Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 18, No. 6. May 27, 1954

Letters to The Editor

Letters to The Editor

Dear Sir,—I feel "Cecilia"—presumably a music student wise enough to conceal his identity under a pseudonym—has somewhat misjudged the quality of the instruments at present in the Music Room: I for one, should not have described the Steinway piano as rickety". One can only assume "Cecillia's" personal ambitions as a pianist have been undervalued by the authorities at Victoria, as a musician with a mere modicum of experience of good instruments would unhesitatingly class the College Steinway as a sound reliable piano, if not of the standard of Solomon's own. I would certainly agree, however, that the sustaining pedal could do with a dose of black lead.

The harpsichord needs no justification in print it is not merely inferior type of piano, but an instrument with a literature as individual and characteristic as that of the violin. The keyboard music of the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries is not to be dismissed lightly, and it is as much of an anachronism to play this on the piano as it would be to play Chopin on the harpsichord. Historical inaccuracies, even in musicians, are inexcusable. The Music Departments instrument is a "genuine" harpsichord (Kirchmann, 1758), not one of the bloated modern so-called copies: undoubtedly it has deficiencies—a somewhat tempremental action being one of them—but it more than compensates for these by the opportunities afforded to the music student of hearing Baroque and pre-Baroque music performed on the instrument for which it was written. (I trust no body will resurrect the hoary old argument about Bach's possible preference for the piano, had he known it as it is today. His comments to Frederick of Potsdam are in themselves sufficient rebuttal.)

Yours, etc.,

S. M. Rhind.

Dear Sir,—As Ian Rich has provocatively put an interrogation mark after his headline on the Hollywood version of Julius Caesar one is tempted to take up arms, even if unaware of the finer points of the camera's art. I disagree with your critic mainly over the character of Anthony as played by Marlon Brando His presentation of the oration in the forum scene was decidedly inferior to that show an actor whose name I cannot remember in a film strip on the death of Caesar owned by the Education Department. Here we see an actor stressing the craftiness of Anthony in putting across a speech magnificently designed by the dramatist to say one thing and mean another. The somewhat "childlike" simplicity of Marlon Brando contrasts with his astutely double dealing part. He [unclear: spoils] Shakespeare's balance of the "conscientious" characters. Caesar and Brutus, matched [unclear: tragically] against each other, with their crafty self seeking associates. Mark Anthony and Cassius.

Another point of difference. The actors. I agree, do not appreciate the poetry—but—"the little poetry the melodrama possesses". Tut! tut! Though the play is not studded with lyrics I plead that poetry is there. In contrast to early work the dramatist has incorporated his poetic genius in the genius of the play wright and we must not expect the obvious lyrical outbursts we get in earlier plays, such as "Romeo and Juliet".

"Julius Caesar" is now a [unclear: melodrama?] Here is a definition of a melodrama given by the Concise Oxford Dictionary: "Sensational, dramatic piece with violent appeals to emotions and happy ending" or the more strict definition as melodrama was when popular in the nineteenth century: "play with songs interspersed and with orchestral music accompanying the action."

As for introducing the camera's art to Shakespeare's, there may be a place for this, but I would like to see Just one straight film of an acted version in the Stratford Memorial Theatre.

Yours, etc.,

E. R. Bloomfield