1994

Re: *Mac. Anecdotes; Marriage; The Macbeths

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0319.  Friday, 8 April 1994.
 
(1)     From:   James Schaefer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 07 Apr 1994 11:13:23 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0313  Q: *Mac.* Anecdotes; Re: Macduff and Macbeth
 
(2)     From:   Diana Henderson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 7 Apr 1994 13:49 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0313  Q: *Mac.* Anecdotes; Re: Macduff and Macbeth
 
(3)     From:   Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 8 Apr 94 12:00 BST
        Subj:   RE: SHK 5.0302 Re: Macbeth and Macduff
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           James Schaefer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 07 Apr 1994 11:13:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 5.0313  Q: *Mac.* Anecdotes; Re: Macduff and Macbeth
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0313  Q: *Mac.* Anecdotes; Re: Macduff and Macbeth
 
Regarding *Macbeth*:
 
Bernard Grebanier's *Then Came Each Actor* (NY: David McKay, 1975) has a couple
brief paragraphs (pp. 444-445) on actors' superstitions about playing Macbeth.
In *John Gielgud* (NY: Random House, 1971), Ronald Hayman gives details of a
terrible wartime run of Macbeth, with disasters that ran from bad press to the
death of the 3rd witch (pp. 134-38).  I've read interviews with other older
actors that related broken legs, falling scenery, and other bad omens.
Biographies are probably a good place to find them.
 
Jim Schaefer
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Diana Henderson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 7 Apr 1994 13:49 EST
Subject: 5.0313  Q: *Mac.* Anecdotes; Re: Macduff and Macbeth
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0313  Q: *Mac.* Anecdotes; Re: Macduff and Macbeth
 
In response to the comment that Shakespeare preferred companionate marriage to
those arranged by "patriarchal disposition," citing "Shrew" as evidence: The
marriages of both daughters to Baptista Minola in "Shrew" are precisely the
result of "patriarchal disposition" [in the narrow sense implied, i.e.,
arranged by dad].  Yes, we get the illusion of rebellion in the last act's
secret marriage of Lucentio and Bianca, but in fact "Lucentio" [Tranio] was
promised Bianco's hand earlier, beating out old Gremio on the basis of
Lucentio's better dowry offer -- and requisite upon Vincentio's confirmation
(hence the added farce & identity play with the pedant as false dad).  Kate, of
course, has been promised to Petruchio by Baptista, before these "companions"
even meet.  What a surprise that father knows best; just another one of
"Shrew"'s charms, I guess!  This is not to disagree with the larger claim, and
the other plays cited work much better than this one ...
 
Best, Diana Henderson
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 8 Apr 94 12:00 BST
Subject: 5.0302 Re: Macbeth and Macduff
Comment:        RE: SHK 5.0302 Re: Macbeth and Macduff
 
Since we're turning the play into a third-rate novel, let's not omit the
possibility that the 'companionate' marriage of the Macbeths exists in
the shadow of Lady Macbeth's previous marriage: the one which produced
her children. But all this is overshadowed by the central issue, unanswered
to this day: did Lady Macbeth really faint? Answers by postcard please, to
Bill Godshalk.
 
T. Hawkes

Re: Thersites

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0318.  Friday, 8 April 1994.
 
(1)     From:   David Evett <R0870%This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 07 Apr 1994 09:11 ET
        Subj:   Casting Thersites
 
(2)     From:   William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 07 Apr 1994 23:49:45 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0314  Re: The BBC Thersites
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <R0870%This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 07 Apr 1994 09:11 ET
Subject:        Casting Thersites
 
Directing <Troilus and Cressida> and looking for ways to get more women
involved I cast as Thersites a thin, bony, physically active young woman.  She
was wonderful--dived in and out of the scene from a sort of watchtower we
built for her at one side of the thrust stage, made her hands crawl over the
bodies of the men as she wheedled and sniped, crawled herself to mitigate
wrath or get a better view.  The palpable androgyny not only fit the character
but enhanced other ambiguities of the play.  The costuming was, shall we say,
eclectic; she fitted herself out in green tennis shoes, T-shirt, and black
jeans; this was before I'd ever seen Jonathan Dollimore, and I'm afraid I find
it hard to read his stuff now without thinking of Thersites.  Such are the
hazards of performance criticism.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 07 Apr 1994 23:49:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0314  Re: The BBC Thersites
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0314  Re: The BBC Thersites
 
Thanks to all those who answered by question. I was especially amused by those
who insisted that the actor who played Thersites had three names: The
Incredible Orlando. Silly me, I thought that Orlando was the name.
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk

Re: Theatre in Other Classrooms

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0316.  Wednesday, 6 April 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Joel A. Plotkin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 Apr 1994 09:07:57 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: Theatre in Other Classrooms
 
(2)     From:   James E. Hoburg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 05 Apr 1994 10:00:26 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0304  Q: Theatre in Other Classrooms
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joel A. Plotkin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Apr 1994 09:07:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Re: Theatre in Other Classrooms
 
Jim Schaefer asks about Theater as an adjunct in computer issues. Brenda
Laurel, an OHIO State theater PhD, wrote >Computers as Theatre< a few years
ago, attempting to apply Aristotle to Interfacing. The book is dreadfully
sophmoric, with almost no reference to contemporary performance theory
(probably more relevant to Laurel's purpose), but provides at least the
beginning of a dialogue. Laurel is a highly succesful computer game designer
who is a major figure in the Virtual Reality sphere.
 
Joel Plotkin   SUNY Inst. of Tech. at Utica
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           James E. Hoburg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 05 Apr 1994 10:00:26 -0400
Subject: 5.0304  Q: Theatre in Other Classrooms
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0304  Q: Theatre in Other Classrooms
 
I believe Brenda Laurel has been heavily involved in using dramatic models as
a  design  basis  for  user  interfaces in  computer  software.  She has
authored  a  number of  papers dealing  with this  theme, and  one  book  is
notable: _The Computer as Theater_. (Sorry for the incomplete citation as my
copy is not at hand.)
 
--  James Hoburg
    <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Re: *MND* Productions; Stylistics; Dictionary

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0317.  Wednesday, 6 April 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Jerald Bangham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 04 Apr 1994 19:54:31
        Subj:   MND Productions
 
(2)     From:   Michael Caulfield <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 06 Apr 1994 01:46:29 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Stylistics
 
(3)     From:   James Harner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 6 Apr 1994 10:39:53 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   RE: SHK 5.0312  Q: A Dictionary of Shakespeare's Sexual Puns
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jerald Bangham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 04 Apr 1994 19:54:31
Subject:        MND Productions
 
>I am intersted in receiving information from people who have seen recent
>English productions of MND.
 
I saw Lepage's 1992 MND at the National.  Not under ideal conditions.  The
acrobat who played Puck had managed to injure herself and so an understudy more
or less walked-through the role.  A good vocal performance (I've been told it
was hard to understand the acrobat) but little blocking.  I guess that there
just wasn't any way to duplicate the acrobatics (evidently mainly done on a
rope that hung from the flies).
 
Generally I enjoyed the producton.  In recent years I suppose I've seen more
MSNDs than any other Shakespearean play, and have no problem dealing with an
offbeat approach.  A lot of the strange things that were done really seemed to
work.
 
It must have been pure hell for the actors, though.  Just the thought of all of
the wet costumes and mattresses piling up backstage gave me pause.  How do you
get all that stuff dry again?  Also I heard there were lots of injuries and
that the water was very cold.
 
I suppose that I shouldn't assume that everyone reading this is familiar with
this particular production.  Almost all of the action took place in a pool of
rather muddy water and the first row of the audience were provided with plastic
rain capes.  The main prop was a bed that could be poled around the pool like a
gondola and was used many other ways as well.
 
It all sounds bizarre and it was.  It also sounds pretty dreadful, but I
enjoyed it.  I would have liked to see the acrobatic Puck though.
 
Jerry Bangham
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Caulfield <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 06 Apr 1994 01:46:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Stylistics
 
Many thanks to Lynne Magnusson for pointing me towards Wright's _Hendiadys and
Hamlet_. It was exactly what I needed.
 
Michael Caulfield
Merrimack NH
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           James Harner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 6 Apr 1994 10:39:53 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: 5.0312  Q: A Dictionary of Shakespeare's Sexual Puns
Comment:        RE: SHK 5.0312  Q: A Dictionary of Shakespeare's Sexual Puns
 
Athlone Press (London) has just announced a 3-volume +Dictionary of Sexual
Language and Imagery in Shakespearean and Stuart Literature+ by Gordon
Williams. I recall, though, that the price was quite steep--well over 200
pounds sterling!
 
                Jim Harner
                World Shakespeare Bibliography

Re: The BBC Thersites

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0314.  Wednesday, 6 April 1994.
 
(1)     From:   William Gelber <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 05 Apr 1994 03:12:41 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0306  Qs: Thersites
 
(2)     From:   Christine Mack Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 05 Apr 1994 15:59:36 -0500
        Subj:   The BBC Thersites
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Gelber <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 05 Apr 1994 03:12:41 -0500
Subject: 5.0306  Qs: Thersites
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0306  Qs: Thersites
 
Charles Gray played Pandarus, I believe.  Thersites was played by a blind
man whose name has suddenly escaped me.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Christine Mack Gordon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 05 Apr 1994 15:59:36 -0500
Subject:        The BBC Thersites
 
In response to Bill Godshalk's query: the Incredible Orlando played Thersites;
Charles Gray played Pandarus. The info came from *Shakespeare on Television*
edited by J.C. Bulman and H.R. Coursen (Hanover, NH: University Press of New
England, 1988).
 
Best, Chris Gordon

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.