30. Richardson, Malcolm. “Henry V, the English Chancery, and Chancery English.” Speculum 55.4 (1980): 726–50. Ridout, Nicholas. Theatre & Ethics. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Riffaterre, Michael. “Prosopopoeia.” Yale French Studies 69 (1985): 107–23. Rodi-Risberg, Marinella. “Trauma and Its Resolution in Jane Smiley’s Novel A Thousand Acres.” In Reconstructing Pain and Joy: Linguistic, Literary, and Cultural Perspectives. Edited by Chryssoula Lascaratou, Anna Despotopoulou, and Elly Ifantidou. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, 2008. 195–207. Rossetti, Michael. Swinburne’s Poems and Ballads: A Criticism. 1866. New York: AMS, 1971. Rushdie, Salman. The Moor’s Last Sigh. London: Vintage, 1995. Sanders, Julie. Adaptation and Appropriation. London and New York: Routledge, 2006. ———. Novel Shakespeares: Twentieth-Century Women Novelists and Appropriation. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002. Sardar, Ziauddin, and Merryl Wyn Davies. Why Do People Hate America? Cambridge: Icon, 2002. 252 M Bibliography
Sasamori, Uichiro. “Othello and the British [Osero to Daiei Kokumin].” Shinjin 4.7 (1903): 22–26. Sawyer, Robert O. Victorian Appropriations of Shakespeare: George Eliot, A. C. Swinburne, Robert Browning and Charles Dickens. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2003. Schmiedgen, Peter. “Art and Idolatry: Aesthetics and Alterity in Levinas.” Contretemps 3 (July 2002): 148–60. Schwartz, Daniel. “A Humanistic Ethics of Reading.” In Mapping the Ethical Turn: A Reader in Ethics, Culture, and Literary Theory. Edited by Todd F. Davis and Kenneth Womack. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2001. 3–15. Scott-Douglass, Amy. Shakespeare Inside: The Bard Behind Bars. New York: Continuum, 2007. Sen, Indrani. Woman and Empire: Representations in the Writings of British India, 1858–1900. London: Orient Longman, 2002. Shailor, Jonathan. Introduction to Performing New Lives: Prison Theatre. Edited by Jonathan Shailor. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2010. 17–32. Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works of Shakespeare, 4th edition. Edited by David Bevington. New York: HarperCollins, 1992. ———. The Cronicle History of Henry the fift with his battell fought at Agin Court in France. Togither with Auntient Pistoll. As it hath bene sundry times playd by the Right honorable the Lord Chamberlaine his servants, sig. E3v. London, 1600. Early English Books Online. ———. King Lear. The Arden Shakespeare, Third Series. Edited by R. A. Foakes. Walton-on-Thames: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1997. ———. Mr. Vvilliam Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies Published According to the True Originall Copies, 87–88. London, 1623. Early English Books Online. ———. The Norton Shakespeare. Edited by Stephen Greenblatt et al. New York: W. W. Norton, 1997. ———. The Norton Shakespeare: Volume 1, The Early Plays. Edited by Stephen Greenblatt, et al. New York: W. W. Norton, 2008. ———. The Norton Shakespeare: Volume 2, The Later Plays. Edited by Stephen Greenblatt, et al. New York: W. W. Norton, 2008. ———. The Riverside Shakespeare, 2nd. edition. Edited by G. Blakemore Evans. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997. Shapiro, James. 1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare. New York: HarperCollins, 2005. ———. Contested Will. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010. Shrimpton, Nicholas. “Bradley and the Aesthetes.” Essays in Criticism 55.4 (2005): 309–31. Sidney, Philip. Miscallaneous Prose of Philip Sidney. Edited by Katherine Duncan- Jones and Jan Van Dorsten. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973. Siebers, Tobin. The Ethics of Criticism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988. Bibliography M 253
Sieburth, Richard. “Poetry and Obscenity: Baudelaire and Swinburne.” Comparative Literature 36.4 (1984): 343–53. Sinfield, Alan. “Introduction: Reproductions, Interventions.” In Political Shakespeare: New Essays in Cultural Materialism. Edited by Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1989. 154–57. ———. Shakespeare, Authority, Sexuality: Unfinished Business in Cultural Materialism. New York: Routledge, 2006. Smiley, Jane. A Thousand Acres. New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1991. ———. “Sha kespea re in Icela nd.” In Transforming Shakespeare: Contemporary Women’s Re-Visions in Literature and Performance. Edited by Marianne Novy. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999. 159–80. ———. “Ta k ing It A ll Back.” In The Writing Life: Writers on How They Think and Work. Edited by Marie Arana. New York: Public Affairs, 2003. 387–92. Smith, Caleb. The Prison and the American Imagination. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009. Smith, Peter J. “‘Under Western Eyes’: Sulaynam [sic] Al-Bassam’s The Al-Hamlet Summit in an Age of Terrorism.” Shakespeare Bulletin 22.4 (2004): 65–77. Soyinka, Wole. The Man Died: The Prison Notes of Wole Soyinka. New York: FSG, 1972. Stallybrass, Peter. “Transvestism and the ‘Body Beneath’: Speculating on the Boy Actor.” In Erotic Politics: Desire on the Renaissance Stage. Edited by Susan Zimmerman. London and New York: Routledge, 1992. 64–83. Stam, Robert. “Beyond Fidelity: The Dialogics of Adaptation.” In Film Adaptation. Edited by James Naremore. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2000. 54–78. Stanley, Eric A., and Nat Smith. Captive Genders: Trans Embodiment and the Prison Industrial Complex. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2011. Steiner, Wendy. The Scandal of Pleasure: Art in an Age of Fundamentalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. Stodard, Nicole. “Macbeth.” Review of Tlingit Macbeth, by Anita Maynard-Losh. Shakespeare Bulletin 25.3 (2007): 96–100. Stoker, Bram. Dracula. Edited by Glennis Byron. Ontario: Broadview Press, 1997. Streete, Adrian. Protestantism and Drama in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Suematsu, Baron. A Fantasy of Far Japan. London: Archibald Constable and Company, 1905. Suzuki, Masae. “The Three Japanese Othellos.” In Shakespeare Global/Local: The Hong Kong Imaginary in Transcultural Production. Edited by Kwok-kan Tam, Andrew Parkin, and Terry Siu-han Yip. Pieterlen: Peter Lang, 2002. Swinburne, A. C. The Complete Works of Algernon Charles Swinburne. 20 Vols. Edited by Edmund Gosse and Thomas Wise. London: Russell and Russell, 1968. Symington, Rodney. The Nazi Appropriation of Shakespeare: Cultural Politics in the Third Reich. Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press, 2006. Tatlow, Antony. Shakespeare, Brecht, and the Intercultural Sign. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2001. 254 M Bibliography
Tamura, Shizue. There Were Movies in the Beginning [Hajime ni eiga ga atta]. Tokyo: Chuo ko-ron, 2000. Taxman, Faye, et al. “Racial Disparity and the Legitimacy of the Criminal Justice System: Exploring Consequences for Deterrence.” Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 16 (2005): 57–77. Taylor, Charles. Philosophical Arguments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995. Taylor, Charles, et al. “The Politics of Recognition.” In Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. 6th edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994. 25–73. Taylor, Gary. Reinventing Shakespeare: A Cultural History, from the Restoration to the Present. New York: Grove Press, 1989. ———. “Revising Sha kespea re.” In Shakespeare: An Anthology of Criticism and Theory 1945–2000. Edited by Russ McDonald. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. 280–95. Taylor, Gary and Michael Warren, eds. The Division of the Kingdoms: Shakespeare’s Two Versions of King Lear. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Thompson, Ann and Neil Taylor. Introduction to The Arden Shakespeare: Hamlet. Edited by Thompson and Taylor. London: Thomson Learning, 2006. 1–132 Tierney, Robert. “Othello in Tokyo: Performing Race and Empire in 1903 Japan.” Shakespeare Quarterly 62.4 (2011): 514–40. Tofteland, Curt. “The Keeper of the Keys.” In Performing New Lives. Edited by Jonathan Shailor. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2011. 213–30. Tomeoka, Kosuke. “To Improve the New Commoners [Shinheimin no kaizen].” Japan Police Support Association Magazine [Keisatsu Kyokai Zasshi]. 1907. 290–91. Tymoczko, Maria. “Translation, Resistance, Activism: An Overview.” In Translation, Resistance, Activism. Edited by Tymoczko. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2010. 1–22. Vasudevan, Ravi S. Making Meaning in Indian Cinema. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Venuti, Lawrence. “Local Contingencies: Translation and National Identities.” In Nation, Language, and the Ethics of Translation. Edited by Sandra Bermann and Michael Wood. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005. 177–202. Warren, Robin O. “Hamlet Rides Among the Seminoles.” Southern Cultures 7.4 (2001): 32–63. Wayne, Valerie. “Te Tangata Whai Rawa o Weniti, The Maori Merchant of Venice.” Review of The Maori Merchant of Venice by Don C. Selwin. The Contemporary Pacific 16.2 (2004): 425–29. Weimann, Robert. Authority and Representation in Early Modern Discourse. Edited by David Hillman. London: John Hopkins University Press, 1996. ———. Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition in the Theater. London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978. Wells, Stanley. Shakespeare: For All Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Bibliography M 255
Wilson, Richard. Secret Shakespeare. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004. Wilson, Rita. “Mediating the Clash of Cultures through Translingual Narrative.” In Words, Images, and Performances in Translation. Edited by Wilson and Maher. London: Continuum, 2012. 45–62. Wilson, Rita and Brigid Maher. Introduction to Words, Images, and Performances in Translation. Edited by Rita Wilson and Brigid Maher. London: Continuum, 2012. 1–6. ———, eds. Words, Images, and Performances in Translation. London: Continuum. 2012. Wood, Michael. In Search of Shakespeare. New York: Basic Books, 2003. Worthen, William. Shakespeare and the Authority of Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. ———. Shakespeare and the Force of Modern Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. ———. Shakespeare Performance Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Wray, Ramona. “The Morals of Macbeth and Peace as Process: Adapting Shakespeare in Northern Ireland’s Maximum Security Prison.” Shakespeare Quarterly 62.3 (2011): 340–63. Yanase, Keisuke. On Subjects Denigrated as Non-Human [Eta Hin’in]. In Sourcebook: Discrimination against Outcaste [Buraki Mondai Ronsou] 1. Sekai Bunko, 1972. 94–96. Yoshihara, Yukari. “The First Japanese Adaptation of Othello (1903) and Japanese Colonialism.” In Shakespeare in Culture. Edited by Ching-His Perng and Bi-Qi Beatrice Lei. Taipei: National Taiwan University Press, 2012. 231–50. Yoshimi, Shunya. Politics of International Expositions [Hakurankai no seijigaku]. Tokyo: Chuko, 1992. Young, Robert J. C. Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture, and Race. New York: Routledge, 1995. Žižek, Slavoj. The Indivisible Remainder: An Essay on Schelling and Related Matters. New York: Verso, 1996. Zunshine, Lisa. Why We Read Fiction: Theory of Mind and the Novel. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2006. Contributors
Thomas Cartelli is professor of English and Film Studies at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pennsylvania. He is the author of Marlowe, Shakespeare, and the Economy of Theatrical Experience and of Repositioning Shakespeare: National Formations, Postcolonial Appropriations; coauthor (with Katherine Rowe) of New Wave Shakespeare on Screen; and editor of the Norton Critical Edition of Shakespeare’s Richard III. Current projects include a book provi- sionally entitled Experimental Shakespeare: Theory and Practice. Sheila T. Cavanagh, founding director of the World Shakespeare Project (worldshakespeareproject.org), is professor of English and Distinguished Teaching Scholar at Emory. She also held the Masse-Martin/NEH Distinguished Teaching Professorship. Author of Wanton Eyes and Chaste Desires: Female Sexuality in the Faerie Queene and Cherished Torment: The Emotional Geography of Lady Mary Wroth’s Urania, she has also published widely in the fields of pedagogy and of Renaissance literature. She is active in the electronic realm, having directed the Emory Women Writers Resource Project (womenwriters.library.emory.edu) since 1994 and serving for many years as editor of the online Spenser Review. Brinda Charry is associate professor of English at Keene State College. Apart from essays in journals and books, she has coedited a volume titled Emissaries in Early Modern Literature and Culture: Mediation, Transmission, Traffic, 1550 –1700 (Ashgate, 2009) with Gitanjali Shahani, and is the author of The Tempest: Language and Writing (Arden Shakespeare, 2013). She is also a fiction writer, having published two novels and a collection of short stories. Christy Desmet is Josiah Meigs Distinguished Teaching Professor of English at the University of Georgia. She is the author or editor of Reading Shakespeare’s Characters (1992), Shakespeare and Appropriation (with Robert 258 M Contributors
Sawyer, 1999), Harold Bloom’s Shakespeare (with Robert Sawyer, 2001), Shakespearean Gothic (with Anne Williams, 2009), and Helen Faucit (2011). With Sujata Iyengar, she is cofounder and co-general editor of Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation (www.borrowers. uga.edu). Alexa Huang is professor of English, Theatre, East Asian Languages and Literatures, and International Affairs at George Washington University where she cofounded and codirects the Digital Humanities Institute. She is also director of the Dean’s Scholars in Shakespeare and director of graduate studies in English. Her books include Chinese Shakespeares: Two Centuries of Cultural Exchange; Weltliteratur und Welttheater: Ästhetischer Humanismus in der kulturellen Globalisierung; Shakespeare in Hollywood, Asia and Cyberspace (coedited); and Class, Boundary and Social Discourse in the Renaissance (coed- ited). She is named the Fulbright Distinguished Chair in global Shakespeare studies in London for 2014–2015. Douglas Lanier is professor of English and Coordinator of the London Program at the University of New Hampshire. He has published widely on contemporary Shakespeare adaptation on film and in contemporary popular culture, as well as articles on Shakespeare, Marston, Milton, Jonson, and the Jacobean masque. His book, Shakespeare and Modern Popular Culture, was published by Oxford University Press in 2002; his bibliography of nearly 900 Shakespearean spinoff films appeared in Shakespeares after Shakespeare, edited by Richard Burt (Greenwood Press, 2007). He is a contributing edi- tor for the forthcoming Cambridge World Shakespeare Encyclopedia, edited by Bruce Smith and Katharine Rowe. In 2009 he was named a Gary Lindbergh Scholar, University of New Hampshire’s highest award for excel- lence in teaching and scholarship. He is currently at work on a book-length study of Othello on screen, with particular emphasis on unfaithful adapta- tions, and a book on The Merchant of Venice for the Arden Language and Writing series. Courtney Lehmann is the Tully Knoles Professor of the Humanities at University of the Pacific. In addition to publishing more than 30 articles on the subject of Shakespeare and cinema, Lehmann has written or edited five books: Shakespeare Remains: Theater to Film, Early Modern to Postmodern, Spectacular Shakespeare: Critical Theory and Popular Cinema, The Reel Shakespeare: Alternative Cinema and Theory, Romeo and Juliet: Adaptations, and Great Shakespeareans, Volume XIV: Welles, Kozintsev, Kurosawa, and Zeffirelli (Continuum). She is an award-winning teacher and an avid soc- cer player as a former member of four national championship teams at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Contributors M 259
Margaret Litvin is assosiate professor of Arabic and Comparative Literature at Boston University and the author of Hamlet’s Arab Journey: Shakespeare’s Prince and Nasser’s Ghost (Princeton University Press, 2011). Her current research explores the literary ties of twentieth-century Arab intellectuals with Russia and the Soviet Union. She also edits the Arab World section of the Global Shakespeares electronic archive and blogs at arabshakespeare. blogspot.com. Elizabeth Rivlin is associate professor of English at Clemson University. She is the author of The Aesthetics of Service in Early Modern England (Northwestern University Press, 2012). She has also published essays in English Literary History, English Literary Renaissance, and in several edited volumes. Currently she is writing a book on twenty-first-century American novelistic and cinematic adaptations of Shakespeare. Robert Sawyer is professor of English at East Tennessee State University. Author of Victorian Appropriations of Shakespeare (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2003), he is also coeditor of Shakespeare and Appropriation (Routledge, 1999), and Harold Bloom’s Shakespeare (Palgrave, 2001). His current research examines the critical connection between Marlowe and Shakespeare, particularly post-9/11. His essay on this topic, “Recent Reckonings: Marlowe, Shakespeare and 21st Century Terrorism,” was the cowinner of the 2013 Calvin Hoffman Prize. Gitanjali Shahani is associate professor of English at San Francisco State University. Her edited volume, Emissaries in Early Modern Literature and Culture: Mediation, Transmission, Traffic, 1550–1700 (with Brinda Charry) was published by Ashgate in 2009. Her work has appeared in journals such as Shakespeare and the Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies and in edited volumes such as Bollywood Shakespeares (Palgrave, 2014). She is cur- rently coediting a special issue of Shakespeare Studies on “Diet and Identity in Shakespeare’s England” and completing a book manuscript on the early modern spice trade. Adrian Streete is senior lecturer in Renaissance Literature, Queen’s University, Belfast. His publications include Protestantism and Drama in Early Modern England (Cambridge University Press, 2009/2011) and Early Modern Drama and the Bible: Contexts and Readings, 1570–1625 (Palgrave, 2012). He has just finished a book on apocalypse and anti-Catholicism in early modern drama, funded by a Leverhulme Trust Fellowship. Ema Vyroubalová is assistant professor in the School of English at Trinity College Dublin in Ireland, where she teaches courses covering texts from the medieval to the enlightenment periods. Her research focuses on the literature 260 M Contributors of early modern England. She has published on early modern drama, global Shakespeare, and travel writing and is currently completing a monograph on the interactions between English and foreign languages in England between the 1530s and 1620s. Yukari Yoshihara is associate professor at the University of Tsukuba (Japan). Some of her publications include “Is This Shakespeare? Inoue Hidenori’s Adaptations of Shakespeare” in Poonam Trivedi and Minami Ryuta (eds.), Re-Playing Shakespeare in Asia (Routledge, 2009), “The First Japanese Adaptation of Othello (1903) and Japanese Colonialism” in Bi-qi Beatrice Lei and Ching-His Perng (eds.), Shakespeare in Culture (National Taiwan University, 2012), and “Tacky Shakespeares in Japan,” Multicultural Shakespeare 10 :25 (2013). Index
4 dimensional performance style, 203 al-Asad, Bashar, 126n14, 230 9/11, 100, 107–8, 114 al-Asadi, Jawad, 15, 212–19 Albanese, Denise, 27, 38n6, 40n21, 61 Abbasid, 122–3 al-Bassam, Sulayman, 11, 15, 107–29, abuse, 77–80, 82, 89, 99, 123, 145 217, 221–40 Academic Anthropology Pavilion, 150 Al-Jazeera, 108, 114, 116, 223 Achilles, 140 al-Khous, Kefah, 111 acknowledgment, 75, 76, 82 allegory, 50, 53, 114, 124, 128n46, 169, adaptation, 3, 13, 17, 19n21, 22–4, 27, 217, 224, 227, 228, 231, 235–6 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 55n1, 57n28, allusion, 9, 13, 29, 31, 60, 62, 63, 67, 74–6, 80, 83–4, 109–11, 163, 117, 127n28, 214 222, 240n10 Almereyda, Michael, 32–3 adapter, 19n21, 108, 119, 222, 237 al-Muqaffa‘, Ibn, 122–3, 129 and appropriation, 2, 8 Alpers, Paul, 43–4 Bollywood, 162 Alter, Iska, 86n21 of The Comedy of Errors, 13 alteration, 8, 14, 232 of Henry VI and Henry VIII, 191 alterity, 4, 6, 8, 14, 17, 18n10, 75, 190 of King Lear, 9 Amar, Akbar, Anthony (1977), 165, 169 of The Merchant of Venice, 152 Amaryllis Theater Company, 14, 196, of Othello (Japanese), 12 202–4 pragmatic, 26, 40n21 American Indian, 200, 206 Shakespearean, 7, 23–7, 29, 33, 35, American Sign Language (ASL), 14, 38n4, 38n5, 52 196, 202–3, 208n37 of Twelfth Night, 221 American Tribal Colleges, 205 “unfaithful,” 33 American-Vietnamese, 194 Aebisher, Pascale, 197 anachronistic, 183, 231 Afghanistan, 107 Anglo-American, 1, 223 Agamben, Giorgio, 100, 105n31, 215, Anglo-Arab, 222 220n11 Anglo-French, 185 agency, 2, 5, 80, 124, 191, 221 Anglo-Indian, 163–4 aggression, 180, 191 Anglo-Islamic, 109 Ahmed, Aijaz, 72n32 Anglophone, 25, 108, 117, 124 262 M Index
Anglophone—Continued Arabesque: Arts of the Arab World see also non-anglophone Festival, 110, 125n5, 126n16 Anglo-Saxon, 155, 188 Arabic, 109, 110–11, 113, 114, 117–19, anti-Semitism, 199 122, 126n12, 128n48, 212, 221, Anti-Stratfordianism, 34, 36n1 227–8, 236–9, 239n1 anxiety of influence, 164, 175 Aristotle, 27, 55, 57n35, 132, 140 see also Bloom, Harold art, 11, 24, 49–50, 69, 131, 133–6, aparallel evolution, 27–8 138, 140, 162, 164, 168, 175, 221, apophantic speech, 132, 140 224, 234 Appiah, Kwame Anthony, 15–17, 17n2 Aryan, 163–4 appropriation, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9–17, 18n9, Ashbrook, Tom, 223 19n31, 24, 25, 38n5, 41, 42, 44, Ashoks, 166, 171 45, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 123, 132, Attridge, Derek, 5, 140 219 Auburn massacre, 98 in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, 60–6 Australia, 50–1, 57n30 critical and political functions of, authenticity, 2, 8, 24, 33, 37n2, 50 17n3 authorship, 5, 37n1, 39n15, 42, 44, cultrual materialist model of, 27 136, 232 ethics of, 2, 3, 6, 11, 14, 17, 90, 107, automaton, 29 131, 222 of foreign language, 180–3 Bahadurs, 166, 170 ironic, 109 Bakhtin, M. M., 42, 44 linguistic, 185, 187 Balkan Trilogy of Henry VI, 193 literary, 41–2 Bard, 24, 47, 51, 60–3, 91, 135, 199, metaphor of, 123 219, 229 vs. “misappropriations,” 10–11 Bardolatry, 10, 141 of Othello, 12 of Bollywood, 161–2, 164–7, 170 paradigm of, 24 Barratt, Nigel, 117, 121 pervasiveness of, 53 Barrymore, John, 32 politics of, 218 Barthes, Roland, 5 quotation as, 45, 49 base Indian, 146, 156 Shakespearean, 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 14, Basra, 122, 128 15, 17, 24, 25, 30, 36, 43, 44, 48, Bass, Ellen, 77 53–5, 90, 162, 167–8, 191, 196–7, Bate, Jonathan, 10, 11, 37, 39 211, 223 Bates, Laura, 91 Shakespeare’s, 4, 13–14, 191 BBC, 114, 207n17, 223 vs. translation, 19n27 becoming, 27–30, 35 anthropological exploitation, 91 behavior, 78, 90, 92, 93, 96, 97, 102 Appudari, Arjun, 169 being, 27 Apter, Emily, 8, 195 Beirut, 15, 110, 221, 222, 238 Arab, 11, 15, 107–25, 126n14, 128n58, Bertillon card, 100 218, 222–4, 227–34, 237, 240n10 Bhardwaj, Vishal, 13, 164, 167–8, Arab Shakespeare, 109, 124 171–6 Arab Spring, 15, 109, 217, 222, 223, 231 Bianca, 153, 173 non-Arabaphone, 125 Bilingual, 111, 118, 183, 187, 222 Index M 263 bin Laden, Osama, 112, 223 canon, 26–7, 35, 82, 164 Blair, Tony, 112, 126n21 capitalism, 98 Blake, William, 134 capitalist, 19n31, 61, 87n22, 112 Bloch, Ernst, 27 capitalistic, 92 blood-thirsty, 149 Cartelli, Thomas, 15, 17n3, 18n9, 42, Bloom, Harold, 164–5, 177n15 56n5 Bollywood, 165, 166, 167, 169, 175, Caruth, Cathy, 81, 87n25 176n1 caste, 13, 151–2, 170, 173–4 cinematic elements of, 165, 168 Catholic, 66, 186–7 global cinema, 161 Cavell, Stanley, 43–4, 55, 56n13, 75–7, Hindi cinema, 13, 161–2 80–1, 85n9 and Shakespeare, 162–3, 165 Chaucer, Geoffrey, 73, 85n9 Bombay, 161, 169 Chinese, 12, 50, 148–50, 154 Booth, Wayne C., 11, 135, 138, 143n43 Christ, 60, 66, 68–9, 71n21 Borges, Jorge Luis, 167, 177n19 Church, 64–5, 188 Bortolotti, Gary, 30 cinema, 57n23 Bosker, Bianca, 50, 57n27 Asian, 51 Boyd, Michael, 128n51, 236 global, 15, 161 Brenckenridge, Carol, 169 Hindi, 13, 161–5, 167, 170, 174–6 Bringing Shakespeare to American Hollywood, 62, 70 Communities, 201 Shakespearean, 1, 29, 33, 167 Bristol, Michael, 6, 10, 18n19, 19n31, citation, 44–5, 50, 56n15, 228 20n33 citizens, 14, 62, 169, 98, 100, 214, 215, British Sign Language (BSL), 203 238 British-Indian relations, 163 class, 12, 35, 145–6, 154–6 Brooklyn Academy of Music (BAM), classroom, 23–4, 31, 34, 212 110, 125n5, 238 CNN, 114, 125n3, 223 brotherhood, 163, 164, 171–5 collage, 48–50 brothers, 13, 162, 164, 172, 174–6, 170 see also Marowitz, Charles brothers-lost-and-found stories, 13, colonial, 12, 163, 171, 187, 206 165–6, 169–71, 176 colonialism, 181, 185, 190, 199 Buber, Martin, 3–4, 18n6, 127n34 colonialist, 228 Buchanan, Robert, 131, 141n2 hiearchy, 150, 164 Buell, Lawrence, 3, 18n5 India, 13 burakumin, 146, 157n3 Japan, 146, 147–8, 152–3, 154–6 see also outcaste post-, 12, 115, 123, 147, 162, 165, Burke, Kenneth, 55, 57n36 168–9, 172, 175, 227 Burnett, Mark, 71n10 ComedieFrancaise (Paris), 125 communication, 11, 29, 44, 108 Cairo, 109, 110, 127n25, 212 community, 12, 16, 17, 26, 69, 141, Cairo International Festival of 175, 199, 231 Experimental Theatre (2002), of actors, 235 107, 111 Arab, 107 Calvinistic, 98 audience as, 235, 236 Camus, Albert, 228 and communication, 44 264 M Index community—Continued adaptation, 23, 30, 35, 36 desire for, 137 afterlife, 31, 39n14 and gang, 174 agendas, 14 of humankind, 135 borders, 12, 15 imagined, 116 capital, 24, 50, 54, 60, 118, 219 nation as, 180 climate, 128 power of, 112 competency, 196, 203 of readers, 137 context, 13, 109, 123, 156 religious, 188 differences, 16, 194, 202, 203 speech, 190 exchange, 15, 120, 196 virtual, 64 extinction, 201 Complete Works Festival, 110, 119 hierarchy, 150, 153 complicity, 112, 235–6 hybridity, 164 conscience, 102, 182, 189 identities, 202 consciousness, 22, 133, 135, 179, 183 materialist, 24, 27, 31, 38n5 consumption, 6, 11, 70, 114, 123, 136, movement, 204 162, 240n10 perspectives, 193 convict, 97–8, 100 prejudice, 238 conviction, 78, 80, 91, 92, 95 smear, 49, 50, 54 Coppola, Francis Ford, 6, 60–2, 64, suppression, 206 66–9 symbolism, 126n14 cosmopolitanism, 1, 16–17, 62, 167 transmission, 194, 201, 202, 205, Crary, Alice, 6, 11, 18n18 206 crime, 89, 93, 95, 99, 101, 103, 104, 172 value, 54, 61, 199 criminal, 90, 94, 97–8, 100–1, 172 culture, 1, 5, 14–15, 17, 31, 109, 151, critic, 3, 6–7, 9, 10, 11, 30, 34, 36n1, 162, 169, 196, 197, 199, 201, 202, 48, 135, 136, 139, 222 205, 237, 238 criticism, 10 Asian, 147 literary, 135, 137, 139 colonial, 171 materialist, 31, 38n5, 141n6 deaf, 203 of prison, 19n32 foreign, 114–15, 201, 203 Swinburne’s, 131–3, 137, 140 global, 59, 64, 70, 162 Shakespearean, 11, 23, 31, 33, 34, Maori, 198–200 135, 137 national, 169 textual, 22 popular, 24, 168 Third World, 115 and Shakespeare, 35, 59, 61 cross-cultural, 16, 117, 194, 202, 204–5 sub, 16 Cultural Olympiad, 193 Western, 168 cultural, 1–3, 8, 12, 18, 25, 30, 45, Cyprus, 149, 151, 156 60–1, 75, 78, 108–9, 115–17, 119–20, 154, 162, 167, 178, Daborne, Robert, 136 181–2, 194–5, 197, 226 daughter, 43, 74, 76, 81, 84 authority, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 36, Davis, Laura, 77 68, 125 de Jongh, Nicholas, 196 Index M 265 de Tocqueville, Alexis, 98, 105n23 Enargeia, 55 deaf, 202, 203, 204 England, 110, 138, 180–4, 188–9, Deafinitely Theatre Company, 203 192n12, 206, 224, 225 Deleuze, Gilles, 9, 27–30, 33, 35, English, 12–14, 63, 107, 110, 111, 39n15, 39n16, 39n17, 40n18 113–14, 117, 118, 119, 124, 133, see also Guattari, Félix 162, 179–91, 195–201, 218, 229, democracy, 90, 98, 103, 114, 222 236–7 Denmark, 67, 213–15, 225 Entelecheia, 27 Dent, Shirley, 127n25 Eskin, Michael, 138, 143n44 Derrida, Jacques, 19n25, 56n18, 103, ethical, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 105n37, 180–1, 191n3 16, 26, 33, 43, 80, 82, 85, 132, deterritorialization, 28, 36 136, 137, 138, 141n6, 182, 195, dialogue, 87, 195, 205 206, 211, 222 intercultural, 16, 122, 196, 240n10 acknowledgement, 75 post-war, 32 action, 4, 77 differánce, 8 appropriations, 7, 10, 12 digital, 15, 22, 24 concerns, 162, 197 director, 48, 51, 125n8, 133, 194, 212, criticism, 131, 132, 135, 138, 140, 233, 235 185 discrimination, 132, 147, 148, 152–3, discourse, 132 156 imperative, 21–2 domestic, 156, 174, 190, 202 import, 44, 55, 133 dominance, 14, 22, 183, 187 judgments, 7, 132 Douglass, Amy Scott, 19n32, 90 objection, 225 drama, 32, 80, 91, 141n6, 152, 169, obligation, 219 193, 203–4, 205, 206, 227 principles, 163, 169 dramatic, 93, 102, 116, 123, 181, 182, problems, 80, 115, 179, 191, 193 183, 205, 217, 226 questions, 5, 15, 97, 182, 200 A Dream in Hanoi, 194 ramifications, 2, 14, 108, 139 Dryden, John, 7 recognition, 43, 55 Dumas, Alexandre, 166 reflection, 7, 83 Dürer, Albrecht, 66–7 relations, 7, 56, 81 Dutt, Uptal, 166 responsibilities, 4, 7, 8–9, 19n31, 33, 81 Eaglestone, Robert, 14, 20n39 subversion, 227 Early Modern English, 188, 191n4, uses of Shakespeare, 10, 63, 67, 96 192n18, 203 values, 10, 11, 70 Egyptian, 116, 125n3 ethics, 2–3, 6, 7, 16, 17n2, 34, 62, 69, Egyptian National Theatre, 234 100, 108 El Fakharani, Yahya, 234 of action, 211–12, 216 Elizabethan, 68, 136, 179, 182, 184 of adaptation, 33, 162 Emirates, 110, 230–1 and aesthetics, 44, 131–2, 139 empirical knowledge, 73, 75, 78 of appropriation, 6, 11, 14, 19n31, empty signifier, 162 41, 63, 90, 107, 168, 216 266 M Index ethics—Continued foreign, 12, 50, 111, 114–15, 123, 153, and community, 11, 137 155, 179–82, 187–9, 190 intersubjective, 6, 15, 16, 82 cultures, 16, 123 and intertextuality, 9–10 foreigner, 167, 174 and language, 179, 181, 182, 188 foreignness, 4, 8, 13, 17, 185, 187, and memory, 79 189 of nationhood, 168 languages, 4, 13, 23, 187 and politics, 15, 134 speech, 14, 179, 187 of recognition, 43 text, 187, 199, 202 of recovery movement, 74, 78 Foucault, Michel, 42, 92, 103 relation to theater, 6, 18n17 Foucauldian, 44, 92, 99 and rhetoric, 44 Fraden, Rena, 90, 92, 103, 104n1 and value, 26 France, 182–4, 187, 224 ethnic, 14, 59, 62, 147, 150, 197 fraternal, 165, 169, 170, 171, 175 ethnographic, 109, 120, 227, 228 bonds, 13, 162–3, 165, 166–7, 171, ethos, 68, 169 175 Evans, Lee R., 78, 86n15 fraternity, 13, 163, 164, 168, 171–3, evidence, 30, 78, 86n19, 92, 151 175 exclusions, 62, 182, 190 Freedman, Barbara, 166 exotic, 63, 148–50, 196, 200 French Revolution, 214 expansion, 61, 100, 146, 153, 156, 180 Freud, Sigmund, 32, 114 Freudian, 127n29, 164 faith, 36, 66 Furnivall, F. J., 135, 142n30 faithfulness, 9, 43, 50, 52 familiarity, 50, 114, 200, 204 Garber, Margorie, 39n14, 44–5, 54, un-, 183, 201 56n19 fantasy, 62, 80, 131, 156, 175, 217 Gardner, Lyn, 114 father, 52, 71n21, 74, 76–7, 80, 82–3, general prison population, 92, 95, 99 96, 102, 163, 164–5, 168 generalization, 128, 224 fealty, 41, 55 genre, 1, 23, 24, 32, 51, 61, 98, 99, feminism, 78, 79, 84 162, 169 feminist, 82, 147 Ghraib, Abu, 90 Fernie, Ewan, 111, 126n19, 222, 240n5 global, 1, 6, 12, 15, 16, 17, 22, 59–64, fidelity, 4, 7–9, 19n23, 21–2, 24–7, 30, 67, 69–70, 71n10, 108, 112, 145, 33–4, 37n2, 39n14, 41, 43, 44, 156, 162, 167–9, 180, 193, 194, 205 45, 47, 50, 53, 55n1, 197 globalization, 59, 112, 194 Fifth Domestic Exposition (1903), 148, Globe Theatre, 17n1, 23, 193, 207n5 149, 150 Globe to Globe Festival (London), 1, First Folio, 51, 52, 185, 192n15, 229 14, 17n1, 23, 110, 125, 193–6, First Gulf War, 214 198, 203 First Sino-Japanese War, 146 Glover, David, 61–2, 63, 67 Fissures, 13, 145, 148, 154, 182 Gombrich, E. H., 53 Fleshly School of Poetry, 131, 141n1 government, 54, 151, 153, 157n1, Fletcher, John, 190 158n28, 221, 225 Index M 267
Greenblatt, Stephen, 37, 71n14, Hugo, Victor, 134, 138 104n15, 128n49 human showcase, 150, 158n17 Grossman, Marshall, 211, 219n2 Hundred Years War, 182 Guantanamo Bay, 90 Hussein, Sadam, 119, 128n46, 213, Guattari, Félix, 9, 27–30, 33, 35, 214, 219n8, 223 39n15, 39n16, 39n17, 40n18 Hutcheon, Linda, 19n21, 30, 26, 54 see also Deleuze, Gilles Hyder, Clyde H., 133 Guillory, John, 136 Gulf, 107, 116, 119, 121, 124, 127n36, icon, 31, 60, 62 128n53, 224 iconoclasm, 66 Gulf Youth Theatre Festival, 127 iconography, 60, 179 Gulzar, 13, 165, 170, 171 ideal, 10, 22, 37n2, 62, 63, 151, 153, 185, 234 Haaken, Janice, 79 identity, 5, 13, 27, 32, 39n17, 62, 69, habilitation, 102, 104 80, 86n19, 100–1, 119, 169, 172, Hacking, Ian, 79, 81, 86n19 179, 194, 199, 225 Hart, James V., 60, 66 ideology, 12, 13, 61, 63, 91, 131, 145, Hawkes, Terence, 25, 59, 60, 61, 70 146, 148–9, 156, 167, 183, 233 hearing-impaired, 203, 204 Ikeuchi, Yasuko, 147 hegemony, 10, 59 imagination, 17, 49, 82, 148, 233 Helgerson, Richard, 179, 180, 191n2 immorality, 131, 133 Henderson, Diana, 2, 25 imperial, 12, 13, 15, 145–8, 149–50, hierarchy, 95, 135, 146, 147, 149, 150, 153–4, 156, 162–4, 171, 180 151, 153, 154, 174 incarceration, 94, 97, 103 historicity, 34, 64, 168, 229 incest, 77, 79, 80 Hodgdon, Barbara, 18, 19n27 Inchbald, Elizabeth, 7 Holderness, Graham, 37n1, 111, 112, independence, 13, 61, 161, 164, 169, 121, 122, 222, 240n6 171, 185 Holinshed, Raphael, 36 Indian People’s Theatre Association Holland Festival (Amsterdam), 110 (IPTA), 166 Hollywood, 60, 61, 62, 63, 67, 69, 70, indigenous, 13, 148–50, 199 161, 167, 175 infidelity, 34, 41, 43, 47, 50, 53, 147, Homer, 133 148, 174 homogeneity, 69, 154 injustice, 10, 108, 168, 173, 212, 213, 216 homogenization, 59, 63 inmates, 10, 89–93, 95, 98, 101, 102, 219 homosocial, 173, 175 integrity, 48, 83, 175, 185, 192n20, 234 Hoonah, 200, 202 intention, 5, 42–3, 45, 60, 135, 145, Hope, Ishmael, 200 197, 234 Hope, Jonathan, 181 interaction, 10, 25, 30, 42, 55, 84, 182, Hopkins, Anthony, 65, 68 199 hostage, 4, 18n9, 54, 187 intercultural, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, Huang, Alexander C. Y. (Alexa), 20n40, 108, 115, 117, 119, 120, 193–5, 207n3, 207n5 121, 122, 123, 194, 195, 196, 206, Huffer, Lynne, 171 222, 240n10 268 M Index
International Shakespeare Congress, Kawakami, Otojiro, 145, 146, 147, 82–3, 85n9 148, 149, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, Internet, 9, 29, 202 157n1, 158n17, 158n18 interpretation, 5, 25, 30, 60, 64, 75, 76, Kazak, Fayez, 122 82, 132, 140, 164, 182, 190, 195, Kean, Edmund, 155 199, 203, 219 Keisuke, Yanase, 153 interracial, 147, 152 Kennedy, Dennis, 237 intersubjective, 3, 6, 9, 11, 15, 16, 25, Kentucky State Reformatory, 100 82, 211, 218, 219 Kidnie, Margaret Jane, 26, 40n21, 84 intersubjectivity, 211 Kipling, Rudyard, 163 intertextuality, 5, 9, 10, 17, 43, 44, 45, Knapp, Steven, 5 75, 83, 84, 166 knowledge, 66, 70, 73–8, 80, 82, intracultural, 124 85n10, 128n53, 155, 199, 200, Ionesco, Eugène, 235 202, 203, 204, 240n10 Iraq, 107, 120, 127n28, 213, 214 Kozusco, Matt, 91, 104n3 irony, 89, 93, 115, 121, 132 Krentzlin, Doug, 205 irreducibility, 6, 60, 64, 70 Krymov, Dmitry, 195, 196 Irving, Sir Henry, 62, 67, 138 Kulthum, Umm, 124 Islam, 122, 232, 235, 240n9 Kusuo, Yamada, 153, 158n27 Islamic, 112, 221, 224, 233 Kuwait, 110, 112, 117, 120, 122, Islamist, 107, 108, 111, 113, 222, 126n12, 126n14, 129n53, 222, 227, 228, 233 230 Israeli, 114, 194, 207n5 Kyushu dialect, 153 – 4, 157n1
Jameson, Frederic, 62, 168 LaCapra, Dominick, 74 Japan, 12–13, 126n16, 145–56, 157n1, language, 8, 42–3, 80, 86n22, 126n11, 157n3 153, 179–85, 187, 189–91, 191n2, Japanization, 150 193–204, 236–9 Jew, 151, 199 foreign, 4, 13–14, 23 Johnson, Barbara, 8, 13 and Shakespeare, 21, 26, 32, 33, 36, Johnson, Samuel, 182 52, 53, 60, 61 Jones, Ernst, 32 Lanier, Douglas, 17, 258 Jones, Pei TeHurinui, 198 Latin, 13, 66, 69, 84, 189–90 Jones, Rhodessa, 90 law of hospitality, 179 Jonson, Ben, 138 Lebanon, 127n28, 222 Judgment, 6, 7, 16, 26, 33, 55n1, 91, Leinwand, Theodore, 211, 216 139, 225 Leveau, Marie, 48 judwabhai (twin brother), 165, 166, Levinas, Emmanuel, 4, 11, 43, 44, 167, 170, 172 56n13, 135–6, 142n27 liberalism, 168 Kano, Ayako, 147, 151, 153 Libya, 124, 214, 217, 222 Kapoor, Raj, 169 lingua franca, 61, 189 karayuki-san, 153 linguistic, 9, 117, 179, 182, 183, 190, Princess Katherine, 13, 183–5, 188, 190 199, 202, 203, 237 Katherine of Valois, 183, 188 agendas, 14 Index M 269
colonialism, 181, 184, 185, 190 mediation, 121, 185 interference, 8 Meji government, 151, 153–4 limitations, 141n6 melodrama, 117, 147 nationalism, 191 memory, 29, 74, 77, 79, 81–2, 86n19, superiority, 13 98, 104, 120 literature, 6, 11, 55n1, 73, 78, 82, 132, Meredith, George, 134 134, 137, 138, 140, 164, 177n14, merit, 30, 34, 140 203, 204 Merkava, Iraeli, 114 Litvak, Anatole, 32 meta- Litvin, Margaret, 125n10, 127n35, 127n39, comment, 53 128n47, 129n53, 129n56, 212, 213, language, 236 217, 218, 219n8, 239n2, 239n3 narrative, 74 local, 12, 15, 16, 17, 64, 109, 115, 117, representation, 87n29 145, 156, 165, 205, 224, 235, 236 Shakespearean, 124 London, 1, 23, 63, 65, 67, 110, 111, signification, 236 115, 116, 125, 180, 188, 193, 195 states, 32 London, Jennifer, 122 metaphor, 11, 13, 28, 29, 45, 54, 55, Luhrmann, Baz, 65 75, 79, 84, 109, 123, 184, 233–5 Luther Luckett Correctional Complex, Metcalfe, Thomas, 164 10, 89, 93, 97, 100 Michaels, Walter Benn, 5 Lutheran, 66, 98 Middle East, 108, 114, 116, 117, 118, Lyceum Theatre (New York), 67 121, 214, 217, 224, 227 Miller, Arthur, 116 Macaulay, Thomas Babington, 164, mimesis, 46, 49, 50 176n14 Minton, Gretchen, 198–9 Macmillan, Joyce, 118 misappropriations, 10, 11, 122 Maher, Brigid, 194, 207n4 miscegenation, 20n37, 152, 155– 6 Maine, Henry, 164 Mishra, Vijay, 169 male-male bond, 173–4 Mnouchkine, Ariane, 14, 20n40 Maori, 198–200, 203 Modern Standard Arabic, 117 Margolis, Joseph, 5 modernity, 59, 61, 63, 98, 163, 168, Marlowe, Christopher, 47, 60, 69 170, 171 Marowitz, Charles, 47–50, 54, 57n24 monolingualism, 185, 190 Marsden, Jean I., 18n9, 42, 55n3 Moor, 155, 172 Masae, Suzuki, 147 moral, 6, 7, 11, 16, 17, 41, 46, 80, 100, Masanao, Nakamura, 153 101, 118, 122–3, 131, 132, 134, masculinity, 13, 94, 95, 171 135, 140, 149, 162, 181, 223–4, masculine, 71n27, 139, 151 227, 228 mask, 100–2 morality, 17, 65, 111, 131–2, 133, master, 28, 30, 103, 180, 181 134, 135, 149 materialism, 31, 126n12 More, Thomas, 228 Maynard-Losh, Anita, 200–1 Moretti, Franco, 61, 69 mechanism, 39n17, 49, 54, 92 Morley, John, 133, 141n2 media, 1, 10, 15, 22, 23, 33, 63, 113, Mother India, 169, 171 116, 121, 202, 224 Muammar Qaddafi, 214 270 M Index
Mukherjee, Hrishikesh, 170 Oka, Onitaro, 152 Muller, Heiner, 111, 218 Okinawa, 148, 150 Müller, Max, 163 Oligarch, 128n53, 232 multicultural, 1, 15, 194, 214 Olivier, Laurence, 32, 182, 192n8 multi-ethnic, 147, 150 Operation Enduring Freedom, 103 multilingual, 190, 191 Orientalist, 124, 147, 149, 163, 177n14, multiplicity, 27, 28, 35, 80, 195 228 Munday, Anthony, 136 origin, 22, 24, 29, 38n5, 109, 146, Muslim, 13, 64, 109, 113, 115, 169, 151–2, 161–4, 169, 181, 188, 217 214, 232, 237, 240n9 originary, 8, 23, 28 “Muslim Voices: Arts & Ideas in New Osaka, 148–50 York,” 110 Other, 3, 4, 43, 65, 122, 142n27, 174 myth, 30–1, 49, 90, 120, 121, 133, 154, Otojiro, Kawakami, 145, 157n1 175, 218 outcast, 146, 147, 151–4, 156 outcaste, 12, 157n3 Nakajima, Chikuka, 149 ownership, 8, 42, 86n22, 180, 181 narrative, 15, 17, 24, 29–32, 55, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 91, 98, 122, 165, 167, Pan-Arab, 116–17 169, 170, 175, 193, 202, 229 para-Shakespearean, 226 Nasser, Gamal Abdel, 115, 234 Parker, Patricia, 183 national, 13–14, 59, 117, 145, 151, 154, parody, 68, 71n21, 136, 142n30, 170 162–3, 165, 168–9, 171, 175, 180, paternal, 162, 166, 212 191, 194, 197, 199 paternalism, 163 National Endowment of the Arts paternalistic, 13, 163, 164, 171 (NEA), 201 pathos, 62 National Museum of the American patriarchal, 63, 74, 77, 78, 84, 126 Indian (Smithsonian), 200 Peking opera, 20n40 National Public Radio, 193, 223 Penghu Islands, 146, 154 nationalism, 168, 179 performance, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14–15, 19n27, nation-as-family trope, 163 24, 25, 26, 31, 34, 36, 37n2, nation-state, 173 49, 52, 69, 74, 89–94, 96, 99, NATO, 107 102, 111, 114, 119, 122, 126n14, new commoner, 151–2 147, 154, 156, 158n27, 193, 195, Newest Shakespeare Society, 136 197–8, 201, 203–5, 226, 230, 236 New Zealand, 198–9 Perseverance Theatre Company Ninagawa, Yukio, 14, 20n40 (Alaska), 14, 196, 200, 202 non-Anglophone, 12, 237 philosophizing, 212, 213, 215, 218 nonapophantic speech, 132 plagiarism, 13, 44 Non-western, 1, 12, 14 plateau, 29 Northern Ireland, 206 player, 162, 214, 230, 258 Novak, Peter, 202–3 playgoer, 108, 109, 116, 120, 179 Nussbaum, Martha, 16–17, 132, 201 playtext, 185, 217 play-within-a-play, 124, 221 Oedipal, 32, 164 playwright, 11, 15, 52, 90, 91, 132, 167, Ohkura, 152 179, 183, 222 Index M 271 pleasure, 1, 25, 136, 154 Qaddafi, Muammar, 214 poet, 11, 133, 134 Quarto, 185, 229 poetry, 114, 115, 131, 133, 134, 139, Queen Katherine, 13, 187–90 142n24, 198 Queen Margaret, 120 poetic, 100, 118, 133, 139, 140, 164, queer roles, 95 198, 203, 218 Quotation, 13, 44–7, 49, 55, 56n15 Polanski, Roman, 51 political, 2, 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, 17n3, 22, Rabkin, Norman, 182 24, 27, 33, 42–3, 59, 61, 66, 69, race, 12, 60, 65, 145, 147, 151, 152, 155, 70, 82, 108–9, 113, 117, 118, 163, 172 122–4, 26n14, 128n46, 142n24, racial, 12, 20n37, 63, 98, 105n19, 151, 153 – 4, 156, 157n1, 168, 173, 145–52, 155–6, 163, 164, 172 180, 181–2, 191, 193, 199, 206, radical Islamist, 227–8 211–12, 215, 217–19, 222, 223, Rajadhyaksha, Ashish, 162 228–31, 234, 236, 239 raw-savage, 146–7, 148, 149, 151, 154, politics, 3, 11, 15, 33, 34, 43–4, 59–60, 156 63, 67, 69, 105n19, 113–14, 121, reception, 43, 54, 55, 84, 107–8, 119, 134, 151, 169, 194, 206, 213, 215, 126n14, 132 218, 223 recidivism, 90, 92, 102 politician, 31, 153 recognition, 41, 43–4, 45, 53, 55, Poole, Ross, 168 76, 100 Pope, Rebecca, 63, 71n12 reconstruction, 24, 5, 185, 186, 192n15 Popper, Karl, 16 recovered memory movement, 9, 74, postcolonial, 115, 123, 147, 162, 168, 75, 78, 79, 80, 83, 86n17 169, 172 Reformation, 66, 190 post-globalized, 13, 171 rehabilitation, 90, 102 post-postmodernism, 132 Rehabilitation Through the Arts, 198 prejudice, 227–8, 238 representation, 4, 5, 66, 79, 87n29, Pressley, Nelson, 201 108, 117 principle, 16, 17n2, 26, 29, 30, 33–4, reproduction, 9, 22, 23, 44, 45, 47, 36, 38n5, 39n16, 42, 163, 168–9 50, 186 Prison Industrial Complex, 93, 100, Republic of Georgia, 14, 196 103 resistance, 27, 101, 185, 190 prison nation, 103 reterritorialization, 28, 36 prisonShakespeares, 15, 32n19, 90–103, retraction, 9, 73–5, 80, 82, 84, 85n2 198, 219 revenant, 45, 46 prison writing, 98–9 revision, 8, 75, 78, 80, 87n28, 139, 235 propaganda, 34, 121, 150 revolution, 143, 214, 221, 225, 235 proposition, 20, 25, 30, 76, 132, 234 Reynolds, Bryan, 25, 38n11 prosopopoeia, 45, 48, 56n19 rhetoric, 8, 44–5, 55, 56n19, 65, 69, Protestant, 66, 69, 98, 187 91, 108, 114, 115–16, 140, 156, psychology, 32, 43, 54, 55, 82, 219, 173–5, 184 219n8 rhizome, 9, 27–30, 32–3, 35, 36, 39n16 Purcell, Stephen, 197 Rhu, Lawrence, 85n9 Puritan, 68, 92, 232, 233 Rich, Adrienne, 78 272 M Index
Ridout, Nicholas, 6, 17n2, 18n17, Shakespeare, William, 1–17, 21, 24, 25, 20n33 36, 37n1, 44, 47, 70, 90, 92, 109, Rivlin, Elizabeth, 70n1, 162, 219 132, 155, 156 Rogerson, Hank, 89 abuses of, 24, 145 root, 28–9, 39n16, 40n18, 120 aesthetic value of, 136 Rossetti, Michael, 137 and Arab audiences, 114–16 Roundhouse Theatre (London), 195 authorship of, 5, 37n1 Rowland, Steve, 193 and Bollywood, 162–76 Rowley, Samuel, 136 boundaries of, 9, 12 Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC), characters of, 6–7 17n1, 109, 110, 119, 195, 221 The Comedy of Errors, 13, 164–7, Royal Society of the Arts (RSA), 205 175–6 Russian, 45, 59, 126n11, 195 cultural connections to, 33, 35, Russo-Japanese War (1904–5), 152 39n14, 39n17, 60, 121 Cymbeline, 193 Saginaw Chippewa Tribal and feminism, 78–9, 82, 83 College, 106 and film, 26, 29, 33, 51, 60, 61, 63, Shailor, Jonathan, 92 68, 69 Sasamori, 155 globalized, 23, 59, 62, 64, 71n10, satire, 47, 109, 113, 118, 227 193, 194, 197–9, 202, 205 Satsuma, 153 – 4, 156 Hamlet, 31–3, 34–5, 45, 49, 65, 66, Saudi Arabia, 120, 130 67, 91, 97, 107, 111, 113, 138, Saxo Grammaticus, 32 157n1, 212, 213, 226 Schmiedgen, Peter, 135 Henry V, 13, 179, 181–4, 185, 187–8, scholarship, 21, 22, 36n1, 37n2, 140, 190–1, 192n8 163, 165, 181 Henry VIII, 13, 179, 182, 187–8, Schwartz, Daniel, 132, 143n43 190–1 Scotland, 51, 200, 206 interactions with, 25 seiban, 146, 154 interpretations of, 7, 12, 133 self-definition, 13, 182 King Lear, 9, 43, 44, 73–7, 80–4, self-fulfilling prophecy, 97 85n9, 193, 219 self-made man, 151, 153 language of, 21, 26, 32 self-Orientalization, 117 Love’s Labour’s Lost, 203 Selwyn, Don C., 14, 196–201 Macbeth, 51, 206 Sen, Indrani, 164 Measure for Measure, 10, 89, 96, 98, September 11, 2001, 107, 223 99, 101, 102 see also 9/11 The Merchant of Venice, 199 sex worker, 153–4 A Midsummer Night’s Dream, 136 sexuality, 51, 67–8, 71n25, 71n27, Othello, 12, 20n37, 65, 71n26, 145, 94–6, 173 146, 148, 155, 164, 167, 172 Shakespeare Association of America productions of, 1, 10, 14, 15, 23, (SAA), 109 124, 204–5, 226–7, 233 Shakespeare Behind Bars (SBB), 10, recognition of, 41, 44, 50, 51, 55 89–90, 98–9, 102, 198, 219 recycled, 47, 50 Shakespeare in Prison, 96, 198 rhizomatic conception of, 31, 33, 36 Index M 273
Richard II, 104n15 Stratford, 110, 121–2, 231, 236 Richard III, 110, 119, 128n53, 226, Steiner, Wendy, 135 229, 237 stereotypes, 11, 113, 223, 227 Romeo and Juliet, 117, 125, 126n12 Stodard, Nicole, 201 scholarship, 22, 23 Stoker, Bram, 60–2, 64, 67 and Smiley, Jane, 73–85, 87n29 stranger, 188–9 and Swinburne, 11, 131–42 subjectivity, 4, 140, 151 The Taming of the Shrew, 161 subjugation, 182, 185, 187 The Tempest, 181, 206 subordination, 4, 77 as text, 21–37 Suematsu, Baron, 152 Twelfth Night, 124, 221, 232 Sukenori, Kabayama, 154 the Undead, 60–4, 70 Supple, Tim, 195–6 universal, 13, 16, 91 survivor, 81, 83 use of foreign speech by, 179, 181–91 survival, 49, 78, 172, 173 works by, 2, 4, 11, 13, 15, 47, 108, Suzuki, Masae, 147 181, 238 Swinburne, A. C., 11, 131–41, 141– Sharon, Ariel, 223 2n14, 142n24, 142n30 shinheimin, 151–2 symbol, 65–6, 118, 126n14, 147, 169, Shizue, Tamura, 147 171, 184–5, 188–9, 194 Shrimpton, Nicholas, 135, 140 Synetic Theater Company Sidney, Philip, 179 (Washington, DC), 14, 196, Siebers, Tobin, 137 204–5 signifier, 2, 8, 61, 116–17, 162, 239 Syria, 110–11, 115, 117, 122, 124, Silent Shakespeare, 14, 204–5 126n14, 222 see also Synectic Theater Company Smiles, Samuel, 153 Taipei, 146, 154 Smiley, Jane, 9, 15, 73–84, 85n9, Taiwan Pavilion, 150 87n29, 219 Taiwan, 12–13, 145–56 Smith, Caleb, 92, 98 Tamura, Shizue, 147 Smith, Peter J., 113, 240n11 Tatlow, Antony, 114 social dreaming, 27, 40n21 Taylor, Charles, 16, 25, 43–4 society, 5, 10, 14, 64, 92, 94, 96, 100, Terry, Ellen, 62 134, 137, 151, 169, 197, 200, 221, testimony, 78, 94, 148 223, 225, 231, 234 Thatcher, Margaret, 206 Socrates, 214–15 theater, 6–7, 14, 18n17, 48, 90–2, solipsism, 69, 77 109–10, 117–18, 122, 155, 157n1, solitary confinement, 91–2, 97–9 195, 204, 221–3, 225, 230, South America, 205–6 232–6, 240n10 Soyinka, Wole, 98, 105n27 Theatre des Bouffes du Nord (Paris), Spanish, 187–8, 190 110 speaker, 45–6, 179–81, 190, 200 Theatre Forum, 111 spectator, 134, 139 theme, 30, 49, 52, 76, 91, 99, 147, 167, speech, 14–15, 22, 109, 179–83, 187, 190 169–70, 172 state of exception, 215–16, 218, 219 Tierney, Robert, 147 Swan Theatre (Stratford), 119 Titian, 134, 136 274 M Index
Tlingit, 96, 200–1, 203 Venuti, Lawrence, 197, 199, 202 Tofteland, Curt, 89, 91, 93, 102, 104n6 Verfremdungseffekt, 115 Tokyo, 111, 146–7, 153–4, 156 vernacular, 14, 190 Tokyo International Arts Festival, 111 victim, 2, 82, 95, 96, 99, 218 Tomeoka, Kosuke, 151 Victorian, 11, 62, 131–3, 135, 140 Tournesol Theatre (Beirut), 110 violence, 50, 67, 95–7, 112–14, 120, tragedy, 32, 43, 69, 75, 118, 174, 204, 156, 169, 185, 188, 191, 216, 208, 214 218, 227 tragic economy, 181, 185 transcendence, 62, 67, 68–9, 91, 237 Waid, Jake, 200 transcultural, 121, 202 Wannus, Saahallah, 125 transformation, 15, 27–8, 35, 90–1, Warren, Robin O., 54 102, 112, 123, 141, 205, 215, 217, Washington, DC, 109, 110, 128n47, 221, 228 200, 202, 204, 231 translation, 8, 13–14, 19n27, 57n28, Wayne, Valerie, 198–9 114, 117, 183, 191, 195, 197–9, Weimann, Robert, 71n17, 101 202–4, 237 Welles, Orson, 47, 57n24 transnational, 117, 202 Western, 11, 12, 15, 50, 108–9, 111–15, trauma, 9, 32, 74, 77–83, 86n17, 119–21, 124–5, 147, 152–4, 86n19, 96, 226, 228 163–4, 168–71, 214, 223–4, Triplett, William, 204 226–8, 236 trope, 23, 53, 55, 163, 165, 169, Wheale, Nigel, 197 227, 228 Wilkins, George, 136 TsubouchiShoyo, 155 Wilson, Rita, 194 Tunis, 110, 116, 217 Woolf, Virginia, 78 Tunisia, 114, 115, 124, 222 wordlessShakespeares, 14, 196, 204–5 Turks, 64–5, 174 see also Silent Shakespeare, Synetic Tymoczko, Maria, 203 Theatre Company World Shakespeare Festival (London), Ulmer, Edgar, 31 17n1, 125n8, 195 Undead, 6, 59–62, 64, 70 World Shakespeare Project (WSP), 205 United Arab Emirates, 110 worldview, 7, 221 United Kingdom, 1, 192n8, 195, Wray, Ramona, 91 205, 206 Wright, Geoffrey, 50–3 United States, 89, 111, 120, 121, 157n1, 192n8, 193, 205 Yasuko, Ikeuchi, 147 universal, 13, 16, 26, 59–62, 91, 132, Young, Robert J. C., 164 155, 156, 194 unrepression, 114, 127n29 Zaoum Theatre Company Ur-narrative, 30 (London), 110 Ur-text, 13, 162, 165 Zizek, Slavoj, 64 Zoroastrianism, 122 validity, 30, 64, 229 Zunshine, Lisa, 5, 87n29 vampire, 61, 64, 71n20, 71n25, 71n27 Zwingli, Ulrich, 66